1. Reasons for the research
The demand for communicating in English has become really pressing in Vietnam since the authorities ‘s unfastened door policy in late 1980. More and more people, particularly working people and pupils have to larn English to utilize it at work, in their surveies or future occupations. In fact, many grownup scholars of English who start larning English even from rating one speak English like “bulls in a China shop” .
Therefore, the Communicative Approach, utilizing group work activities, has been prevailing and widely applied to better Vietnamese scholars ‘ communicative accomplishments of English in Vietnam. Using this learning-centered attack in teaching method is really a concern for many English instructors in Vietnam in general and particularly for the English instructors at the English Department of my university. Group work has brought invention in talking more in footings of theory than in footings of Vietnamese instructors ‘ existent schoolroom patterns.
I am twenty two old ages old and have been learning English at my university for two old ages. I am learning one subdivision of speech production accomplishment per hebdomad in a really diverse category of pupils with different degrees of speech production proficiency. Many of my pupils are sometimes eager to speak in their groups while others merely look world-weary and maintain lull in these groups. Furthermore, my pupils sometimes use Vietnamese a batch in their speech production English category and one member of the group dominates others. Harmonizing to Harmer ( 2007 ) , uncooperative and unmotivated pupils present a serious job and can easy interrupt the instructional procedure while productive activities affecting speech production in groups are more demanding and clip devouring. Although concerted acquisition was originally developed for general instruction, several research workers have documented its application to 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( High, 1993 ; Holt, 1993 ; Kessler, 1992 ; McCafferty, Jacobs & A ; DasilvaIddings, 2006 ) . In footings of talking English, I wanted to look into the execution of group activities to understand their effects on the English unwritten eloquence of my first twelvemonth English major pupils at a Vietnamese University.
I would wish to research how my pupils speak English with their spouses and think of activities. I would wish to happen whether or non construing group work activities in different ways of group work develops the first twelvemonth English major pupils ‘ unwritten eloquence in my English speech production category. Hopefully, the research findings will be helpful for me to give great perceptual experiences and apprehensions about implementing group work activities to develop English unwritten eloquence with first twelvemonth English major pupils at my university. Therefore, the consequence will be reflected on my determinations about the organisation of effectual group work activities in my English speech production categories to develop the quality of instruction.
2. Research inquiries:
- How can group work activities be used with first twelvemonth English major pupils at a Vietnamese University to develop their English unwritten eloquence?
- Why do modifying group work activities impact on the English unwritten eloquence of first twelvemonth English major pupils at a Vietnamse University?
- Organization of the research
The research is divided into seven chief parts under these headers: Introduction, literature reappraisal, context, methods and methodological analysis, analysis and findings, contemplations, and decision.
- Part one, Introduction includes principle, the research inquiries and the overview of the research.
- Part two, Literature review gives and discusses related theoretical background to the research.
- Part three, Context describes the context in which the research has taken topographic point.
- Partially four, Methods and methodological analysis includes grounds for the methods chosen, the ethical process of my research and the troubles I faced.
- Part five, Analysis and findings, Tells my narrative of the research.
- Part six, Reflections, includes strong and weak points of my research and my experience about making research.
- Part seven, Conclusion, eventually reviews the results and summarizes the whole research undertaking and provides deduction for farther research.
1. Definition of group work
Johnson, Johnson and Smith ( 1991, p 15 ) defines that:
Group work, in linguistic communication category, is a co-operative activity, during which pupils portion purposes and duties to finish a undertaking assigned by the instructor in groups or in braces.
It can be said that in group work, all the members have opportunities for greater independency in doing their ain acquisition determinations without the instructor commanding any more. They learn to negociate more every bit with their friends and in most instances they feel free to show themselves and utilize the linguistic communication. In group work, the focal point is non on truth but on eloquence. In talking category, group work is frequently conducted in little groups and stopping points for approximately 10 proceedingss to a category period depending on specific undertakings.
The undermentioned portion discusses the pros and cons of utilizing group work activities in linguistic communication categories.
2. Benefits and troubles of utilizing group work activities in linguistic communication category
Many different sorts of talking activities such as duologue, treatment, interview, etc can be performed in groups. In certain types of those activities, group work no uncertainty offers many advantages.
