John Fawsitt

181

吉備国際大学研究紀要（人文・社会科学系）
増刊号，181－194，2017

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production
John Fawsitt
Abstract
During language acquisition it is necessary for learners to have opportunities to attempt and practicethe structures they are acquiring. This study deals with the effect of grouping verbally weaker or excluded
students together for small group work on the amount of their oral output and consequently on reinforcing
their language acquisition. It was felt that this policy might relieve them from the pressure of working
with incompatible or incongenial partners and, provide them with the resources of a more accessible andlinguistically equivalent group.
The research was carried out in two stages. The first with randomly assigned groups and then with an
extra group created from members who were felt to have been unable to contribute equally to the previous
work. Throughout the study the groups’ output was recorded. These recordings were examined to see if
there had been any change in the level of contribution of these selected students. The limited amount ofdata yielded seemed to indicate that there was a substantial gain for certain individuals but these results canalso be interpreted as being due to other factors such as accustomisation to the process, variations in taskdifficulty or the approach of the end-of-year assessments.
Key words ：language acquisition, group work, oral output

吉備国際大学外国語学部〒700-0931 岡山県岡山市北区奥田西町5-5
Kibi International University
5 -5, Okuda-Nishimachi,Kita-ku,Okayama, Japan (700-0931)

182

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

Introduction
In language classes that utilise group work as one of the

Besides giving the students opportunities to makemain methods of aiding language acquisition I noticed that inpresentations, do information gaps and other communicative

almost every group there were one or two learners who did

activities I also devoted more than half of class time to groupnot or could not contribute significantly to the interaction andwork in various forms. As this would give them a chance toconsequently were deprived of , or were depriving themselves

learn to control and negotiate their output more independently.

of, opportunities to acquire linguistic proficiency. This is an

At the same it would enable me to aid them more efficiently

attempt to study the effects on their oral output of regrouping

as there would be fewer centres of activity to monitor and thesuch EFL students with others who had also exhibited limited

students would be able to consult each other when they were in

production in their previous groups.

doubt.

Background

Initially I formed the groups based on their previous

The subjects of my research were about 60, 15 to 16-year-

seating proximity in the class as this system might produce

old senior high school students grouped into three classes ofa useful heterogeneity; it being “generally considered

twenty to twenty-two students. These classes were originallyadvantageous to group higher level students with lower level

formed on the basis of academic achievement and goals.

students. The rational is that the higher level students will be

One of the classes ( D ) was meant to be composed of moreable to help the lower level students, as well as themselves. By

academically talented students who wished to follow a sciencedeveloping alternative ways of articulating their ideas, higher

and math based academic track. Another class ( E ) was forlevel are increasing their range of language that can be used in

students who were stronger in literature and language. The

a particular situation.” (Cutrone, p75). However “Homogeneous

third class, ( C ) was theoretically meant to be composed ofgrouping (according to language proficiency or other factors)

less scholastically able or focussed students. However there

can ease classroom management but can create group labellingwere many exceptions to these criteria in each class and there

problems and inhibit learner-to-learner tutoring opportunities”

were great gaps between motivation levels. Finally there were(Olsen & Kagan, 1992) in Oxford (1997 p.446).

some students who struggled to meet the school’s scholastic

I also felt it would save class time that might otherwise

requirements. I met them in oral communication classes heldbe spent moving around the classroom as they searched andonce a week over the school year. Due to the various eventsnegotiated for seating. Also it prevented the occurrence ofand national holidays that pepper the academic calendar there

students “embarrassment of not being chosen for a group” as

was a disparity in the number of times each group met.

one of Leki’s (2001 p.49) subjects ‘Ling’ worried. Luckily
my class room was designed to hold forty-eight students so

The objective of the course was one of “general English

there was ample space for a clear gap between each group.

proficiency”. Two teachers were in charge: a native speaking

Each class was divided into groups named after colours: blue,

Japanese teacher and myself. We taught each class alternately

yellow, pink, and green; with five or six members each. Thisin separate classrooms and as the native speaking partner I was

was suitable for our first activity which was a job interview

expected to provide the students with oral practice.

role play with members interviewing students from othergroups and going and being interviewed in their turn; asJohn Fawsitt

