Project Report 2016

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

It is a common belief that human beings are different from the animals mainly due to the
language. Thanks to language, people can share their thoughts, know-how, experience and
feelings which help us communicate meaningfully and successfully. Language exists mainly in
two forms of spoken and oral. Regarding to language teaching and learning, we could identify
language in four macro skills that are reading, writing, listening and speaking. In
communication, especially international communication for business and merchandise as well as
culture exchange and all other reasons, speaking skill is a must for someone who wants to do it
well.
Due to the strong demands of the society, especially in Asian countries, English is now not only
a dominant foreign language but also a second language. The number of English centers is
mushrooming indicating the era of global communication. English is now not an optional subject
but obligatory and applied almost at the beginning of secondary in most of the countries. In
Vietnam, students in big cities like Ho Chi Minh or Ha Noi even start to study this language
since their kindergarten. However, despite the effort to bring English into use at the early stage
of life, Vietnamese students capability of handling the language in daily communication is still
limited. Unsurprisingly, the number of unemployed people annually falls on the new graduates.
Companies all over the country complain about the deficiency of potential employees who can
do the work well and speak English fluently, although it is marked that in Vietnam whenever a
senior want to graduate, he or she must obtain a TOEIC certificate of a minimum 450. However,
knowing English, but not actually speaking English is not an actual solution because
communication, understanding and the gap between cultures can only be made through speaking.
Due to the social as well as economic demands, it is important to train the young generation
English and all the four macro skills intensively and extensively with the focus on speaking.
A plethora of studies have been made to evaluate ones speaking ability and factors that may
enhance or influence learners oral performance. While concerning this issue, Ellis (1985)
discovered contributing factors to the success or failure of language learners which were grouped

Project Report 2016

into the general factors and the personal factors. These factors explain how some people
instinctively learn languages successfully while the others cannot.
Developing what have been causing language learning obstacles, MacIntyre and Gardner (1992)
re-categorize these factors into cognitive factors and affective factors in that affective factors are
considered the major elements including self-esteem, inhibition, risk-taking, anxiety and
empathy. Among those sub-factors, anxiety proves to be the critically detrimental to success
learning and the crucial element accounting for individual differences in learning outcomes
(Hui, 2012). Hui Ni (2012), also from her research carried out in Heze University, China,
revealed that students attend to the lesson much more if they are put under low anxiety. Tallon
(2009) in discussing anxiety in language teaching and learning stated that this is not a case study,
but has been "extensively reported in social psychology, educational psychology, and speech
communication. MacIntyre (2002) used the term the willingness to communicate (WTC) to
indicate anxiety in language performance, especially speaking. He believed that the ideal
environment for language learning must be anxiety free. That is the only key for promoting
learners willingness to speak.
The question raised is that why it is happening within the classroom context. According to
McIntyre & Thivierge (1997), classroom is considered the base for understanding anxiety in that
factors influencing students speaking are observed including the sense of Self, cultural
differences, gender, a strict formal classroom environment, pedagogical approaches and peer
relationship (Tseng: 2012; Liu: 2006). Taking a careful and logical look at these above factors
gives us a hint of the root cause of the problem. While pedagogical approaches are related to
teaching methodology which depends on teachers ability and flexibility, the other factors seems
to lead us to an unexpected factor which is the audience.
For example, the sense of Self as Horwitz et al. (1986) stated is the strongest threat to language
study. The anxiety is created when people start to worry about their peers thinking and concern
about pleasing friends. This issue had been investigated by many linguistics which resulted in the
creation of Terror Management Theory that said people are motivated to maintain a positive
self-image because self-esteem protects them from anxiety (Greenberg et al.,1992 cited in
Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999:229). While culture differences create pressure on speakers due to their
worry of saying something wrong, inappropriate to the audience. In the same line, gender could
2

Project Report 2016

also be a source of anxiety even though it is in much less frequent report which stresses the
speakers to talk to the opposite sex. As a logical prediction, audience and especially their view
on the speakers is proven to be one of the root causes for language speaking anxiety. Started in
1984, Dalg & McCroskey found out that the communicative processes are under a huge
influence of audiences perception of the speaking quality of a speech. To support this idea,
McIntyre & Thivierge (1995) discovered three main types of audience variables that account for
speaking anxiety including audience interest in the topic, audience responsiveness and audience
formal evaluation of the speech. All of these elements together have become notorious in
contributing to anxious speakers. Therefore, a supportive and friendly environment is always
strongly recommended as a solution for the problem.
Previous studies have recommended a variety of methods in creating a free-anxiety learning
atmosphere. However, in conjunction with the audience factor mentioned above, a cooperative
learning environment would be required to establish. Discussing about this, Schmuck &
Schmuck (2001) said the students of a class are more than a collection of individuals. They
form a social system with peers in which they experience interdependence, interaction and goal
striving. In addition, Okon (2016), when studying about the social factor posing language
anxiety, suggested that peer collaboration could enhance familiarity among friends and therefore
reduce the level of anxiety. This peer collaboration in language teaching and learning has got
another name that is group dynamic.
1.2 Rationale of the study
It should be noted that studying about group dynamic and its relevance is no longer new to
generations of linguistics, researchers and teachers all over the world. It is easy to find references
on any social media networks, online websites and library in-stock. It has been studied during the
last few decades with positive results on language learning. Forsyth (1990) stated that group
dynamics is an enormous resource which has a powerful effect on changing students behavior
and attitude. Dornyei (1994) proved a profound effect of group dynamic on enhancing students
motivation through collective data. And recently, Dornyei & Ushioda (2011) once again while
proposing their Motivation Self-System Model restated the benefits brought to language
education in creating a pleasant and supportive atmosphere as well as a cohesive learner group
with appropriate norms.
3

Project Report 2016

Consequently, regardless of this research, it is not too impetuous to say that there is very few
studies have been done towards the effectiveness of group dynamic through two ways of
grouping on reducing language speaking anxiety, not to mention in Vietnamese context. In
addition, in most of the studied reviewed for the purpose of this study, the researchers seem to
only focus on the positive results gained on language learning through group dynamics or to
examine whether group dynamic works on their students, or how communication improved by
applying group dynamic without considering the possibility for different result from two ways of
grouping. All together, this calls for a study on the gap left from the previous studies. This could
possibly reveal an answer for future grouping under the name of group dynamics in language
teaching and learning.
As discussed above, this study is conducted for the purpose of discovering the effectiveness of
two ways of grouping named student-grouping and teacher-grouping on reducing language
speaking anxiety. Firstly, it aims at investigating the difficulties students encounter when
speaking in groups. Secondly, the researcher also desires to assess the effectiveness of studentgrouping and teacher-grouping on students speaking anxiety and to what extent these two ways
of grouping different from each other in terms of students preference. Last but not least, causes
for the differences are also a main target to be figured out through the study. Moreover, due to
the time constraint and the limitation of the researchers ability as well as the requirement of the
course, the study can only go through the issue from a short term experimental study and a brief
survey. Therefore, it would be necessary for a long term study on the same issue implemented
for better learning outcomes.
1.3 Research questions
With the hope of understanding the effectiveness of two ways of grouping on speaking anxiety,
this paper will also used for answering the following research questions:
1/ What difficulties hinder students from speaking in groups?
2/ Are there any significant differences between the effectiveness of student-selected and
instructor-assigned on students speaking anxiety in terms of students preference?
3/ Is it possible that the sense of familiarity within group member can reduce the level of
anxiety?
4

Project Report 2016

4/ What are the causes for the different levels of anxiety in speaking through two kinds of
grouping?
1.4 The significance of the study
Hopefully, this paper is practically and scientifically valuable. For the practical aspect, it grasps
interest of those who are concerned with the effectiveness of two ways of grouping on speaking
anxiety yet fail to have chances to search it in detail in a particular situation as Binh Duong
University. As mentioned above, the study examines, compares, as well as contrasts the possible
differences of these two ways of grouping. The results are expected to picture the current
situation in communicative classes from which teachers will be aware of the power of group
dynamic in teaching and learning outcomes, especially in speaking skill, in alignment with the
real causes for better improvement in the future. For the scientific aspect, it helps to find out
causes for the differences between student-grouping and teacher-grouping on speaking anxiety
that a plethora of studies in the field has not deeply considered yet. On the other hand, this could
probably contribute to the national material resources for further studies in future.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Language speaking anxietys definition and symptoms

