Perception of First-Year Mainstream Students at Ed, Hulis, Vnu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, we are heartily thankful to our

supervisor, MA. Nguyen Minh Hue, whose
encouragement, guidance and support
from the initial to the final level enabled us
to develop an understanding of the
subject.
Secondly, we would like to express our

gratitude to the students who volunteered
to participate in our research. Without
them, this research could not have been
completed.
Last but not least, we offer our regards

and blessings to our families, our
friends, and our teachers who
1
supported us in every respect during
the completion of the project.
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................4
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION..................................................................5
1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the research..........................5
2. Aims and objectives of the study...................................................................6
3. Scope of the study..........................................................................................6
4. An overview of the rest of the paper..............................................................6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................8

1. Definition of key terms................................................................................8
1.1. Learners’ willingness..............................................................................8
1.2. Willingness to communicate ..................................................................8
1.3. Willingness to communicate in foreign language acquisition.................8
1.3.1. Definition.........................................................................................8
1.3.2. Role of willingness to communicate in foreign language acquisition
...................................................................................................................9
1.3.3. Factors influencing willingness to communicate.............................9
1.4. Speaking in foreign language acquisition..............................................14
1.4.1. Importance of speaking activities in foreign language acquisition.14
1.4.2. Categories of speaking activities in foreign language acquisition..14
1.5. Group discussion...................................................................................16
1.5.1. Definition of group discussion.......................................................16
1.5.2. Significance of group discussion...................................................17
1.5.3. Types of group discussion..............................................................18
2. Related studies............................................................................................18
2.1. Studies related internal factors that influence WTC..............................18
2.1.1. Studies of personality.....................................................................18
2.1.2. Studies of learner orientation and motivation................................20
3
2.2. Studies related external factors that influence WTC.............................21
2.2.1. Studies of culture...........................................................................21
2.2.2. Studies of learning condition.........................................................22
CHPATER 3: METHODOLOGY................................................................24
1. Participants and setting.............................................................................24
2. Data collection............................................................................................24
2.1. Data collection instruments...................................................................24
2.1.1. Interview........................................................................................25
2.1.2. Diary..............................................................................................26
2.2. Data collection procedure.....................................................................26
3. Data analysis...............................................................................................26
3.1. Data analysis methods...........................................................................26
3.2. Data analysis procedure........................................................................26
CHAPTER 4: DATA FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..............................29

1. The student’s willingness to communicate in group discussion..............29
1.1. Case 1 – Student 1 (S1).........................................................................29
1.2. Case 2 – Student 2 (S2).........................................................................30
2. Factors influencing the student’s willingness to communicate
in group discussion......................................................................31
2.1. Case 1 – Student 1 (S1).........................................................................31
2.1.1. External factors..............................................................................31
2.1.1.1. Local background...................................................................31
2.1.1.2. Past learning environment.......................................................31
2.1.1.3. Teacher’s support....................................................................32
2.1.1.4. In-group peer influence...........................................................32
2.1.1.5. Format and content of the discussion......................................33
2.1.2. Internal factors...............................................................................34
2.1.2.1 Attitude to target language learning.........................................34
4
2.1.2.2. Knowledge and communicative proficiency...........................34
2.1.2.3. Learning strategies..................................................................35
2.1.2.4. Learner adaptation capacity....................................................36
2.2. Case 2 - Student 2 (S2).........................................................................37
2.2.1. External factors..............................................................................37
2.2.1.1. Teacher’s support....................................................................37
2.2.1.2. In-group peer influence...........................................................38
2.2.1.3. Format and content of discussion............................................39
2.2.2. Internal factors...................................................................................40
2.2.2.1. Attitude to target language learning...................................40
2.2.2.2 Language and knowledge proficiency.....................................41
2.2.2.3. Learner Adaptation.................................................................41
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION......................................................................43
1. Summary of findings....................................................................................43
2. Pedagogical implications.............................................................................45
3. Limitations of the research...........................................................................46
4. Suggestions for further studies.....................................................................46
REFERENCE.................................................................................................48
APPENDIX 1..................................................................................................51
APPENDIX 2..................................................................................................53
APPENDIX 3..................................................................................................55
5
ABSTRACT
The fact that first-year students at ED, HULIS, when starting their study at
university, are not always active in learning has urged the need to investigate
their willingness to participate in group discussion in speaking class. Looking
at the matter from the students’ perspective, this paper seeks to detect their
levels of willingness to communicate and find out the factors that influence the
levels as well as their degree of influence. Four interviews were conducted,
including one interview section 1 and three interview sections 2, 3 and 4 with
the aim of gathering the information of the three voluntary participants in a
certain period of time. As one of the participants was absent from one speaking
class for her illness, the researchers decided not to include her into the search
report. After the data of the other two participants were analyzed, the
researchers came to the finding that while a participant believed that she was
active in group discussion in any circumstances, the other participant felt that
she needed teacher’s tight control of the group discussion as well better
teacher-student’s interaction. Also, the second participant longed for teacher’s
support in language input and knowledge input. The researchers, then, basing
on these findings, make some recommendations with the hope of drawing the
attention of the teachers to the issue and the solution. Concerning students who
are not willing to take part in group discussion, teachers are suggested to pay
more attention to teacher-student interaction in class and create many chances
for students to gain knowledge and improve their language competency.
Although still having some certain limitations, the researchers believe that this
paper is of certain value to educators, lecturers and other researchers as well.
6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the research
English has become the lingua franca, a language that is systematically used for
communication between groups of people not sharing a mother tongue, in
many parts of the world. For this reason, teaching and learning English play an
important role in our contemporary society. In the past, the purpose of learning
English is to master grammar rules and structures of the language. However,
the aim of learning English has shifted with the rapidity of globalization “from
mastery of the structure to the ability to use the language for communicative
purposes”. (Cetinkaya, 2005). Therefore, the communicative approach in
teaching English does gain importance in producing “communicativeable”
students.
Even though the aim of learning English is clarified as using the language for
communicative purposes, it is not unusual to find learners’ reluctance to “enter
L2 communication situations even if they possess a high level of
communication competence” (Dörnyei, 2005). At English Department,
University of Languages and International Studies, the unwillingness,
especially among the first year students, who have just entered a new
environment with new teachers and new peers, is the most noticeable.
Therefore, the matters of whether learners are willing to communicate in
English in designed speaking activities and what factors influence their
eagerness are necessarily taken into consideration.
However, among the speaking activities in class, the researchers take a special
interest in group discussion, which involves the participation of students in the
negotiation of meaning. From three years of experience and observation as
7
students at English Department, HULIS, VNU, the researchers reckon that
willingness to communicate in English in group discussion among first year
students, which can be influenced positively or negatively by various factors,
obliviously affects their success in achieving communicative competence in the
next school years.
All the matters stated above and all the conditions have offered the researchers
an opportunity to conduct a case study on “perception of first-year mainstream
students at English Department, Hanoi Universities of Languages and
International Studies (HULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU) about their
willingness to communicate in English in group discussion in speaking class”.
It is a serious investigation into the viewpoint of first-year students about their
own situation with the focus on their willingness to communicate in L2 in
group discussion in speaking class. Henceforth, based on the findings of the
research, effective ways to promote their eagerness to use English in group
discussion in speaking classes are hopefully proposed.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
First of all, the case study is conducted for the purpose of discovering levels of
willingness to communicate in English in group discussion in speaking lessons
as evaluated by participants who are first year mainstream students at ED,
HULIS, VNU. Subsequently, factors that affect their eagerness to discuss in
English in groups from their point of view are optimistically detected. Those
findings are bases to help the researchers make a detailed exploration of
methods to promote the students’ willingness to communicate in English
possible. In brief, the following questions can be answered by the time this
research is finished:
8
1) To what extent are first year mainstream students at ED willing to
communicate in group discussion?
2) According to the students, what factors influence their willingness to
3. Scope of the study
Firstly, the study is going to be conducted to investigate three cases with an

express purpose of taking an insight into those cases to get specific contextual
data. Three cases are examined to assure the continuation of the research in
case any of the selected cases is disrupted. The chosen samples of the study are
first-year students because the first year is an important period for them to be in
a new study environment with new peers and teachers, especially with many
changes in teaching and learning approaches. The significant changes are easily
found in speaking activities because they are rarely conducted in high schools.
Moreover, within the scope of this research, all the participants are deliberately
chosen from mainstream classes, who underwent the same competence
assessment and had the same curriculum. Also, it is noteworthy that the study
is going to explore the issue from the self-assessment of participants about their
readiness and eagerness in speaking activities.
4. An overview of the rest of the paper
The rest of the paper comprise of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 2 – Literature review – presents the background of the study, including

definitions of key terms and discussions of related studies.
Chapter 3 – Methodology – describes the participants and instruments of the

study, and the procedure employed to carry out the research.
9
Chapter 4 – Data analysis and discussion – presents, analyzes and discusses the
findings that the researchers found out from the data collected according to the
three research questions.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion – summarizes the main findings discussed in the paper

and recommendations to solve the found problems, the limitations of the
research, and some suggestions for further studies. This chapter is followed by
the Reference and Appendices.
10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Definition of key terms
1.1. Learners’ willingness
According to the Oxford dictionary (7th ed:1747), “willingness” is defined as

the state of having no reason for not doing something, or the readiness to do
something.
Learners’ willingness can be defined as the learners’ position of readiness to

engage in their own learning.
1.2. Willingness to communicate
According to McCroskey and Baker (1998), WTC can be considered as the

probability of students’ engaging in communication when they are free to do
so.
1.3. Willingness to communicate in second language acquisition
1.3.1. Definition
Wikipedia defines willingness to communicate (WTC) as follows:
“Willingness to communicate (WTC) refers to the idea that language

students (language learners) who are willing to communicate in the
second language (L2) actually look for chances to communicate; and
furthermore, these learners actually do communicate in the L2.
Therefore, "the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to
engender in language education students"
11
WTC of language learners can be understood as their willingness to seek
chances to talk in that language. This definition describes the active role of
language learners in their learning process.
WTC is also defined as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time

with a specific person or persons using an L2” (MacIntyre et all, 1998, cited in
Song, 2008).
In comparison with the first one, this definition does not show the activeness of
students in looking for chances to communicate in L2. However, the
researchers prefer this one to the others as it actually describes the position of
readiness to speak in L2 at a specific time and with a particular person. In the
researched context in ED, HULIS, VNU, willingness to communicate is the
position of readiness to speak English at a specific time and with a particular
person.
1.3.2. Role of willingness to communicate in foreign language acquisition
Schmidt (1992; cited in Song,) claims that:
The greater degree of willingness to communicate creates more opportunities

to interact in English. Learners will therefore have more opportunity to
practice their speaking skills, which in turn will enhance their oral fluency.
Practice helps improve speaking rate, thus increasing learner confidence to
engage in further interaction. The more opportunity for meaningful practice,
the more opportunity learners have to transfer important language rules into
their conversations.
As students are more engaged in speaking in class, they are more likely to
improve their speaking fluency and speaking speed and this will entail more
self-confidence in communicating in the target language. In short, it can be said
that WTC helps put theory into practice, therefore, helps boost students’
language acquisition.
12
1.3.3. Factors influencing willingness to communicate
The factors influencing WTC seems to have attracted great interest among
linguists and psychologists. Together with the time is the development of the
theory about the important factors. The researchers will talk about the most
significant theories and then state to adopt the most favorable theory.
According to Song (2008), WTC in L1 depends largely on students’