183

the large group size allowed them to split the burden of thethe other members. I then thought that it might be due to a lackactivity enabling them to take and update notes for their finalof English knowledge or communication skills on the part ofconclusion as other members asked questions. However forthese students but, on looking at their written work I could notother activities this was too large and unwieldy a number ofsay this was always the case as some were well above average

students to allow for satisfactory participation. Perhaps as

and others well below. Also as I often specified that the object

Cohen and Intili (1981) in Cohen (1994, p29) “Learning toof the class was communication and increased fluency ratherdelegate authority to groups is not an easy task for teachers”

than accuracy I thought that weaker students might feel more

and that I along with other teachers was unconsciously “afraid

at ease using English. ‘Rex’ one of the quiet students studiedof losing control of the classroom and thus reduced the number

by Townsend and Fu said “I don’t understand what’s going onof groups so that they could use direct supervision.” I alsoso I can’t say anything.”(Townsend and Fu 1998, p.14) but asbecame aware of the possibility that “Random grouping orin this class the use of the students own language was allowedinterest-based grouping can provide a perception of fairness,and everything was freely translated, their disengagement

although it can also create possible incompatibilities and "loser

cannot be exclusively blamed on a lack of comprehension.

teams" (Olsen & Kagan, 1992) in Oxford (1997 p.446).

On closer inspection a common point seemed to be that they
did not enjoy an equal relationship with the other group

Problems
As the term progressed I saw that some of the lessmembers. They seemed on the whole to be less extroverted andcommunicative than their co-members( In other words quieter).

motivated students did not feel that the oral work they did
would have any great effect on their term-end scores as they

I feel this phenomenon of unintegrated students is veryneed only communicate in the target language while I was

important if group work is to have a successful outcome forwithin earshot. Thus it proved difficult to keep them fully on-

all concerned. Young learners particularly seem to be moretask. On the other hand any written work that these activities

influenced by the people or ‘whos’ in their lives rather thangave rise to or that had been given as a different task was

the objectives and methods, the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’. I clearlycompleted to a much more satisfactory degree.

remember from my own secondary school days that it was the
personalities of my teachers that influenced my attitude to class

Especially I had become concerned about thoserather than the content of the subject.

students (one or two in every group) that did not seem to be“While students’ ages, levels of competence in the L2, andcontributing much to the discussion and planning of the work

experience working in groups certainly have a large impact;

and who also seemed to have been able to contribute less thanlearners’ personalities and attitudes perhaps have the greatest

the other group members towards the final product. My initialon what happens in the group” (Wright 1987) in Cutrone (2002

impression was that they were simply slipstreaming behind, p74)

the effort of the other group members. They could often be

In some cases the gap was extreme with a person ofidentified by their sitting slightly apart from, or turned away

retiring nature working with students who showed a great deal

from the rest of the group, by their absences from the groupof immaturity and aggressiveness. In other cases the quieter

area to go and speak to other students and, occasionally by themember was sometimes extremely withdrawn and refused to

odd instance of bullying or abuse they received from or gave

cooperate or even participate in the task. I inferred from their

184

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

interaction or lack of it, that this situation was not limited

for learning. Collaborative learning is more philosophicallyto oral English class, but was probably the ordinary state oforiented, with the goal of acculturating students into theaffairs. I was reluctant to change the focus of the class fromimmediate community of learners and the wider worldgroup work yet at the same time had to take some steps toof the target language and culture. Interaction is a varied

salvage the course for these alienated students.

and broad concept related to a number of key themes, andrefers to personal communication, which is facilitated by an

Taking this statement by Jane Townsend that “Theunderstanding of four elements: language tasks, willingness tointeraction of individual personalities and preconceived

communicate, style differences, and group dynamics.” Oxford

attitudes toward fellow students apparently has a powerful(1997, p452) She goes on to state that cooperative learning

influence on attention and interest. Fear of peers' judgment may

is seen as the most common form of learning but that they

be another reason why some students shrink from speaking

overlap considerably in the language classroom.

out.” (1998, p.78) as identifying the most likely reason for these
problems I decided to experiment with group composition to
see what, if any, change occurred in the student output.

