125
586
THS

 

*' E‘Wod

 

'7‘" “-1.5 A '7‘ 1.!

‘3. I .“ f‘.‘~.-‘.—rfl'\

fiw—uvh——;‘——B ”3%-;

L fee-“-1

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Use of Small Group Work in
the ESL/EFL Classroom:

Theoretical Basis and some Suggestions
for Practical Application
presented by

Hiroshi Shimatani

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master's degreein English

 

fl A
/ AZ/ ;/;€L A, ru( (7/

Major professor

 

Date July 17, 1986

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
" your record. FINES WT”
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
fil_ , ,"
BL!”
1 . k3» _.
L1,? V,‘ ,“ Ii A}:
l L“ A 179

 

 

THE USE OF SMALL GROUP WORK IN THE ESL/EFL CLASSROOM:
THEORETICAL BASIS AND SOME SUGGESTIONS
FOR PRACTICAL APPLICATION
By

Hiroshi Shimatani

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fullfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of English

1986

ABSTRACT
THE USE OF SHALL GROUP HORK IN THE ESL/EFL CLASSROOM:
THEORETICAL BASIS AND SOME SUGGESTIONS
FOR PRACTICAL APPLICATION
By

Hiroshi Shimatani

in ESL/EFL classrooms where teacher-fronted instruction
is still the norm. small group work tends to be avoided
probably because conversational activities among non-native
speakers are generally thought to be of little use. This
paper. first. tries to identify and defend the validity of
small group work among non-native speakers not only with
pedagogical claims but also with recent second language
acquisition theories and research findings obtained inside
and outside of the classroom. Second. the paper discusses
variables which affect successful small group performance: 1)
the role of the teacher. 2) the role of the leaders. 3) the
formation of groups. and 4) the sex composition of groups.
Third. it suggests an ideal organization of small group work.
Finally. how currently available techniques can be
incorporated into the traditional lockstep classroom is

demonstrated.

For My Mother and Father

i i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

i would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Paul
Hunsell. Dr. James Stalker. and Dr. Ralph Barrett for their
invaluable advice. I would like to thank Dr. KenJi Kitao.
Hr. Hamoru KinJo. and Mr. Hiroshi Yamazaki for their helpful

comments and criticisms on earlier drafts of this thesis.

iii

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Communication Networks . . . . .

25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L i at OF F ' gut-es O O O O C O O O O O C O C Q Q O O

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

IIX.

introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pedagogical Claims on Small Group Work
in the L2 Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Pros and Cons on Small Group Work
in the L2 Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . .

Theoretical Basis of Small Group Work
for L2 acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Findings Showing the Effectiveness
of Small Group Work . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

The Amount of Student Talk . . . . . . .
The Accuracy of Student Talk . . . . . .
The Other-Corrections and Hiscorrections
The Negotiation among the Students . . .
Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Variables Affecting the Performance
of Small Group Work . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.
B.
C.
D.

The Role of Teacher . . . . . .
The Role of the Leaders . . . .
The Formation of Groups . . . .
The Sex Composition of Groups .

D O D O
O D

O D O O

O O O 0

Suggestions for the Organization of
the Small Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some Tips from Current Methods
Suitable for Group Work . . . . . . . . . .

A.

For Beginning Students . . . . . . . . .
l 0 Jazz Chant s O O I I O O O O . O O O O
2. The Total Physical Response . . . .

iv

10

13

13
14
14
15
16
17

19
19
20

23
26

29

31

32
32
32

B.
2.
3.
C. For

2.
IX. Summary .

List of References

Hunt

Semi-Controlled Deba

For Intermediate Students
1. Jigsaw Reading
Treasure
Action Hazes
Advanced Students
1. Socio-Drama

t0

0 D O O D O O

O I O O O D O

33
33
33
34
34
34
35

36

39

introduction

The use of group work in the second language (L2)
classroom has long been recommended. Although its
effectiveness has been acknowledged by many educators.
language teachers - especially in EFL situations - often
avoid small group activities for fear that inaccurate
production of the target language may allow acquisition of
faulty language.

Recent language acquisition theories insist on the
importance of more active participation in small group
interactions to promote communicative competence. For
example. the research findings on language use in the L2
classroom studies that were reported by Sass and Varonis
(1985) show that the negotiation in small groups helps
promote L2 acquisition both by means of comprehensible input
as proposed by Krashen (1982) and also by comprehensible
output as hypothesized by Swain (1985). Overall. small group
activities seem supported not only by pedagogical arguments

but also by L2 acquisition research data.

This paper reviews recent accomplishments in language
acquisition research and defends the validity of small group
work as an important requirement for development of L2
proficiency. Further. it explores the organization of small
groups in order to find how best to incorporate small group

activities into ESL/EFL classrooms effectively.

Pedagogical Claims on Small Group Work
in the L2 Classroom

The effectiveness of small group work has been
emphasized mainly for pedagogical reasons. Long and Porter
(1985) summarize five advantages of small group work over the
lockstep instructions in which only the teacher sets the
instructional pace and content for all the students.

First. language practice opportunities are enhanced
because each student can receive more speaking opportunities.
By allowing some students to talk in several small groups.
the talking time for each student is greatly increased (Long
.1975). Seliger (1977) suggests that speaking opportunities
are important predictors of L2 acquisition.

Second. the quality of student talk is improved.
According to Barnes cited in Long (1975). in the friendly
setting of a small group. students are allowed to pause.
hesitate. repeat. stumble over new words or change directions
in cohesive and coherent sequences of utterances. This type
of speech can be found in the speech of children.

Third. small group activities can promote individually
appropriate instruction. In the lockstep classroom.
individual students' learning styles cannot be considered.

