Though the implementation of group discussion has been explored by prior researchers from different perspectives, the level of students‟ participation in this activity has not been shed
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In Vietnam, the aim of accelerating the integration in a globalized economy has created the driving force for major reforms in the education system, in which English language teaching and learning plan is emphasized In 2008, the Government of Vietnam launched a national foreign language education policy known as Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education system from 2008 to 2020 Accordingly, English curriculum for university students directs towards learners‟ capability to use this language confidently in their daily communication, study and work in an integrated and multicultural environment (Vietnam‟s Prime Minister, 2008) In other words, the policy places a high value on learners‟ communicative competence This goal has posed certain challenges to English teaching and learning in Vietnamese universities and colleges due to the long existence of traditional teaching approaches, which emphasize the transmission of grammatical knowledge rather than communicative performance (Vietnam News, 2018) Hence, the transformation in teaching methods in tertiary context has been required to bridge this enduring gap
With the aim of becoming a research-oriented university in language education, linguistics and international studies, the University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), one of the members of Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU), carries out the mission of offering courses in developing learners‟ proficiency in different languages At undergraduate level, Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE) offers training in English teaching methodology and related fields, which serves the purpose of enhancing English language education in Vietnam in general With a view to reaching the target of providing language courses of high quality in accordance with the policy mentioned above, EFL classes at FELTE – ULIS – VNU require a high level of
2 students‟ interaction, active participation and the integration of real-life matters into lessons as well
This aim has put forward the demand of integrating cooperative activities into lessons, which, as Leite (2009) stated, act as a catalyst to students‟ interaction and the use of target language Among the cooperative learning activities that should be applied in EFL classes to promote communicative competence, group discussion, which provides students with opportunities to use the target language to interpret and express real-life messages, can be seen as a useful tool (Stroud,
2017) However, along with obvious benefits, this activity also presents tough challenges that teachers need to take into account to enhance students‟ participation in group discussion implementation (Alaro, 2017).
STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
Researchers have studied group discussion as an instructional activity in EFL classrooms from multiple perspectives, and Stroud (2017) notes that group discussion in EFL speaking lessons is broadly perceived as beneficial The main advantages include increased use of the target language and enhanced learner autonomy However, implementing group discussion is not straightforward, as prior studies point to several obstacles that can diminish its effectiveness When poorly managed and organized, group discussions may generate errors, noise, and anxiety (Brown, 2001) In addition, this activity requires a high level of students’ oral engagement, otherwise learning targets may not be achieved (Liu, 2009).
In the Vietnamese EFL context, researchers Le (2019) and Tran (2013) have examined how group discussions are implemented, focusing on the factors that influence students’ participation Their studies show that participation is shaped by a range of variables, with Le (2019) identifying several factors that affect engagement and Tran (2013) highlighting additional contextual and instructional determinants Together, the work underscores that successful group discussion hinges on multiple interacting factors, including classroom dynamics, task design, and learner attitudes, which educators should consider when promoting active student involvement.
3 may act as deterrents or catalysts to students‟ participation, including students‟ personality, linguistic competence, and teachers‟ characteristics Meanwhile, Tran
(2013) emphasized cultural factors and educational system as the determinants of Vietnamese students‟ engagement in discussions However, in these studies, the level of students‟ participation, which serves as a precursor to the successful implementation of group discussion, has not been investigated Though Vietnamese students in these studies were stated as generally having passive participation, a specific description of how they attend in group discussion were not provided
An examination of EFL classes at FELTE – ULIS – VNU shows that although group discussion is a routinely used activity, there are only a handful of undergraduate studies on this topic (Le, 2006; Bui, 2014) These studies focus on techniques to enhance the effectiveness of group discussion rather than on students’ participation Yet, identifying students’ engagement in group discussions and the causal factors behind it appears to be strongly correlated with the quality of this activity, underscoring the need to address participation in future research and practice.
The recognition of the research gap has led the researcher to the choice of the study: “Students’ participation in group discussion in English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU”
- Investigate students‟ participation in group discussion in English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU;
- Acquire a deeper insight into the factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion in English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU;
- Provide some pedagogical implications for teachers to enhance students‟ participation in group discussion
To achieve these aims, the following research questions are posed:
1 How do students at FELTE – ULIS – VNU participate in group discussion in English-speaking lessons regarding frequency and quality?
2 What are the factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion in English-speaking lessons at FELTE – ULIS – VNU as perceived by students?
According to Loftin, Davis and Hartin (2010), among the aspects to evaluate the level of participation, the classification into frequency and quality is the most commonly used one Both these aspects were applied to this study to reflect students‟ participation in group discussion
Student participation is analyzed along two dimensions: frequency and quality Frequency is operationalized as the number of times a student contributes to a group discussion, while participation quality is evaluated based on the cognitive level demonstrated in their oral contributions.
Greater details of the two aspects of participation are explained further in the literature review
In this study, the correctness of the contribution and the accuracy of language use were not considered for the two following reasons Firstly, as students‟ own views are expressed in discussion, some responses do not seem to be assessable against an absolute standard of correctness (Song, 2015) Secondly, as group discussion is considered as a fluency-based activity rather than an accuracy-based one (Folse, 2003), the accuracy of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation was not assessed in the current study
The research involved freshmen from FELTE – ULIS – VNU, who were in the second term of the first year at the university It is also important to note that the data obtained was solely taken from students‟ viewpoints and the researcher‟s observation The researcher did not investigate the opinions of lecturers If this factor was considered, the results might be different
It is hoped that by looking at the current situation of students‟ participation, this study will raise greater awareness about the level of students‟ engagement in group discussion in speaking lessons Besides, the findings of this study shed light on factors exerting influence upon students‟ participation, which aids teachers to find out suitable adjustments to cope with possible obstacles in the application of group discussion In the long term, the findings of this study can help educators develop the future curriculum by taking various factors into consideration when integrating cooperative learning activities into teaching English
This study is divided into five chapters Chapter 1 introduces the topic and the aims of the study Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature that serves as the basis for the study Firstly, it examines the definitions of key concepts related to students‟ participation and the implementation of group discussion in EFL classes Secondly, it reviews the affecting factors to students‟ participation, which have been proved in previous studies on the same field Chapter 3 describes the methodology Initially, it presents the rationale for the choice of research methods, followed by study site of the research Subsequently, this chapter examines research instruments, data collection and analysis procedure In Chapter
4, a detailed account and interpretation of the findings, with reference to each of the research questions, are demonstrated Finally, in Chapter 5, the summary of findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are offered.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
It is hoped that by looking at the current situation of students‟ participation, this study will raise greater awareness about the level of students‟ engagement in group discussion in speaking lessons Besides, the findings of this study shed light on factors exerting influence upon students‟ participation, which aids teachers to find out suitable adjustments to cope with possible obstacles in the application of group discussion In the long term, the findings of this study can help educators develop the future curriculum by taking various factors into consideration when integrating cooperative learning activities into teaching English.