Anxiety is believed to be the main factor in influencing ones learning result. Anxiety is first
defined by Spielberger (1966) as subjective feelings of tension, apprehension, nervousness and
worry as a result of an arousal of the autonomic nervous system. This annoying feeling
accompanies people in every stage of their life as a stimulus for success or a cause for failure
which depends on how they deal with it. Undeniably, one has to have this feeling at least once in
their life. Anxiety exists in every upcoming event such as our first time to get on the stage for
receiving awards, the first time to ride on a bike and the first time to take a test. It is found the
most easily in classroom settings or any kinds of learning settings when everything is
unpredictable, especially in language learning. That is why many researchers have studied this
typical learning feeling. Horwitz (1986) later described anxiety a distinct complex of selfperceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from
5

Project Report 2016

the uniqueness of the language learning process. This definition is considered the most
notorious to all generations of language learners who study anxiety.
In line of language learning anxiety, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) supported anxiety as one of
the best predictors of success in the second language learning accompanied by negative thinking,
reacting and behaviors (Hammad &Ghali, 2015). Other studies show that these symptoms are
identified with an increase in self-focused attention, distracting and self-deprecating thoughts
(Eysenck, 1979; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). However, as stated above, anxiety could reinforce
or affect a persons learning process. Studying this, Dornyei (2005) classified the anxiety into
two types which are trait anxiety (personal factors) and state anxiety (emotional factors). Before
that, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) suggested another type defined in a specific situation which
is called the situation specific anxiety. All those types together make the language acquisition
more complex to study.
Given these classifications of anxiety, foreign language anxiety is not any of these types
(Horwitz & Scope, 1986) as it depends on specific classroom settings including teacher s and
students perceptions as well as other facets which exist only in language leaning. Horwitzs
study about this resulted in the exploration of three main components of foreign language
anxiety: communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation and test anxiety.
Communication apprehension comes from ones psychiatric reactions or behaviors towards the
classroom interaction requirements mainly depending on ones personality such as the
differences between introverted and extroverted person (Horwitz et al., 1986). While the
extroverted feel quite relaxed in making communication with the others, the introverted are
conservative and shy. Fear of`negative evaluation, on one hand, is quite close to their counterpart
which is about ones negative thinking, or to put it another way, ones low self- esteem and selfconfidence. People who experience this fear usually avoid raising their voice in front of people
or refusing to give their own thinking due to feeling anxious of wrong answers. The last type is
identified in testing situations when students are worried about failing the test.
Clearly from the above findings, anxiety is a common problem faced by language learners.
However, some people would want to question whether its degree of intensity contributing in
every corner of English may or may not be the same. Arising out of this consideration, many
researchers like Horwitz et al. (1986), MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) have worked on hundreds
6

Project Report 2016

of cases, thousands of learners as well as teachers to find out the answer. First of all, they came
up with the generalization of typical symptoms or signs. As MacIntyre and Gardner (1993)
included nervousness, tension, apprehension and introversion while Horwitz et al. (1986) came
up with tenseness, trembling, perspiring, palpitation, etc. In classroom context, this is familiar for
teachers to observe anxious students who show their concentrating difficulty, sweating,
hesitation and more. Yet, it would not be fair to treat all English skills the same amount of
anxiety. The literature drawn from most of the other studies on the same issue suggested that
speaking skill is extremely anxiety-provoking in comparison with other skills since speaking is
the only skill among all four macro skills that requires the learners to guarantee an on spot
interaction, fluency and accuracy within a limited time allowance. This would not be necessary
to rush yourselves when learners deal with receptive skills such as listening and reading while
writing is on the side of personal and logical expressions which allow the writers an appropriate
period of time to brainstorm and organize the ideas. Therefore, to avoid a broad and helpless
discussion, it is worth examining the anxiety in language learning only in the relation with the
speaking skill as most of the researchers traditionally as well as currently doing.
2.2. Groupings effect on speaking anxiety
As mentioned above, to keep up with the urging requirement of social and personal needs,
language teaching and learning must put the focus on communicative skills including speaking
and listening. While listening can be improved through the providing of phonetics and
phonology knowledge as well as sub listening skills, it is not easy for speaking. It is obvious that
speaking always accompanies anxiety at some certain levels for all learners even though their
levels may diverse. In order to solve the problem, group work was recommended in the light of
reducing anxiety to the lowest point, but still guaranteed as much communicative practice as
possible for students.
Bar-tal & Bar-tal (1986) from their study concluded that grouping could facilitate L2 learning
since members shared the risks and interaction was taking place naturally. Louise (1961) also
agreed with this idea since he had a strong support to the philosophy of short-attention span of
students. This called for a change in our frequent classroom setting by grouping the students
together and made them have a sense of getting involved in every part of the lessons. In Stanford
University Newsletter on Teaching issued in 1999, Barbara mentioned the term cooperative
7

Project Report 2016

learning that promoted learning if students were put into groups. All together, it would be a
bright future for our students to take the initiatives in their learning and gain much more success
as well as motivation that can only brought by applying grouping method.
2.3. Group dynamics theory
Regarding to grouping, it would be insufficient without mentioning group dynamics which is
developed based on the explanation of groupings effect in language teaching and learning.
Group dynamics is a social scientific term that was brought into use since 1940s by Kurt Lewin.
The idea is that people, who are definitely isolated individuals, will act and behave differently
under the influence of groups norms. Even though, group dynamics had found a way to get into
language teaching quite late, the impact was quite notorious in the research of friendly classroom
environment which was free of anxiety.
2.4. The correlation between grouping and speaking anxiety
Conceivably, from all the previous discussion and studies references, grouping in language
classroom does have a positive impact on reducing students speaking anxiety. First of all, it is
worth mentioning the reasons causing speaking anxiety which include a variety of fears:
communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation, test anxiety and specific-situation. In
the context of a normal English classroom, these fears usually come from shy, introverted and
uncertain students who are always not willing or refuse to engage in communication. Therefore,
the most important factor for reducing their fear is creating a friendly environment. This could be
achieved through group work where the risk of being judged by other people is reduced to the
lower number of attendants, more time for practicing to get familiar with their fear and building
up their confidence as well as giving them the natural source of motivation.
Hammer (1991) believed that grouping increased the amount of student talking time. That
probably fits in the need. Moreover, research findings suggested that group work helped increase
the frequency of language practice, enhance critical thinking that students can quickly organize
their speech in a given time which is necessary to install students confidence (McGroatry: 1989;
Richards & Rogers: 2001). In addition, Salmi (2003) clarified the benefits of group work in
speaking in that learners willingness to speak promoted by time as they have to share their
thoughts, solution for the success or failure of the whole group.
8

Project Report 2016

Besides, group work is a nice activity where weak students seek for friendly help without losing
their self-esteem. According to Doff (1988), the more the students participate during group work
practice, the more fluent their speaking is. This idea was later confirmed by Ur (1996) as he
claimed that the chances for students to practice speaking were five times higher if there were
five groups.
Finally, group work generated motivation as well as granted students a considerable amount of
autonomy (Richards & Lockhart, 1994). In terms of speaking anxiety, Doff (1988) said in his
study students fell less anxious when they are more private than when they are shown in front
of the whole class. Group work, consequently, becomes very helpful in getting shy, uncertain
students to speak and overcome their shyness.
As a whole, group work brings tremendous benefits for students in their language learning in
general, and in speaking in specific. Group division creates a friendly environment where
students feel most comfortable to share their ideas, seek for chances to practice and learn from
their friends mistakes. For those who are ambitious, they can also motivate themselves through
observation of their friends performances. In general, group work has been used and become a
regular practice in English classroom through a diversity of activities. Therefore, to conclude,
group work, or peer cooperation is extremely beneficial in many different ways, especially in
reducing speaking anxiety.
2.5. Relevant studies
During the last few decades, it is noted that the majority of studies in this field have been done
involving grouping, group dynamics and speaking.
The first among relevant studies conducted by two well-known researchers (McIntyre &
Thivierge, 1995) involving ninety-five sophomores from psychology and communication classes
with the purpose of finding out the relationship between audience familiarity and speaking
anxiety. This research was developed based on the previous findings which claimed that
speaking anxiety was closely related to crucial elements such as communication apprehension,
performance apprehension, situational factors, personality traits and audience anxiety. In relation
to group dynamics developed through their theoretical ground for the study, they focused on the
audiences aspects where grouping and group familiarity eased the level of anxiety in speaking.
9