personality, but WTC in L2 is more dependent on the context. In other words,
WTC will be decided by the specific situation in which people communicate in
the target language. For instance, students may be more likely to talk to friends
who they are interested in or familiar with, or they may feel it tense to talk in
the target language in some strange situations like an interview.
McCroskey and Richmond (1990) suggested that WTC originated from two
variables: lack of anxiety and perceived competence. This means that people
are willing to communicate when they are not apprehensive and perceive
themselves to be a competent communicator.
Perceived
Figure 1: Segment of MacIntyre's (1994) willingness to communicate model
communicat
This was later developed by MacIntyre (1994) into WTC’s model as follows:
13
Figure 2: MacIntyre’s (1994) casual sequence for predicting WTC using
personality-based variables, adapted in Matsuoka & Evans (2005:5)
The first model focusing on L2 WTC was developed by MacIntyre and his
associates in 1996:
Figure 3: MacIntyre and Charos’ (1996) model of L2 Willingness to

communicate, adapted in Matsuoka & Evans (2005:7).
14
This model also illustrates MacIntyre’s opinion that WTC is the combination of
greater perceived communication competence and lower anxiety in
communication. State perceived competence reflects learners’ perception about
their own ability to communicate successfully at a particular time. It can be
understood in the sense that WTC may be increased if that person has adequate
language and knowledge proficiency. Concerning anxiety, it varies over time
and according to the context.
Macintyre (1998) created a more complex model with more variables.
Figure 4: Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC from Macintyre et

al. (1998:547; adapted in Matsuoka & Evans 2005:7)
Layer 1 is communication behavior and it is an outcome of the complex

system of interrelated variables in the lower layers. Communication here refers
to a wide range of communication contexts
15
Layer 2 is willingness to communicate, and it involves situation-specific
factors. As it is explained above, WTC is the key factor that decides the
engagement of learners in communication
Layer 3 includes two immediate antecedents of willingness to communicate:

desire to communicate with a specific person (3) and the state of
communicative self-confidence (4). State communicative self-confidence
includes two factors: state perceived competence and lack of state anxiety.
State self-confidence here differs from trait self-confidence in the way that it is
a momentary self-confidence. This is similar to the model by MacIntyre above.
The next three layers show the influences, and serve as independent variables
in analyzing WTC in L2.
Layer 4 is motivational propensities, which is composed of interpersonal

motivation, inter-group motivation and L2 self-confidence.
+ Interpersonal motivation (5) motivation refers to the relationship of one

person with the society they are living in. It can be initiated by control or
affiliation. Affiliation can be related to the power relationships, for instance, if
one person has a strong group solidarity, their participation will be influenced
by how they think they are fitted into the class. Control is more concerned with
the teacher and his or her teaching style. She/he will create the opportunities for
students to actively participate in communication
+ Intergroup motivation (6) motivation results from membership of a

particular group. It also includes two factors: control and affiliation, but control
here helps maintain the interinfluence among groups, and affiliation refers to
the desire to keep contacts with other groups
+ L2 self-confidence (7) includes two elements: self-evaluation of L2 skills

and language anxiety
16
Layer 5 is named as affective and cognitive context, which is created by three
components: inter-group attitudes, social situation, and communicative
competence.
+ Intergroup attitudes (8) are influenced by integrativeness, which is related to

increased frequency and quality of contact with L2 speakers, fear of
assimilation which predicts less contact with the L2 community, and attitudes
toward the L2, which determines motivation to learn.
+ Social situation (9) is a complex category that describes a social encounter

in a particular setting. Factors that influence situational variation are:
participants, setting, purpose, topic, and channel of communication.
+ Communicative (10) competence is the result of five main competences:

linguistic competence, discourse competence, actional competence,
sociocultural competence, and strategic competence.
Layer 6 is the social and individual context. This includes two factors that are
considered to affect WTC at the least extent.
+ Inter group climate (11) is defined by the structural characteristics of the

community, and perceptual and affective correlates. Perceptual and affective
correlates refer to the attitudes and values towards the L2 community. It can be
understood in the sense that if one student has positive attitudes towards a
particular group, he or she will be more likely to have contact with the person
from that group.
+ Personality (12) will decide the way how a person reacts to communication.
MacIntyre et al.'s model is considered a general base for a vast number of

studies on WTC. However, it can be noticed that this model is much suitable
for Western context rather than Asian one. To amend MacIntyre et al.'s model,
Wen & Clément (2003) conducted a research named “A Chinese
conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL”. Through the
17
research, they revealed that cultural values were “the dominant force shaping
the individual's perception and way of learning” in countries like China with
orientation of rule-domination and face-protection as; hence contributing to
influence on WTC in L2.
In this scope of the present study, the researchers only choose the most typical
variables in the pyramid, reflecting the specific situation at the department.
Moreover, like China, Vietnam is under the great influence of Confucianism,
which focuses on the central role of teachers rather than the minor one of
students. It is common knowledge that the students in Vietnam are too familiar
with teacher-centered that it may not be easy for them to adapt to the new
method of English learning and teaching at university. Therefore, students’
state culture and local background are taken into consideration in this study. As
it is stated by Lightbown and Spada (2006: 67), second language learners often
base on their previous learning experiences to form their own learning
strategies. As the research looks at the matter from the students’ own
perception, their learning strategies or learning habit are also supposed to be
taken into account.
Now that there is need to classify all the factors into categories so that it will be
convenient for the researchers to synthesize the data. Besides, the following
way of classification should be easy to add new factors when new ones are
discovered in the process of conducting the research. With regards to all these
considerations as well our own observation that all these factors belong to
either internal factors or external factors, the researchers then come to classify
all the factors as follows:
a. Internal factors
- Personality (introversion-extroversion, self-esteem)

- State perceived competence: learners’ perception about whether they
have enough knowledge and communicative proficiency
- Learning strategies
18
- Orientation of learning English (school achievement, job opportunities,
travel advantages, international friendship, etc.)
- Attitude to target language learning.
b. External factors
- Interpersonal motivation: how much the teacher puts emphasis on

communication in class and how he or she creates the opportunities for
students to communicate in class
- Intergroup climate: how the feelings towards the person from a
particular group affects students’ willingness to communicate to that
person
- Learning conditions (teacher support, peer support, format and content
of the discussion)
- Learning environment in the past
- State culture & local background
- Specific situations on the learning day (health state, weather condition)
1.4. Speaking in second language acquisition
1.4.1. Importance of speaking activities in second language acquisition
In a narrow sense, speaking is a sub-skill of learning a language. In a broader

sense, it is also considered a means to communicate between people using the
target language. Therefore, “speaking” a language should refer to the
competence of communicating in that language: grammatical competence,
strategic competence, socio-cultural competence, and discourse competence
(Celce-Murica et al. 1995, cited in To et al. 2008). In other words, speaking
involves both knowledge of the language and skills of using that language.
Speaking activities are regarded as tools for learners to practice the target skill,
acquire the language as well as enhance their social awareness. The activities
provide students opportunity to talk in the language they are learning. By
talking in that language, students exchange their vocabularies, their
19
expressions, their ideas, and their communication strategies with their peers.
Richards (2006) emphasizes that one function of speaking is interaction which
involves “generic words”,“ speaker’s identity and “degree of politeness”. At
the same time, speaking activities involve teachers’ giving support to students
in such dimensions of language acquisition. Moreover, the activities create
chances for students to take part in life-like speaking situations as
“communicative language teaching is based on real-life situations that require
communication” (Kayi, 2006). This, on the one hand, brings interest for
students to engage in learning; and on the other hand, increases their exposure
to the real world of the target language. In brief, speaking activities play an
important role in teaching and learning a foreign language; according to Kayi
(2006), it is “a crucial part”.
1.4.2. Categories of speaking activities in foreign language acquisition
It is noticed that types of speaking in second language teaching and learning

are not different from those in mother tongue. The researchers prefer to see
types of speaking as Nunan’s (1991) model. As speaking is categorized into
monologue and dialogue it is important to look into speaking activities that
both promote individuals’ expressing and groups’ talking.
Bygate (1987:5) divided speaking into two different types of skills: “motor-
perceptive skills” and “interaction skills”. The former includes “perceiving,
recalling, and articulating in the right order of sounds and structures of the
language”. This view of language skills has an impact on designing speaking
exercises which are model dialogues or oral drills. The later involves “decision
about communication such as what to say, how to say, and whether to develop
it when maintaining the relations”. This type of skills apparently assists
learners more to communicate in real life. Both kinds of skills are necessary to
be involved in learner speaking practice. Littlewood (1981, cited in Univertual
website, 2003) expresses his same point of view with a continuum of speaking
activities to promote communication competence.
20
Figure: Continuum of speaking activities by Littlewood (1981, cited in
Univertual website, 2003 )
According to To, H. and her associates (2009:177-179), speaking activities can

be divided into two major groups: communicative drills (it is likely to be called
controlled or semi-controlled activities) and communicative activities. Follows
are some activities of the two categories.
* Communicative drills
+ Practical situations: Students practice the provided structures in range

of situations such as giving advice or requesting.
+ Guessing games: Students practice language patterns by guessing
something hidden.
+ Information gathering activity: Students use the target language to
collect required information.
+ Jigsaw activity: Each partner has one or a few pieces of the “puzzle”
and other partners must cooperate to fit all the pieces to provide one
production.
* Communicative activities
+ Role-play: Each student is assigned a role and he/she has to act along
with using the language to fulfill the given task.
21
+ Discussion activity: Students are given a topic which often provokes
more than one opinion. They are often put into group to present their
own opinions on the given issue.
+ Reasoning gap activity: Students find out some new information from
given information through the process of inference and the
perceptions of relationships.
+ Prepared talk: Students make a presentation on a topic of their own
choice with or without agreement with the teachers.
It is noticed that whether the activity is communicative drill or real

communicative activity, it is believed to offer language learners the
opportunities to use the target language. Moreover, every speaking
activity mentioned above is likely to be organized in groups. It is
supposed that group discussion provides more opportunities for every
member to talk in the target language.
1.5. Group discussion
1.5.1. Definition of group discussion
Group discussion is a relatively popular activity in many places; therefore it is

understandable why its definitions are quite consistent. Website Freshers
World considered group discussion as a method in which groups of candidates
are given a topic or a situation to think about, and then asked to discuss it
among themselves for a period of time. In addition, according to Holter (1994)
and Porter (2006) (both cited in Li and Campbell 2008:204-205), in group
discussion, students are divided into small groups to explore or discuss an
assigned topic, or to complete cases, to answer a few challenging questions, or
to engage in an exchange of ideas, and share some thoughts with group
members.
Showing more concern about its purpose, Richard (2006) categorized “group
discussion” into “transactional talk”, which refers to the cases where the focus
22
is on what was said or done. The main focus here is to get ideas and opinions
across rather than how the participants interact with one another. Like Holter
and Porter, Richard also believed that in class, group discussion can be
employed together with problem-solving or information-gap activities.
Based on all the definitions above, the researchers define the term “group
discussion” as the activities in which small groups of people communicate in
order to discuss and share ideas about an assigned topic, or to come to a final
decision about a particular matter, a solution to a certain problem.
1.5.2. Significance of group discussion in EFL learning
Group discussion is used extensively in many fields in our life: in professional