In a study of the efficacy of group work in providing
opportunities to restructure communication Teresa Pica (1987)
found that in the area of group decision making where, free

Literature Review

from the dominating presence of the language-expert teacher,Group work as a method for fostering language learning

she expected to find an atmosphere fostering negotiation of

appears to be well established. The literature appears to havemeaning, she instead found a new hierarchy had arisen. “Themoved away from research trying to prove or estimate its

more verbally assertive students monopolized the interaction

worth compared to other systems of organisation such as

which led to what only appeared to be a ‘group decision.”teacher based presentation and pair work, and towards attempts

and that, “Typically the less linguistically proficient students

to discover the factors and conditions necessary for successful

participated infrequently, with considerable gaps between

or optimal group work, the performance of individual students

speaking turns, while the more expressive students supplied

within the group. Research also seems to be concerned with themost of the talk and took most of the turns.” (Pica 1987, p15)

question of equality. “A thorough search of the recent research

In the end as a generator of real interaction she found simply

literature reveals that numerous studies have progressed beyond

asking the students to work as a group inferior to information

the black box approach to one in which various features ofgaps in providing opportunities for students to communicate ascooperative learning are manipulated so as to highlight theequals.

importance of particular conditions for success on different
kinds of instructional outcomes.” Cohen (1994, p2)“In actual practice, the role relationships shaped bydecision-making did not motivate students to … participate
at all.The result was also disturbing because activities like theRebecca Oxford in a very, for me, informative article
clarifies certain terms by arguing “that cooperative learning,decision-making discussion … have become extremely popularin classrooms” Pica (1987, p.16)

collaborative learning, and interaction are three strands in thecommunicative L2 classroom. Cooperative learning refers

Elizabeth Cohen (1994) in a major article dealing withprimarily to an array of highly structured goals and techniques

studies of group work across various subjects such as math,John Fawsitt

185

computer studies, and the social sciences; on examining the

These findings are supported by research undertaken

conditions and modifications to instructions and interaction

by Anderson and Kilduff (2009) as reported in TIME (2009,

necessary to achieve desired outcomes found that “TheMarch, p.41) We allow “dominant individuals attain influence

research reviewed also suggests that it is necessary to treat

because they behave in ways that make them appear more

problems of status within small groups engaged in group tasks

competent along both task and social dimensions—even whenwith ill-structured problems.” Also while group work is “a way

they actually lack competence”. Anderson and Kilduff (2009,

to manage academic heterogeneity in classrooms with a wide

p 492) Or, as one catchy headline put it, “A new study showsrange of achievement in basic skills.” (Cohen 1994, p.1) there

leadership is often just loudership” TIME (2009, March, p.41).

is a necessity of ensuring the tasks assigned are true group
tasks. If they can be completed as individuals then weaker

Zoltan Dörnyei in a later article in The Modern Language

students will be side lined and get little benefit from interacting

Journal 81 (1997) on the psychological aspects of cooperativewith their stronger counterparts. She also goes on to say thatlearning cites group cohesiveness as “one of the mostequal rates of participation are signs of productivity for thoseimportant attributes of the successful communicative languageof us who are trying to foster attitudes of equality towards

class.”(Dörnyei 1997, p.485). In the cooperative learning

other language users.

setting, factors which promote this are said to be built into
the process itself as effective group work includes an element

One study cited by Cohen that I found particularlyof positive interdependence. Citing work with Clément andinteresting was carried out by Dembo and McAuliffe (1987) in

Noels, (1994) Dörnyei contends that cohesiveness also raises

which certain students were publicly credited with fictitious,

motivation and decreases “the likelihood of ‘free-riding andhigher than average scores. These same students then wentsocial loafing’ “(p.488).

on to dominate their group interaction even though they did
not really possess superior ability. The researchers “created an

However Dörnyei’s examination of Johnson and Johnson

artificial distinction of average and above-average ability with

(1995) shows that this is not an automatic phenomenon. It often

a bogus test of problem-solving ability, described as relevant to

has to be set in motion by a teacher or other leadership figure.

an upcoming experimental task. Higher status students (defined“As Johnson and Johnson state ‘We are not born instinctively

as those publicly assigned above- average scores on the bogus

knowing how to interact effectively with others. Interpersonaltest) dominated group interaction on the experimental task,

and group skills do not appear magically when they are

were more influential, and were more likely to be perceived asneeded.’ ”(Johnson and Johnson 1995; in Dörnyei 1997 p.484)

leaders than low status students. Academic status is the most

They also “mention three other conditions necessary for the

powerful of the status characteristics in the classroom because

effectiveness of CL: individual accountability, mastery ofof its obvious relevance to classroom activities. In respondingsocial skills, and regular group processing. They argue that CL

to hypothetical learning groups on a questionnaire, students

works best when the group rewards for learning are combined

were much more likely to approve of leadership behaviour onwith individual accountability (Johnson &Johnson, 1995; inthe part of a good student than on the part of whites or males