There have been a figure of surveies describing the possible benefits of brace and group work activities in linguistic communication instruction and acquisition. Harmonizing to experts in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition, dialogue of significance facilitates both larning and acquisition and is defined as:
The alteration and restructuring of interaction that occurs when scholars and their middlemans anticipate, perceive, or experience troubles in massage understandability. ( Pica, 1994, p. 494 )
Following is the sum-up of the most common benefits of utilizing group work in linguistic communication category.
- Group work promotes scholars ‘ duty and liberty.
- Group work increases pupils ‘ engagement, speaking clip and unwritten eloquence.
Harmonizing to Harmer ( 1997 ) , group work provides more chances for pupils ‘ induction, pattern in dialogue of significance, extended colloquial exchanges, face-to-face spring and take and acceptance of functions. Vygotsky ( 1978 ) besides believes that larning is non directed one manner between instructor and pupils but in different ways between pupils and pupils and between instructor and pupils. Ur ( 1996, p232 ) besides portions the same thought:
In group work, scholars perform a acquisition undertaking through little group interaction. It is a signifier of scholar activation that is of peculiar value in the pattern of unwritten eloquence ; scholars in a category that is divided into five groups get 5 times as many chances to speak as in full category organisation.
- Working in groups enables pupils to bring forth better determinations to work out a specific undertaking.
- Group work promotes persons ‘ motive.
Group work enables pupils to utilize the linguistic communication and besides motivates them to be more involved and concentrate on the undertakings assigned. Richards and Lockhart ( 1994 ) believes that through working in groups, pupils feel relaxed and comfy to portion thoughts and play active functions in the acquisition procedure without the rectifying feedback of instructors. Therefore, they have the benefit of sharing thoughts with other group members, larning from other friends ‘ errors or success and assisting others to larn. Because the comprehension of the topic under treatment is frequently increased in group work, pupils surely became more motivated. Harmonizing to Doff ( 1988 ) , working in braces or in groups encourages pupils to be more involved and to concentrate on the undertakings. In the non-threatening public presentation environment of the collaborative schoolroom, motive is frequently improved as pupils feel less inhibited and more able to research possibilities for ego – look.
The following portion will discourse several troubles which are frequently believed to impact the successful execution of the group work activities in linguistic communication category.
Harmonizing to Sheils ( 1993 ) , in some instruction contexts, the usage of group work activities is inappropriate due to the unsuitable physical scene. For case, my schoolroom is excessively large with immovable desks or there are a big figure of pupils in a category. This besides leads to another trouble associating to the category direction. I am afraid of forming group work because of noise and undiscipline which affect other categories. It is difficult for me to supply proper direction. If I go and pay attending to one group, the remainder of category may bury the undertaking and drama approximately. Students will change over into the female parent lingua when they are required to work in groups or they will utilize category clip to chew the fat with each other or become lazy. As such, their speech production accomplishment can non be improved and their clip is wasted.
The deficiency of lingual cognition to lend to group work is the typical trouble faced by many pupils. Speaking is one of the most complex lingual accomplishments because it involves believing of what is to be said and reacting spontaneously to what has been thought. In order to be able to make this, patterns, constructions, and words must be chosen to suit the right state of affairs or state of affairs or attitude intended. Byrne ( 1986 ) has pointed out that ideas are controlled to a great extent by vocabulary. We can non speak about something if we have no words for it. The inability to verbalise idea or feeling may falsify one ‘s perceptual experiences of nonsubjective world, addition inclination to ham it up and impede the likeliness of easy coaction. Once pupils do non cognize plenty of the linguistic communication to show themselves with easiness, they frequently become loath to take part in group work.
There are besides other state of affairss in which the pupils ‘ personality ( e.g. , diffident, inactive, reserved, etc ) or personality struggle ( e.g. , incompatible personalities ) influence pupils ‘ engagement in group work activities. Vygotsky ( 1986 ) supposed that relationship of equals has besides an influence on interaction in groups. Peers can be adept scholars, scholars who are different from instructors ( Swain & A ; Lapskin, 1998 ) , more or less adept scholars ( Ohta, 1995 ) , more or less informed junior pupils ( McDonald, Kidman, & A ; Clarke, 1991 ) , and equals as native and non-native talkers in the schoolroom ( Barnard, 2002 ) . Sheils ( 1993 ) said that though many pupils are happy to talk in chorus or under the instructor ‘s counsel when making some sorts of drill, they are inhibited when being asked to show themselves freely in the presence of the whole category. Furthermore, the fright of being corrected in forepart of the other pupils may besides do the uneasy coaction and lead to unproductive groups. In those instances, pupils may ne’er hold been encouraged sufficiently to “have a go” without worrying about errors or they may be accustomed to the traditional teacher- centered category.