meeting, in political meeting, in classroom activities, etc. Li and Campbell
(2008) argue that this kind of activity helps the members of the group approach
a particular issue from different viewpoints, widen and deepen their
understanding about it. They might see group activities as opportunities to
express their opinions, though they possibly face quite a score of difficulties in
expressing their ideas. The experience enables them to clarify, challenge and
reflect on their own thinking and their problem-solving skill and conflict
resolution skill. Moreover, known as leaderless discussion, group discussion is
aimed to find out the natural leadership level of the candidates. Thus, group
discussion is a solution for large communities or groups, when the leaders need
to know other members’ opinions or attitudes in a short period of time.
Likewise, the case of group discussion in the communicative EFL classroom

has been persistently argued for many years; and clearly there are compelling
benefits for second language learning associated with the use of groups in
English lessons. Li and Campbell found that Asian students highly value the
significance of classroom group discussions where they can interact with
students from other cultures and backgrounds, improve their English-language
skills, enhance their cultural knowledge and have more opportunities to make
friends. Also, according to Bruss (2009), group discussion is vital to each
23
student’s study for its benefits to students in monitoring their own learning,
gaining self-direction and independence of the tutors. In addition, as Li and
Campbell point out that when one member’s opinion conflicts with others’ in a
discussion, that member would have to try to argue and convince them that her
idea is right. By doing so, her critical thinking and debate skill would be
sharpened.
1.5.3. Types of group discussion
There may be more than one way to categorize group discussion. According to
Richard (2006), in class, two types of activities that can be used for group
discussions are information-gap activities and problem-solving activities.
However, the researchers choose to adopt the classification of the website
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/group-discussion-skills as
that way provides a more specific categorization. Types of discussions can be
decided based on the tasks of the participants, as follows:
• Make decisions (e.g. decide who to invite to a party and where to seat
them)
• Give and / or share their opinions on a given topic (e.g. discussing
beliefs about the effectiveness of capital punishment)
• Create something (e.g. plan and make a poster as a medium for
feedback on a language course)
• Solve a problem (e.g. discussing the situations behind a series of logic
problems)
2. Related studies
Learners’ level of willingness to communicate in target language has been

mentioned in reviewed studies. Nevertheless, it has been not the focus findings
of those studies but the base for the researchers to analyze the influential
factors.
2.1. Studies related internal factors that influence WTC
24
In general, communication success is contributed by speakers’ willingness to
communicate. It is certainly not only true with communication in the mother
tongue but also true with communication in a foreign language. A great number
of researchers have taken time to investigate this issue with high interest.
2.1.1. Studies of personality
Personality is “the various aspects of a person’s character that combine to make

them different from other people” (Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary,
p1127). In this sense, it is believed to contribute to individual differences in
language learning. Basing on Rotter’s (1966) concept locus of control, the
researcher categorized individuals into major groups: “internals” and
“externals”. “Internals”, believing in their control of their own situations, are
more socially skilled in conversations than “externals” that are not confident in
solving arising problems (Lefcourt et al, 1985 cited in Daily, 2002:143). There
is a more common way of grouping individuals: introverts and extroverts.
Although experts say that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between
introverts and extroverts, Eysenck & Chan (1982) and Griffiths (1991) (cited in
Kim, 2004:41) agree with the following definition:
Extroverts are sociable, like parties, have many friends and need
excitement. They are sensation-seekers and risk-takers, like practical
jokes and are lively and active. Introverts are quiet, prefer reading to
meeting people, have few but close friends and usually avoid
excitement.
Griffiths (1991) and Naiman et al. (1987) realized that a great number of
teachers and students consider personality as “a major factor” to determine an
individual’s success in second language acquisition, and that such teachers and
students believe in the existence of “a positive relationship between
extroversion and success in the attainment of L2 oral proficiency” (cited in
Kim, 2004:39). McCrosky & Richmond (1990, cited in Centinkaya 2005)
25
shared the same opinion that introversion/ extroversion personality trait as an
antecedent of WTC:
Introverted individuals are introspective, less sociable, and feel

less need to communicate. Therefore, introverts prefer to
withdraw from communication. On the other hand, extroverted
individuals are people oriented and value communication;
therefore, they are more likely to be willing to communicate
compared with introverts.
However, many researchers such as Strong (1983), Busch (1982), Genesee et

al. (1980), and Suter (1977) found that there was no clear relationship between
personality and oral production (cited in Kim, 2004:43). In their WTC model,
Macintyre and his associates (1998) proposed that personality had a role to play
in the impact on WTC. They did much research and looked thoroughly into
five dimensions of personality (introversion/ extroversion, pleasantness/
agreeableness, conscientiousness/ dependability, emotional stability, intellect/
sophistication), called “Big Five”. Finally, they concluded that all personality
traits, apart from agreeableness, were directly related to WTC (cited in
Centinkaya, 2005). This was proved by Centinkaya (2005) with his own study
in his Turkey context.
Lewin (1935) and some other researchers following the person-by-situation-

interaction approach (Koestner et al. 1989, Magnusson & Endler 1977; later
conceptualized, in a somewhat different way, as conditional, if-then traits by
Mischel, 1999; Shoda et al, 1994) supposed that “traits vary in their relevance
to an individual depending upon the situation the person is in” (cited in Daily,
2002:136). From the same perspective, Ellis (1994) affirms that “the effects of
extroversion/ introversion may be situation-dependent, evident in some
learning contexts but not in others” (p.152, cited in Kim, 2004:44).
2.1.2. Studies of learner orientation and motivation
26
“Despite the agreement by many researchers over the importance of L2
motivation, there is less agreement regarding how to identify exactly what
motivation is and how it relates with attitudes, anxiety, and proficiency to
affect language learning” (Yamashiro & MacLaughlin, 2001:113, cited in
Matsuda Sae & Brown Robert Sanborn, 2004). It is supposed that L2
motivation correlates with learner orientation to L2 learning, which is likely to
be divided into two major categories: interest-related orientation and
pragmatism-related orientation. Gardner and Lambert (1959) named these two
types of motivation as integrative motivation and instrumental motivation
(cited in Sae & Sanborn, 2004). Integrative motivation refers to learner interest
in the target language and learner desire to be a member of that language
community. Instrumental motivation refers to learner purpose of learning a
language which may involve school achievement, job opportunities, or travel
advantages.
A great deal of research has focused on integrative motivation to WTC. Peng

(2006), who applied Gardner’s (1985) model of integrative motivation,
investigated the relationship between integrative motivation and WTC among
Chinese college students learning English in an intensive programme. By the
end of his study, Peng affirmed that desire to be a member of L2 community
could predict L2 WTC among Chinese college English students, which means
that it had a direct impact on WTC. Such result has been consistent in different
contexts such as Turkey with Centinkaya’s (2005) study, Korea with Kim’s
(2004) study, and Japanese with Hashimono’s (2002) research. These scholars
also gave a consensus that there was an indirect relationship between attitude to
L2 and L2 WTC.
At first, little research was conducted to investigate the impact of instrumental

motivation on L2 WTC as scholars assumed that integrative motivation was
much more important. Nevertheless, instrumental motivation then was
discovered to play a more significant role in foreign language environment
(Dornyei, 1990; Oxford, 1996 cited in Sae & Sanborn, 2004:143). Centinkaya
(2005) also proved that fact with his own qualitative result of interviews with
27
Turkey students. He found out that most of the students were motivated to learn
an L2 a s they wish to have a better job or fulfill their school requirement. The
belief about the enormous influence of these two pragmatic learning purposes
on L2 WTC was shared by Macintyre and his associates (2001).
In general, motivation was “the most important predictor of WTC in L2”

(Peng, 2006) L2 WTC which is essential to promote among L2 students to
“facilitate language learning” (Peng, 2006). Moreover, Matsubara (2007) in
“Classroom group dynamics and motivation in EFL context” investigated that
motivation from “classroom group dynamics” had a “significant influence” on
WTC in Japanese context (cited in Simic & Tanaka, 2008).
2.2. Studies related to external factors that influence WTC
2.2.1. Studies of culture
Along with other factors, culture has been considered in some studies, mostly
conducted in Asian countries, as an external factor that influences levels of
WTC in second language or foreign language.
Wen and Clement (2003) argued that MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model
of WTC is based on research mainly conducted in the Western context and
proposed to add a new element to the WTC hypothetical concept that is culture.
They pointed out that the reluctance of Chinese students to communicate in
community was not simply a “language phenomenon” but “deeply rooted in
Chinese philosophy and culture”. They further discussed the culture roots of
unwillingness to communicate of Chinese students with the provision of
traditional thoughts of Chinese people. As they proposed, Chinese culture,
“deeply” derived from Confucianism, is commonly recognized as more
collectivistic. They amplified that children in China were well taught with
“appropriate behaviours”, which gradually led to sensitivity to other people’s
judgement. As a result, “once in public, they are very cautious and mind their
behaviour” (Wen, 1999).
28
The issue can be seen in language classroom context where Chinese students
with “face-protected orientation” appeared to be “more sensitive to judgment of
the public upon their language behaviours”. Hence, they were “less likely” to
participate in “classroom communication”. (Wen & Clement, 2003:20).
Similar cultural factors that influence WTC can be found in Korean context.
Kim (2004) described the teacher’s role in the classroom as a “transmitter” who
was supposed to “dominate the classroom” while the student’s role as an
“empty vessel”, who was “supposed to keep silent” to absorb knowledge from
the “transmitter”. Moreover, the researcher added Korean’s concept of
“student’s behaviour of asking questions can be considered as disturbing the
teacher and the class” should have derived from “classroom and social culture”.
Furthermore, the difference in motivation to correlation between cultural

distance and motivation in speaking has been investigated by Svanes in his
study with 167 students speaking Norwegian as second language. Basing on
data analysis, he concluded that “there is a relationship between cultural
distance and SLA” (cited in Macintyre, 2007:567). Macintyre (2007) agreed
that “differences in intercultural communication lie partially in the culturally
conditioned restraining forces on communication”.
2.2.2. Studies of learning condition
Previous studies devoted much attention to the relationship between personality

and the willingness or the reluctance to communicate of students. Besides,
learning conditions including teacher support, peer support and situational
factor have been considered in some research.
First of all, in school, teachers exert a significant and determining socio-

cultural influence on student engagement (Reeve, 1996, cited in Wen &
Clement, 2003:27). Wen & Clement (2003) explained that “teachers’ attitude,
involvement, immediacy and teaching styles” are factors that foster students’
commitment and “positive” willingness. Once the student recognizes the
29
teacher’s attitude and high involvement, he or she may feel less observed and
judged, “and experience greater emotional security” (Connell & Wellborn,
1991, cited in Wen & Clement, 2003:27), join in more interactions and show
more enthusiasm (Skinner & Belmont, 1993, cited in Wen & Clement,
2003:27).
Secondly, group cohesiveness has been considered as a dimension contributing