As Rivers (1983) suggests. students do not learn at the same

rates or use the same strategies for understanding and
retaining the material to be learned. Dunn (1983) argues
that when individual characteristics are matched with
complementary resources and surrOundings. higher academic
achievement can be expected. As Long and Porter (1985)
suggest. no language proficiency test can clearly show
differences among students in specific language abilities.
Therefore. responding to individual learning styles in small
groups may enable each student to receive individualized
instruction.

Fourth. group work can lower filters which hinder
language acquisition. in teacher-fronted instruction some
students feel inhibited when they are required to respond in
a short. polished sentence because of the "audience effect"
of the large class (Long 1975). Stevick (1976) suggests that
this situation decreases learning because the learners
protect themselves from the possibility of being exposed or
embarrassed. A small group of peers can provides a
relatively non-threatening situation.

Fifth and finally. group work can motivate learners.
LittleJohn (1982). for example. reports that small-group.
independent study can motivate students who are learning
beginning Spanish. He asserts that the learners feel free to

talk. to make errors. and to contribute their own experiences

in unsupervised small groups when they work in cooperation
rather than in competition.

The small group work discussed above clearly points out
the defects of the large group lockstep designs which are
still the norm in many L2 classrooms. Lockstep instruction
tends to neglect individual differences such as age.
aptitude. sex. motivation. interests and learning styles
(Long 1976. Long 1977). Furthermore. in the lockstep system.
only the teacher decides who speaks. Since equal rights of
communication tend to be neglected. there is little two-way
exchange of information between teacher and students in the

teacher-fronted classroom (Long 1983).

The Pros and Cons on Small Group Work
in the L2 Classroom

Although pedagogical arguments supporting the
effectiveness of small group activities sound good. they are
-not strong enough by themselves to persuade L2 teachers to
use small-group activities. Very few teachers try to
introduce group work into the language class probably because
many teachers worry that spontaneous production of the target
language may bring about inaccurate language forms and
inappropriate language use. As Saville-Troike et al (1984)
report. the results of the observation of L2 children's
communicative tactics show that some of the successful
communicators have fossilized at relatively early levels of
development. They argue that the initial success in
communication may have reduced the motivation to learn more
complex linguistic forms.

The caution against communicative activities presented
by Saville-Troike et al (1984) is very important when we
incorporate group work into the existing program. The heavy
dependence upon small group work at the early stage of
development may be dangerous. The L2 teacher needs to
provide feedback in order to prevent fossilization. Yet the

validity of group work is not undermined. Perspectives from

the recent language acquisition theories provide us
theoretical basis for small group work.

The interlanguage theory hypothesizes that L2 learners
are moving in the direction of the target language and errors
occurring during the course of development are seen as the
learner’s transitional competence (Nemser 1969: Corder 1971:
Selinker 1972: and Richards and Sampson 1974). Although its
exact nature is still unknown. the existence of some stages
in normal language development is confirmed by first language
(L1) acquisition researchers such as Gleitman and Wanner
(1982). Pinker (1984). Bickerton (1984). ingram (1985) and
HacWhinney. Pleh and Bates (1985). lngram (1985) argues that
each stage of development should be viewed as a healthy point
of transition to the next. Further. VanPatten's (1984a)
study suggests the existence of the developmental stages in
L2 acquisition and learning. As shown above. then. the
objection to small group activities merely because they allow
error production is not valid. since all natural acquisition
appears also to involve error production.

The second objection toward small group work may be a
belief that some are not well oriented to group activities
due to cultural traits in communication. For example.
according to Kitao (1985). American and Japanese attitudes

toward group interaction are very different. The Japanese

put an emphasis on formality and prefer to express their
opinions indirectly while Americans like to be informal and
express themselves directly. Since Japanese people attempt
to communicate through silence or a few words. some might
argue that small group work will end in silence and students
will waste time which should have been devoted to mechanical
drills or grammar exercises.

This argument may be partialy true. However. Japanese
students do not necessarily practice any more in a lockstep
system. in fact. research shows that those who stay calm.
like the Japanese. do not take full advantage of teacher-
fronted instruction. either. in the lockstep classroom. the
Isource of language input and output is in the verbal
interactions between students and teacher. Sato (1982)
studies the characteristics of Asian and non-Asian patterns
of classroom interaction. She reports that speaking turns
taken by the Asians are significantly fewer than those of the
non-Asian students. and Asians' participation is mainly
demanded by the teacher. Further. Sato (1982) reports that
speaking opportunities given to Asians by the teacher are
much fewer than those given to non-Asian students. She also
maintains that Asians' speaking turns assigned by the teacher
may decrease due to the teacher's perception that the Asians

are unwilling to talk in a classroom situation.

Those who stay silent and fail to receive language input
can be categorized as what Seliger (1977) calls "low input
generators". Since low input generators fail to receive
appropriate input in quality and quantity. it is hard for
them to succeed in L2 acquisition. As discussed above. one
who is not oriented to group work may not always be suited to
the teacher-led work. either. The reverse may also be true.
These two activities function as complements to each other
and therefore neither teacher-fronted nor group work may be
adequate solutions.

Group work is not an absolute solution to the exsiting
problems. So. as Long (1977) states. it is not advisable to
abandon the teacher-fronted instruction completely. However.

there seems no valid reason to reject small group activities.