Learning manner penchant surely affects the pupils ‘ public presentation in group work. In her survey, Nguyen ( 2004 ) illustrates the influences of pupils ‘ larning manner penchant on the pupils ‘ public presentation in group work activities. She mentions that the acquisition manner penchant in Eastern states like China or Vietnam is greatly influenced by the Confucian civilization. The pupils were frequently familiar with being transmitted cognition from the instructors instead than from their equals. Therefore, it might be hard for the instructors to implement group work activities in linguistic communication categories due to the pupils ‘ negative responses to communicative linguistic communication instruction and acquisition.
Beside the factors discussed supra, there are other state of affairss in which some pupils, though they do non hold jobs with the deficiency of appropriate lingual competency or personality, have no thoughts to lend or to respond to the subject given by the instructors. This may go on when the subject needs excessively much specialized cognition to discourse or even when there is nil interesting to state about it or even when the undertakings do non necessitate multiple parts from all pupils but can be completed by merely one or two persons.
However, there have been a figure of research workers who have reported positive effects of group work activities on the development of talking ability in the linguistic communication schoolroom. They are, hence, deserving sing seting into the schoolroom more on a regular basis. Besides, more probes should be conducted to happen out the most appropriate techniques or processs to implement successful group work activities in talking category, both instructors and pupils need to play effectual functions. The undermentioned portion discusses the functions the instructors and the pupils need to execute in order to implement group work successfully.
Refering the allotment of members into groups, Hurd ( 2000 ) says there is no “one right way” to apportion pupils into groups. Rather, there are members of patterns instructors can utilize. He besides states that most choice methods fall into four classs. These are random assignment, self-selection, selective assignment, undertaking assignment.
3. Group work and speech production eloquence
Brown ( 2003 ) raises a inquiry “Can we truly develop our pupils ‘ eloquence? ” Harmonizing to him, in learning eloquence, instructors must be willing to allow travel of some control in our schoolroom, allow my pupils have some of the control and allow them to make some of the work and put up state of affairss in which eloquence can develop, and promote my pupils to really pass on. In fact, I do non necessitate to learn eloquence all of the clip, but some of the clip pupils need a small guided communicating clip during which their cognition of many facets of the linguistic communication can develop into eloquence. Brown ( 2003, p.15 ) besides provinces
Teachers set up activities and so acquire out of the manner that many pupils can be speaking at the same clip [ … ] However, puting up such activities is precisely what the pupils need to develop.
There is many other research by Ur ( 1996 ) and Maurice ( 1983 ) observing that the usage of group work activities can make many chances for pupils to pattern speech production eloquence.
Twenty four of my first twelvemonth English major pupils in my category who took portion in my survey were from 18 to twenty- two with four males and 20 females. I have taught them spoken English for one term with Communicative Method which does non pay much attending to a fixed course of study but focal point alternatively on reliable stuffs. My pupils had one speech production lesson every hebdomad and each lesson lasts for 90 proceedingss. Therefore, I had clip to understand about their English competency really good along with their features, and backgrounds. Before come ining the University, one tierce of them finished 7 old ages of English at high school. The remainder studied English for 3 old ages merely. When come ining the University, they already have some basic cognition of English grammar, but most of them are still weak at speech production, reading, listening, particularly, those who come from rural or distant countries where the conditions of larning English are really hapless. About 30 % of the pupils who lived in countries with good conditions of larning English in secondary schools and high schools are at better degree. However, in high school, most of them could non utilize English communicatively, because they had been taught with the Grammar- Translation method with much focal point on grammar regulations, memorisation of vocabulary, interlingual rendition of texts and making exercisings to come in a university. Another ground was that they had few chances to pass on with aliens or native talkers.
I wrote inform consent letters ( see appendix 1 ) and delivered them to all the pupils of the category to inquire them for their permission to take part in my research. I did the research with two female sources. First I chose A because she has studied English for 7 old ages in the metropolis high school with high degree of communicative accomplishments. Second I chose B because she has studied English for 3 old ages in a local school with low degree of communicative English accomplishments but she is good at composing and reading English. I saw many times A and B went and chatted with each other interior and outside the category and heard other pupils say that A and B were close friends.