Project Report 2016

This study was an examination for the previous statements on the same issue made by Buss,
McCroskey and Froming. Buss (1980) believed people responded less anxiously to their familiar
audience, while McCroskey (1984) found that that was because friend audience would be more
tolerant and understanding than the total strange listeners. To complete the philosophy on
audience familiarity, Froming (1990) concluded unfamiliar audience tended to make negative
evaluation. That was the source for anxiety arousal among speakers. However, there were also
findings against this conclusion in that Brown & Garland (1971) disapproved this idea by stating
that familiar audience might provoke the same amount of anxiety with the unfamiliar. Betty
(1988), on the other hand, found no correlation between these two variables. Thanks to these
findings, McIntyre and his partners work had its ground. From their study, it was concluded that
there was a stronger impact on speaking anxiety from pleasant audience than the familiar
audience.
Later in 1997, after the discovery of three sources of anxiety originated from audience by Buss
(1980) and Motley (1991), McIntyre & Thivierge implemented a study in order to find out more
variations for the audience provoking factors in speaking. 121 sophomore students participating
in this study were asked to present in form of vignettes followed by a questionnaire. The study
revealed that the most preferred audience type was interested, responsive and non evaluative
ones. Data showed that this type of audience aroused the least anxiety and provoked the greatest
willingness to speak. The question raised was when audience would be interested and
cooperative. Reviewed back to the study finished in 1995, the variations of audiences reaction to
a given speech could vary depended on how close they are to the speaker (Buss:1980,
McCroskey:1984, Brown & Galant:1971, Froming et al.:1990). It was easy to see that these three
variables contributing to the speaking anxiety, and grouping from group dynamics theory in
relation to this might give us a more precise answer.
Discuss about speaking anxiety in groups, Asaoka (2013) believed that the essential elements for
speaking performance laid on groups cohesion and communicative enjoyment as she stated
stronger cohesiveness provides a source of security for its members, which leads to heightened
self-esteem and lower anxiety (Asaoka:2013, p.50). In order to increase this communicative
enjoyment between class members and achieve the target of speaking fluency, the researcher
applied seating-allocation among 26 freshmen in the Fall Semester at Grinnell College. The
10

Project Report 2016

findings showed that interaction with unfamiliar friends helped students gain more confidence in
language speaking. Unlike friend-grouping, the participants of this research shared the joy of
flexibility in meaning negotiation among unfamiliar groups because it was a good practice of
repetition. And by changing their partners assigned by teacher, most of the students did not feel
anxious when speaking. Nevertheless, a few negative comments were still received as some
students were de-motivated talking to strange friends due to attitude towards learning, level of
proficiency. Consequently, inner group competence should be considered as grouping in class.
It is clearly to see that all the previous studies have investigated speaking anxiety thoroughly in
group work. However, group work defined in those studies was groups of totally strangers,
unfamiliar. That was nearly close to the teachers appointed grouping or grouping allocation
suggested by Asaoka (2013). This way of grouping itself had certain advantages and
disadvantages. As examined in 2009 by Michaela, despite all the benefits gained from grouping,
still joining a group was not easy for both teacher and students. This was explained by the human
nature of worries, uncertainty about their own competence, comprehension, confidence (Dornyei
&Murphy, 2003). All together, students worried about the possibility of being accepted.
Acceptance seemed to be very importance which had a huge impact on students as Michaela
(2009) showed that it was the positive, non-judging attitude towards the group members despite
their competence or personality trait.
The results gained from these previous studies cited refer to the inconsistent implication whether
groups should be students-grouping or teacher-grouping. Based on the findings on audiences
variables that are influencing students speaking ability within an assigned group, the researcher
believed that this issue can have it own answer. And in order to generalize the whole picture, the
researcher hopes to conduct the study with the focus on the effectiveness of student-grouping and
teacher-grouping in reducing speaking anxiety. This is a gap that all the previous studies have
missed that needed to be filled in.

11

Project Report 2016

AUDIENCE

Group Dynamics
(Grouping)
Instructor-assigned

Student-selected

(Unfamiliarity)

(Familiarity)

Pleasantness

Acceptance

(Buss, 1980)

Communicative enjoyment

(Michaela, 2009)
SPEAKING
ANXIETY

and satisfaction

Responsiveness and interest

(McIntyre & Thiviege,
1997)

(Asaoka, 2013)

Cohesion

Communicative
competence

(Asaoka, 2013)

(Asaoka, 2013)

Evaluation
(Froming, 1990)

Figure 1
The above figure is the theoretical framework that the researcher is going to use as a guide line
for designing questionnaire as well as analysis. This covers grouping variables that influence
learners speaking anxiety as group work applied.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research has been conducted for the purpose of investigating the effectiveness of studentselected and instructor-assigned group formation in reducing speaking anxiety. Previously, in the
12

Project Report 2016

literature review discussed in chapter two, an overview of theory of anxiety and its influences on
students speaking performances have been addressed. This part will go one step further on how
the research can be done to a more thorough investigation of the effectiveness of group
formation methods in reducing speaking anxiety in a particular context: Binh Duong University.
The next section will be responsible for the research design (including the procedure of
collecting data and the issue of analyzing the data to ensure generalizability, validity and
reliability), the ethical issues and the rationale for choosing Binh Duong University as fieldwork.
3.1. Sampling
In this part, four factors that are worth mentioning and will be taken into consideration are: (1)
the sample size, (2) the representativeness and parameters of sample, (3) accessing to the sample,
and (4) the sampling strategy to be used (suggested by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000)).
First of all, the population for this study is defined as all sophomores at Binh Duong University
who have sufficient knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to perform a speaking task
completely in English despite their starting English background. Freshmen were not chosen since
the researcher predicted a certain number of obstacles that could hinder their speaking as
shyness, lack of skills, etc. The sample size is not expected to be large as this research aims at
finding out the effectiveness of group formations on speaking which also means that students
have to constantly work in group. A large sample size would be difficult for the instructor to
control the groups and make sure all the speaking is made in English, especially with the studentselected groups who easily go off the topic. As previously discussed, a total number of 115
students from General English 2 classes in Binh Duong University were involved in the research
to complete a questionnaire mostly about their perceptions of group formations and awareness of
anxiety in speaking English followed by four weeks of experimental teaching. This number is
conveniently selected and all of them attended in classes so that the grouping could be
implemented easier.
In alignment with the researchs objectives and the three proposed research questions, the main
purpose of the study is to examine the two group formations usually used in the classrooms in
reducing speaking anxiety. The focus on these group formations are on the sense of familiarity
against unfamiliarity and their relevance. In other words, this requires many groups of friends
joining in one class who are familiar with their own friends and unfamiliar with the other groups

13

Project Report 2016

of students. This would enhance the reliability of this study result of students preference on
group formations in reducing their speaking anxiety.
In terms of representative of the sample, it was first intended to implement the study on many
different communicative classes as Binh Duong University. However, due to the time constraint
and the urgency of the study, it was unlikely for the researcher to collect enough data. This was
also supported by the fact that communicative classes number of students is limited to 10 or 15
which obstructed the experimental teaching as students seem to get closed to each other after a
certain amount of time studying together. As a result, it would be difficult to guarantee the
validity as well as the reliability of the research. In order to avoid this harsh situation, the
researcher has carefully choose the classes where most of the students are mixed from different
majors for testing the effectiveness of familiarity and unfamiliarity on speaking anxiety. The idea
was deprived from the researchers experience in teaching non-major classes in that close friends
and friends of the same majoring-class tended to sit next to each other into several small groups
while groups from different majors automatically chose to sit a little far from each other. This is
not to mention that groups of males and females did not seem to mix, but kept a certain distance.
From the above reasons, that brought the researcher to working on the two typical classes of her
own for the purpose of this study. General English 2 classes could guarantee the above two
requirements: the time issue and the reliability of the result. In conclusion, working on General
English classes is the only definite and ideal choice so far. In addition, the researcher has also
prepared very carefully under the pressure of time to deliver the questionnaires and conducted
experimental teaching as well as its along group work acitivities.
In total, there were 115 students enrolled in two General English 2 classes who participated in
this study. The first class included 51 students and the second class were filled with 64
attendants. These students were from different majors and ranging from different ages in which
the majority was 19 year-old students (46%) and 20 year-old students (28%). Most of them had
been learning English for a long time ( 8 years, accounted for 43% of the total number) in that
the short time was 5 years (only 4%), and the longest was 14 years (approximately 4 %). In spite
of this fact, 72 students (about 65%) admitted that their English proficiency was just at the
beginning level while the second greatest percentage (13%) even thought of themselves as
worse. Therefore, unsurprisingly, a large number of students found it anxious to speak English.
And this study aimed at helping them to reduce it by putting them into an experimental teaching
14