Theoretical Basis of Small Group Work
for L2 Acquisition

The input hypothesis proposed by Krashen (1982) has
emphasized the discourse analysis of the interactions between
native speakers and non-native speakers inside and outside of
the classroom. This input hypothesis posits that language
acquisition takes place when the learner receives
"comprehensible input" which is a little beyond the learner's
stage of development. Krashen argues that exposure to the
comprehensible input. which focuses on the meaning rather
than on the form. leads to language acquisition with help
from context. knowledge of the world. or extralinguistic
information. Finally. Krashen claims that the production of
the target language will emerge over time if L2 learners get
enough intake from comprehensible input.

The input hypothesis has the following flaws: First.
the process from input to intake is unclear. Swain (1985)
reports that students observed in immersion programs have not
acquired the target language even after using comprehensible
input for seven years. VanPatten (1984b) suggests that L2
learners will not acquire form if they are putting all their
attention on meaning. Second. the nature of the

comprehensible input is not well explained. Krashen (1982)

10

11

states that the comprehensible input is roughly tuned to the
learner's current level of development. He regards teacher
talk in the L2 classroon as a source of comprehensible input
because it appears to be very similar to caretaker speech
which is characterized as having a "here and now"
orientation. However. the work of the caretaker is in
contrast with that of the teacher. Long (1976) cites Ervin-
Tripp's report and indicates that the teacher attends to the
grammatical errors but not to the truth value in students'
responses.

Long (1983) examines the precise nature of teacher talk
by comparing the teacher-student interactions in the L2
classroom with the interactions between native speakers and
non-native speakers outside the classroom. He finds that
there are many display questions but only a few referential
questions in the teachers' discourse. Display questions
refer to known information questions (classroom questionS)
such as "Are you a student?". Referential questions refer to
unknown information questions (real questions) such as
"What's the matter?". That is. Long (1983) points out that
L2 learners are just asked to show knowledge that the teacher
already has and rarely have an opportunity to tell the
teacher something unknown to him or her.

Long (1983) asserts that teacher talk is comprehensible

12

largely because it contains few linguistic surprises. in
other words. teacher talk is not sufficient comprehensible
input in and of itself and Krashen's (1982) language
production model - depending on the teacher’s simplified
speech as input - needs to be reconsidered. Further Long
(1983) argues that for genuine communication which fosters
language acquisition there must be a two-way exchange of
information in the language classroom.

According to Long’s (1983) model of language
acquisition. tasks involving two-way exchange of informaton
give less competent speakers opportunities to present
feedback on their lack of comprehension of the input. The
essential point of this model is that L2 acquisition is
fostered with the comprehensible input and the productive use
of language termed by Swain (1985) as "comprehensible output"
through the negotiation for meaning and this occurs more

frequently in small groups.

Research Findings Showing the Effectiveness
of Small Group Work

Many researchers agree that L2 learners should be put in
a position where they can negotiate the new input which is
modified to the level of comprehensibility that they can
manage (Scarcella and Higa 1981; Long and Porter 1985; Pica
and Doughty 1985: Varonis and Gass 1985a). Scarcella and
Higa (1981) report that adults can receive more challenging
input than children because adults are more involved in
keeping the conversation going by the work of negotiation.
it becomes essential to confirm whether non—native speakers
.in small groups can perform the work of negotiation for
meaning. The following are the results of the recent studies

relevant to the discussions in this paper.

The Amount_gfiiStggent Talk

The amount of student talk is greater in the small group'
activities than in the teacher-fronted instructions (Long et
al 1976: Pica and Doughty 1985). The L2 learners talk more
frequently with other L2 learners than with native speakers

(Porter 1983. reported in Long and Porter 1985).

13

14

The Accuracy of Student Talk

The level of accuracy of the production of the target
language by the L2 learners shows no significant differences
whether the L2 learner converses with a native speaker or a
non-native speaker (Porter 1983. cited in Long and Porter
1985). The utterances produced by the L2 learners are
equally ungrammatical both in the small groups and in the

lock step instructions (Pica and Doughty 1985).

Ihngther-Corrections and Miscorrections

The completions and other-corrections carried out by the
L2 learners are more frequent in the small group activities
than in the teacher-led discussions (Pica and Doughty 1985).
The frequency of other-corrections by the L2 learners is not
significantly different from that by native speakers because
it is very low in both contexts (Porter 1983. cited in Long
and Porter 1985). in Porter's study. the L2 learners
Corrected 1.5 percent and native speakers corrected 8 percent
of their partner's grammatical and lexical errors. Further.
Porter's study implies that the miscorrections provided by
the L2 learners are not serious problems at least among the
intermediate and advanced students because they miscorrected
only .3 percent of their partner's mistakes. Varonis and

Gass (1985a) suggest that the frequency of the other-

1‘3

corrections among the L2 learners depends on the familiarity.
if the learners know each other well. the corrections are not
regarded as threatening. Further. Varonis and Gass report

that the L2 learners appear to receive more corrections from

other learners than from native speakers.

Ihe Negotiationgamggg the Students

Varonis and Gass (1985b) indicate that negotiations of
meaning are more frequent in dyads consisting of non-native
speakers than in dyads including native speakers. This is
because non-native speakers need to negotiate the meaning so
often to understand their partner's utterances that are
unintelligible or marginally interpretable (Varonis and Gass
1985a. 1985b). The L2 learners appear to negotiate more with
learners who are at a different level of second language
proficiency (Porter 1983. reported in Long and Porter 1985)
and with learners who are from different first language
backgrounds (Varonis and Gass 1985b). Pica and Doughty
(1985) state that a number of features of negotiation are
more available in lockstep instruction than in small group
work; however. they argue that the modified teacher talk is

not necessarily relevant to each student.