Dörnyei 1997, p484)(McAuliffe, 1991; in Cohen 1997, p.23).
Leki (2001) citing numerous authorities states that “K-186

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

12 researchers have concluded that, to succeed, group workup taking responsibility, leading to unequal workloads andmust be carefully structured; the students must be thoroughly

sometimes dissatisfaction with the intervention process.”

prepared through social skill-building activities; assignments(Rambo and Matheson 2003, p.16) and to ensure equality ofmust be open-ended rather than have pre-set answers; and theparticipation in their presentation course by assigning clearlytask must be such that a group rather than only an individual isdefined yet mutually complementary coordinating roles totruly required to accomplish it.”(Leki 2001, p.41) She then goeseach participant, and also by boosting teacher awareness of

on to say to focus on the area of social /academic skill building

the group’s internal situation by requiring each coordinator toas being vital to successful outcomes in this area. In a very

submit ongoing reports as part of their assessment portfolio;

empathetic account of the experiences of non-native English

thereby providing the instructors with insights into the

speaking students(NNES) doing academic group work withconditions prevailing in each group. The researchers themselves

native speaking peers, Leki found that negative experiences on

saw improvement in the end-product; the presentations

their part were not uncommon. Referring to Toohey and Day’s

themselves, being “on the whole clearer, more intensively(1999) work, it appeared that group work “afforded bilingual

researched and analysed,” (Rambo and Matheson 2003, p.20)

children only ambiguous access to community language

However they also acknowledged the paradox that the moreresources” (Leki 2001, p.41) Subjects in Leki’s study found thatindependence monolingual language-learning groups get, theeven before the groups had a chance to cohere their potential

greater the likelihood that they will use their mother tongue forparticipation was limited by doubts harboured by their native

higher level conceptual thinking.

speaking comrades about their ability to make a “significant
contribution” (Leki 2001, p47). They were consequently side

Articles by Jane S. Townsend (1998) alone and in

lined while most of the work was done by more confident andpartnership with Danling Fu (1998), while dealing with wholeassertive speakers even though the targets of that work were notclass discussion, draw attention to the personal reasons for

specifically language related. Even in more friendly groups themany students’ seeming failure to participate fully. They list

NNESs were automatically placed in the mode of “peripheralcultural and self-confidence issues, “all six students worriedparticipants”, “apprentices” (Leki 2001, p48) rather than fully

that they might appear publicly foolish” (Townsend and Fu

fledged group members. While recognising the enthusiasm and1998, p.11), as well as personal hostility to other participants as

skill of the teachers in designing group tasks Leki sees the lackmajor causes. However lack of time to formulate thoughts andof appropriate social skill building before undertaking the tasks

language, whether they were native or L2 speaking students,

as obviating their goals.

“each student was especially oppressed by the need to thinkand speak quickly.”(p.4) was cited as the most influential factor.

For Rambo and Matheson (2003) in their study which

Giving time, pre-writing exercises and “a chance to rehearse

refers frequently to Leki’s “The causes of the problems

their thinking by talking with a congenial partner” (Townsend

for the underperforming groups seemed to be rooted in the

1998, p.79) are among the main measures they suggest to help

group dynamics as well as difficulties in understanding andquiet students express themselves.

conceptualizing the project process” (Rambo and Matheson
2003, p.11)They sought to avoid the problems of it being

Finally Pino Cutrono in the early in the century working“usually the most competent person in the group who ends

in an EFL context. while acknowledging that the value ofJohn Fawsitt

187

communicative teaching is recognised in professional circles inon as they performed the task or they created multiple empty

Japan, also points out that many students and teachers have yet

and garbled recordings with no indication as to which was

to realise group work’s potential as a legitimate way to learn

the final version. These problems lessened as they grew moreand echoes Townsend and Fu’s findings that peer discussion

accustomed to using them. But there were still instances where

may not be immediately translatable to any cultural context. .

work was lost due to oversight or technical failure.