Methods and methodological analysis
At the beginning of my undertaking, I explained my purposes to the pupils and asked them for their permission to carry on the research. I told two sources that I would enter their spoken linguistic communication as portion of my research on how to develop their English unwritten eloquence. Fortunately, they agreed because A and B had good attitudes to me, to University, particularly to larning English to happen good occupations.
I besides gave each pupil a consent signifier missive which might be utile in puting out clearly for scholars what their engagement would affect and how the consequences of the procedure would be used. The caput of my section was cognizant of how and why I was carry oning my research.
Learners interviewed their friends and wrote up friends ‘ features, attitudes towards group work and utile schemes of talking English. The consequences might assist them develop motive in talking English.
After roll uping informations I gave back my concluding bill of exchange of study to my pupils to look into whether or non my reading of what they said corresponded with their ain apprehension. I officially thanked everyone who had helped me and sent transcripts of my findings to anyone who has been of significant aid to me.
I combined experimental and field note techniques to form informations about behaviours, contexts, group organisation and records of interactions between sources. Therefore, utilizing notes to roll up research informations became more effectual than other informations aggregation techniques took over. Besides, I used a little handheld recording equipment as a clip salvaging option during group work activities and pupils ‘ interviews. This allowed me to observe of import informations while they were still fresh in my head. I could besides speak into the recording equipment, listen to the recordings once more and get down thought.
I organized A to interview B in Vietnamese on their feelings and sentiments about group work and learning experience during their break clip of 20 proceedingss. I provided a set of preplanned inquiries ( see appendix 7 ) in no fixed order and asked the group to audio-record their responses. I did this to in order to increase my ain and my scholars ‘ apprehension of pupils ‘ feelings about group work. I used semi structured interviews between scholar and scholar because they ensured greater consistence, dependability and balance in the research relationship. Two pupils engaged in their free fluxing colloquial procedure in a friendly manner to portion with each other about their acquisition experience in talking English and their perceptual experience of group work. I chose this attack to understand profoundly about the factors impacting group work to develop English unwritten eloquence.
I felt a deficiency of experience in composing up the concluding research findings. It worried me whether I was following the right attack, and that my informations roll uping methods became a spot haphazard and less thorough than they should hold been. I felt pressured for clip during the procedure and in composing the study because I besides taught and did the research at the same clip.
Chapter five: Analysis and Findingss
I conducted the research with my pupils when they had started analyzing in the 2nd term for two hebdomads. The first clip, I observed talking in the English category at the first period in the forenoon. The category had non had any scrutiny of speech production in the 2nd term of the first twelvemonth. In the first term, A got mark 8 and B got 5 for talking scrutiny. We had two talking periods in the same twenty-four hours per hebdomad. The 2nd clip, I observed the speech production eloquence of A and B after one hebdomad of the first observation, at the first period in the forenoon. A sat following to B in the same forepart tabular array of the schoolroom.
Before carry oning the research for a hebdomad, I informed them that I would make the research in the category. And I delivered twenty four consent letters to all my pupils, asked them to click the box if they agreed to take part, collected all letters after 5 proceedingss and read at place.
During detecting, I used highlighter, gluey notes and collected informations on set mark in the observation sheet. I used subjects and codifications ( see appendix 2 ) to form and roll up informations in field notes when I was detecting. I put the recording equipments in each group of the category.
Because desks and chairs were fixed and immovable I asked my pupils to work in groups of three with their neighbours at the same desk and conceive of a narrative about the image ( see appendix 3 ) on the chalkboard. A and B were in the same group with C who could talk English really good.
At first, they were eager to speak in the group because they thought they had many things to talk about and the image was really interesting. I merely sat at my desk with books, looked and made notes in the observation sheets. When I observed I realized that A and B ‘s unwritten English eloquence was non interfered by with the noise of other groups.