16

1.8252

The tasks in the language classroom are divided into two
types: one-way tasks and two-way tasks. A one-way task is an
interaction in which the flow of information is one way -
from only speaker to hearer. A two-way task is an
interaction which involves exchanges of information among the
participants. According to Long and Porter (1985). Long
reports that two-way tasks produce more negotiation work than
one-way tasks. However. Gass and Varonis (1985) find no
significant difference between one-way tasks and two-way
tasks. in one-way tasks the hearer is obliged to get
information from the speaker. in two-way tasks each has
information that the other needs. Gass and Varonis (1985)
argue that the conversationalists in the two-way task
situations do not always negotiate because they can choose to
change the course of the conversation when they do not
comprehend the partner's utterances. When both are required
to get information from one another in two-way tasks more
negotiations occur in two-way tasks than in one-way tasks
(Doughty and Pica 1984. reported in Long and Porter 1985).
Although Long and Porter (1985) assert that two-way tasks are
superior to one-way tasks in regards to the frequency of
negotiations. the differences are sometimes due to other

variables. As Gass and Varonis (1985) state. the complicated

l7

nature of tasks affect the success of task performance.
Further. Gass and Varonis (1985) assert that the frequency of
negotiations decreases when the learners become familiar with

the tasks.

Discussion

The findings of these recent studies presented above
must be considered cautiously because the number of studies
is still small. Nontheless. we cannot ignore the results
that appear to favor small group activities. The results
confirm that non-native speakers can get more opportunities
to receive comprehensible input and comprehensible output
through the work of negotiation in various tasks. Groups
consisting of only non-native speakers do appear to stimulate
language acquisition even without sustained help from native
or fluent speakers.

The author has no intention of denouncing the value of
native speakers as language teachers. L2 learners normally
acquire language more efficiently when they interact with
native speakers. However. in EFL situations. to have a
native speaker in all the classrooms is almost impossible.
Therefore. in the EFL situations the use of small group work
may provide more help than in the ESL situations. Finally.

in most EFL situations the students are assigned to class by

18

age rather than by level of proficiency. The diversity of
the ability to use the target language can be a positive
factor to promote negotiations among the students. However.
since most EFL classes consist of speakers of the same first
language. EFL students negotiate less frequently than ESL
students because they can resort to their native language and
also because they understand each other's accents. opinions.
and cultures. Even so. as Varonis and Gass (1985a) suggest.
the L2 learners of the same Ll background also need to
negotiate frequently because the target language is foreign

to them.

Variables Affecting the Performance
of Small Group Work

So far this paper has argued for the effectiveness of
small group activities by means of presenting L2 acquisition
theories and evidence collected by the studies of the L2
interactions in the classroom. What we have to do next is to
examine various factors which contribute to the successful
performance of small group work. As Copeland (1984)
indicates. any kind of unplanned group experience can result
in disaster. Among many variables the following are
discussed: 1) the role of the teacher. 2) the role of the
leaders. 3) the formation of groups. and 4)the sex

composition of groups.

The Role of leacher

The success of small group interactions. as Rivers
(1983) suggests. depends upon the interrelationships among
the learners and between the learners and the teacher because
the teacher neither occupies a central role at the front of
the classroom nor dominates the production of the target
language (Long 1977). Experts agree that the teacher in the
communicative classroom should serve as a learning consultant
and as a resource person for information and language

(Littlewood 1981; Littlejohn 1983). However. exactly how L2

19

20

should behave in small group situations is still being
debated.

Kuriloff et al (1984) analyze teacher interventions in
two small groups and examine their effects on group members’
learning. Although the subjects of their study are not L2
learners but American graduate students in counseling
psychology. the results tell us a great deal about the nature
of teaching and learning in small groups. According to
Kuriloff et al. the students valued interventions most when
they were told how to use the unconscious and were provided
with concepts such as norms which are aimed at promoting the
level of discussions of a group event. The students.
however. devalued irony and prodding made by the teacher
while they favor the teacher's positive emotional reaction to

a group member and a group event.

Iflngolgiof the Leaders

For small group work to proceed smoothly we need to take
account of the role of a designated leader. Long (1977)
implies that leaderless communication networks are inclined
to distribute unequal language practice among group members.
Copeland (1984) says that the responsibility of the leader in
adolescent groups is to skillfully control irrelevant speech

and keep the group focused on the tasks such as problem-

21

solving. in the traditional classroom it is a teacher who
controls the students’ responses. Yet we confirm that the
desirable role of the teacher in a group situation is to act
as a helper not but as a controller. Without question. a
teacher should control many small group activities in a large
class. Therefore. we may say that the success of group
performance is determined largely by the leadership structure
of the group as set up by the teacher.

The question we confront here is what kind of person can
function as a good leader in the L2 classroom. Research on
this issue appears to be lacking in the current ESL/EFL
literature. Perspectives from sociology or social psychology
specializing on group behavior can help us understand the
leadership structure of the group.

According to Bales and Slater (1955. cited in Rees and
Segal 1984). the leader in a group situation can be
classified as of two types: an instrumental leader who keeps
the group on task and an expressive leader who relieves group
tension and provides support in order to carry out the task.
The former seems to be responsible for task achievement and
the latter for group maintenance. Bales and Slater insist
that the instrumental leader is not the same person as the
expressive leader. Lewis (1972). however. argues that the

role of instrumental and expressive leader can be possessed

22

by the same person. A person who serves not only as an
instrumental leader but also as an expressive leader is what
Borgatta et al (1954) call a "great man". Borgatta et al
(1954) suggest that groups led by the great men have higher
productivity and lower tension levels than groups that do not
contain great men. The great man theory of leadership
suggests that the level of task performance increases when
there is a high degree of leadership role integration.

in the ESL/EFL situations. the instrumental leader may
be a talented. skillful language producer; the expressive
leader may be a friendly conversationalist. The best leader
is the one who possesses the two characteristics. Currently
it is impossible to confirm how many "great men" are
available in L2 classrooms.