to changes of the degree of WTC. Regardless of the meaning as “united and
working together effectively” (Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary), group
cohesiveness here refers to three different meanings: “(1) attraction to the
group; (2) the level of motivation evidenced by the group members; and (3)
coordination of efforts of group members” (Shaw, 1999, cited in Wen &
Clement, 2003:26). Shaw (1981) also found that “high group cohesiveness is
positively related to group productivity, satisfaction, social influence in the
group and interaction”. Wen & Clement shared the same concern with Shaw’s
theory that high group cohesiveness helps increase engagement and reduce
anxiety, and thus raise willingness to communicate.
Finally, MacIntyre et al (2003) investigated another aspect, which is situational

factor. They believed that degrees of willingness to communicate in the second
language differ among immersion (the target language is used as teaching tool)
students, who are surrounded with target language in all subjects, and non-
immersion ones. It is because the immersion and other intensive language
programmes assist increase perceived competence and lower anxiety, which as
stated above “foster WTC”. Baker and MacIntyre (2000) also concluded basing
on the investigation into outcomes of students of immersion versus non-
immersion programmes that the former students displayed higher WTC and
more frequent communication in French than the latter. Moreover, they
remarked that “among the non-immersion students, perceived competence was
strongly correlated with WTC, but among the immersion students,
communication anxiety correlated most strongly with WTC”.
30
Although there has been a great deal of research on this field, such studies have
conducted among a wide range of participants with the employment of analytic
tools. None of the studies has based on students’ own evaluation and
perception on their willingness to communicate in the target language.
Moreover, though research on willingness to communicate has flourished in
Asian in 20th century, research in Vietnamese context has not been
implemented. Therefore, there is a room for this research to fill. To fulfill this
research, three following questions would be answered:
1) To what extent are first year mainstream students at ED willing to

2) According to the students, what factors influence their willingness to
31
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
1. Participants and setting
English Department of HULIS is a big department with 24 classes of 5 majors:

Teaching English as Foreign Language, English translating and interpreting,
Banking and financial English, Business administration English and
International economic English. Though students follow different dreams, their
starts should be the same in the English working environment: achieving good
competence in four English skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As
a result, the syllabuses for first year students are the same in 24 classes with the
focus on four English macro skills and other supplementary subjects.
At first three students were chosen to take part in this research. From teachers’
opinions and the monitor’s opinions, we picked up three typical first-year
students in one class. Two of them were considered as active in speaking
activities while the other one was quite silent and inactive. However, after one
interview round with all of them, we saw that among the two active students,
one student was really active and she herself had great motivation to take part
in speaking activities while the other active student did not show a significant
activeness. Therefore, we decided to exclude the less active student, only
include the more active student and the inactive student.
The first participant (S1) is from Dong Hoi, Quang Binh. She started learning
English from grade 6 and was a member of a class specialized in English from
grade 10. In her high-school class, she had opportunities to discuss in groups
every speaking lesson. However, her group members and she talked in
Vietnamese almost all the discussion time while their teacher did not pay
attention to control their engagement in such an activity. The second one (S2)
32
is from Ha Tay. She has been learning English for 10 years. At high school she
studied in Math specialized class, so she was not confident when comparing
herself with the classmates who came from English specialized class. Besides,
she felt it hard to fit into her class because she was one year older than them.
The last one (S3) is from Hai Duong. She also started learning English from
grade 6. She came from a mainstream class in which group activities were also
implemented.
In short, it can be seen that two cases in this research, S1 and S2 are typical
among many first-year students in English Department, ULIS.
2. Data collection
2.1. Data collection instruments
As this method was a case study into students’ perceptions about their own
willingness to speaking in group discussion in speaking class, case studies
together with semi-structured interviews were employed as the main data
collection method and students’ diary would be used as the triangulated one.
2.1.1. Case study
Case study method is a popular one in second language research. Case studies
generally aim to provide a detailed description of language learning within a
specific population and settings. One advantage of case studies realized by
Johnson (1993 cited in Mackey and Gass, 2005:172) is that case studies enable
the researchers to focus on the individual in a way that is hardly possible in
group research. He believed that there had been very little known about
individual language learners, teachers or classes. He also claimed that case
studies contrast sharply with the other approaches because it “provides insights
33
into the complexities of particular cases in their particular contexts” (1993 cited
in Mackey and Gass, 2005:172). The researchers of this study took case studies
as the main method because this method could help provide an insight into the
complexities of the language learning as well as the particular situation of the
cases.
2.1.2. Interview
Mackey and Gass listed one significant advantage of interview as “interviews

can be used to elicit data from learners who are not comfortable in other
modes” (2005:173). Besides, the researchers, from our experience, realized
another advantage of interview. That is by interviewing; the researcher can
elicit additional data such as body language or ask the interviewees to elaborate
on any vague or not specific. This advantage was also recognized by Mackey
and Gass (2005:173).
The interviews serve to answer both the two questions. First, they helped to
discover the students’ own evaluation of their willingness to participate in
group discussion. Second, they were aimed to investigate their perception about
the factors that might have a negative or positive effect on the students’
willingness to speak English in group discussion in speaking class. Besides, the
semi-structured interviews were used as they would create more flexibility to
cover all factors as well as providing the researchers to focus on certain ones in
each case.
The interview section 1 was conducted right at the beginning of the research
and divided into two main parts: the first one to ask about their personal
information and the second one to get the general information about the factors
that might influence their speaking in class from their own perspectives. In the
34
second part particularly, it first aimed to gather information about their
perceptions about their own levels of willingness to speak in group discussions,
their personalities (whether they thought they were shy in a new environment)
and how that motivated or hindered their participation in group discussion,
their state perceived competence (their perception about their whether until the
time of the interview, their background knowledge and their language
proficiency are enough for them to speak English in general, and to
communicate their ideas in English in group discussion in particular). Second,
their learning strategies and to what extent they thought these learning
strategies helped promote their willingness to communicate in group discussion
were discovered in the interview section 1. Also, their specific purpose in
learning English and the relationship between the purpose and their WTC were
also investigated. As regards the external factors and their influence, Interview
section 1 was also meant to discover from the students’ perspectives the
interpersonal motivation between them and their teacher (whether their teacher
created many opportunities for them to speak and encouraged them to speak) as
well as how they believed that factor affected their participation in group
discussion. Besides, the researchers aimed to investigate students’ learning
conditions (whether in their opinions, the teacher’s support in the instruction, in
explaining news words and providing vocabulary was sufficient to assist their
participation in group discussion or not; and whether their friends were
supportive, to be more specific, whether their friends in the group deliberately
created the opportunities for them to speak and help them when they’re in
need). Lastly, another question helped to discover the intergroup climate (their
perception about the relationship between their general feelings towards a
particular group of people affected their willingness to communicate in group
discussion in speaking class).
35
Like the interview section 1, the interviews section 2, 3 and 4 were meant to
investigate the students’ perceptions about the influence of the factors above,
but more importantly, these interview sections would help the researchers to
have an insight into the specific cases of different speaking lessons in order to
confirm the specific influence of particular factors on that day and whether that
influence was positive or negative. Moreover, these interview sections were
needed in the sense that it helped the researchers to see the change in the
students’ willingness to communicate throughout the semester and to see
whether that change was consistent throughout the time during which the
interviews were conducted.
2.1.3. Diary
Apart from the interviews, in this research, the students’ diaries were employed
in order to keep track of students’ changes in willingness to speak in group
discussion in speaking lessons. It was supposed that the weekly diary on their
performance in each speaking lesson would just take the participants less than
15 minutes. The reasons are that the length requirement was about one page
and that they were provided with a list of guiding questions. It was believed by
the researchers that the diary would help confirm the findings from the
interviews.
2.2. Data collection procedure
First of all, each participant was interviewed for general information about their
background, their previous learning at high school and the first few weeks at
university in the interview section 1. Then other three interviews were
conducted with each of these participants for more details after each speaking
class.
36
Each case was interviewed by two of four researchers in every interview
session: interview section 1 and interviews section 2,3 & 4 after speaking
lesson. The interviews were conducted with each participant during three
weeks.
Diaries were supposed to be written by each chosen student after their speaking
lesson every week. These notes were collected after the last interview sections
with them.
3. Data analysis
3.1. Data analysis methods and procedure
Initially, responses from all the interview sections of three cases were gathered
and reported independently. In addition, the researchers were to make sure that
information collected from three cases referring to willingness to discuss in
group and information referring to willingness to discuss in English are
transcribed, summarized and grouped separately.
The collected data were classified according to the two research questions. That
is, all of the data gathered from the interviews and participants’ diaries were
compared to answer the first and the second question.
Firstly, all responses from each interview sections in each case which identified
participants’ self- evaluation of their levels of willingness to communicate in
English in group discussion were gathered. In addition, all figures indicating
their reflection of their levels of willingness were presented in a table, to
compare their willingness to discuss in group in general and willingness to
discuss in English.
37
Secondly, all answers from the interviews and the diary of each case referring
to factors that affect the students’ willingness were synthesized and categorized
according to the discussed factors in the literature review chapter. The way of
categorizing was partly based on the cited words from the participant’ answers.
All additional factors conveyed by the participant in the interview sections and
the diary were renamed appropriately and put into one of the main categories of
factors stated in the literature review. Also, most significant quotations from
the interviews will be cited when necessary to demonstrate the analysis of data
to study the influence of discussed factors and added ones.
Finally, the researchers made a comparison between factors that affect

students’ eagerness to communicate in English in group discussion collected
from the sections of each case to examine the persistence of factors during the
research time and the level of influence of each factor on the student. The
results of the comparison were premises to address the implication and
discussion.
38
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter answers the first two research questions with the detailed analysis
and discussion. Only two of three chosen cases were analyzed and discussed
about. One case was left out because she did not participate in all speaking
lessons after the study started. All the analysis was based on the interviews as
the participants’ diaries did not reflect anything new compared to the available
information.
The first part of this chapter answers research question 1. After the two cases
were analyzed separately, the results of both cases were discussed jointly.
The second part of this chapter answers research question 2. The analysis of
each case was categorized into two sections:
1) The participant’s perception about external factors influencing her

willingness to communicate in English in group discussion in speaking
class
2) The participant’s perception about internal factors influencing her
willingness to communicate in English in group discussion in speaking
class
The analyzed factors in both sections were not the same as the list of factors in
the literature review because the analysis was closely based on the actual
information gathered after the interviews. After each section, the result
discussion was presented.
39
1. The students’ willingness to communicate in group discussion
1.1. Case 1 – Student 1 (S1)
WTC (in English WTC in

Stages
& Vietnamese) English
Before interview section 1 5 4
In speaking session before interview
5 4
section 2
5 4
section 3
5 4
section 4
Table 1: The student’s willingness to communicate in group discussion in

speaking class
Table 1 shows the level of student’s willingness to communicate in group

discussion in speaking class generally and in English particularly. As can be
seen in the table, S1 was highly willing to discuss at any time it happened.
When asked about her willingness to communicate in group discussion in the
period before the interview section 1, in other words, after three weeks learning
at the university, she admitted that she was always eager to share her opinions
with her group members. However, she did not always but just usually speak in
English. For each speaking class after that first interview, she confirmed that
she was still always willing to communicate with her peers to complete the
inside-class task the teacher assigned for her group. She added that nearly half
of the time she talked in Vietnamese. The reason(s) would be discussed in
details in the next part.
40
WTC (in English &