ORGANIZATION
This study is divided into five chapters Chapter 1 introduces the topic and the aims of the study Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature that serves as the basis for the study Firstly, it examines the definitions of key concepts related to students‟ participation and the implementation of group discussion in EFL classes Secondly, it reviews the affecting factors to students‟ participation, which have been proved in previous studies on the same field Chapter 3 describes the methodology Initially, it presents the rationale for the choice of research methods, followed by study site of the research Subsequently, this chapter examines research instruments, data collection and analysis procedure In Chapter
4, a detailed account and interpretation of the findings, with reference to each of the research questions, are demonstrated Finally, in Chapter 5, the summary of findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are offered
LITERATURE REVIEW
GROUP DISCUSSION IN EFL CLASSES
Group discussion has been defined by researchers from different perspectives According to Hoover (1964), who emphasized the interaction among participants, group discussion is the process of exchanging ideas among two or more persons Whereby, participants can share opinions on certain issues From another angle, which focuses on the purpose of the activity, Richards (2006) defined group discussion as a task to derive new information from the given one through the process of practical reasoning Meanwhile, as stated by Ewens (2000, as cited in Dallimore, Hertenstein & Platt, 2004), discussion is “a diverse body of teaching techniques that emphasize participation, dialogue, and two-way communication” (p 103) As the focus of the present study is put on the interaction and the exchange of ideas among students, the definition of Hoover
The researcher adopted a framework from 1964 In the context of an EFL speaking class, group discussion in this study is defined as an activity that involves a small number of students using the target language to exchange opinions on given topics.
1.2 Benefits of group discussion in teaching speaking
Putting students into small groups in the classroom opens up possibilities of interaction, which are not usually available in a whole-class approach A review of literature illustrates the following benefits of group discussion
The facilitation of interactive language
Prior scholars, namely Nunan (2003) and Dimelow (2013), shared the same opinion that group discussion can maximize learners‟ opportunities for interactive
7 language exposure By virtue of group discussion, students have more chances to speak, hence opportunities for language practice as well as interaction increase, compared to the whole-class practice
As a matter of fact, it is a real challenge for many students, especially the shy ones when being called to speak in front of the class Meanwhile, a small group of peers provides an intimate atmosphere and a more supportive environment in which they will find it much easier to share their point of view As figured out by Dunn (1993), an important benefit offered by group discussion is to make learners feel secure when speaking in public
The promotion of learners‟ responsibility and autonomy
When students participate in a group discussion which places responsibility upon each member equally, they are allowed to make their own decisions in the group without being told what to do by the teacher Exley and Dennick (2004, as cited in Edmunds & Brown, 2010) revealed that group discussion strengthens students‟ decision-making power and learning autonomy In other words, they can adopt positions which teachers usually preserve so that they can practice a range of language functions
1.3 Concerns about group discussion in teaching speaking
Group discussion serves as a powerful driver of language learning by encouraging students to use the target language and learn collaboratively When it is carefully planned and well managed, such discussions help achieve lesson objectives and foster meaningful peer learning; when mismanaged or poorly organized, they may fail to deliver the intended outcomes Although research supports the benefits of group discussion for student learning, several obstacles can impede its effectiveness, including uneven participation, dominance by a few students, limited speaking time, and mismatches between task demands and learners’ proficiency To maximize impact, instructors should design clear, purposeful tasks, assign roles to encourage equal contribution, provide structured protocols, and monitor dynamics to keep conversations productive By addressing these challenges, group discussions can enhance language proficiency, critical thinking, and collaborative skills, turning classroom talk into a concrete path for language development and intercultural communication.
Teacher-centered approach in class, which is formed by traditional attitudes and beliefs is a deterrent to cooperative activities like group discussion Acat and Dửnmez (2009) supposed that in teacher-centered learning environment, students have fewer opportunities to think aloud or interact, hence the promotion of cooperative activities may be hindered Besides, the implementation of group discussion is also a challenge to teachers who hold conservative educational ideology as they need to devote comparatively more time and effort This can be attributed to the fact that group discussion emphasizes learners‟ different perspectives on the same situation, hence, the teachers who want to implement this activity have to explore comprehensive aspects of issues and spend more time on preparation for the same lesson
The isolation of shy and weak students in the practice
Students with lower language proficiency can be excluded from practice when dominant participants take over group discussions Arifin (2017) explains that this happens because groups are formed from members with varying learning abilities, which may defeat the intended purpose of joint learning in collaborative discussion settings.
The habit of using native language
Brooks-Lewis (2009) notes that L1 use in L2 classrooms is unavoidable and can contribute positively to L2 learning to some extent; by contrast, Littlewood and Yu (2011) argue that if L1 use is not well controlled, it may lead to inappropriate transfer from the first language to the target language This tension is especially evident in group discussion activities, where supervising all groups simultaneously is challenging for teachers, making L1 usage more likely and potentially undermining the aim of maximizing practice in the target language.