Research Process

Another drawback to the handheld devices was thatsome students placed their mouths too close to the built in

The first stage of my research involved leaving the groups

microphones, overwhelming them and generating a deafening

from the previous tasks unchanged and setting new tasks thatstatic-like noise. While this was annoying and sometimes madeinvolved making audio recordings of their own output. This

individual words hard to make out it did not interfere with mywas to provide some examples against which to assess any

comprehension of the overall meaning of any sentence and aschanges in production that might occur later on. I also thought

the object of the task was not dependent on high sound qualitythat creating actual copies of their oral work would motivate

this was arguably a peripheral issue.

the students to take it more seriously.
Perhaps the greatest disadvantage was that the recorders
I opted to use hand held digital voice recorders as thewere not equipped with speakers. This would have had aalternative would have been to move the class to the school’s

serious impact in that they could not evaluate and give eachlanguage laboratory which would not always be available

other feedback on their output as to whether it should be

and which had fixed seating that obstructed the formation of

repeated or modified. To solve this problem I provided eachgroups. These devices on the other hand are extremely flexible

group with a pair of earphones so that two could listen to thein that they are easily transported to the classroom and can berecording at a time. This led to some delays as they were passed

handed around and manipulated by the students; eliminatingaround from pair to pair. This was the most serious deficiency

the need for switching around chairs or clearing of spaces toin the class overall I feel. The lack of a product for them toplace the device. These recorders also had the virtue of being

listen to as a group limited the mutual satisfaction they derived

different colours making it easy to identify which recorderfrom completing the tasks. This weakened the development of

belonged to which group by matching their colours.

group cohesion by depriving them of an amount of the feeling

To try to lessen any stage-fright, nerves, or reticence theirof “successful completion of whole group tasks” listed aspresence might generate I introduced them as being far lessfactor aiding the development of such spirit in Dörnyei (1997:

sophisticated and far cheaper and shoddier than the i-pods®

p486). Despite these drawbacks, the response of the students toand mobile phones they themselves brought to school every

the recorders was at first as I had hoped, with a lot more of theday (against the rules).

interaction within the groups directed toward the recording andextracting a greater amount of spoken English.

The major difficulty with these devices was teaching thestudents how to operate them easily. Sometimes they handed

The tasks were chosen on the basis that they could

the device in with nothing recorded as it had not been switchedbe performed, based on the students’ own knowledge and188

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

creativity; without the need for extensive research or materials.

The fifth task was a report about some aspects of life inJapan.

The first task involved making a radio advertisement for
their school.

The sixth was a report on young people’s lives comparedto those of young people forty years ago.

The second task was to make a documentary about

The seventh and final task was one where they were given

any serious issue they chose. The most popular being thea ghost story written in Japanese and each student was allowed

environment.The third task was one based on an incident wheretwenty-five minutes to write out a translation. Then when thea man had been led off a train at the local railway station by atime was up their translation was taken in for marking. Thengroup of plain clothes police officers or gangsters. They had totheir group had to record an oral version of the story fromre-enact this incident based on their interpretation of its cause,

memory within twenty minutes.

its aftermath and then give a news style report about it. This
turned into a rather rumbunctious activity.

For each of these tasks it was stressed that they could
practise and record and erase as many times as they liked until

It was at this stage I decided to alter the composition of

they were satisfied with the final version. They were also told

the groups. This was done in the following way; I informedthat not only content but also aspects of their delivery suchthe students that there was to be a new group formed, namedas, pronunciation, and intonation were important. Finally the‘Group Platinum’ after the colour of the remaining recorderstudents were instructed that each recording had to be made(which was actually grey). This group was especially forwithout using the pause button. This last stipulation was aimed

those who had not had a chance to participate as much as theat keeping their production in real time conditions.

others. I initially said any one who felt they fit this description
could volunteer. If there were no volunteers I said they could

In the earlier tasks I would introduce and describe thediscuss and decide within the group. If this failed to produce

task in the latter half of one class, give them a chance to ask

a candidate I said I would select the person myself. Therequestions, discuss it, assign roles among themselves andwas some hesitation even resistance to this proposal as a few

to get started preparing for it by looking up vocabulary or

students felt that to volunteer might draw attention to theirstarting to write a script. A week later in the next class I would

weaker position and loss of face. Both the first two stages of

distribute the recorders to the groups and let them commence.

the process were undertaken however reluctantly, but the group

I did the work over this time scale to give them enough time

discussion option produced far fewer than the other stages.

complete the work to their own satisfaction as they got used

Some students refused even when nominated.

to the devices and the process of recording. Unfortunately agreat many students did not use the time available to them andWhen one platinum group had been composed in eachclass, the recording cycle was restarted.

delayed their completion of the written part of the task until
just before the assignments were to be handed in, and thenmade just a cursory effort at recording. This prevented other

The fourth task was one where they would have to record

students from rehearsing, practising their pronunciation anda report dealing with some aspect of the Japanese educational

making and remaking the recordings as much as they wanted

system.

to.