Stages WTC in English
Vietnamese)
Before interview section 1 2-3 2
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 1 Activity 2
In speaking session before
3 3 3 3
interview section 2
3.5 4 3.5 3.5
interview section 3
4 5 4 5
interview section 4
Table 2: The student’s willingness to communicate in group discussion in

speaking class
Table 2 shows the level of students’ willingness to communicate in group

discussion in speaking class generally and in English particularly. As can be
seen in the table, S2’s willingness to communicate in group discussion
gradually increases throughout several weeks. However, it is clear from the
table that her level of willingness to use English in group discussion is always
lower than to use both English and Vietnamese to discuss in group. It is also
noticeable that the levels of willingness vary significantly among different
activities in each lesson.
From the two tables, the researchers can see that level of willingness to
communicate in English in group discussion in speaking lesson of each
participant associated with her evaluation on her own performance. It was clear
that the evaluation of student 1 was consistent and that of student 2 was
changing through three interviews. The consistency or change of such
evaluation was influenced by range of factors that would be further discussed
in the following part.
41
2. Factors influencing willingness to communicate in group discussion in
speaking lessons
2.1.1. External factors
2.1.1.1. Local background
S1 is from the Middle of Vietnam; and she considered it as an obstacle because

other students had difficulties understanding her dialect. She desired to have
more classmates from the same area so that she would be able to be more
confident in interaction.
I am not confident as I am the only to come from the Middle Vietnam

and the others are from the North. It is not that I have to speak English
which makes me feel unconfident. If more friends came from the
Middle, I would be more confident.
Nevertheless, she was certain that she could gradually make her classmates
comprehend what she said without imitating the dialect of the majority in her
class. Moreover, she found out that it was easier for friends of other areas to get
her points when she spoke English.
I am more confident to speak English than to speak Vietnamese as here I

am easily understood by the others when I speak English.
As reviewed in chapter 2, it is difficult for learners who come from different

areas to communicate in L2 because of their different beliefs and concepts. It is
clear in this case that local background is an influential factor.
2.1.1.2. Past learning environment
42
To some extent, the student was familiar with group discussion when she was
at upper-secondary school. This made her more confident when she discussed
in her groups at the university. She admitted that she was used to talking in
small groups; in other words, group-discussion-based approach of learning was
not new to her. Although at upper-secondary school her classmates and she
often discussed in Vietnamese, it was not difficult for her to switch to English
at university.
- In upper-secondary school, you discussed mainly in Vietnamese

but at college you have to discuss in English; how does this
change affect you when you participate in group discussion?
- I see no influence; here most of the students speak English.
All in all, she benefited from what she had experienced in the past in term of
language learning environment, which enhanced her willingness to
communicate in English in group discussion in speaking class at the university.
None of the reviewed studies mentioned the influence of past learning

environment on learners in speaking L2. From this study, past learning
environment was basically proved to be a potential factor contributing to
learner’s eagerness to communicate in English. It could be seen in this study
that familiarity with group discussion in the past partially assisted the
participant to join the speaking discussion in English in the new environment –
the university.
2.1.1.3. Teacher’s support
Again, S1 emphasized the importance of individual activeness in any activity.

She did not require much support from the teacher. She committed that it was
alright for her when the teacher just walked around and answered some
questions raised by the students about new vocabulary. In brief, in S1’s point of
view, teacher support slightly affected her willingness to discuss.
43
In activity 1, the teacher just moved around without any support, it was
the time we gave our own ideas. (In activity 1, did you want the teacher
give you any support?) No, I did not. We had to use our own social
knowledge; the teacher could not help here… We did not want to show
to the teacher what we were talking about as we were creative, we
wanted to create and tell a story.
Teacher’s support, including teacher’s control, attitude, involvement,

immediacy, teaching style, was proved in reviewed studies to affect learner’s
willingness to speak English. Nevertheless, for this case, teacher’s support did
not have any impact on such willingness.
2.1.1.4. In-group peer influence
In S1’s opinion, her own desire to communicate in English was stronger than
various influences from her group members. Although she had to work with the
same group almost all the speaking time from the beginning of the school year
and she sometimes felt bored, she kept discussing enthusiastically. Similarly,
non-active partners did not matter her much because in her group some others
were also as active as her and because when someone kept silent for a long
time, the others often asked questions. For her, the most important was to
achieve opportunities to better her own English speaking. In another situation
in which her peers disagreed with her opinions, she was still alright to continue
with the discussion; she even felt more excited to talk because her friends, to
some extent, helped her to discover something new.
- What did you feel when your peers raise the opinions different
from yours?
- At first, I strongly disagreed with them and asked for their
explanation. I thought I was correct so I felt eager to talk.
- When you knew that your idea was wrong, were you still eager to
44
discuss?
- Yes, of course.
- (When we rearranged the pictures) some were right and some

were wrong during the discussion, which was interesting.
However, she admitted that she did not communicate in English all the period
of discussion. One reason was that the initiator spoke Vietnamese and the
others including her replied with the habit of using the mother tongue.
- If your friend had started the topic in English, would you have
spoken English or Vietnamese?
- Possibly in English.
She affirmed that sometimes she used Vietnamese because of her habit rather
than confusion in expression.
That was a habit; it was not because that I could not talk in English
From this case, the two of three dimensions in “group cohesiveness” – that
were, “the level of motivation evidenced by group members and coordination
of efforts of group members” (Shaw, 1999), did exert a positive influence on
the learner’s engagement to discuss in English with her peers.
2.1.1.5. Format and content of the discussion
S1 emphasized the importance of topics and activity formats to her active

participation.
It was primarily for the topics. Whether the activity was interesting or
not did not depend on the number of group members.
45
According to her, the activity which could involve as many students as possible
was more interesting and motivating. She mentioned the activity of shopping in
which half of the class played as sellers and the rest played as buyers. She
described her class then as a chaos, but she felt happy with that and
dynamically took part in the activity, speaking English. In S1 opinion, using
English or Vietnamese in class depended on the format of the activity. She said
it was not necessary to talk in English to find out an idea and/ or organize the
ideas in an appropriate outline. As stated by her, this especially happened when
she had to work with a topic that was hard for her to come up with any
thoughts.
This finding confirmed Macintyre’s (1988) claim that discussion topics were a
factor influencing learners’ willingness to communicate in English.
Furthermore, format of the discussion was a new influential factor found after
the last interview.
2.1.2. Internal factors
2.1.2.1. Attitude to target language learning
S1 had a desire to be able to communicate in English well, which motivated her

to take part in speaking activities in class generally and group discussion
particularly. In her opinion, learning a language was to communicate in that
language; and to talk in such a language well in real life, and taking any
opportunities of using the language in class was a great way of practice.
Therefore, she took an initiation to make use of her opportunities in practicing
speaking English.
If I desire to communicate (in English) and to communicate well, then it

is important to actively take part in the class activities first.
46
She also claimed that inner activeness in language learning could foster
students’ willingness to discuss in English with group members and that she
was not an exception.
As a result, she was willing at any time a topic was given. Obviously, her
attitude to language learning has a certain impact on her willingness to discuss
in group in English. Being proved in previous studies, this factor was also
clearly shown in this case.
2.1.2.2. Knowledge and communicative proficiency
According to S1, knowledge plays an important part in communication. She

said that if she had enough knowledge, she would be more active in any related
discussion.
If my knowledge is enough, it will be easier for me to talk.
Such belief was consistent from the first interview to the last.
In my opinion, it depends on the topics; if I know much about that topic I

will actively participate but if I know little about that I will possibly stay
silent.
Moreover, this belief was illustrated with the situation in which her group
discussed about travelling. She had chances to travel a number of places across
Vietnam; thus, she initiated the first idea that was immediately approved of by
all other members. S1 affirmed that the knowledge should come from reading
in books, newspapers, the Internet, and from experiencing in real life.
However, S1 stated that what was asked to discuss in her speaking class did not
require much social knowledge. Therefore, though she did not have large
command of such fields, it was not difficult for her to actively involve in the
discussion.
47
On the other hand, she emphasized on the need of vocabulary and expression.
She said that she sometimes was not confident to talk in English as she could
not choose the right word or the appropriate expression. This, to some extent,
contributed to the reluctance of discussing in English with other students in the
group.
According to Clement, knowledge and communicative proficiency wielded an

influence on learners’ willingness to communicate in L2. Firstly, for this case,
although knowledge still played a certain role in enhancing the learner’s
involvement in the task, it was not clearly realized as the task did not require
much grounding. Secondly, communicative proficiency as reflected in this case
was corresponding to the theory in Clement’s study.
2.1.2.3. Learning strategies
S1 was sure that self-study was the best to enhance both her knowledge and
language competence which would be likely to higher her willingness to
communicate in English. In fact, she did read some books and listen to news in
the Internet, and found interested in simple phrases and expressions that then
became useful in her discussion. She suggested that the old language learning
strategies in which learners just focused on grammar exercises should be
changed into reading for a wide range of information and sharing experience
with friends. What such self-learning activities brought about would go
together with the high level of willingness to discuss in English.
So I have to discover more and study from books.
In the past, I just did the exercises; now it is necessary to discover more.
I want to do many things such as going to the Internet … and reading
more books, but find little time for that.
It can be seen from the analysis that learning strategy, which was self-study in
particular, indirectly affected the learner’s willingness to communicate in
English in group discussion because by self-studying, the learner’s knowledge
48
and language were developed. This case affirmed the researchers’ anticipation
about this influential factor which has not been stated in reviewed studies.
2.1.2.4. Learner adaptation capacity
S1 revealed that she did not get used to the learning environment at university
and was not close to the new friends until the third weeks. This hindered her
activeness in discussing with her group members in English at the very
beginning of the school year. According to her, the quicker she could adapt to
the new learning environment (i.e. new friends and new way of learning), the
more dynamic and confident she would be in group discussion. It could be
implied that learner adaptation capacity had a role to play in bettering her
involvement in group.
Being familiar with the new learning environment (…) assists me when I
have to discuss in groups. It is totally different between now and the first
one/ two weeks when I had not got used to new way of learning and new
friends. At that time, I was not so confident as now.
I think it (adaptation capacity) differs among individuals; but I am slow

at adapting to the new environment.
In addition, she believed that individuals have their own pace of the process of
adaptation to the new learning environment, which affects learner willingness
to discuss in English
Clement (1998) mentioned learners’ attitude towards L2 community as a factor

influencing their enthusiasm to discuss in English. However, the community in
his study was in multilingual context while the participant was studying in a
monolingual context which was comprised of members from different regions
in a country. In her situation, positive attitude towards other members in her
group also took a significant role in fostering her to engage in group discussion
in English.
49
2.2. Case 2 - Student 2 (S2)
2.2.1. External factors
2.2.1.1. Teacher’s support
The influence of teacher’s support on her willingness has been mentioned

continuously and clearly from the first interview to the last interview. In the
pre- interview, according to S2, she was supported by the teacher only in
vocabulary, mostly when she asked for help, but not in ideas, expressions and
background knowledge. Therefore, she found it difficult to participate in group
discussion.
In the next interviews, the participant commented that the teacher’s

explanation of new words was not effective enough. She just often explained
quite fast in general but did not put the words in specific contexts.
I don’t remember (new words) much because the teacher explained in