STUDENTS‟ PARTICIPATION IN GROUP DISCUSSION
According to Lee (2005, as cited in Abdullah, Bakar & Mahbob, 2011), classroom participation can be sorted into verbal and non-verbal participation While verbal participation usually involves speaking activities in class, such as answering, asking questions and making comments, non-verbal participation refers to behavioral responses like head nodding and eye contact From another viewpoint, Dancer and Kamvounias (2005) viewed participation as an active engagement with five categories: “preparation, contribution to discussion, group skills, communication skills, and attendance” (p 448) Among these categories, while preparation and attendance imply behavioral participation, the others are related to verbal participation
As the title suggests, this study puts the focus on group discussion in speaking lessons, and thus aims at students‟ verbal participation rather than their behavioral one To be specific, drawing on scholarly definitions of classroom participation as reviewed above, the term “participation” in this study refers to learners‟ verbal contribution to group discussion
2.2 Indicators of participation in group discussion
As discussed above, students‟ participation in this study is operationalized in terms of the verbal expressions There have been several studies attempting to pinpoint the indicators of oral participation In an investigation into the role of oral participation in student engagement, Frymier and Houser (2015) used the 7- item Oral Participation Scale which looks at two main criteria: volunteering to answer the questions or express opinions and asking follow-up questions Meanwhile, in another study into oral participation in EFL classes in Malaysian tertiary context, Sayadi (2007) focused on six types of oral participation behaviors, among which, three behaviors involve the interaction with instructor, and the
10 others emphasize the interaction with peers Specifically, these behaviors include volunteering to respond to lecturer‟s questions, responding to lecturer‟s questions after being prompted, asking questions to the lecturer, asking questions to other students, giving comments to peers and expressing opinions without being asked
Examining the features of group discussion activity reveals how the exchange of ideas among students unfolds in a collaborative setting For the present study, the researcher adopted three indicators from previous research to capture this process: expressing opinions, posing questions, and giving comments to peers.
2.3 Aspects in the evaluation of participation level in group discussion
Building on the framework introduced in Chapter 1, Loftin, Davis, and Hartin (2010) identified multiple classifications for evaluating oral participation, including passive versus spontaneous participation and negative versus positive participation, as well as measures of participation quality and participation frequency Among these, the frequency and quality dimensions are the most commonly used, and this study adopts these two aspects to assess students' participation in group settings, aligning with established practices in educational research on group work dynamics.
Participation frequency captures how often students contribute to group discussions and serves as a key measure of student engagement in collaborative learning Building on the participation indicators reviewed earlier, this study operationalizes participation frequency around three core behaviors: expressing opinions, asking questions, and providing comments or feedback to peers during discussions.
Participation quality, which is assessed based on the quality of three indicators described above, has been examined in previous studies that evaluate oral contribution by considering the cognitive levels demonstrated by participants during speaking tasks This line of research suggests that higher cognitive engagement corresponds to more substantive oral contributions, highlighting the link between cognitive processing and the overall quality of oral participation in communicative activities.
11 expressing opinions and giving comments , Pontefract and Hardman (2005, as cited in Song, 2015) used two levels One is “information statement”, which represents low cognitive level The other is “providing an explanation” or
“reasoning”, which simplifies responses at a higher cognitive level and shows the ability to elaborate on ideas This level may include different strategies such as hypothesizing, comparing, explaining (Chin, 2006) While “information statement” simply refers to the utterance of predetermined information or a viewpoint based on previously learned knowledge or daily experiences,
“reasoning” is the way speakers explain, or clarify how to reach a conclusion and illustrate thinking process (Chin, 2006) In the current study, students‟ contributions were also sorted into “information statement” and “reasoning” to reflect the quality of students‟ opinions and comments in group discussion
In terms of posing questions , Graesser and Person (1994) explained that the quality of questions is determined by their cognitive levels To be specific, they described quality questions as those encouraging elaboration of ideas and involving multi-step reasoning For example, questions for „causal antecedent‟ (Why …?), „causal consequence‟ (What happens if …?), „goal orientation‟ (What is the purpose of …?), or „procedural enablement‟ (How …?) are regarded as high cognitive (p 112) Meanwhile, the questions to initiate speaking turns without close reference to the elucidation and clarification of ideas are regarded as low cognitive In the current study, the researcher also adopted these two cognitive levels to investigate the quality of students‟ questions in group discussion
2.4 Factors affecting students’ participation in group discussions
Numerous studies have identified a range of factors that influence student participation in language classrooms Researchers have shown that language learners differ in their likelihood to stay silent or actively engage in classroom discussions due to a variety of reasons A synthesis of related literature highlights key factors affecting participation, including learner confidence, anxiety, motivation, perceived relevance of the topic, and the classroom environment and instructional practices that either support or suppress voice.
2.4.1 Students’ attitude towards the value of group discussion activity
As figured out by Woods (2003), one possible factor exerting influence on students‟ learning decision and action in classroom is what they believe about the value of the activities In other words, students only willingly participate when they acknowledge the value of the activities To motivate students to join group discussion, it is important that students understand how this activity aids their speaking skills and why they should practice holding different views about the same situation or a set of facts
Low English proficiency is a key factor driving reluctance to participate orally in EFL classes An analysis of more than 300 university students by Abebe (2015) found that poor English proficiency keeps a majority of students quiet in the classroom This result echoes Jackson (2002), who identified lack of vocabulary, poor pronunciation, and incorrect grammar as core deterrents to students’ participation.