Project Report 2016

process based on Group dynamics theory. It is noted that these students were not informed or
introduced about this study. This is to assure the objectivity of the research.
3.2. Procedure
Group work has been long employed in teaching and learning English speaking since its
counterpart, group dynamics, was discovered. Therefore, it is very important to manipulate group
formation methods to achieve a satisfying result as well as this present studys purpose.
Accordingly, after choosing the two classes for the experimental teaching, the instructor assigned
group work activities on the speaking for four weeks constantly. These sessions include two
session working in student-selected groups and instructor-assigned groups for the other two.
After four weeks of implementation, students were asked to complete the questionnaire including
nine open questions and 31 Likert questions.
3.2.1. Experimental teaching: group work activities
Prior to collecting data, a full month of experimental teaching using group work was
implemented on the two General English 2 classes which included 115 sophomores. As
mentioned above, the teaching scenerio was the same for both classes which was characterized
with four sessions. The first two sessions were designed for student self-selected groups while
the other last two were carried out with groups assigned by teacher. These teaching activities aim
at finding out which group formation was effective on impairing speaking anxiety, later collected
from a questionnaire delivered on the day of the last session for both classes. It should be noted
that the questionnaire is the only data collecting instrument since anxiety can just be measured
by the speakers themselves. Aside from this, there may be some questions on why the researcher
did not implement two different grouping formation methods seperately on two different classes.
In other simple words, class A would use student-selected group formation while class B would
use the other one named instructor-assigned formatsion. It was crucial in the researchers
intention to test students own preference on group formations on their effectiveness rather than
comparing the result from two classes. The idea was to provide students with chances to work
with both grouping methods in order for them to recognize the differences in their behavior as
well as feelings of anxiety through the time of working together. The researcher believes that the
result would be more reliable with a longer given time which is also the weakness of this study.
3.2.1.1. Group formations: student-selected and instructor-assigned

15

Project Report 2016

As mentioned above, there are two kinds of group formations that are the focus of thei study. All
of the activities implemented and discussed in this part were all the follow-ups and applied after
the lessons had been thoroughly conveyed by the teacher-in-charge. Therefore, the researcher
guarantees all students were experiencing standard and sufficient lessons as well as beneficial
activities to their speaking. Apart from this, the textbook Smart Choice 1 also provides solid
knowledge of English including vocabulary, grammar and conversational patterns.
Regarding to grouping, in the first two weeks of student-selected grouping, students were asked
to do a number of speaking activities in groups of their choice. Each group were allowed to
maximise to 6 students. As the reseacher observed, students grouped with their close friends and
no group extended or accepted unfamilar friends (it is important to mention that this
experimental teaching was executed after one month since the start of the course. The researcher
was well-awared of their friend-zones and sitting allocation).
For the last two weeks of instructor-assigned groups, the teacher delivered each group of friends
a set of same colored cards. On each card, student found their number in a group. Totally, each
class has 7 sets of cards. Then, the teacher grouped students according to the numbers on their
cards which meant new groups were a combination of memebers from different groups of
friends. This method was applied repeatedly whenever there was a shift of activities to make sure
that each time of working was a new experience with new partners.
3.2.1.2. Complementary activities used in experimental teaching
The design of group activities is crucial to the success of this study. Due to the requirement to
follow the syllabus, these activities were created based on the content of the textbook Smart
Choice 1 ranging from unit 8 to unit 12 respectively. The activities were intentionally designed
according to the following criteria.
3.2.1.3. Criteria for group activities design
Considering the objectives of the lessons and this studys purposes, the researcher has designed
group work activities including group speaking, front-class speaking as well as role-play which
require each of the group members to raise their voice. These activities were not made very
challenging to students, but suitable to their level instead. In addition, the reseacher also selected
activities which corresponded with the lessons themes and topics. These are the three most
important factors affecting the activity selection that worths mentioning.
3.2.1.4. An overview of the activities used in classes
16

Project Report 2016

According to the relation to the lessons, these activities were mostly introduced and implemented
after the whole theory and vocabulary had already been transferred to students. Each session
included two speaking activities designing for group work speaking. The first activity was for
warming up, and the second activity was for practicing speaking in group. It should be noted that
Unit 10 was droppped due to the mid-term exam which took place and lasted for half of the
session on the day of teaching. Therefore, the teaching only included activities for unit 8, 9, 11
and 12 respectively.
3.2.2. Questionnaire
There will be a research tool to be adopted which is the questionnaire. As far as we have known,
questionnare is widely used and it is also a useful way of collecting data. A number of 40
questions were included in the questionnaire. Those questions range from general to specific
questions and statements about the students perception of their speaking anxiety, preferences
and thinking about two different group formations as well as their awareness of how effective
they are to ease their speaking anxiety. The researcher refers the readers to the appendix for a
closer look at the questionnaire which has been adjusted basing on a variety of sources on the
same issue.
There are some certain reasons for adapting and adjusting this questionnaire from many sources.
First of all, the issue as discussed above has been quite new. Grouping, group dynamics have
long been examined and gained much attention. Positive results and reports also prove the
effectiveness of these two. However, there are no connection between these norms to the
audiences variables which can possibly be different on two ways of grouping.
Secondly, the researcher acknowledges herself as not capable of composing a valuable and
reliable questionnaire to this advance. Therefore, to avoid invalid results and wasteful effort for
conducting a very important research to the researcher, it is the wisest to adjust the available
sources into use including the utilizaion of some items to fit the speaking skills and the reorder of
the items which could be convenient for further analysis.
The questionnaire was organized into three parts. The first part included the first four questions
referring to the participants background information such as the awareness of their English
levels, their preference of speaking between group work and individual work, etc. The second
part investigated deeper into students problem with their speaking and their choice out of two
group formations in relation with speaking skills. And the last part was the longest part
17

Project Report 2016

consisting of 31 statements designed for the purpose of finding out what group formations
stressed them more when speaking. The design of these statements followed the order of
contributing speaking anxiety provoking elements presented in the conceptual framework (
please refer back to the conceptual frame). The range of elements included 6 statements of
pleasantness, 6 statements of communicative enjoyment and satisfaction, 2 statements of group
cohension, 8 statements of communicative competence, 4 statements of evaluation, 3 statements
of responsiveness and interest, and 2 statements of acceptance. These statements of each
elements would be analyzed seperately to conclude whether familiarity determined the
effectiveness of one group formation over the other one in reducing speaking anxiety.
3.4. Ethical issues
Padgett (1998 cited by Nguyen (2012)) suggests that ethical concerns should be considered as
an important part of a research. To maintain these criteria, those matters will be thought in
advance.
At first, participants will be freely and comfortably take part in the research: either in
questionnaire, recording journal or in interviews. Secondly, data will be highly confidentialy
kept. Noone will have a chance to address it: participants answer, viewpoints, ideas will be
stored to death. And last but not least, the research will be practically and scientifically useful.
3.5. The reason for choosing Binh Duong University as fieldwork
The researcher has been teaching English for years at both international and national schools and
centers since she graduated. During the last three years of working and learning for herself in the
teaching carreer, all of her colleagues and students have helped her great deal in shaping basic
concepts of English teaching and they have also placed a firm and essential foundation for her
future.
Not until Binh Duong University does the researcher realize the importance of English and how
to make it work for her process and improvement from the foundation that she has already had
and learned.
Binh Duong University has been meaningful to her in making her realize what she needs to do
and what she should consider in making a big leap in her carreer. All teachers have been very
helpful to her and tried all their best guiding her with the bestest that they have. The students that
she is in charge of are also very friendly and helpful.