I merely required my pupils to make their ain narratives about the image in their groups in 15 proceedingss and show their narratives in forepart of the category. I saw about all pupils looked really aroused and smiled when I showed the image and said: “The most interesting narrative would acquire good marks” . I fixed the image on the chalkboard and explained about characters in the image. A and B kept quiet for a piece in their group and subsequently A asked: “B, what is your narrative? And why will we hold to make this undertaking? ” B was excessively diffident and said nil while A started talking English. She had a immense sum of thoughts about the image to portion with other members while B merely listened to A and nodded her caput. Often, B said “right” , “ok” and looked at me. After talking English for 3 proceedingss, A asked B to take note what she had said. Sometimes, A stopped talking and asked others to show their thoughts. B besides spoke some short vocalizations to back up the narrative. A commented on B and C ‘s sentiments. B about ever agreed with A and she merely kept soundless and looked really nervous to talk English. A and C dominated B while B had no more opportunity to pattern. For illustration, B about ever asked inquiries and read sentences which were written and said really short vocalizations like: “you should alter this word into that word” . Sometimes B suggested new thoughts for the narrative but she was excessively diffident to carry others to hold hence B looked unhappy in her group. After they finished the narrative, A began to chew the fat in Vietnamese with another miss friend at the tabular array behind about a movie on Television that dark while B turned around and exchanged her narratives with other groups in Vietnamese. B wanted to speak but she had no opportunities in her group so she found another whom she could talk with. When the clip was up, I asked each group to state their narrative. When other groups were showing, A did non pay much attending to that. A asked B to show the narrative in forepart of the category when I called them. B was excessively diffident to talk and did non talk fluently and ever looked at her note taking paper. C and A said “no” and they stood up and continued to show their ain thoughts. B sat down and felt more comfy when she did non hold to talk. The undertaking was finished on clip and about all A and B ‘s vocalizations were in English.
After the first category of observation, I asked pupils to be free for 20 proceedingss in the following period to interview in brace. I paired A and B and recorded their conversation to understand about their feelings, troubles and battles of working in groups. I concluded that B felt intimidated when working with person of much better ability although the more fluid pupils sometimes tried to assist their spouses. Furthermore, B could non speak because she made a batch of errors and did non cognize how to state things in English. Although B wanted to speak she thought her friends would laugh at her when she spoke. My lesson was non interesting plenty to promote all pupils to prosecute in talking although the image was really good. Because I did non give adequate demands and account of the undertaking A and B did non understand what they should make in group work. I did non pay much attending to the group organisation, undertaking demand and pupils ‘ apprehension.
A and B got good Markss but they did non like my lesson. A and B did non experience satisfied with the lesson. A said that the lesson was non interesting plenty and should be made clear for all pupils. Nevertheless, B liked to be in groups with A, and other more fluid pupils because she had opportunities to larn from them to broaden her cognition and vocabulary.
After the first observation, I changed my head about my instruction. I though about grounds why my pupils did non prosecute in their groups and decided that I should necessitate them to bring forth a narrative with five or six simple tense and future tense sentences. And I should present this image for all groups as a press release while the chalkboard was used to present pupils ‘ consequences. I should travel around and listen to my pupils and promote them to talk English.
In the following period, I rearranged the desks of the category in a U shaped agreement of groups to let an easy passage to plenary manner. Students grouped by themselves with friends who had the same interesting subjects after they were provided some background cognition of each subject. After roll uping information of observing, I compared the consequences of two Sessionss to happen out differences between A and B in unwritten English eloquence in their groups. I would non give each group the same grade because this was unjust and created competitory groups instead than co-operative groups and wholly defeats the intent of grouping at the first clip. I wrote the subject “favorite places” and asked my pupils for related vocabulary. I made pupils involved in the undertaking. A and B said aloud their vocabulary about this subject. Lan besides mentioned some of her favourite topographic points in Vietnam while Hoa asked me and her friends a batch of clear uping inquiries like “how do we state this word mean in English? ” or “Can you explain once more? ” After that I let my pupil read one short transition about a celebrated topographic point in Vietnam ( see appendix 4 ) without name and asked my pupils to think. A and B were really eager to speak because they had been this topographic point. Later, I asked them to take one image of celebrated topographic points ( see appendix 5 ) to make a conversation to present this topographic point in groups and used as many comparative adjectives as possible. I delivered chosen images for each group and said: “It is no job if you make mistakes because you can larn something through acquiring it wrong.” I asked all pupils to stand up and happen other two spouses to speak with. A and C decided to take the same image to discourse and name another C ‘s friend. B joined in a group of two other friends who besides lived in the rural country and had the same degree of talking English as her. Then they discussed to taking a favourite topographic point to speak about for 15 proceedingss. A had a batch of thoughts to portion with her spouses. A talked aloud and continuously so C and his friend took a bend. A and B felt comfy to speak with equals whom they wanted to speak with. B felt more confident to portion thoughts with others who had the same ability degree. When other friends commented on B ‘ sentiments she besides looked happy and tried her best to negociate. She listened to others and took notes on their thoughts. When B met with troubles she asked me for aid. And I explained and encouraged her work like: “that is good” , “say it again” , “thank you” , “well done” , etc. She encouraged others to speak and commented on their thoughts. She said: “good” , “not suitable” , “you merely believe more about this” . She helped others to hold opportunities to speak. When they had clip left A ‘s group continued to believe more about how they might do their narratives more interesting. When other groups were showing, A and B listened carefully to them. A and B were about eager to show their group ‘s conversation.