SUMMARY
This chapter reviews the literature on the implementation of group discussion in EFL classes The literature review explores fundamental features of group discussion, aspects of students‟ participation needed to be examined and the affecting factors as well The next chapter presents the methodology that was employed for this study
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
In consideration of the study‟s aims, mixed method was chosen In detail, two phases were conducted: quantitative followed by qualitative In the first phase, quantitative method was used to capture students‟ general participation behaviors and the affecting factors from students‟ viewpoints The qualitative data was collected and analyzed second in the sequence to demonstrate students‟ level of participation and help to triangulate with the quantitative results obtained in the first phase As indicated by Weinreich (1996, as cited in Isaias, 2012), the use of qualitative method not only allows researchers to have a direct interaction with the subjects under study but also helps generate rich, detailed data that leaves the participants‟ perspectives intact
In order to elaborate on two research questions, the researcher was in need of different types of data Regarding research question 1, it was the statistical evidence of participation frequency and linguistic data to reflect the quality of oral contribution As for research question 2, the needed data was figures and ideas about factors affecting participation level as perceived by students
To collect data for Question 1, the study used two instruments: questionnaires and observation In the initial phase, a quantitative approach was implemented by administering questionnaires to quantify students’ participation behaviors as perceived by the students themselves Nguyen (2009) notes that questionnaires are commonly used because they save time, effort, and financial resources, but also warns that there can be a gap between reported and actual behaviors, suggesting that a qualitative approach, including observation, should follow to bolster validity Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003) point out that observation is a highly practical tool that yields deeper understanding of what occurs in the educational setting.
16 complex real-world situations than what they can ever discover by asking questions and looking at questionnaires In this sense, observation sessions allow the researcher to investigate the level of students‟ participation through their observed behaviors in natural learning settings
To gain data for research question 2, the researcher utilized two instruments, including questionnaires and interview Specifically, students were asked to express their level of agreement to the factors given in the questionnaire This data was the basis for the analysis of factors having impacts on students‟ participation from their perception After that, interviews were carried out to enrich the final findings as the interviewees were required to provide more in- depth explanation on the discovered patterns Best and Kahn (1986) assumed that the use of interview can bring the advantage by building rapport with the interviewees and validating the findings from observation and questionnaires.
SAMPLING
As introduced in the scope of the study, the subject pool of the study was the mainstream first-year students at FELTE – ULIS – VNU, who were going to finish the second semester at the university in eight weeks The population of this study consisted of 101 students from 4 classes
Class No.1 Class No.2 Class No.3 Class No.4
Class code QH2019E3 QH2019E2 QH2019E6 QH2019E8
Table 1: Basic information about participants
The participants had at least seven years of formal English education at their junior and high schools prior to entering this university The precise levels of the students‟ English proficiency were not measured However, conforming to the
17 teaching and learning plan issued by the faculty, at the end of the semester, these participants are supposed to have a rather concrete language foundation equivalent to B2- (CEFR) In alignment with CEFR descriptors, learners at this level are able to “take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts” and “explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options” (Council of Europe, 2018, p 6) Hence, their contribution to group discussion in speaking lessons could be expressed clearly
For first-year mainstream students, there are two sections in the compulsory English program, including social English and academic English, and each accounts for 4 credit points Section one, social English employs Speakout Intermediate Students‟ Book by Claire and Wilson (2 nd edition) and the textbooks designed by the faculty, including Listening & Speaking 2A and Reading & Writing 2A Section two, academic English, employs Academic English 2B, which is also designed by the faculty In each section, students have two lessons per week, one for listening-speaking skills and the other for reading-writing skills The data was collected in listening-speaking lessons
- Class Organization: The classes are assigned by the faculty with around 25-30 students per class.
DATA COLLECTION
The questionnaire consists of two main parts Part 1 with five statements based on indicators of participation, was designed by the researcher for students‟ self-evaluation of participation in group discussion The purpose of part 2 was to
18 find out the factors affecting students‟ participation in group discussion Part 2 was adapted from the questionnaires used in the studies by Sayadi (2007) and Stroud (2017) Both these studies used questionnaires with Likert-scale items to find out the barriers and boosts to students‟ participation In the current study, the researcher also utilized 5-point Likert scale for part 2, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) The content of items was adapted from the two studies; however, the organization of the items was considered and restructured by the researcher based on the literature review The items were categorized into five groups as follows (see Appendix 1):
A Students‟ attitude towards values of group discussion
Observation sessions were conducted in listening-speaking lessons of four classes that had completed the questionnaire This study employed semi-structured observation which combined both predetermined checklists and written notes Each class was observed in one lesson
In collecting data on participation frequency, the study faced the question of which specific behaviors should count as participation Adopting Hoover's (1964) definition of group discussion, the activity is characterized by the exchange of ideas among members, which this study uses as its framework The literature review identifies three indicators of participation that reflect student interaction—expressing opinions, asking questions, and giving comments—drawn from Frymier and Houser (2015) and Sayadi (2007) Consequently, the researcher focused on these three indicators during the observation sessions.
19 groups, audio recorders were utilized to record students‟ contribution to ensure the reliability The recordings were then transcribed and analyzed according to the coding scheme: expressing opinion (O) and posing question (Q), giving comment (C) (see table 2) When participants‟ behavior fits one of the indicators, it was counted as one instance of participation, and marked in the grids under corresponding categories It is important to note that the number of times students participated was counted in each discussion activity in isolation If there were more than one group discussion activity in the lesson observed, the researcher would gain different sets of data With around 25 to 30 students per class, the classes are normally divided into 4-6 small groups in discussion Dobson (1981, as cited in Saputri, 2017) noted that instructor should give a group of 3-6 students at least ten minutes for discussion Therefore, the researcher only considered the discussions from 10 minutes As the duration of group discussion activities was varied, which might influence the results of participation frequency, the researcher only took the discussions with the similarity in length (not exceed the variance of
Participation quality is assessed based on three indicators used in this study: expressing opinions, asking questions, and giving comments The quality of these indicators is evaluated by cognitive levels, as justified in the literature review For expressing opinions and giving comments, the study follows Pontefract and Hardman (2005, as cited in Song, 2015), focusing on the ability to elaborate on ideas, where “information statement” represents a low cognitive level and “reasoning” signifies a higher cognitive level that demonstrates the capacity to elaborate on ideas.