18

Project Report 2016

However, the most important reason for her choice is that Binh Duong University offers her a
chance to work with a variety of students and students levels and ages from children, young
learners, university students to adults (which she can hardly get from other places). They come
from places all over the whole country including some developed provinces, developing
provinces and even underdeveloping provinces. This challenges her in all aspects of teaching
methods in order to work out studentsdifferences in terms of ages, personalities, and level of
confidence. Moreover, the students background has somehow explained their diffeneces in the
way they learn the language not only in absorbing the new language, but also in producing it.
Apparently, communicative courses as well as the communicative objectives and the strive for
students fluency in speaking requires a lot of effort from both teachers and students to speak the
language out. However, teaching many classes at different levels has given the researcher a
benefit of doubt whether students at different stages of life are more or less anxious when
speaking in front of other people.
With her passion in teaching the speaking skill, it has been a great opportunity for her to conduct
a research that she has always longed for during the last three years of teaching. Binh Duong
University stands out as the most ideal place for the reason mentioned above, as well as her
convenience in collecting the data, getting to know the students, present the findings to the
academic staff in improving the teaching quality, and the great possibility to apply her suggested
solutions on a large scale. It is also clear that she has been trained and helped with all care and
knowledge that she might need in Binh Duong University. That is the teachers willingness to
join in her interview and their commitment in giving real opinions and share the classes for data
collection. And that benefit comes to responsibility. Ethically, this research is in strong
decication to her colleagues and students at Binh Duong University Institute.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Analysis of data

4.1.1. Data analysis procedure
As mentioned above, the questionnaire is the only tool for collecting data. Therefore, the studys
analysis as well as its results will be made based on students answers on the survey papers.
Moreover, the researcher also presented the questionnaires organization in the previous part
which consists of three parts with different intentions. Therefore, answers for these parts would

19

Project Report 2016

be analyzed seperately first in that the first one would be the ground for the analysis of the next
one.
After the data collection process was finished, students answers were coded into SPSS version
11.5 and Microsoft Excel 2010 for further analysis. The first part included the first 2 questions
about students difficulties in speaking. The results would be presented in bar charts and pie
charts for better understanding.
The second part, however, is not the next 5 questions but the 31 statements with two choices.
Logically as the reseachers intention was to put these 5 questions at the end of the questionnaire.
However, if that was the published structure, students might not think of the answers by
themselves, but retrieved the information given in the statements. In order to avoid this problem
and assure the objectivity of the research, these five questions were switched to the middle of the
questionnaire. In the analysis of the second part, students votes for 31 statements would be
counted and presented in bar charts retrieved from SPSS Descriptive Analyze Output in
proportion. This was also the core data for the whole study and would be discussed carefully in a
mutual contrast manner in order to emphasize the students remarks over group formations.
The last part, in the other hand, would investigate the result released from the previous part
extensively and thoroughly in that the informants opinions, feelings, points of view as well as
reasons for their choices would be discuss in detail.
4.1.2. Analysis of data collected
As stated earlier, the samples are the students of Binh Duong University who are not aware of
their participation in the research. After 4 weeks of working in groups for the English speaking
skills, a questionnaire was delivered for the purpose of finding out their problems in sharing
ideas and how two group formations separately influence their levels of speaking anxiety
together with the causes.
Part 1 (Question 4 + 5)
Among 115 students involved in the study, 92% preferred group work than individual work (Table
1). Reasons given were categorized into mutual help and support (35%), knowledge enrichment
(17%), mistake correction (15%), speaking practice chances and comfortable feelings (both share the
same amount of 7%), and the other 9% for confidence building, interesting feeling and pressure
release (1) (referring to Table 2). These figures showed that grouping was helping students release
stress rather than speaking individually.

20

Project Report 2016

Table 1. Group work or

Individual work
Group work

Individualwork

Table 2. Reasons for choosing Group

work

Pair work

Comfortable

Mutual help

1%

Effectiveness

7%

Mistake recognition
Learning from each other
Speaking practice

Confident

92%

7% 5% 2%2% 7%

17%

15%

35%

10%

However, when participants were put in groups, there were many difficulties that hindered them from
speaking. The most agreed reason was the conflict of ideas within the groups (31%), the second most
agreed was the lack of vocabulary leading to anxiety in speaking (24%) and ignorance of their ideas
(24%), followed by the low self-confidence (9%) and the others (Table 3 ).

Table 3. Group speaking difficulties

Noone listens

1%

6% 2%

15%

No group's acceptance

9%
3%

Lack of vocabulary leading to

axiety
Low self-esteem

24%

Unconsistent ideas

31%
Idea ignorance
9%

21

Noise

Project Report 2016

From the results of this first part, it is apparently that group speaking practice is a good method for
students to practice speaking. However, the anxiety coming from their low self-esteem, fear of
judgment, or the negative side of group dynamics are still big problems.
Part 2 (31 statements )
In order to help students cope with these problems, two group formations were recommended and
implemented in classrooms. One month execution aims at investigating which group formation is
more effective in reducing speaking anxiety as mentioned above and enhancing group dynamics. The
design of these statements was made based on a compiled theoretical framework (referring to Figure
1) of various elements of familiarity levels between group members. These elements include
pleasantness, communicative enjoyment and satisfaction, cohesion, communicative competence,
evaluation, responsiveness and interest, and acceptance.
Regarding to pleasantness, Table 4 shows overwhelming percentages of student-selected group
choice over instructor-assigned groups. Apparently, groups of friends would be pleasant for students
to speak rather than a group of all strangers.

Table 4. Pleasantness
Student-selected
87.8%

86.1%

80.9%
19.1%

Comfortable
speaking

13.9%

Instructor-assigned
84.3%

12.2%

87.80%

80.9%
15.7%

Not worried, the Not nervous, noone Not worried, the

others listen
laughs at
others are
sympathetic

19.1%

Gainning group
support

12.20%

The others
understand despit
the lack of
vocabulary

In terms of the enjoyment and satisfaction of group communication, student-selected group formation
still dominated the choice from students in terms of mutual interaction (87%>13%), group support
(85.2% > 14.8%), and group inspiration (80%>20%). With the other relevant factors contributing to
communicative enjoyment and satisfaction, there was a rise of the instructor-assigned group
formation such as new experience accounting up to 35.7%, groups help with 31.3% and groups
enjoyment with 29.6%. However, frankly speaking, student-selected groups still lead the choice with
at least two times higher than instructor-assigned group formations choices. That reveals a fact that
anxiety can only be conquered in groups of friends from the aspect of communicative enjoyment and
satisfaction.

22

Project Report 2016

Table 5. Communicative enjoyment and satisfaction

Instructor-assigned

Student-selected
20.0%

Be inspired, not embarrassed

80.0%
35.7%

New experience each time

31.3%

Not anxious, help each other to speak

29.6%

Confident, open, having fun

85.2%

13.0%

Mutual interraction

68.7%
70.4%

14.8%

Confident, the others support

64.3%

87.0%

Group cohesion is also very important in encouraging or discouraging students to speak. Data shows
that with the self-selected groups, students are free to talk and discuss the ideas rather than groups
assigned by teacher. The percentage of group discussions consistency for the instructor-assigned
groups is dramatically low at 22.6% compared to 77.4% agreement of student-selected groups while
this possibility to likely have arguments and conflict during discussion for groups assigned takes up
to 75.7%. This is probably one more reason for the students bias towards teachers who assign
groups of strangers in class.

Table 6. Group cohesion

Student-selected

Instructor-assigned

77.4%

75.7%

22.6%

Agree on group
discussion

24.3%

Argue, ignore the others'

ideas

The fourth factor contributing to speaking anxiety is communicative competence among group
members. As table 7 suggests, working in teacher-appointed groups provokes more anxiety in that
symptoms of speaking anxiety are highly found in students working in these groups such as shivering
(85.2%), feeling nervous when being asked (73,7%), forgetting what to say (77.4%), etc. One of the
apparent examples for the fear of being less competitive which affecting speaking ability is that 80%
students believed they are the worst in their groups while this number just goes up to 20% in groups
of friends. Not to mention the mean score of these two grouping methods, groups of friends are the
better choice to reduce speaking anxiety.

23

Project Report 2016

Table 7. Communicatie competence

Instructor-assigned

Student-selected

Pressured when being asked

73.7%

26.3%

Nervous, forget what to say

77.4%

22.6%

Worried, not learn from others

35.7%

Less chance to speak, less confident

64.3%
77.2%

22.8%

Nervous, think I am the worst

80%

20%

Shiver when it comes to turn

85.2%

14.8%

Worry to share

18.3%

Some dominate, I am afraid to share

20%

81.7%
80%

In alignment with the previous factor, group evaluation also proves to be one affective factor in
increasing anxiety in speaking. Analysis of data shows that bad evaluation and negative selfjudgment are observed among instructor-assigned groups members. At least 70.4% students feel
nervous about the others expectation when speaking on behalf of the groups. This number gradually
goes up to 73%, 80.9%, 82.6% for fear of being corrected, anxiety provoked when they are not ready
to speak yet and fear of the others judgment on their ideas respectively. Interpreting the chart from
Table 8, students of self0selected groups seem to be at ease speaking and discussing with each other.