English quite fast
The teacher explained vocabulary in general, I need clearer explanation

to remember more easily.
S2 also showed her concerns about the way she and her friends express their
ideas.
We express our ideas in our own way.
Our expression is like translation from Vietnamese to English.
She thought that they tended to translate from Vietnamese to English and their
expressions were quite free without certain that they were proper or not.
50
However, they did not receive corrective feedback from the teacher. As a
result, she partially lost motivation to speak English.
Moreover, she believed that it was the teacher’s responsibility to ensure every
member to use English in discussion while her group members seemed to
switch to their mother tongue quite frequently. Her peers’ preference for
Vietnamese hindered her from using English in group discussion. She added
that the teacher was also responsible for changing the group setting so that
students had more opportunities to communicate with different partners.
However, the teacher did not change the group members regularly, which
caused much boredom to her. In brief, she was well aware of the influence of
teacher’s support on her willingness to discuss in English with peers.
The results from this case corresponded with the Clement’s model in terms of
the influence of teacher’s control on learners’ eagerness to discuss with group
members in English. The results also proved the importance of group
arrangement decided by the teacher as Clement affirmed in his study. Besides,
the study of this case discovered that input and corrective feedback provided by
teacher fostered the participant’s confidence and eagerness to speak English.
The above-mentioned input, according to the participant, consists of topic-
based background knowledge, topic-based vocabulary and expressions.
2.2.1.2. In-group peer influence
S2 stated that she did not care about the area where her partners came from, but
the characteristics they have in common.
I haven’t noticed area where my classmates come from. I just care

about their personality and see whether it’s suitable for me or not.
51
She believed that the more things they have in common, the more easily they
can talk. Except for the first post-interview, the next two did not reflect the
influence of the above stated factor on the participant’s willingness to discuss
in English. Instead of referring to such an impact, she mentioned other factors
that affected her involvement. She continuously admitted that she talked much
more and felt more confident and active when she had chance to join new
groups.
- How do you feel when the group is changed?

- I think it’s better. I feel more confident and also fresher.
In addition, her partner was quieter and less active than her; thus, she found
herself more powerful and dynamically contributed to the activity.
- Do you feel better (when working with two new partners)?
- Yes, I do. It is mainly because I was the main person to speak.

They don’t speak much.
In addition, peers’ learning habit also had deep influence on her willingness to
use English in group discussion as stated by her. Particularly, her peers’
preference for Vietnamese prevented her from using English in group
discussion even when she really wanted to. Furthermore, she said that although
her peers paid attention to her and supported her ideas, she was not motivated
by such support. In other words, she did not realize the effect of peer support
on her enthusiasm to discuss in English within groups.
- Do you often help each other, especially to encourage others to

speak?
- Yes, but it doesn’t work.
- When other members support you, do you feel motivated?
52
- No, it’s the same as usual.
Shaw (1981, 1999) and Wen & Clement (2003) found that “high group
cohesiveness”, including “attraction to group, the level of motivation evidenced
by group members and coordination of efforts of group members”, enhances
“students’ engagement” in speaking English. Group cohesiveness in this study
just referred to “the level of motivation” influenced from group members.
Although peers’ agreement on ideas was supposed to motivate learners’
participation, it did not produce an effect on this case. On the one hand, peers’
habit of using mother tongue in discussion decreased her willingness to share
her opinions in English. On the other hand, peers’ passiveness contributed to
her higher involvement in the task. It can be inferred that such passiveness
enhanced her engagement as the participant had a sense of comparison between
her performance and others’.
2.2.1.3. Format and content of discussion
In the first post- interview, she found herself interested in that week’s topic
because it was more interesting and popular. However, she was not motivated
when only discussing information provided in the handout. Moreover, she
thought that she would be more willing to discuss among a group of six if she
had time to prepare with one partner first.
In the second post- interview, she was not attracted by the topic because she
had very poor background knowledge about that. Besides, she emphasized her
preference of discussing that topic in group of four to group of six or in pair.
She reckoned that in group of four, various ideas were brought about and all
members had chance to raise their voice.
53
Finally, in the third post- interview, she mentioned the positive changes in her
eagerness from the first discussion to the second in the lesson. She found
herself more eager to participate in the second discussion. One reason was that
the second topic was more motivating and closely related to her experience.
I really like this kind of topic (shopping). It is familiar to us; I’ve gone
shopping many times so I feel easier to speak. Moreover I find it easier
to have ideas in comparison to other topics.
The other reason was that the second activity involved the whole class, which
fulfilled her expectation.
It can be realized that both changes in the content and in the format of group
discussion can influence the participant’s willingness to communicate.
However, the topics of discussion have a noticeable influence on the participant
whereas the group arrangement affects the willingness slightly.
Besides discussion topics mentioned in Clement’s module, format was also a

contributor to the enhancement of the learner’s enthusiasm to talk in English in
this case.
2.2.2. Internal factors
2.2.2.1 Attitude to target language learning
S2 disclosed that she aspired to speak English well because English became
obviously important these days. Although she recognized the important of
English proficiency, she did not devote to her self-studying in order to make
progress. Instead, she had a strong belief in and dependence on her teacher’s
help. Through interview sections, she continuously emphasized the magnitude
54
of teachers’ support for learners. In her opinion, teacher’s support does not only
mean her control over the class but also help without being asked by students.
Chibi: Therefore, her willingness to use English in group discussion varied in

different activities and that range depended on the way and the degree of
support from her teacher. In this case, attitude to target language learning is
considered a big factor that has a certain influence on the participant’s
eagerness to communicate in the target language in group discussion.
2.2.2.2. Language and knowledge proficiency
First, I found my pronunciation not completely correct, I had difficulty

in pronouncing. I feel very shy when I mispronounce, or when I don’t
understand what the teacher or other classmates are saying.
S2 reflected that she spent most of her time at high school on grammar but had
no chance to speak English before attending university. She had difficulty in
pronouncing individual words as well as producing a chunk of words or
expressing her ideas. Her communication between her and the teacher as well
as her and her peers sometimes did not succeed. The reason was that she was
not able to catch others’ saying and vice versa. Another difficulty as she stated
was her lack of vocabulary. This disadvantage made her shy and prevented her
from actively participating in group discussion. After four weeks at university,
S2 realized that her improvement in pronunciation slightly helped her more
confident to discuss in English.
According to her, her background knowledge did not affect much her
willingness to talk in English as the discussion did not require students’
experience. However, in the third post- interview she admitted that she was
55
much more eager to participate in the discussion thanks to her knowledge and
experience about that topic.
In short, both communicative proficiency and background knowledge had a

rather strong influence on her willingness to communicate in English in group
discussion. This finding was in agreement with the results in Clement’s study.
However, the influence of background knowledge was not emphasized as much
as that of communicative proficiency.
2.2.2.3. Learner Adaptation
In the interview section 1, S2 felt that she was unconfident. According to her,
she was quite different from her classmates because she was not at the same
age as them and her previous learning conditions and environment was not as
good as others. She admitted that she had not been acquainted to new
environment, which made her quite shy, unconfident and unwilling to
participate in group discussion.
I’m shy. I feel unconfident in class because others are from specialized
schools. Moreover, they were born in 1991, so I feel uncomfortable. In
general, I haven’t been familiar with new school.
In interview section 2, she said that after 4 weeks at new school, she had been
gradually used to new environment and that helped her more comfortable when
discussing with peers in group.
I feel more confident, more familiar with classmates and the study
environment
In the interview section 4 corresponding to two weeks later, she felt that she
was more confident and more comfortable when talking to her classmates
56
outside classroom. At the same time, she recognized that she was more willing
to discuss in group. It can be concluded that adaptation to new environment
slightly influenced this participant’s WTC in English in group discussion.
Learners’ attitude towards L2 community was stated by Clement (1998) to

affect their eagerness to use English in group discussion. In this case, attitude
of the participant towards her group members was also considered as an
influential factor. Nevertheless, the multilingual context in Clement’s research
completely differed from the monolingual learning environment in this study.
All in all, positive attitude towards other members in a particular group
contributed to promotion of learners’ engagement in group discussion in
English.
From the analysis of all factors above in both cases, learners’ attitude to target
language learning was an outstanding one having impact on their willingness to
communicate in English in group discussion. To some extent, this factor has a
certain relation to personalities, which has been anticipated by the researchers
and agreed by Griffiths (1991) and Naiman et al. (1987) as “a major factor” to
determine an individual’s success in language acquisition. However, from the
participants’ perception, influence of personalities is difficult to be recognized
because this factor involves a wide range of aspects
57
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Preceding chapters have thoroughly gone through the introduction, the

literature, the methodology and the results of this study. This chapter
summarises the findings, suggests some pedagogical implications based on the
findings, acknowledges limitations of the study as well as puts forward some
recommendations for further studies.
1. Summary of findings
Overall, this study has shown a relatively deep look into two individuals. After
collecting and analyzing data, we had drawn out some important findings.
First, we discovered the level of willingness of each student we studied. They

showed different perceptions of their own willingness. One student, S1,
thought that she was very willing to communicate in English throughout the
research time and the level of her willingness was quite consistent. The other
one, S2, showed less consistent level of willingness to communicate in English
in group discussions. It can be seen from the table that this level had a
trendency to gradually increase.
Table: Level of students’ willingness to communicate in group discussion in

speaking class
WTC (in English &

Stages WTC in English
Vietnamese)
Before S1 5 4
Interview Section 1 S2 2-3 3
In speaking session before each
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 1 Activity 2
Interview Section (IS) 2, 3 and 4
58
In speaking session S1 5 5 4 4
before IS 2 S2 3 3 3 3
In speaking lesson S1 5 5 4 4
before IS 3 S2 3.5 4 3.5 3.5
In speaking lesson S1 5 5 4 4
before IS 4 S2 4 5 4 5
We believe these levels, changing or consistent, were affected by different

factors that we have listed out in the previous chapters. The degrees of
influence of the factors were also different in the two cases. This leads to the
second finding which would be shown in the table below. In this table, there
are all the factors and their degrees of influence to the two cases. From the
most influential factors to the least, there are six levels: great, significant,
relative, hardly any, slight and no.
Table: Degrees of influence of the factors
FACTORS CASE 1 CASE 2
Local background SLIGHT NO
Past learning environment RELATIVE NO

HARDLY
Teacher’s support ANY
SIGNIFICANT
EXTERNAL
FACTORS In-group peer influence SLIGHT RELATIVE
HARDLY
Format of the discussion ANY
SIGNIFICANT
Content of the discussion SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
Attitude to target language learning GREAT GREAT
Knowledge and communicative