Regarding questions, the classification into low and high cognitive level was used to reflect their quality (Graesser & Person, 1994), as illustrated in the literature review They explained that quality questions are those encouraging elaboration of ideas and involving multi-step reasoning, such as “How” and
“Why” questions Meanwhile, questions without close reference to the elucidation and clarification of ideas are regarded as low cognitive
The overall coding scheme for observation is summarized in the next page Besides, note-taking was utilized to keep record of the researcher‟s comments
Coding dimension Code Meaning How to differentiate a category
Some suggested recognizable signs/Example
Speakers show what they think, feel or believe about something
Speakers use a sentence or phrase to find out information
- What do you think about ?
- Do you think that‟s right?
- Could you be more specific, please?
- Could you give me an example, please?
Speakers express their opinions on what their peers state
- I agree/ I don‟t agree with you
Quality Expressing opinions and giving comments
The utterance of predetermined information or a viewpoint based on previously learned knowledge or daily experiences
Example: I think urban life is much more stressful than the rural one
R Reasoning The explanation or clarification of how to reach a conclusion and the illustration of thinking process
- Explain (Give example, use conjunction
Example: I think urban life is much more stressful than the rural one For example, people living in the city have to suffer traffic jam every day Besides, the job market in the city is also more competitive than that in the countryside
Questions to initiate speaking turns without close reference to the stated utterances
- What do you think about it?
Questions to encourage the elaboration of ideas and to clarify information
- „causal consequence‟ (What happens if
- „goal orientation‟ (What is the purpose of
- „instrumental/procedural and enablement‟ (How …?)
In four observation sessions, the researcher collected seven group discussions in total However, only four group discussions with the similarity in length (10-12 minutes) were chosen to analyze The sample of the analyzed script is presented in the Appendix (see Appendix 2)
Six students from four observed classes were selected for interviews In each class, two students were identified at the outset based on the researcher’s quick observations of their overall behavior during the lesson: one who appeared to participate actively and one who remained quiet During group discussions, the researcher noted each participant’s contributions to verify their level of participation when transcribing the recordings Analysis of the discussions showed an average participation frequency of 2.8 times per student per discussion across four observation sessions Among the eight students chosen, three had only 1–2 participation instances (below the average), while the remaining five had 4 or more instances (above the average) From these eight, three high-participation students (coded as I1, I2, I3) and three low-participation students (coded as I4, I5, I6) were selected to attend the interviews.
The data collected from interviews was used to provide a deeper insight into affecting factors to learners‟ participation in group discussion, which might be unobservable in the classroom and could not be pointed out via the questionnaire The interview questions of this study were created by the researcher based on five groups of factors described in literature review (see Appendix 3) The interview began with three general questions for students to answer freely to find out the
24 reasons motivating and demotivating their participation The next questions focused on the predetermined factors that had been used in the questionnaire
To maintain the validity of the data collected, the study followed the subsequent procedures: (1) questionnaire distribution, (2) classroom observation, and finally (3) interviews
A survey questionnaire was developed based on a literature review and prior studies, piloted with six voluntary respondents, and then distributed to 110 first-year students across four classes in their second semester of the 2019–2020 academic year, resulting in 101 completed questionnaires.
The researcher observed all four classes during one week Each class was observed in one speaking-listening lesson In collecting data, the researcher used audio recorders without interfering with students‟ activities while observing and taking notes of their interaction and communication Besides, in consideration of affecting factors to students‟ participation in group discussion which needed to be clarified, the researcher chose six students, as presented above, to elicit more explanations
Step 3: Carry out individual interviews
Interviews were conducted after all observation sessions had been completed Each participant was interviewed individually, and the sessions were recorded; the entire interviewing phase lasted one week.
To summarize this section, a graphic presentation, figure 1, is given in the next page:
- Identify suitable students to be interviewed
- 2 cognitive levels of oral participation quality
DATA ANALYSIS
The data obtained from the questionnaires was processed by the Statistics Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) In part 1, the data collected was converted into percentage and represented in pie or bar charts to reflect students‟ general behaviors in group discussion In part 2, a five-point Likert scale of „Strongly Agree, „Agree‟, „Neither agree or disagree‟, Disagree‟, and „Strongly Disagree‟, was used For each option, a point was assigned Specifically, the points assigned for each option were 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively The average value of choices of each item were calculated, which enabled the researcher to rank the items from the highest to the lowest By looking at the ranked items, the researcher was able to decide and evaluate the factors influencing the respondents‟ oral participation from their perception
Classroom observations enabled an in-depth description of student participation Participation frequency was captured by counting how often each student participated in each group discussion activity, categorized into three indicators: expressing opinions, asking questions, and giving comments First, the observations yielded the percentage of students displaying each participation indicator in discussions, and these figures were compared with results from questionnaires Second, the average frequency of each participation indicator was estimated, indicating how many times, on average, a student demonstrated each type of participation in a group discussion.
Regarding participation quality, from recorded discussions, in which students‟ contribution was classified according the coding scheme, the researcher could estimate the percentage of students being able to exhibit quality
27 participation Together with notes taken during observation, strengths and weaknesses in students‟ participation in group discussion activities were specified
Observation sessions were triangulated with interviews and quantitative data, and the recorded interviews were transcribed The resulting information was organized into two main categories: factors that encourage students to participate in group discussions and factors that demotivate their engagement in this activity This triangulated data approach yielded clearer insights into the determinants of students’ participation in group discussions and the barriers to engagement.
SUMMARY
This chapter describes the research methodology, which was employed in the study Detailed descriptions of the research design, sampling, instruments, data collection procedure, and data analysis have been presented The following chapter elucidates the findings that came out of the data analysis
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THE LEVEL OF STUDENTS‟ PARTICIPATION IN
Based on data from Part 1 of the questionnaire and the observation sessions, this section presents the findings The survey reveals that group discussion is used at a very high frequency as a tool to enhance students' speaking ability at FELTE – ULIS – VNU Specifically, more than 90% of students reported that they always or usually experienced group discussion activities in English-speaking lessons, indicating that group discussion is a typical strategy in speaking classes and that student participation in this activity substantially contributes to their speaking competence.