Table 8. Evaluation
Student-selected
82.6%

73%

27%
Worried to be corrected

Instructor-assigned

16.5%
Not comfortable, others
judge my ideas

80.9%

70.4%

29.6%

Nervous about others'

expectation

19.1%
Nervous, not ready to speak

Last but not least, responsiveness and interest as well as acceptance were also considered.
Scientifically, the ignorance of other members in the conversation and negative display of interest
also arouse a high amount of anxiety. In student-selected groups, the average mean score from three
contributing factors is 80.9 % which is extremely low to its counterpart at 19.1%. This implies the
positive feedback of group responsiveness and interest from close friends rather than new ones. On
the same line, being accepted in a group is just observed in self-selected groups of 83.5% (mean
score) while instructor-assigned groups do not feel the same way (Table 9 and Table 10).

24

Project Report 2016

Table 9. Responsiveness and interest

Stident-selected

Instructor-assigned

86.1%

75.7%
24.3%

Table 10. Acceptance

Student-selected

80.9%

83.5%

82.6%

19.1%

13.9%

17.4%

16.5%
Encouraged, the More confident,the
others seem to others show how to
listen
speak

Instructor-assigned

Gaining group
support

Afraid to be ignored Feel like a stranger

Part 3
From the results found in part 2, it is necessary to examine causes for the overwhelming dominant of
self-selected groups over assigned-groups.
Referring to students preference on group formations, there is no doubt that student -selected was
greatly chosen. This number is three times higher than its counterpart (77%> 23%). Reasons defined
by the informants are not much different from factors mentioned in part 2s statements. They include
comfort (33%), groups cooperation (45%), and confidence (8%) to name a few.

Table 11. Group formation's

preference
Student-selected

Table 12. Reasons for preferring

Student-selected groups

Instructor-assigned

23%

Easy to
cooperate
6%
5% 2%

Responsible
More confident

77%

45%

Comfortable

33%
Get along well
8%

Effective
1%
Mutual support

On the other hand, investigating further into reasons for preferring instructor-assigned group
formation, data shows that a majority of the participants among those voting for it (52%) believes

25

Project Report 2016

that teachers arrangement would create mixed groups of both good and bad students. This also
means there is a balance of communicative competence in the group thanks to the mutual support of
good students to their slower friends. The second largest proportion (33%) acknowledges that
speaking practice with a large various number of friends would build up their confidence. As a result,
speaking would be anxiety-free in all situations. 10% students think that working in this group is
more effective and the other small percentage of 5% said new friends would support each other.

Table 13. Reasons for preferring

Instructor-assigned groups
5%

Mutual support

Mix of good and

bad students

33%
52%
10%

Effective

More confident

Students opinions about two kinds of group formation are therefore examined closely. First of all,
towards student-selected groups, most of students suggest that working in this group makes them feel
very comfortable and confident (40%). Due to this, the effectiveness of group work is therefore
enhanced which gains 8% of agreement. Apart from this, the feeling of pleasantness also leads to
success in cooperation, communicative improvement and the mutual support within groups
members with up to 37% of agreement. On the other hand, there are still a number of arguments
against this group formation in which some students accuse this group formation as ineffective due to
the noise and the unfocused conversation. 6% of the whole number of participants claims this (Table
14).
On the contrary, the group formation which does not receive many support from students also appear
to be controversial. More than half of the students (52%) comments on the anxiety ignition of this
formation that make them pressured and shy to raise their voice in group. 13% students, in addition,
claims that working with unfamiliar friends is difficult, either for cooperating or sharing ideas. Other
disadvantages of this group formation can be named as the frequency of argument (3%), its boredom
(2%), ineffectiveness (4%), seriousness (8%) and the like. On the other hands, as mentioned above,
there is still an amount of support for this kind of grouping. This number takes 22 % of a whole in
which 8% believes in the its effectiveness in speaking practice, another 10% equally shared between

26

Project Report 2016

its speaking improvement effect and new experience. While the last 4% says that they totally feel
comfortable with this group formation (Table 15).

Table 14. Student's opinion about student-selected group formation

1%

Comfortable

6%

Easy to cooperate

20%

8%

Not afraid of making mistakes

Help to improve speaking

Having fun

20%

16%

Confident
More effective

8%

8%

Unfocused

13%

Mutual support

Table 15. Student's opinions about instructor-assigned group formation

Difficult to communicate

Usually argue

Pressured and shy

Necessary for improving communication

More effective

Boring

Too serious

New experience

Comfortable

Less effective

Feel separated

Depend
2% 2%
4%

1%

4%

13%

4%

2%
8%
5%

52%

27

3%

Project Report 2016

Last but not least, concerning to the

effectiveness

of

these

two

Table 16. Student's opinions about

group formations' effectiveness

grouping

7%
Student-selected

methods. Data collected from students

answers reveals that 72% of students

21%

choose student-selected grouping, while

Instructorassigned
72%

only 21% of students vote for instructor-

Both

assigned grouping, not to mention 7% of

students support both ways.

4.2. Findings and discussion of results

From the quanlitative analyses of the data, findings emerged to be grouped into three categories
based on the problems presented in the research questions. According to the studys logic
proposed earlier, the structure of findings would follow the stepping stone order in that the first
one is the ground to develop arguments for the next ones. The first category is about speaking
difficulties under group dynamics impact. The second one aims at answering which group
formation has more benefits on students speaking anxiety. This part would also explain causes
in relation with the sense of familiarity and unfamiliarity. Finally the last one is about students
viewpoint on separate group formations together with speaking anxiety. Consistent with this
studys purposes, theses three categories would captures significant differences between group
formations in easing anxiety as well as further discussion on the root causes.
4.1.2.1. Students speaking difficulties and group dynamics impact
Data from question 3, 4 and 5 clearly showed that students tend to feel anxious when dealing
with speaking skills (78% out of 100% of answers) (refer to Table 17). Due to this very natural
feeling, they usually seek for friendly help from other students who would share the risk of
speaking and cooperate in making a conversation they can barely make themselves. As a result,
students feel more comfortable and confident to join in the work. This is what has been
concluded long time ago by Bartal and Bartal (1986), Barbara (1999), and Doff (1988). Up to
47% of students have the same opinions (refer to Table 2).

28

Project Report 2016

Table 17. Anxious when speaking

No
22%

Yes
78%

Apart from this easing effect, speaking conducted in group is also found to be very beneficial as
students address in their answers. Harmer (1991) mentioned in his study, group dynamics created
from group work can help students develop their critical thinking which is in line with students
opinion (17%). This number of student believe that working in group help them learn more from
the others as well as recognize their own mistakes (15%) which is effective (10%) for their future
learning. As McGroatry (1989), Richards and Roger (2001) discovered, the more speaking
practive students have, the more confident they are. The data collected from two experimental
classes has proved that group work does have a profound amount of benefits on students,
especially for easing their speaking anxiety.
4.1.2.2. The effectiveness of student-selected and instructor-assigned group formations on
reducing speaking anxiety.
From the proven facts about the effect of group dynamics in speaking, group work have been
widely practiced in most English classrooms. It should be noted that this group work can exist in
two forms: student-selected groups and instructor-assigned groups which are the main focus of
this study in that the researcher would test their effectiveness on reducing speaking anxiety. this
will be discussed based on the table of mean scores of the familiaritys elements below.
Group formations Student-selected groups