The possible leader-type students in the L2 classroom
may be what Faltis (1986) calls "sway" students. Sway
students are defined as the L2 students who can not only
display linguistic knowledge but also know when and how to
interact appropriately with the teacher. According to
Faltis’ observastion. six sway students in a teacher-centered
classroom consisting of twenty-four students engaged in
nearly forty percent of the teacher-initiated interaction and
almost half of the student-initiated interaction. Faltis

says that the sway students seem not only to contribute to

23

the procedure of the class but also to serve as
comprehensible input to non-sway students. The results of
Faltis' study may indicate that the sway students will serve
as a leader in small group work. Rees and Segal (1984)
report a fairly high degree of leadership role integration on
American college football teams. Further. they find that the
leaders receive greater degrees of interpersonal attraction

from group members than do non-leaders.

The Formation of Groups

The teacher may assign students to groups in accordance
with their ability. achievement. interest. seating
_ arrangements or randomly. The notion of the best formation
of groups is perhaps influenced by several factors: the size
of the whole class. the composition of the students. the aims
of the tasks and materials covered. and so on.

To determine exactly the size of the group is almost
impossible because the success of the group performance
depends both on the size and the objective. As Long (1977)
says. the groups in one class do not always have to be of
equal size. Shaw (1964:129) cited Walker's study concerning
the effect of group size. The results showed that as group
size increased: 1. group efficiency decreased: 2. group

morale decreased: 3. the number of messages conveyed

24

increased: and 4. the unanimous selection of a leader
decreased. The results suggest that size decreases the
efficiency and task maintenance although the overall inputs
and outputs are more available.' What the L2 teacher should
pay attention to is the fact that the quantity of practice
per student tends to rise as the group size decreases (Long
1977). One experienced L2 teacher suggests that the
desirable number of students be four in small group
discussions (Kitao 1986. Personal communication).

According to Shaw (1964). the communication networks
among the group members can be divided into two types:
centralized networks and decentralized networks. Figure 1
shows communication networks studied experimentally by social

psychologists.

ZS

Three-person networks

0 o o O o

/\ /\ xx /\ 2w
0 o o__ o o__ o oe_ 0 OG_ 0
Wheel Comcon Alpha Beta Pinwheel

Four-person networks
Y 37° I“? I“; 171 7531
o o ____ ____ ____
Wheel Kite Chain Circle Slash Comcon
Figure 1
COHMUNICATiON NETWORKS

Dots represent positions. lines represent communication
channels. and arrows indicate one-way channels. (Shaw 1964.
pp. 113)

26

Shaw (1964) reports that one of the major variables
which affects the communication networks is the kind of task
which the group must carry out. He suggusts that centralized
networks such as the wheel. chain are more oriented to the
task which requires simply the collection of information in
one place. and that decentralized networks such as the
comcon. circle are more effective when the task. in addition
to the information collection process. involves negotiations
in order to perform the task. Further. he insists that
decentralized communication networks are more satisfying to

group members regardless of the kind of task.

[he Sex Cgmgosigion 9f Groggs
Aries (1976) studied the effects of a group’s sex

composition on the interaction styles of the participants.
The subjects are American undergraduate students. The
interactional pattern and discussion content are examined in
three knids of group situations: two all-male groups. two
all-female groups. and two mixed groups. The results of the
study show different characteristics for men and women in
single-sex and mixed groups. in mixed groups men address
individuals more often. talk more about themselves and their
feelings while in all-male groups they avoid the closeness

and are more concerned with the expression of competition and

27

status. Women in all-female groups share a great deal with
each other: however. in mixed groups they avoid contact with
other women and allow men to dominate the conversation.

Gass and Varonis (1985) observe the sex differences in
the interactions among the L2 learners from various first
language backgrounds: four Spanish speakers. two Arabic
speakers. two Japanese speakers and one Korean speaker. Gass
and Varonis report that men tend to give a signal to
uncomprehended input more often than women. This suggests
that women tend to refrain from indicating a lack of
understanding.

Further. Gass and Varonis (in press) study the
interactions among the L2 learners having the same background
in terms of culture and language. Ten dyads examined are all
Japanese speakers: four male/female dyads. three male/male
dyads. and three female/female dyads. Their results are as
follows: The frequency of the negotiations and the sudden
topic changes are much higher in the mixed sex dyads than in
the same sex dyads. in the mixed sex dyads the males tend to
dominate the conversation in terms of the amount of talk. and
they determine the course of the conversation by asking
questions or changing the subject. The same-sex dyads show a
greater sense of cooperation while the opposite-sex dyads

show a greater sense of distance between participants.

The results shown above suggest that the mixed sex
groups create more negotiations than the single-sex groups.
It is curious to note that the dominance of men in the
conversation is observed both in American groups and in
Japanese pairs. As Gass and Varonis (in press) imply. men
appear to have more opportunities to produce comprehensible
output while women appear to have more opportunities to
receive comprehensible input. One of the major differences
between American and Japanese interactional patterns is found
in the men's attitudes toward men and women. This may be on
account of cultural norms or due to the fact that American
men are competitive with the other men while they show self-

. disclosure with women.

Suggestions for the Organization
of the Small Groups

Before making suggestions. the L2 teacher should admit
the fact that the language classroom is an artificial setting
for language acquisition. in order to promote authentic
communication in small group activities. the L2 teacher
should carefully design the group work. When small group
work is incorporated into the traditional lockstep classroom.
the teacher's responsibility is to take account of variables
that might affect the group performance. The review of
research presented above provides the following insights into
the successful use of small group work in the L2 classroom.