Regarding participation frequency, the data indicate overall patterns with only slight variance, and the main patterns of students’ participation identified in the survey were supported by observation sessions The survey yielded a very positive overall response, as shown by the pie chart below.
As can be seen from the chart, most of the students claimed that they participated in group discussion activity to some extent In detail, more than 63% reported frequent participation (“always” and “usually”) Only about 8% seemed to be reluctant in group discussion On the surface, as what was perceived by the students themselves, students took quite favorable attitudes towards the use of group discussion in English-speaking lessons Compared to the result from the observation, the same pattern could be realized
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
Figure 2: Students‟ responses towards the frequency of their participation in group discussion in English-speaking lessons
Group discussion (GD) The percentage of students orally participating in GD (%)
In four recorded discussions, the percentage of students participating in group discussion stood around 86% Though the figure was not as high as what students perceived by themselves due to a number of factors, which will be clarified in the next part, this could be considered as a positive result when a majority of students involved in the activity However, the percentage of students who engaged in group discussion merely manifested an aspect of participation level Noticeably, the number of times students participated in discussions varied significantly among individuals
(The number of participation instances/student/GD)
The number of students having from 3 participation instances
The number of students having 1-2 participation instances
Table 3: The percentage of students orally participating in observed discussions
Table 4: Overall participation frequency and the variance in participation frequency among students
While there were students having 3-5 instances of participation per discussion, there existed those with only one exchange This led to the frequency of only 2.8 times per student per discussion, which is a rather modest result The domination of some students during group discussion was one of the most notable features during these visits They utilized the discussion to express their ideas effectively, while the others merely became quiet listeners or might add some minor details This finding is in line with a previous study by Johns (2007), who mentioned that in class discussions, what can easily be witnessed is the domination of some students, who are better at English or more confident, which may undermine other members Though listening attentively can be considered as an indicator of staying focused, being a listener most of the time may cause the discussion to be unproductive, and the targets of the activity are not fulfilled
1.1.2 Frequency of each participation indicator
The graph shows students' perceived behaviors in group discussions, focusing on three participation indicators from Chapters 2 and 3: expressing opinions, asking questions, and giving comments It illustrates how often students perceive themselves and peers engaging in these behaviors during group work, revealing the relative prominence of each indicator and indicating where participation is strongest or weakest in group discussions This visualization supports the analysis of student engagement and can guide instructional strategies to foster balanced participation.
I am willing to express my opinion in group discussions
I am willing to ask questions if a group member says something unclear or if their ideas are different from mine.
I am willing to give comments on my friends' ideas
Figure 3: Students' reported general behaviors in group discussion (%)
While more than 70% of students claimed that they were willing to express opinions (item 1), the percentages of students who were ready to pose questions (item 2) and give comments (item 3) were much lower, standing around 55% and 41% respectively It could be initially seen that students in general were reluctant in posing questions and giving comments on others‟ ideas The observation also lent support to this finding The two tables below illustrate the percentage of students showing each indicator and the number of participation instances in each indicator
The percentage of students showing each indicator of participation (%)
Express opinions Ask questions Give comments
Table 5: The percentage of students showing each indicator of participation
The number of participation instances
Express opinions Ask questions Give comments
In four observed discussions, 67.5% students were recorded to have offered opinions Meanwhile, the figures for asking questions and giving comments were only 34% and 20.5% All these figures were lower than those from questionnaires However, the resemblance in patterns could be seen when the percentage of students who asked questions and gave comments registered considerably lower results in comparison with the figure for expressing opinions Looking at the number of the instances of each indicator, the low results for asking questions and giving comments also registered There were 176 turns in expressing opinions, accounting for 72.1% of the total exchanges Meanwhile, the numbers of instances for posing questions and giving comments were 43 and 25, which accounted for 17.6% and 10.3%
From the number of students participating and the number of participation instances, the frequency of each indicator was calculated This table shows the frequency of each participation indicator
Table 6: The number of participation instances regarding each indicator
(The number of participation instances/student/discussion)
Express opinions Ask questions Give comments
On average, three indicators of participation (expressing opinions, asking questions and giving comments) registered the frequency of 2, 0.5 and 0.3 times per student per discussion respectively, which are rather low results, especially for two latter indicators When transcribing and analyzing the recorded discussions, the researcher noticed that most students had an inclination for waiting for their turns to say what they prepared without having critical thinking towards what their peers said In fact, only a few negotiations were seen to be taking place during observation sessions, which are illustrated by the frequency of asking questions and giving comments Students did not seem to have the habit of giving comments on what their friends uttered though they listened attentively These findings are in
Table 7: Frequency of three participation indicators
Across studies on Asian students’ reticence in group work within EFL classrooms, these learners are often seen as good listeners rather than active, critical contributors Chu and Walters (2013) contend that asking questions and making comments demonstrate exploration of knowledge, effective learning, and active thinking, but cultural elements influence Asian students’ reluctance to inquire or provide feedback The socio-cultural factors underlying this behavior will be explored further in the findings for research question 2.
Participation quality is the second aspect in reflecting the level of students‟ participation The quality of each participation indicator is demonstrated as follow
1.2.1 Expressing opinions and giving comments
As stated in the literature review and methodology, according to Pontefract and Hardman (2005, as cited in Song, 2015), the quality of expressing opinions and giving comments is assessed through the elaboration of ideas with two levels:
Survey results show that 63% of participants often elaborated on their ideas rather than simply providing information Compared with the observational data, there is a clear discrepancy between self-reported elaboration and observed behavior The table on the next page presents results from recorded discussions, reflecting the quality of students’ contributions in expressing opinions and offering comments.