Instructor-assigned groups

Factors
Pleasantness
Communicative

84.6%
enjoyment 75.9%

12.7%
24%

and satisfaction
Cohesion

76.5%

23.4%

Communicative competence

18.1%

77.4%

29

Project Report 2016

Negative Evaluation

23%

76.7%

Responsiveness and interest

80.9%

19.1%

Acceptance

83 %

16.9 %

As McIntyre and Thivierge ascertained in 1995 that the sense of familiarity between group
members will decide whether the speaking activties are successful or not. This was later
confirmed by Buss (1980) and McCrosky (1984). This is explained by the fact that familiar
friends are usually more tolenrant and understanding with their friends ideas and mistakes than
the unfamiliar ones. Thanks to this kind of behaviours, students who work with friends usually
feel more pleasant and confident to share their ideas ( 84.6% in comparison with 12.7% of
teacher-selected groups). These are further explained with feelings such as comfortable (80.9%),
encouraged (80.9%), less stressful to share ideas despite their weaknesses in terms of vocabulary
or speaking competence (87.8%) (reter to Table 4).
Arguing for this finding, Froming (1990) from his study mentioned in Chapter 2 stated that
unfamilar friends tend to give negative evaluation to the speaker. And this is a source of anxiety
arousal. In this study, this is highly observed in teacher-assigned groups where students feel very
stressful and nervous. Up to 73.7% of students experience this annoying feeling in groups of new
friends. That dramatically affects students willingness to speak in a negative way. Most of the
partcipants worry to be judged (82.6%), be corrected mistakes (73%) and be overwhelmed under
the others expectation (70.4%). That is why only 19.1% students are comfrotable to share their
ideas while a four times higher percentage of 80.9 % students are just in tense. (Table 8)
Found in 1997 from the previous study in 1995, McIntyre and Thivierge claimed that the sense
of familiarity in groups of friends could be identified by their interested expression to the
speakers, responsive comversations, or the non-evaluative attitude. These elements together were
very effective in reducing speaking anxiety, or in other words, enhancing students willingness to
speak. As these two researchers discovered, this can only found in groups of friends. These
elements were also included and measured in this studys questionnaire. Not surprisingly, a large
number of participants accounting up to 80.9% agree with this findings above which is four
times higher than the instructor-assigned groups. On the one hand, students who get responsive

30

Project Report 2016

attention and support are more relax, and confident ( the figures show 75.7%, 86.1% and 80.9%
respectively referring to feelings of encouragement, confidence and free-anxiety). On the other
hand, only a small percentage of students found those feeelings in groups assigned by teachers
(the figure is always below 25%). (Table 9)
Moreover, Asaoka (2013) believed that student-selected groups sustain groups cohesion. As a
consequence, the students of these groups enjoy their communicative activities more. In
accordance with this, the reseacher also found the same result as 75.9% ( mean score) of students
voted for it. However, there were still arguments against this finding. Some reseachers from their
studies argued that speaking with unfamiliar group members increase groups flexibility, exposes
students to anxiety which later gets students familiar with high anxiety and build up their
confidence in any speaking situations. Moreover, speaking within groups of unfamiliar friends
was a good way for students to realize their levels in comparison with other. And this was a good
source for speaking motivation. This view, however, does not receive much support since only
18% among all participants (refer to Table 15) agree on the good side of being exposed on high
anxious situations for better improvement. Furthermore, in terms of communicative competence,
up to 77.4% of students believed that this just made them more stressful to speak. One more
reason given is that good but unfamiliar students tend to dominate the speaking rather than
helping the others (80%). And arguments within groups can only make them less willing to
speak or increase their anxiety (80%) (refer to Table 7) .
Another obstacle that obstructs the speaking success is the fear of being rejected by other people
(Michaela, 2009). Data proved that instructor-assigned group formation show a high percentage
of disapproval or ignorance in the students viewpoint (above 80%). While this is much slower
for students joining their self- selected groups (under 18%).
From all the above results, there is a significant diffrences between the effectiveness of two
group formations on the students speaking anxiety. Therefore, reseachers can confidently state
that group dynamics can work best within student-selected groups in easing students speaking
anxiety. This conclusion is made based on a collected data and analysis of various contributing
speaking anxiety elements. Moreover, data also reconfirms the findings from previous reseacher
that the sense of familiarity between group members can reduce their nervousness when
speaking rather than unfamiliarity in the study of Brown and Garland (1971).
31

Project Report 2016

4.1.2.3. Students viewpoints on the relationship between group formations and speaking
anxiety
Regarding to the massive choices for student-selected group formation, it is necessary to
investgate the rootcauses that lead to the significant differences between the two group
formations. First of all, most of the answers received in terms of student-selected groups opinion
share the same ideas. They include the pleasantness brought by friends (20%), the confidence
thanks to friends tolerance and support (20%), great possibilities for easy cooperation. It is
worth mentioning the negative idea which is meaningful despite its small amount (6%) (refer to
Table 14). That one reason is the distraction of friends. It is common to obeserve friend chat time
during a speaking session. These students usually go off the topic and start some jokes which is
useless for their speaking and above all distract other friends from practicing speaking. Even
though this small amount of distraction is the only negative feedback received on the side of
student-selected group formation. It is still a warning to teachers for further group control and
management.
On the side of instructor-assigned group formation, the deviation between positive and negative
viewpoints are not so giant as its counterpart in which

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
The data collected from the questionnaire has been very helpful in answering the questions raised
in this study on the effectiveness of each separate group formation on reducing speaking anxiety.
In addition, the provision of experimental teaching in shaping students awareness before
completing the questionnaire is also worth complimenting on.

Conclusion
Suggestions/ pedagogical implications
Limitation of the study
Recommendation for further study

REFERENCES
Bista, K. K., (2008) Age as an Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition, English for
specific purposes world, Vol21, N5, p1-14
32

Project Report 2016

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson
Education.
Brown, Gillian and Yule, George. 1999. Teaching the spoken Language. Cambridge University
Press
Chan, D. Y. & Wu, G. (2004). A study of foreign language anxiety of EFL elementary school
students in Taipei County, Journal of National Taipei teachers college, Vol. 17, No. 2, p 287-320
Darmi, R. (2014). Assessing the language anxiety of Malaysian undergraduate English language
learners, Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology
(GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA
Dedi, E. (2012). Improving students speaking through communicative language teaching
method at Mts Ja-alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic Boarding School of Bengkulu, Indonesia,
International journal of humanities and social science, Vol. 2, No. 20, p.127-134
Dworetzky, J. P. (1993). Introductions to child development (5th ed.). St Paul, MN: West.
Ellis, R. (1985), Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985. Pp. 327.

Er, S. (2015), Foreign language learning anxiety of Turkish children at different ages.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), Vol.2, No.2, p 68 -78.

Eysenck, M.W. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory:A reconceptualization. Journal of

Research in Personality, 13, 363385.

Gawi, E. M. K. (2012), The Effects of Age Factor on Learning English: A Case Study of
Learning English in Saudi Schools, Saudi Arabia, English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 1, p.
127-139

Gursoy, E. & Akin, F., (2013), Is younger really better? Anxiety about learning a foreign
language in Turkish children, Social behavior and personality, Vol41, N5, p 827-842
33

Project Report 2016

Hammad, E. A. & Ghali, E. M. A. (2015) Speaking anxiety level of Gaza EFL pre-service
teachers: Reasons and sources, World Journal of English language, Vol. 5, No. 3, p 52-64
Hayatdavodi, J. & Kassaian, Z. (2013). The relationship between language anxiety and psychophysiological responses to oral performance: a study on Iranian EFL students, Iranian ELF
journal, Retrieved April, 3, 2013 from http://iranian-efl-journal.com/104/2013/2014/01/therelationship-between-language-anxiety-and-psycho-physiological-responses-to-oralperformance-a-study-on-iranian-efl-students/
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
RetrievedNovember,

3,

2010,

from

http://www.fahadhamed.com/foriegn%20lnaguage%20classroom%20anxiey.pdf

Hughes, Rebecca. 2006. Spoken English, TESOL, and applied Linguistics: Challenges for
Theory and Practice. Great Britain: CPI Antony Rowe

Hui, N. (2012), The Effects of Affective Factors in SLA and Pedagogical Implications, Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 1508-1513

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). Techniques and principles in teaching (2nd ed.). NY: OUP.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2008). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). NY: OUP.

Liu, H. & Chen, T. (2013). How it relates to multiple intelligences, learner attitudes, and
perceived competence, Journal of language teaching and research, Vol.4, No. 5, p 932-938

MacIntyre, P. D & Baker, S. C. & Clement, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on
willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence and L2 motivation among junior
high school French immersion students, language learning, Vol. 52, NO. 3, p.537-564
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a
theoretical clarification. Language learning, 39, 251-275

34

Project Report 2016

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283305.
Padget, D. 1998. Qualitative methods in social work research: challenges and rewards. Sage
Publication.
Penfield, W., & Roberts L. (1967). Speech and Brain Mechanism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Rickheit, Gert and Strohner, Hans. 2008. Handbook of Communication Competence. Germany
Salem, A. A. M. S. & Dyiar, M. A. A. (2014). The relationship between speaking anxiety and
oral fluency of special education Arab learners of English, Asian social science, Vol. 10, No. 12,
p. 170-176
Sila, A. Y. (2010). Young adolescent students foreign language anxiety in relation to language
skills at different levels, the journal of international social research, Vol. 3, No. 11, p83-91
Singleton, D. (2002). The age factor in second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Snow, C. E. (1993). Bilingualism & Second Language Acquisition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. (1990). Psycholinguistic: Learning and Using Language. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Preatice-Hall. MA: Newbury House.