First. the teacher should behave like a generous
consultant who is helping the students’ activities to move in
the right direction by providing relevant information and
structure. if necessary. The teacher should also convey
support. praise. and encouragement to group members but not
become demanding.

Second. the necessity of group leadership must be
recognized when the teacher forms the groups. A leader-type
student should be assigned to each group if possible.
Further. the teacher should assist the leaders by promoting

cooperative environments among the group members.

30

Third. the teacher should change the group size and
internal communication networks within the group in
accordance with the kinds of task assigned. in addition. the
teacher should assign several kinds of tasks according to the
nature of the materials covered because routine work may
prevent active negotiations among the group members.

Finally. the teacher should take into consideration the
advantages and disadvantages of different combinations of men
and women in groups. For instance. at least in Japanese
dyads. Gass and Varonis (in press) confirm that the single-
sex dyads provide an opportunity to share information to a
greater extent: the mixed sex dyads generate a greater amount
of negotiation.

Needless to say. the teacher should control structures
and vocabulary so that the group activities are a little
beyond the student's present level of understanding. The
teacher can use a great variety of techniques according to
the student's proficiency and needs. The next section is
aimed at introducing several useful techniques for small

group work.

Some Tips from Current Methods
Suitable for Group Work

Some developers may argue that the full power of each
method emerges only in its pure form. However. as Blair
(1982) suggests. no one approach is ideally effective for all
learners and learning situations - especially in EFL
classrooms. Blair implies that the L2 teacher must be
pragmatic and does not have to stick to any single method.
The author also believe that the teacher can use eclectically
the various techniques that work well for certain objectives.

To elicit the responses of the target language at the
initial stages effectively. the L2 teacher needs to help the
students relax. We can borrow some insights from
communication-oriented language teaching approaches. For
example. Terrell’s (1983) Natural Approach allows the
beginning students to use the target language. their native
language. or a mixture of the two. Stevick (1980) presents
his interpretation of Lozanov's Suggestopedia. putting focus
on its therapeutic side. One important element is a
surrogate identity which is given to each student. it can
reduce the students' anxieties and create a fictitious

reality that may bring relief into the classroom.

32

The following are specific techniques that from the
point of view of this paper are suitable for small group
work. The teacher can use each one at any level by changing

the content from simple to more difficult.

For Beginning Students
Jag; Chants. Jazz Chants contrived by Graham (1978) are

repetitive drills which aim at drawing attention toward the
rhythm. stress. and intonation patterns. The dialogue is
written in two-part form including three basic forms of
conversational exchange: question and response. command and
response. and response to a provocative statement. The
students follow the model utterance by the teacher. The
teacher can divide the class into small groups and assign
them turns to respond. The atmosphere of group competition
can stimulate greater participation.

The Total Physical Regggnge (TER). in the TPR. the
students are required physically to respond to commands by
the teacher after the listening period devoted to
comprehension. Kalivoda et al (1971) integrate Asher's
philosophy into daily ten-minute activities: 1) The teacher
acts out the proper responses to taped commands taking
account of the tone of voice. posture. and facial

expressions.: 2) The students listen to the tape and observe

33

the actions of the teacher.: 3) The teacher replays the
tape.: and 4) The students respond physically. This activity
can be incorporated into group work with some modifications.
For example. the teacher can assign the chance to physically
respond to each group. By observing the other students'
response. the students can understand the commands not only

physically but also perceptionally.

or n rmediate S udents

Jigsaw Reading. Jigsaw reading developed by de
Berkeley-Wykes (1983) is a kind of puzzle. The reading text
is cut into pieces at meaning boundaries. it includes a
title and may include pictures. cartoons. drawings. maps.
charts. diagrams or tables as visual aid. Further. the
content of the reading text is episodically organized. The
students receive scrambled cards and are asked to restore the
pieces of card to the appropriate order. Through this
puzzle-solving activities in the small groups. the students
not only understand the text but also have occasions to
negotiate for meaning.

Trggggrg flgnt. Condon (1979) develops the games which
make the students complete a list of various tasks through
group interactions. Each group consisting of three to six

students is given the same list of tasks. The groups compete

34

in finding and doing everything on the list within a specific
time. After this work. the teachers and all of the learners
check each item. Points are given for each item.

Action Mazes. Rinvolucri (1980) introduces a puzzle-
solving and decision-making activity. A maze is a series of
reading cards in which the students are given a problem
situation and four or five possible courses of action. in
small groups the students decide on which action to take.

The result of their choice leads them to other consequent
problems. Most students have Opportunities to read and
discuss ten to a dozen cards before they get out of the maze.
in the process of decision-making among the groups. a great

deal of peer-teaching can be expected.

For Advanced Studgntg

Socio-Drama. Scarcella (1978) presents a type of role
play involving a series of student enactments. The students
are given a story ending in the dilemma. They decide their
own roles and their own course of action through the group
discussion. During the enactment by selected students. the
others become audience and critics. After the enactment. the
way of solving the problem is discussed. Then new role-
players replay the same situation using other strategies.

The students not only develop vocabulary. grammar.

35

conversational skills but also learn strategies for social
interaction.

Semicontrolled-Debate. Leong (1979) explains an
effective way to carry out a debate. At the beginning of the
class. the two groups consisting of four or five members are
chosen. They are given twenty minutes to prepare their
argument. While the groups selected are preparing for their
presentations. the others have a chance to discuss the topic.
During the debate. the audience can join by asking questions.
The speaker must respond with a spontaneous answer defending

his or her position.