The number of participation instances
The percentage of opinions and comments showing the elaboration
The percentage of students showing the elaboration of ideas
Across the observed discussions, 49.7% of students elaborated on ideas when expressing opinions and comments, well below the 63% reported in the survey Of 201 instances of giving opinions and comments, 80 demonstrated elucidation of ideas, representing 39.8%, while the remaining instances were simply statements of information that did not reveal the reasoning process Since group discussion is intended to provide a platform for students to formulate arguments and explain their reasoning (Alexander, 2008, as cited in Song, 2015), the low rate of elaboration signals a decline in discussion quality This outcome is influenced by multiple factors, which will be explored in the findings for research question 2.
Table 8: Quality of expressing opinions and giving comments regarding elaboration of ideas
As explained in the literature review and the methodology, the quality of questions was classified into high and low cognitive levels (Graesser & Person,
1994) The questions posed in four recorded discussions were categorized into two levels according to the coding scheme:
Levels Code Features to differentiate
Examples The number of questions
L Questions to initiate speaking turns without close reference to the stated utterances
What do you think about it?
H Questions to encourage the elaboration of ideas and to clarify information
„goal orientation‟ (What is the purpose of …?), or
„instrumental/procedural and enablement‟ (How …?)
In recorded discussions, a majority of questions did not serve the purpose of clarifying opinions or encouraging idea elaboration like “Why do you think that?”, “Can you give me an example?” Instead, most questions were used to initiate turn-taking such as “What about you?”, “What do you think about it?”, etc Specifically, among 43 questions raised, 29 questions were used to launch conversations or shift the talking turns Though this kind of question plays a certain role in fostering the discussions, they do not contribute much to the
Table 9: Quality of questions posed in recorded discussions
Negotiation in discussions fails to reflect students’ active involvement; only 14 questions (32.6%) were used to promote elaboration and clarification, and these were classified as high-cognitive According to Chin and Osborne (2008), such questions are high-quality because they require reflection, understanding, and processing of ideas to frame and answer The low figure for high-cognitive questions implies that the overall quality of questions posed in discussions needs improvement to enhance student engagement.
1.2.3 The use of native language
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS‟
As reviewed in Chapter 2, factors influencing the respondents‟ oral participation in group discussion in this study were categorized into five major groups, including students‟ attitude towards values of group discussion, linguistics factors, pedagogical factors, personality factors and socio-cultural ones The findings in this part are mainly the results from the survey, interview and some notes taken from observation sessions Six interviewees were selected from the observation sessions and coded from I1 to I6 To be specific, I1, I2 and I3 are students displaying enthusiastic behaviors in group discussion (who have more than 3 instances of participation), while the others only had 1-2 instances of participation
2.1 Students’ attitude towards values of group discussion activity
The graph and table below exhibit students‟ attitude towards the value of group discussion in the survey
Group discussion is not really effective in improving speaking skills
Group discussion causes unnecessary chaos in classroom
Group discussion is time- consuming 101 1 4 2.21 779
Table 10: Descriptive results of students‟ attitude towards the value of group discussion activity
120 not really effective in improving speaking skills. unnecessary chaos in classroom. time-consuming.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
Figure 4: Students‟ attitude towards the value of group discussion (%)
Overall, the majority of students hold a positive view of the value of group discussion in language learning The three items reflecting negative attitudes received very low mean scores, with fewer than 8% of respondents selecting “agree” on any of them and none choosing “strongly agree.” The item with the lowest mean score (1.93) challenged group discussion by denying its effectiveness in improving speaking skills, and 74% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement The other two negatively worded items also attracted about 60% of respondents who disagreed Collectively, these results suggest that respondents generally recognize the benefits of group discussion for their language skills and are comfortable with incorporating it into speaking lessons.
The relationship between students‟ perceptions and their actual engagement in group discussion can be further explained by expectancy-value theory As Wigfield and Eccles (2010) stated, according to expectancy-value theory, individual choice, persistence, and performance are influenced by learners‟ beliefs about the possibility of successful accomplishment and their perceived values of the activity On the surface, the finding in the current study is in line with this theory Most students were found to have a positive attitude towards the value of group discussion Consistently, a high rate of participation (86.6%) was recorded in the survey and observation Students‟ answers in the interviews also confirmed that students with different beliefs about group discussion would participate in this activity differently I1, I2 and I3, who established enthusiastic participation, all displayed the preference for group discussion, while the others kept skepticism about the benefits of this activity I1, who participated actively said: “The group formation and discussion can stir the atmosphere, and we have a chance to speak out more or less I think it is good for my speaking skills and increases speaking reflex” Meanwhile, I5, who almost kept silent during the discussion commented:
I don‟t think group discussion help me boost my speaking skills […] sometimes I feel that we are killing our time because after 10 minutes (or more) of
42 discussion, I think I hardly gain anything Therefore, I have not expected to join much in such activities
It can be seen that students‟ beliefs and attitudes towards the value of group discussion directly affected their level of participation in this activity
Students‟ choices towards the influence of linguistics factors are illustrated in the following graph and table
I am worried about noticeable grammatical errors when I speak 101 1 5 3.15 1.081
I am worried about my pronunciation when I speak 101 1 5 3.43 1.108
I do not have enough vocabulary to express my ideas 101 1 5 3.77 989
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither adree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
Figure 5: The percentage of choices towards linguistic factors
Table 11: Descriptive results of linguistic factors
All three items got the mean scores higher than 3, which proves that English proficiency is one of the main factors having impacts on students‟ participation in group discussion in EFL classrooms As it illustrates in Table 11, the lack of vocabulary, which received the highest mean score (3.77), was identified as the biggest source of students‟ reticence in group discussions in EFL classrooms Nearly two-thirds of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they felt nervous while speaking during discussion because they did not have enough vocabulary to express their ideas In the interviews, students who exhibited passive participation in the observation also confirmed the impact of lexical resources on their engagement I4 said: “Sometimes I have ideas in my mind, but I don‟t have enough vocabulary to express them, so I choose to be silent” Meanwhile, I5 and I6 admitted that they found it hard to find suitable words to express their ideas, which made them unconfident As figured out by Liu
Limited receptive vocabulary means learners struggle to convert receptive knowledge into productive use, making it essential for EFL students to build a robust vocabulary foundation in long-term memory The ability to instantly recall appropriate words from memory can also influence oral participation in conversations and classroom discussions I2, an active participant in group discussions, reported that even after learning a wide range of vocabulary, the words would seem to disappear when she needed to use them This retrieval gap is, in part, explained by Laufer's prior studies, which highlight the disconnect between receptive knowledge and productive use.