INTERNAL RELATIVE SIGNIFICANT
proficiency
FACTORS
Learning strategies SLIGHT NO
Learner adaptation capacity RELATIVE SLIGHT
59
Our finding has confirmed the studies of Shaw (1999), Wen & Clement (2003)
about “in-group peer influence” and Macintyre (1998) about the significant
influence of the “topics of discussion”. It was also corresponding to Clement’s
theory about the influence of “knowledge and communicative proficiency” and
“teacher’s support” on student’s willingness to communicate.
Besides, this study has found out a new factor that had an influence on the
students’ willingness to communicate in English in group discussion, which is
“past learning environment”. This factor was discovered in this research, as
assumed by researchers, due to the typical English environment and teaching
system in Vietnam which was not widely focused on CLT approach.
Finally, from our study, we could point out that the most powerful factor was
the “attitude to the target language learning”. Each student’s willingness to
communicate appeared to be decided mainly by this factor. S1, who thought
that she should be responsible for her own study, was more willing to speak in
English during group discussions. On the contrary, S2, who believed that her
studying relied mainly on the teacher’s control and support in class, was less
willing. This factor also, to some extent, affected students’ perceptions of some
other key factors like the teacher’s support and format of the discussion, and
knowledge and communicative proficiency.
2. Pedagogical implications
As this research does not go into details about the actual situation, but just
looks at the matter from some students’ perception, these implications can draw
the attention of the educators, lecturers and the organizations concerned with
the hope that their awareness of the potential helpfulness of these certain
recommendations can be raised. The recommendations are subjected for the
teachers in general, and for the syllabus for the first-year students.
It can be seen from above; one of the most significant findings of the research
is the participants’ need for the input (both language input and knowledge
60
input). Although the research only studied two cases, the researchers assume
that this need can also be true in many other cases. Therefore, it is
recommended that a variety of activities should be carried out in order to
provide students with more chances to absorb background knowledge and
relevant language knowledge. Teachers can provide students with reading
materials of the next week’s topic so that students can read and prepare
themselves at home before going to class, or teachers can ask students to read
about that topic at home before going to class and share the materials with their
classmates. By this way, students have a chance to improve their background
knowledge of the topics and are more likely to participate actively in the group
discussion. Besides, it would be a good idea if teachers provided students with
a list of structures and vocabulary that are relevant to the topic of that week as
well as explaining carefully these structures or vocabulary to them before
students come to the group discussion.
The second implication is also for the teachers, who act as the facilitator and a
guider in the class. From the findings, it can be noticed that to passive students
like Student 2, the teacher’s interaction with students has a big influence on her
willingness to communicate in English in group discussion (readers can have a
look back at the findings for more details). Therefore, the researchers would
like to put emphasis on the importance of teacher-student interaction in class,
or to be more specific, the teacher’s control of the discussion and the teachers’
motivating the students. First, in order to avoid that students may find it easier
to speak Vietnamese and so turn to speaking Vietnamese in group discussion,
teachers are supposed to monitor the class well in the process of discussion. As
a class at ED, HULIS only consists of from 20 to 25 students; it is certainly not
too hard for teachers to monitor the whole class. However, what researchers
want to emphasize here is that sometimes teachers may loose the control over
students’ speaking Vietnamese in group discussion. Second, teachers are
advised to provide students with timely positive feedback so that students get
timely encouragement to be more confident and willing to communicate.
Thirdly, it is advisable for the teachers to get closer to have better
61
understanding of students’ personalities and their needs by sharing life or study
experiences with students and asking for their sharing and opinions vice versa.
This may help decrease the anxiety in class and therefore, enhance students’
willingness to speak in class. Also, from the knowledge about the students,
teachers can make any necessary changes to the teaching methods or the
instruction to assist students to be more active in group discussion.
In addition, although there are only two cases in the study, it is still easy to see
the differences between them, so the matters of individual needs and individual
learning styles should be raised. For a class of 20 to 25 students, the best
solution is for teachers to seek for a variety of activities and group arrangement
to cater for all needs.
The last recommendation is related with the syllabus. Although the syllabus for
first-year students have been built based on a lot of research into students’
needs and interests as well as with great effort to meet that need, it is suggested
by the researchers of this paper that there be annual surveys about the topics
which are of great interest and relevant to students’ experiences. This is to
make sure that the topics catch up with the changes of different generations of
the students.
3. Limitations of the research
In spite of significant efforts of the researchers, certain limitations could be

noticed in this study due to time limitation and other unforeseen factors.
The study was just of small scale, focusing on only two cases. Therefore,
though it had deep look into individuals, the findings could not be generalized
but just our opinions concluded from these particular individuals.
It is important that the limitations mentioned above should be taken into

consideration in further studies.
4. Suggestions for further studies
62
This research can play as a survey into how students are willing to
communicate in English in speaking class; we hope that similar researches can
be carried out in a larger scale so that we can see broader view of the situation.
Since we have a modest period of time to do the study, we only can deeply into
several cases because we knew that studying a large population without deep-in
discovery would serve no good. We believe that if this research can be done in
longer time and larger scale will, it will help teachers to understand what their
students really feel and need and adjust their teaching.
Moreover, this study only studies students’ perception so we decided to choose

only interview as our instrument of collecting data. We hope that further study
can integrate interview and observation method to have a more objective and
exact view to this matter. Researchers can also make comparison between what
they can observe and what students undergo to have deeper findings.
63
REFERENCES
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Centinkaya, Y. (2005). Turkey students' willingness to communicate in English

as foreign language (Dissertation, Ohio State University, 2005). Retrieved
from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1133287531
Chen, R. & Hird, B. (2006). Group Work in the EFL Classroom in China: A
Closer Look. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37 (1), 91-103. London:
SAGE Publications.
Group discussion skills (2007, September, 11). BBC Teaching English.

Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/group-
discussion-skills
Group discussion. Freshersworld.com. Retrieved from

http://www.freshersworld.com/interview/Group_discussion.htm
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as

predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context [Electronic
version]. Second Language Studies, 20 (2), 29-70.
How to teaching speaking. Retrieved from

www.univirtual.it/corsi/2002_2003/bertin/download/M03.pdf
Jane, A. (2000). How to ease students into oral production. Pilgrim, Ltd.
Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/martmar035.rtf
Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching speaking: Activities to promote speaking in a second

language. The Internet TESL, 12 (11).
Kim, S. (2004). Exploring willingness to communicate (WTC) in English

among Korean EFL (English as foreign language) students in Korea:
WTC as a predictor of success in second language acquisition (Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 2001). Retrieved from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1101267838
64
Li, M., & Campbell, J. (2008). Asian students' perceptions of group work and
group assignments in a New Zealand tertiary institution, Intercultural
Education, 19 (3), 203-216.
Lightbown: & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students' classroom communication pattern in U.S

universities: An emic perspective. Greenwood Publishing Group.
MacIntyre:, Baker S., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001).Willingness to

communicate: Social support, and language-learning orientations of
immersion students. Cambridge University Press 0272-2631.
MacIntyre:, Baker S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to
learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs
[Electronic version]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59 (4),
589-607.
Matsuoka, R. & Evans, D. (2005).Willingness to communicate in the second

language [Electronic version].J Nurs Studies NCNJ, 4 (1).
Peng, J. (2006). Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative

motivation among college students in an intensive English language
program in China. University of Sidney Papers in TESOL. 2. 33-59.
Retrieved from http://www-
faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume02/article02.p
df
Personality. (2005) Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (p.1127, 7th ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. (2006). Developing Classroom Speaking Activities: From Theory

to Practice [Electronic version]. Guidelines -Singapore- periodical for
classroom language teachers then magazine for language teachers, 28
(2), 3-8. Malaysia: Seameo.
Robert A. Barraclough, Dianel M. Christophel, & Jame C. McCroskey. (1998).

Willingness to communicate: A cross-cultural investigation.
Communication Research Reports, 5 (2).
65
Sae, M. & Brown, R. (2003, August, 7). Learners’ orientations and willingness
to participate: A diary study [[Electronic version]. Memoirs of Osaka
Kyoiku University, 52 (2), 143-158. Kyoto Sangyo University
Simic, M. & Tamaka, T. (2008). Language Context in willingness to

communicate research work: A review. Retrieved from
http://eprints.lib.okayama-u.ac.jp/14186/1/26_71.pdf
Song, K. (2008, August). The influence of willingness to communicate on the

development of oral fluency. Retrieved from
http://www.atesl.ca/cmsms/home/newsletters/august-2008/feature/
Sussman, L. Verbal communication. Retrieved from:

http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/faculty/regbruce/bruce//mgmtwebs/commun
_f98/Verbal.htm
To, H., et al (2009). ELT methodology 2: Course book. Hanoi: HULIS, ED
Wen, W., Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to

communicate in ESL Language, Culture and Curriculum. 16 (3). 18-38.
Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a90796601
0
Willing to communicate in Wikipedia. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/willingness_to_communicate
66
APPENDIX 1
INTERVIEW SECTION 1
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Topic: Perception of first year mainstream students at English Department

(ED), Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies (HULIS),
Vietnam National University (VNU) about their willingness to communicate in
English in group discussion in speaking class.
Chủ đề: Nhận thức của sinh viên năm nhất hệ cơ sở khoa Anh – Trường Đại
học Ngoại Ngữ - Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội về sự sẵn sàng trong hoạt động
thảo luận nhóm trong giờ học nói của bản thân
Thời gian, địa điểm phỏng vấn:....................................................................
Người phỏng vấn:..........................................................................................
1. Thông tin cá nhân
Họ tên: ...........................................................
Lớp: ................
Quê quán (khu vực nông thôn hay thành thị):................................................
Thời gian học tiếng Anh:................................................................................
Cấp phổ thông trung học thuộc hệ chuyên hay hệ thường:.............................
Ở cấp phổ thông, lớp học tiếng Anh ở trường có hoạt động nói không?........
67
2. Mức độ sẵn sàng
a. Trên lớp em có nhiều hoạt động thảo luận nhóm trong giờ học nói không?
b. Em nhận thấy em đã sẵn sàng tham gia hoạt động thảo luận trong nhóm
trong giờ nói chưa? Nếu để em tự đánh giá (vơi mức độ từ 5 – mức sẵn sàng
cao nhất đến 1 – mức sẵn sàng thấp nhất), em tự thấy mình ở mức độ nào?
3. Yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến mức độ sẵn sàng
a, Khi học ở phổ thông em thường học tiếng Anh như thế nào (phương pháp
học môn tiếng Anh)?
Hiện tại phương pháp học môn tiếng Anh của em như thế nào?
Theo em phương pháp học như thế nào sẽ giúp em tham gia vào các hoạt
động nói trên lớp sôi nổi, nhiệt tình hơn?
b, Mục đích học tiếng Anh cụ thể của em là gì (để giao tiếp, để dịch tốt, để
viết tốt)? Theo phương pháp học tiếng Anh nào, cách học tiếng Anh trên lớp
như thế nào sẽ giúp em đạt được mục đích đó ?
c, Em có biết gì về hoạt động thảo luận nhóm, trước đây em đã từng tham gia
thảo luận nhóm bằng tiếng Anh (Ví dụ trong các câu lạc bộ tiếng Anh hay hoạt
động ngoại khóa) bao giờ chưa? Nếu em đã từng tham gia, em có thấy thích
không? Em có nghĩ rằng những hoạt động đó có ưu điểm gì?
Em hãy đánh giá độ tích cực của em khi tham gia các hoạt động thảo luận
nhóm đó? (Theo thang từ 1 đến 5). Việc tham gia hoạt động đó có giúp ích cho
em khi tham gia thảo luận nhóm trên lớp không? Vì sao?
68
d, Lớp em có nhiều người cùng quê với em không? Em có thấy khó khăn khi
nói chuyện với các bạn ở các vùng khác không? Em nghĩ rằng nếu phải thảo
luận nhóm với các bạn cùng quê hay khác quê, em sẽ thấy thoải mái hơn?
e, Em có cởi mở nói chuyện với các bạn cùng lớp không? Nếu phải tham gia
thảo luận với một nhóm người, em có cảm thấy mình có thể tích cực tham gia
không? Tại sao?
g. Em có thấy tự tin khi nói tiếng Anh trên lớp không? Tại sao?
Theo em kiến thức xã hội (âm nhạc, phim, thể thao…) và trình độ tiếng Anh
(từ vựng, ngữ pháp, phát âm) có ảnh hưởng thế nào đến việc tham gia tích cực
vào các hoạt động nói trên lớp?
h. Với bản thân em, em nhận thấy còn có những yếu tố nào ảnh hưởng đến việc
tích cực tham gia các hoạt động nói trên lớp của em?
69
APPENDIX 2
INTERVIEW SECTION 2, 3 and 4
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Họ tên sinh viên:.........................................................