Summary

1. The use of small group work in the L2 classroom is
supported by the following pedagogical arguments. Group work
can: 1) produce more speaking opportunities: 2) improve the
quality of student talk: 3) promote individually appropriate
instruction: 4) lower filters which hinder language
acquisition: and 5) motivate learners. The effectiveness of
small group work is also supported by L2 acquisition
theories. The theories suggest that L2 acquisition is
fostered by the comprehensible input and comprehensible
output. Small group work can provide the students
opportunities to receive comprehensible input and to produce
comprehensible output through the work of negotiation in a
non-threatening setting.

11. The research findings collected in this paper seem
to support the above arguments. Further. they show the-
validity of small group work among non-native speakers.

1) Greater amount of student talk is found in small
group work. and L2 learners appear to talk more frequently
with other learners than with native speakers.

2) The accuracy of student talk does not appear to
decrease in small group work.

3) A higher frequency of the other-corrections is

3 7

observed in small group work. and L2 learners do not appear
to miscorrect their partner's errors significantly often.

4) The higher frequency of negotiations is seen in non—
native/non-native interactions rather than in native/non-
native interactions.

5) The amount of negotiation appears to vary with the
tasks that the students have to do and decrease as the
learners become familiared with the tasks.

111. As a result of the examination of the variables
which affect the successful group performance. the following
are suggested for desirable operation of small group work:

1) The teacher should serve as a helper or a knower by
providing the students with relevant information and
structure in small group work.

2) The teacher should assign leader-type students to
groups and assist them by promoting a friendly atomosphere.

3) The teacher should change the group size and
communication structure according to the kind of task. The
teacher should present a variety of tasks to prevent
monotony.

4) The teacher should take account of the sex
composition of groups so that each student can get a variety
of different experiences.

1V. Examples of practical applications of small group

38

work were demonstrated above. The author has argued that the
L2 teacher can use several techniques eclectically. Among
other things. the following are introduced: Jazz Chants. the
Total Physical Response for the beginning level: Jigsaw
Reading. Treasure Hunts. and Action Mazes for the
intermediate level: and Socio-drama. Semicontrolled-debate
for the advanced level.

There are few research findings on small group work in
EFL classrooms. The author hopes that this paper will
contribute to further research and further use of small group

work.

L I ST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aries. Elizabeth. 1976. "interaction Patterns and Themes of

Male. Female. and Mixed Groups." Small Group Behavior 7
(1): 7-18.

Bickerton. Derek. 1984. "The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis
and Second Language Acquisition." Language Universals

and Second Lgnggggg Agggigitigg. Ed. William E.
Rutherford. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
141-61.

Blair. Robert W. 1982. "An integrated Approach."

lnnovativg Aggrggghes tg ngggggg Tagghing. Ed. Robert
W. Blair. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House. 229-43.

Borgatta. Edgar F.. Robert F. Bales. and Arthur S. Couch.
1954. "Some Findings Relevant to the Great Han Theory

of Leadership." Americgg Sociglogicgl Rgview 19: 755-
59.

Condon. Camy. 1979. "Treasure Hunts for English Practice."
English Langggge Tegching Journal 34 (1): 53-55.

Copeland. Jr.. E. Thomas. 1984. "A Cognitive-Behaviorial
Approach to the Group Treatment of Adolescents." Small
Group Behgvig: 15 (3): 398-403.

Corder. Stephen P. 1967. "The Significance of Learner’s

Errors." international Review of Applied Linguistics 5:
161-170.

de Berkeley-Wykes. Jonathan. 1983. "Jigsaw Reading."
Methods That Work. Ed. John W. Olier. Jr. and Patricia
A. Richard-Amato. Mass.: Newbury House. 313-19.

Dunn. Rita. 1983. "Learning Style and its Relation to

Exceptionality at Both Ends of the Spectrum."
Exceptional Childrgg 49 (6): 496-506.

39

40

Faltis. Christian J. 1986. "Sway Students in the Foreign

Language Classroom." Forgign Language Annals l9 (3):
195-202.

Gass. Susan and Evangeline M. Varonis. 1985. "Task
Variation and Nonnative/Nonnative Negotiation of
Meaning." lngut in Second Language Acguisition. Ed.
Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury
House. 149-61.

---. in press. "Sex Differences in NNS/NNS interactions."

Conversation in Second Language Acguisitiog. Ed. D.

Day. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House.

 

Gleitman. Lila R. and Eric Wanner. 1982. Language

Acguisitign: Th: Stgtg gf tug Art. Cambridge. Mass.:
Cambridge University Press.

Graham. Carolyn. 1978. gag; ghgnts: Rhythm; of American
English for Stugents of English as a Second Languagg.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Ingram. David. 1985. "The Psychological Reality of
Children's Grammars and its Relation to Grammatical
Theory." Lingua 66: 79-103.

Kalivoda. Theodore B.. Genelle Morain. and Robert J. Elkins.
1971. "The Audio-Motor Unit: A Listening Comprehension

Strategy That Works." Foreign Langggge Anggls 4 (4):
392-400.

Kitao. 5. Kathleen. 1985. "The Group in Japan and the.
United States." The term paper of Communications 828 at
Michigan State University.

Krashen. Stephen D. 1982. Principles and Practice in
Second Language Acguisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kuriloff. Peter J.. Elisa Y. Babad. Marsha Samuels-Singer.
and Katherine Sutton-Smith. 1984. "Teaching and
Learning in Small Groups: An Analysis of Trainer
interventions." Small Groug Behavior 15 (2): 187-203.