APPENDICES
1. Experimental teaching activities

Session 1: Unit 8 (Whats she like?)

35

Project Report 2016

Speaking: describing people
Vocabulary: appearance and personality
Grammar: be like and look like
-

Whats he like?

What does he look like?

Who does he look like?

Activity 1: Describe people

In this activity, after students were grouped according to their choice. Teacher showed a picture
of a person on the screen, students discussed in groups and tried to describe that person as much
as possible. After 5 minutes, teacher randomly invited the representative from each group to
come to the front and present their groups work. The group with the most accurate description
was a awarded 1 point. This activity was repeated one more round.
Activity 2: Appearance or personality
Teacher wrote the question on the board which was What do you think is more important:
appearance or personality?. Students worked in group to discuss the question and gave
examples to support their ideas. After 7 minutes, teacher invited the representative from each
group to come to the front and present their groups work. This was important to choose the
people who had not been invited before. For each convincing reason, the group got one point.
The winner was the group with the most scores.

Session 2: Unit 9 ( What can you do there?)

Speaking : talking about cities, making suggestions

Vocabulary: local attractions
Grammar: can and cant
Activity 1: Outburst
This activity was designed based on the concept of a very popular game outburst. In this
activity, each group had to write down five local attractions they knew within 1minute. Then,
36

Project Report 2016

two groups would compete with each other at once in that group A would appoint one person to
guess and the whole group received the paper from group B. They had to describe the places in
English so the other one could guess. Each correct guess would earn them one point. Afterwards,
it was group Bs turn to guess. After all groups finished competing in pair groups, winning
groups would do the activity again but with an assigned country theme such as America or
France untill they found the winning group.
Activity 2: city life or country life
The teacher wrote the topic for a debate on the board a country life is better for teenagers than a
city life. the teacher divided all available groups into two big groups: one would argue for the
statement, one would argue against. All groups were awarded 7 minutes to discuss according to
teachers assignment of whether they were arguing for or against. After that, all groups would
have 10 minutes to debate for oragainst the statement by speak out their opinions. Each groups
opinion would be noted on the board by the teacher. After the given time, teacher would cover
all the opinions, groups with the most agreeable opinions won the game.

Session 3: unit 11 (Did you have a good time?)

Speaking: talking about vacations

Vocabulary: vacation activities
Grammar: the simple past
Activity 1: Where are we going?
In this activity, each group was assigned to write a list of things and activities they had brought
and done in their trip to one place. This places name was not revealed and limited within the
country. After 5 minutes of preparation, each groups leader had to tell the class things related to
their trip. Which group made the correct guess of the place would score one point. This activity
continued untill all groups had their turns.
Activity 2: Our vacation

37

Project Report 2016

Each group was given 1 minute to go on the board and write five random words. Those words
could be nouns, adjectives, verbs or adverbs. Then, their job was to tell the whole class their
group imaginary vacation using those words and the simple past tense. They had 10 minutes to
prepare. Same as the above activities, teacher chose one person randomly from each group to
come to the front and speak.

Session 4: unit 12 ( I am going to study law.)

Speaking: talking about future plans

Vocabulary: careers and schools
Grammar: be going to + Verb
Activity 1: I wish to become..
This activity would start by teacher saying the sentence I wish to become with a job. Students
in a group had to write down what they were going to do to become that person. Each round
would last 1 minute. Then, students had to hand in their papers to the teacher. Each correct
sentence was awarded one point. There were 6 rounds. The winner was the groups with the most
scores.
Activity 2: Its summer time!
The teacher wrote on the board 10 famous places for a good vacations in Vietnam. Each group
leader had to come to the front and play Rock Scissor Paper to choose the place they liked.
When all groups had already had their destinations. They had 6 minutes to discuss their plan for
the trips including both affirmative and negative sentences with going to. For example, they
could talk about what they were going to or not going to bring. Then, teacher chose one person
from each group randomly to present. With each correct sentence, they scored one point. The
group with the most points won the game.
2. Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE

38

Project Report 2016

TOPIC: STUDENT-SELECTED OR INSTRUCTOR-ASSIGNED GROUP FORMATION IN
REDUCING ENGLISH SPEAKING ANXIETY AT BINH DUONG UNIVERSITY
My name is Huynh Tran Vuong Chan. I am a TESOL postgraduate student from University of
Social Science and Humanities Ho Chi Minh City. This questionnaire is one of the most
important parts for finishing my course of Master of Art in TESOL. It would be unachievable
without your help in completing this questionnaire. This would give me reliable statistic data
about what kind of group formation is more effective in reducing students English speaking
anxiety. Your identity and results will be kept anonymous and will only be used for the purpose
of this paper. Thank you for cooperation and assistance.
* Note: You are required to answer all of these questions.
Due to the importance of your answers to a scientific research, please answer these
questions sincerely and thoroughly.

Name: ________________________________________________________________________
Age: _______________________________________________________________________
Occupation: _________________________________________________________________
University: __________________________________________________________________

1) How many years have you learned English?

_______________________________________________________________________
2) How do you rate your present English level?
_______________________________________________________________________
3) Do you feel anxious when speaking in English?
_______________________________________________________________________
4) When practicing the speaking skills, do you like to practice on your own or in group?
Why?
_______________________________________________________________________
5) What hinder you to share your ideas when speaking in group?
________________________________________________________________________

39

Project Report 2016

6) Between student-selected and instructor-assigned group formations, which one do you
like to practice speaking in? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7) Describe your thought of working in group of your choice?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8) Describe your thought of working in group of teachers assignment?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9) Which group formation do you think will be more effective for you to improve your
speaking? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Now, lets read these statements about group work in your English classes and choose the one
that you agree on by putting a stick () in the box of your choice.
NO.

STATEMENTS

I feel comfortable when speaking in this group because

everybody does not expect too much of the result.

I am not worried to share my opinions because others are

40

STUDENT-

INSTRUCTOR-

SELECTED

ASSIGNED

Project Report 2016

willing to listen to me.
3

I am nervous to present my idea because no one will

laugh at it.

I am not worried when speaking because others are

tolerant to my mistakes.

When speaking on group behalf, I am less anxiety thanks

to my group members support.

I am comfortable when speaking because the others can

understand my ideas despite my lack of vocabulary.

Everybody comfortably shares their ideas and there is an

interaction within group members.

I am confident to share my opinion and the others

support me.

Group speaking activities help my group members be

more confident, opener because we have a good time
together.

10

I am comfortable because my group members support

and help each other.

11

I am not worried when practice speaking because each

time is a new experience and I am not bored.

12

My group members inspire each other so I am not

embarrassed to speak what is on my mind.

13

We can always agree on what to say in front of my class.

14

We often argue and some people just want to keep their

own thinking.

15

Some members dominate the speaking, I am nervous to

speak my ideas.

16

I am worried when each member has to speak.

17

I shiver when it is my turn to speak in front of my group

members.

41

Project Report 2016

18

Working in this group makes me stressful because I think

I am the worst in my group.

19

I have more chances to speak in this group, and I gain

more confidence.

20

I am not worried when speaking because I learn many

things from my group members.

21

I often get nervous and forget what I want to say.

22

I am not stressful when the others ask for my opinions.

23

When speaking, I am worried of being corrected.

24

I am not comfortable to share my ideas because the

others might judge mine.

25

I am stressful to present on my group behalf because the

others seem to expect too much.

26

I am nervous when being asked while I have not had

anything on my mind yet.

27

I am encouraged when my group members listen to each

others ideas.

28

I am more confident in this group, the others show me

how to speak when I do not know.

29

When speaking on my group behalf, I am nervous when

nobody seems to show any support.

30

Whenever I say something, I am afraid of being ignored.

31

I feel like a stranger in this group and nobody seems to

care about what I say.

42