(1998) and Nemati (2010), who indicated that there is a clear disjunction between one‟s passive vocabulary and the active one To put it another way, in spite of an impressive increase in passive vocabulary, learners encounter obstacles when put this knowledge into actual use when being left with the own choice of lexis
The second factor which was identified was poor pronunciation with the mean score of 3.43 Obviously, in the process of communication, pronunciation plays a crucial role, which appeared to be a cause of stress for EFL learners in this study Up to 57.4% of students expressed that they got worried about their pronunciation when they spoke English in group discussion The finding from the
44 survey was echoed by interviewees When being asked about the impacts of pronunciation on the participation in group discussion, I4 confessed that sometimes she knew the words but was not confident to pronounce them aloud as she was not sure about their pronunciation I2 also commented: “I‟m quite confident in my pronunciation, so I don‟t have any difficulty in speaking in front of others But I also realize that pronunciation is a deterrent to some of my friends in discussions” This finding is consistent with the previous study by Liu (2011), who supposed that inaccurate pronunciation is an anxiety-provoking factor to students‟ participation In detail, anxiety is triggered when a learner is afraid that the quality of the pronunciation is being assessed or communication will break down because of his or her poor pronunciation In a study into speaking anxiety, ệztỹrk and Gỹrbỹz (2014) also found that about 70% of students reported the fear of making pronunciation mistakes, which led to reluctance and anxiety for speaking
Grammar is the least affecting factors among three linguistic factors However, with the mean score of 3.15, grammar can still be considered as a prominent factor affecting students‟ participation Around 42% agreed with the statement “I am scared that I would make noticeable grammatical errors when I speak.”, and about 25% claimed disagreement This result seems to be compatible with other studies on the same field Grammar in earlier studies has been found to be one of the aspects that EFL learners find difficult when learning to speak a foreign language (Liu, 2011) Among six interviewees, three students who did not convey enthusiasm in discussions felt anxious about grammar They confessed that it was challenging to control grammar while having to think of ideas and vocabulary at the same time The fear of making basic grammatical mistakes made them say less in discussions
Noticeably, this factor received nearly 10% claiming “strongly disagree”, which was much higher than 4% and 1% of pronunciation and vocabulary respectively This could be explained by valuable information gained from the
45 interviews The problem of poor grammar was discussed in the interviews, and four among six interviewees agreed that even when they made some grammatical mistakes, others could still understand what they meant They said that the main purpose of group discussions was the exchange of ideas, so knowledge and vocabulary to express opinions were more important I3 claimed: “I need grammar in order to get high results in exams However, it is vocabulary that is the biggest problem to me when expressing opinions, not grammar” This pattern is in agreement with the study conducted by Sayadi (2007), who found that compared to vocabulary and pronunciation, grammar receives less concern as it does not impede the communication in discussions
Linguistic competence significantly shapes students’ participation in group discussions Among the three linguistic aspects examined, vocabulary had the strongest impact, followed by pronunciation and grammar These findings underscore the importance of developing robust vocabulary, clear pronunciation, and solid grammar to foster active engagement in collaborative learning environments.
When being asked about the level of agreement towards the influence of socio-cultural factors, students reported the following results
Face-saving strategy Preference for teacher-centered approach
Infrequent expossure to expressing ideas in daily life Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
Figure 6: The percentage of choices towards socio-cultural factors
I do not want to give unfavorable comments on other members' ideas because I am afraid that they will lose face
I expect to learn from teachers‟ guidance rather than from other students
I am not used to expressing my own opinions because I am not often expected to do so in daily life
Three items in socio-cultural factors got the mean scores lower than 3 Remarkably, all three items received high percentage of votes for disagreement, ranging around 35% to 50% Initially, in comparison with linguistics factors, the socio-cultural ones do not have such a profound impact on students‟ participation
Regarding the first item “I do not want to give unfavorable comments on other members‟ ideas because I am afraid that they will lose face”, only 26.7% displayed agreement with this idea The finding from the survey does not appear to be in line with the previous studies Liu and Jackson (2009) pointed out that socio- cultural factors including face-saving strategies were documented as the major factors that inhibit students‟ participation in class Drawing on other studies on the same field, it has also been signified that Vietnamese students, like some other Asian countries, highly value the preservation of “face” as essential (Decapua & Wintergerst, 2016) and consider “face” as “a person‟s social and professional
Table 12: Descriptive results of socio-cultural factors
According to Pham and Gillies (2020, p 73), concerns about position, reputation, and self-image drive self-censorship As a result, people suppress personal ideas, avoid initiating comments, and conceal opposing opinions to prevent personal damage This dynamic demonstrates how status considerations shape communication, producing a cautious, risk-averse discourse that prioritizes self-protection over open expression.
The information from interview aided the researcher to explain this mismatch Only one among six students stated that sometimes though she did not agree with group members‟ explanations, she still did not strongly protest as it might create intense atmosphere This attitude militates against one of the advantages of group work which aims to create opportunities for students to discuss issues face-to-face Other interviewees admitted the impact of face-saving strategies on their participation behaviors in group discussion in class, but they also revealed that they were now much more open to discussion thanks to continuous cooperative activities in lessons Hence, they were getting used to the fact that people might have opposing viewpoints regarding one issue, and they felt rather comfortable in receiving comments from their peers regardless of the