Leong. Hugh. 1979. "The Debate: A Means of Eliciting Semi-
Spontaneous Communication in the TEFL Classroom."

English Language Teaching Journal 34 (4): 287-89.

41

Lewis. Gordon H. 1972. "Role Differentiation." American

Sociological Review 37: 424-34.

Littlejohn. Andrew P. 1983. "increasing Learner involvement
in Course Management." TESOL Quarterly 17 (4): 595-608.

Littlewood. William. 1981. Communicative Language
Teaching;_An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Long. Michael H. 1975. "Group Work and Communicative
Competence in the ESOL Classroom." On TESOL '75. Ed.
Marina K. Burt and Heidi C. Dulay. Washington. 0. C.:
TESOL. 211-23.

---. 1977. "Group Work in the Teaching and Learning of
English as a Foreign Language - Problems and Potential."

English Language Teaching Journal 31 (4): 285-92.

---. 1983. "Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Conversation
in the Second Language Classroom." in On TESOL '82.
Ed. Mark A. Clarke and Jean Handscombe. Washington.
D.C.: TESOL. 207-25.

Long. Michael H.. Leslie Adams. Marilyn McLean. and Fernando
Castahos. 1976. "Doing Things with Words - Verbal
interaction in Lockstep and Small Group Classroom
Situations." On TESOL '76. Ed. John F. Fanselow and
Ruth H. Crymes. Washington. D. C.: TESOL. 137-53.

Long. Michael H. and Patricia A. Porter. 1985. "Group Work.
interlanguage Talk. and Second Language Acquisition."

TESOL Quarterly 19 (2): 207-28.

MacWhinney. Brian. Csaba Pleh. and Elizabeth Bates. 1985.
"The Development of Sentence interpretation in
Hungarian." Cognitive Psychology 17: 178-209.

Nemser. William. 1969. "Approximative Systems of Foreign

Language Learners." lnternapiongl Review of Applied
Linguistics 9: 115-23.

42

Pics. Teresa and Catherine Doughty. 1985. "input and
interaction in the Communicative Language Classroom: A
Comparison of Teacher-Fronted and Group Activities."
input and Second Language Acguisition. Ed. Susan Gass
and Carolyn Madden. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House. 115-
32.

Pinker. Steven. 1984. Language Learnability and Languagg
Development. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Rees. C. Roger. and Mady W. Segal. 1984. "Role
Differentiation in Groups: The Relationship between
instrumental and Expressive Leadership." Small Group
Behavior 15 (1): 109-23.

Richards. Jack C. and Gloria P. Sampson. 1974. "The Study
of Learner English." Error AnglysigpyPerspectiveppin

Second Language Acguisition. Ed. Jack C. Richards.
London: Longman. 3-18.

Rinvolucri. Mario F. G. 1980. "Action Mazes." English
Language Teaching Journal 35 (1): 35-37.

Rivers. Wilga M. 1983. Communicating figturglly in a Second

Language: Thppry and Practice in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sato. Charlene J. 1982. ”Ethnic Styles in Classroom
Discourse." On TESOL '81. Ed. Mary Hines and William
Rutherford. Washington. D. C.: TESOL. 11-24.

Saville-Troike. Muriel. Erica McClure. and Mary Fritz.
1984. "Communicative Tactics in Children's Second
Language Acquisition." Universals of Second Language
Acquisition. Ed. Fred R. Eckman. Lawrence H. Bell. and
Diane Nelson. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House. 60-71.

Scarcella. Robin C. 1978. "Socio-Drama for Social
Interaction." TESOL Qpprterly 12 (1): 41-46.

Scarcella. Robin C. and Corrine Higa. 1981. "Input.
Negotiation and Age Differences in Second Language

Acquisition." ganguage Lparning 31 (2): 409-37.

43

Seliger. Herbert W. 1977. "Does Practice Make Perfect2: A
Study of interaction Patterns and L2 Competence."

Language Learning 27 (2): 263-78.

 

Selinker. Larry. 1972. "interlanguage." international
Review of Applied Lingpistics 10: 209-31.
Shaw. Marvin E. 1964. "Communication Networks." Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology. Ed. Leonard

Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. 111-47.

Stevick. Earl W. 1976. Memoryl Meaning and Method.

Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House.

---. 1980. Te hin Lan es: A Wa an Wa s. Rowley.
Mass.: Newbury House.

Swain. Merrill. 1985. "Communicative Competence: Some Roles
of Comprehensible input and Comprehensible Output in its
Development." input in Second Language Acguisition.

Ed. Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden. Rowley. Mass.:
Newbury House. 235-53.

Terrell. Tracy D. 1983. "The Natural Approach to Language
Teaching: An Update." Methods That Work. Ed. John W.
Olier. Jr. and Patricia A. Richard-Amato. Rowley.
Mass.: Newbury House. 267-83.

VanPatten. Bill. 1984a. "Communicative Values and
information Processing in L2 Acquisition." On TESOL
ng. Ed. Penny Larson. Elliot L. Judd. and Dorothy S.
Messerschmitt. Washington. D. .: TESOL. 89-99.

---. 1984b. "Processing Strategies and Morpheme
Acquisition." Universals of Second Language
Acguisition. Ed. Fred R. Eckman. Lawrence H. Bell. and
Diane Nelson. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House. 88-98.

Varonis. Evangeline M. and Susan Gass. 1985a.
"Miscommunication in Native/Nonnative Conversation."

Langppge in Society 14 (3) 327-43.

---. 1985b. "Non-Native/Non-Native Conversations: A Model
for Negotiation of Meaning." Applied Linguigtics 6 (1)
71-90e

llllllll

3

111111111111