Based on all the information, I found that pupils changed their feeling and behaviour when they worked with different spouses. It meant that group organisation played an of import function in developing pupils ‘ English unwritten eloquence. A and B spoke more fluently when they were in groups of the same ability degree. In the 2nd lesson, a safe environment had been achieved where everybody liked to work with each other.In the assorted group, A about did nil while B was loath to talk English. In the 2nd session, when they were in groups with the spouses on the same degree they felt more relaxed to speak. I found that B spoke three times more English when working with pupils of the same ability than when she had more fluid spouses. I concluded that the pupils were motivated to talk English but possibly felts intimidated when working with person of much better ability.
While listening to the taped conversation of the 2nd observation I observed that members of B ‘s group by and large took bends to talk, that no person was dominant, and that they helped each other with vocabulary. The conversations were rather fluid and accurate. B leaned on the tabular array to talk with other spouses. It was ineluctable for my pupils to utilize Vietnamese but it was non much.
However, the taped conversation of the first clip indicated that, although A was really concerted and tried to assist her spouse, she tended to rule the conversation and overcorrect her spouse without giving B much opportunity to speak.
From interviews, I found that my less able pupils liked to utilize English with more fluid spouses when they had to be autonomous, when I was non present, when they were non corrected all the clip, and when they were non being tested or monitored.
Besides, based on the observation and interviews, it could be concluded that the pupils ‘ English unwritten eloquence was besides be influenced by the instructor ‘s readying. In the first lesson, I did non supply adequate accounts, cognition and encouragement to assist them understand and prosecute in talking English. In the 2nd lesson, my pupils felt really excited in talking English when they had adequate vocabulary and involvement in the undertaking.
During this probe, I learned a batch about my pupils ‘ attitudes towards and abilities in utilizing English. Gathering information from the pupils about how they use English was of import to me. I discovered a manner to cover with a category of assorted abilities and found a manner to actuate my less able pupils. This undertaking confirms my beliefs about the value of utilizing group work and has reduced my anxiousness about grouping less able pupils together. I can make different groups for different activities. Depending on the undertaking, I will desire to hold pupils of different accomplishment degrees working together or pupils with the same degree working together. For illustration, a harder undertaking might take me to blend accomplishment degrees, nevertheless a undertaking where result is non an of import end, the instructions are non hard, and the procedure easy to follow, could take to homogenous grouping.
During making this research, I had good support from my pupils because they were familiar with group work in many topics at the beginning of the class. If I do another research following clip, I will ask for another instructor to detect me. I think it is better for me to pay much attending to pupils ‘ behaviour and have another instructor ‘s contemplations on my public presentation in lessons.
Using group work activities in developing pupils ‘ speech production ability is non a new thought in linguistic communication instruction. To sum up, any treatment of advantages and disadvantages of a peculiar thing is comparative. There can be no absolute pros and cons. In my research, I tried to look into the current state of affairs of utilizing group activities in talking category of the first twelvemonth English- major pupils at my English Department of a Vietnamese University. Based on the consequences of observation, interview and the relevant literature reappraisal in chapter two, I did an action research of modified process for planing and implementing group work activities in talking category to see alterations in my pupils ‘ English unwritten eloquence. The chief job the pupils frequently encounter in group work activities reported as their limited unwritten eloquence in group work activities. There were three chief factors which affected pupils ‘ English unwritten eloquence. They included: lingual factor, personality factor and the instructor ‘s process. The most of import findings are that pupils will talk more fluently in a safe environment. Grouping demands to be worked at and ne’er gets better without usage. In the farther research, I will seek to reply how the figure of pupils and gender in each group affects pupils ‘ English unwritten eloquence.