.............................................Lớp:................................
Quê quán (khu vực nông thôn hay thành thị):.......................................................
Phỏng vấn ngày:………………. Phỏng vấn lần thứ ….sau khi tham gia thảo
luận nhóm
Câu hỏi chung:
Hôm nay trong giờ speaking, giáo viên có tổ chức hoạt động thảo luận nhóm
không? Em có tham gia tích cực vào hoạt động đó không? Vì sao (có/ không)?
Câu hỏi cụ thể:
1. Hôm nay có mấy lần giáo viên tổ chức hoạt động thảo luận nhóm trong
giờ speaking?
2. Giáo viên có hình thành nhóm mới khi đổi hoạt động thảo luận nhóm
không?
(Nếu có hình thành nhóm mới) Cảm giác của em khi đổi sang nhóm khác để
thảo luận với các bạn khác?
70
(Nếu vẫn ở nhóm cũ) Em có thay đổi gì trong lần thảo luận tiếp theo cung các
bạn so với lần đầu không?
3. Các em thảo luận những chủ đề gì? Em có hứng thú với chủ đề đó
không? Em có hiểu biết nhiều về chủ đề đó không? Theo em, những
hiểu biết đó giúp ích gì cho em khi tham gia thảo luận nhóm?
4. Em có nhiệt tình tham gia thảo luận ngay từ đầu không? Vì sao?
5. Sau khi giáo viên đưa ra tín hiệu bắt đầu thảo luận trong nhóm, em có
phải là người đưa ý kiến đầu tiên không? Sau bao lâu thì em bắt nhập
vào cuộc thảo luận của nhóm mình? Vì sao?
6. Nhóm em thảo luận có mấy người? Em muốn thảo luận trong nhóm ít
người hơn hay nhiều người hơn? Vì sao?
7. Ngoài giờ học, em có hay nói chuyện với các bạn đó không? Các bạn có
thân thiện với em không? Trong quá trình thảo luận có tạo cơ hội cho
em nêu lên ý kiến của mình không?
8. Mỗi lần thảo luận các em thảo luận trong thời gian bao lâu? Trong
khoảng thời gian đó, có mấy lần em nêu ý kiến của mình về chủ đề thảo
luận? Các bạn trong nhóm có ủng hộ ý kiến của em không? Em cảm
thấy như thế nào khi các bạn ủng hộ/ không ủng hộ ý kiến của em?
9. Sau khi thảo luận, cả nhóm có lên thuyết trình không hay chỉ cử một bạn
đại diện của nhóm?
71
Nếu cử đại diện nhóm thì hình thức cử thế nào, tự xung phong/ chỉ định/ hay
bốc thăm? Vì sao nhóm em lại chọn hình thức đó?
Em có xung phong làm đại diện cho nhóm không? Vì sao?
10. Khi các em thảo luận trong nhóm, giáo viên có hỗ trợ các em không?
(Nếu có) Giáo viên hỗ trợ các em thảo luận trong nhóm như thế nào?
Em thấy sự giúp đỡ của giáo viên như thế nào, có giúp ích cho em khi
tham gia thảo luận nhóm không? Vì sao? Sự hỗ trợ đó giúp ích ở những
mặt nào?
11. Có khi nào em thấy không thoải mái khi thảo luận nhóm với một số bạn
trong lớp không? Tại sao? Điều đó có ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến sự
nhiệt tình tham gia thảo luận nhóm của em?
12. Nếu tự mình đánh giá về mức độ tham gia thảo luận nhóm của mình, em
nhận mức điểm là bao nhiêu từ 5 đến 1 (5 – luôn luôn sẵn sàng, 4 –
thường xuyên sẵn sàng, 3 – chỉ sẵn sàng một nửa thời gian, 2 – thỉnh
thoảng sẵn sàng, 1 – luôn không sẵn sàng)
13. Sau ….. tuần học cùng lớp, em cảm nhận như thế nào, em đã quen với
môi trường học mới chưa? (Nếu có) Điều đó có giúp em thấy thoải mái
đưa ý kiến của mình trong các giờ thảo luận nhóm hơn không? Tại sao?
14. Sau …..tuần học trong môi trường mới, thường xuyên tham gia thảo
luận nhóm, em có thay đổi thói quen học tập trước đây của bản thân
không? Em đã thay đổi những gì và thay đổi như thế nào? Tại sao? Việc
thay đổi đó có khiến em tham gia nhiệt tình hơn trong các giờ thảo luận
nhóm không? Tại sao?
72
APPENDIX 3
DIARY GUIDELINES
DIARY GUIDING QUESTIONS
Họ tên sinh viên:.........................................................

.............................................Lớp:................................
Quê quán (khu vực nông thôn hay thành thị):.......................................................
Sau khi tham gia thảo luận nhóm tuần…
Câu hỏi cụ thể:
1. Em có hứng thú với chủ đề hôm nay thảo luận không? Em có hiểu biết nhiều về
chủ đề đó không? Theo em, những hiểu biết đó giúp ích gì cho em khi tham gia
thảo luận nhóm?
2. Trong khoảng thời gian đó, có mấy lần em nêu ý kiến của mình về chủ
đề thảo luận? Các bạn trong nhóm có ủng hộ ý kiến của em không? Em
cảm thấy như thế nào khi các bạn ủng hộ/ không ủng hộ ý kiến của em?
3. Em thấy sự giúp đỡ của giáo viên (nếu có) như thế nào, có giúp ích cho
em khi tham gia thảo luận nhóm không? Vì sao? Sự hỗ trợ đó giúp ích ở
những mặt nào?
4. Có khi nào em thấy không thoải mái khi thảo luận nhóm với một số bạn
trong lớp không? Tại sao? Điều đó có ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến sự
nhiệt tình tham gia thảo luận nhóm của em?
73
5. Nếu tự mình đánh giá về mức độ tham gia thảo luận nhóm của mình, em
nhận mức điểm là bao nhiêu từ 5 đến 1 (5 – luôn luôn sẵn sàng, 4 –
thường xuyên sẵn sàng, 3 – chỉ sẵn sàng một nửa thời gian, 2 – thỉnh
thoảng sẵn sàng, 1 – luôn không sẵn sàng)
6. Sau ….. tuần học cùng lớp, em cảm nhận như thế nào, em đã quen với
môi trường học mới chưa? (Nếu có) Điều đó có giúp em thấy thoải mái
đưa ý kiến của mình trong các giờ thảo luận nhóm hơn không? Tại sao?
7. Sau …..tuần học trong môi trường mới, thường xuyên tham gia thảo
luận nhóm, em có thay đổi thói quen học tập trước đây của bản thân
không? Em đã thay đổi những gì và thay đổi như thế nào? Tại sao? Việc
thay đổi đó có khiến em tham gia nhiệt tình hơn trong các giờ thảo luận
nhóm không? Tại sao?
74

Perception of First-Year Mainstream Students at Ed, Hulis, Vnu

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Perception of First-Year Mainstream Students at Ed, Hulis, Vnu

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we are heartily thankful to our

Secondly, we would like to express our

Last but not least, we offer our regards

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................8

CHAPTER 4: DATA FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..............................29

1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the research

2. Aims and objectives of the study

3. Scope of the study

Firstly, the study is going to be conducted to investigate three cases with an

4. An overview of the rest of the paper

The rest of the paper comprise of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 2 – Literature review – presents the background of the study, including

Chapter 3 – Methodology – describes the participants and instruments of the

Chapter 5 – Conclusion – summarizes the main findings discussed in the paper

1. Definition of key terms

1.1. Learners’ willingness

According to the Oxford dictionary (7th ed:1747), “willingness” is defined as

Learners’ willingness can be defined as the learners’ position of readiness to

1.2. Willingness to communicate

According to McCroskey and Baker (1998), WTC can be considered as the

1.3. Willingness to communicate in second language acquisition

Wikipedia defines willingness to communicate (WTC) as follows:

“Willingness to communicate (WTC) refers to the idea that language

WTC is also defined as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time

1.3.2. Role of willingness to communicate in foreign language acquisition

Schmidt (1992; cited in Song,) claims that:

The greater degree of willingness to communicate creates more opportunities

According to Song (2008), WTC in L1 depends largely on students’

Figure 3: MacIntyre and Charos’ (1996) model of L2 Willingness to

Macintyre (1998) created a more complex model with more variables.

Figure 4: Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC from Macintyre et

Layer 1 is communication behavior and it is an outcome of the complex

Layer 3 includes two immediate antecedents of willingness to communicate:

Layer 4 is motivational propensities, which is composed of interpersonal

+ Interpersonal motivation (5) motivation refers to the relationship of one

+ Intergroup motivation (6) motivation results from membership of a

+ L2 self-confidence (7) includes two elements: self-evaluation of L2 skills

+ Intergroup attitudes (8) are influenced by integrativeness, which is related to

+ Social situation (9) is a complex category that describes a social encounter

+ Communicative (10) competence is the result of five main competences:

+ Inter group climate (11) is defined by the structural characteristics of the

MacIntyre et al.'s model is considered a general base for a vast number of

- Personality (introversion-extroversion, self-esteem)

- Interpersonal motivation: how much the teacher puts emphasis on

1.4. Speaking in second language acquisition

1.4.1. Importance of speaking activities in second language acquisition

In a narrow sense, speaking is a sub-skill of learning a language. In a broader

1.4.2. Categories of speaking activities in foreign language acquisition

It is noticed that types of speaking in second language teaching and learning

According to To, H. and her associates (2009:177-179), speaking activities can

+ Practical situations: Students practice the provided structures in range

It is noticed that whether the activity is communicative drill or real

1.5. Group discussion

1.5.1. Definition of group discussion

Group discussion is a relatively popular activity in many places; therefore it is

1.5.2. Significance of group discussion in EFL learning

Group discussion is used extensively in many fields in our life: in professional

Likewise, the case of group discussion in the communicative EFL classroom

1.5.3. Types of group discussion

Learners’ level of willingness to communicate in target language has been

2.1. Studies related internal factors that influence WTC