John Fawsitt

189

minute and less than three minutes. I said that while exceeding
In the latter half of the course I compressed the time

the limit would incur no penalty, falling short would. I alsoavailable until the whole process would have to be completed

stipulated that as far as possible each person in the group mustwithin one class period. This gave them less time to squanderfeature in the recording as equally as circumstances allowed.

and perhaps led to more justifiable and probably more natural

The end- of-period bell was the sign for the recorders to be

and beneficial ad-libbing and recasting on their part. However

handed in. The recordings were then transferred to a computer

to answer the problem of loafing students I re-introduced aand examined to determine the extent of each member’s

compulsory written element where the students had twenty-fiveproduction.

minutes to compose what they wanted to say. Whether in point

The total time when recording seemed to be being actively

form, Japanese, or full script. I like to let the students write out

attempted was measured in seconds. Next the least integrated

and compose what they want to say for many reasons among

seeming students’ recording time was identified by voice andwhich are according to Townsend and Fu (1998, p.16), “Writing

calculated as a percentage of the total. After these students

before and after class discussions may clarify important issues

entered platinum group all of the platinum members’ times

and give students courage to speak out. Writing gives students awere then estimated. When it came to assessing the production

chance to articulate ideas that might otherwise remain vague.”of the students, I took into account not only the amount of timeeach spent speaking, but also for how long each had control

When the twenty-five minutes were up I would circulateof the voice recorder. This I felt could be reflective of his

and stamp all worksheets that showed signs of effort theseassimilation into the group, as someone who is not accepted

would then be assigned bonus points after all sheets wereas an equal by his peers might feel pressure not to take upcollected at the end of the class. This was designed to reward

too much time with the recorder. It also may indicate how

good use of time and effort and to try to focus them on

confident and relaxed the student felt in his group.

concentrated oral production. I then handed out the recorders
for the last twenty minutes of the class. After introducing and

Finally in the last class I asked each group to complete an

demonstrating the task the only condition I would stipulate wasanonymous survey of their feelings about the course’s groupthat the final recording should be ideally one of at least one

work.

Results
Platinum Students Active Participation in Recording

190

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

Percentage of Group Speaking Time Taken by Platinum Group Across Tasks
Recording
Name
1C

1D

1E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Masahiko

20

19.6

0

22.1

0

17

3.8

Takuma

16.7

10.6

0

32.1

25.4

21.2

25

Ken

16

3.9

0

23.6

34.1

21.2

12.5

Takashi

29.3

8

0

25

38.9

18.2

7

Hirokazu

16.7

21.7

14.8

15.1

17.1

24.3

0

Kento

15.8

21.3

37.5

29.7

28.6

20.5

97.8

Tatsuya

16.7

22.2

8

17.8

35.7

25.4

2.2

Takeshi

0

21.3

25.6

35.7

16.7

18.9

0

Wataru

19.2

11.5

12.5

29.3

25

20.5

12.6

Syota

0

17.4

29.4

24.4

20.8

30.8

19.1

Shun

0

9.5

12

19.5

16.7

20.5

13.2

Teita

14.3

24.2

6.7

19.5

37.5

28.2

14.7

Total

164.7

191.4

146.4

294.1

296.5

266.8

208

Average Participation

13.7236

15.95

12.2

24.51

24.7

22.2

17.3297

Discrepancies between group speaking time and the sum

Though on listening to some of the recordings I was surprisedof individual speaking times can be attributed to periods whenat how much and how interesting the work some of thetwo or more students were speaking at the same time, one madestudents whom I had felt were most marginalised, (for example

a brief intervention or a student was asking for or rendering aid

Takeshi), had done.

to another student.

This indicates that many aspects of a student can gounnoticed by the teacher; especially if the student is of aInterpretations
At first glance there seems to have been a marked
increase in the average amount of production, with the lowest

retiring disposition. This is perhaps the corollary of Rambo andMatheson’s (2003, p12) observation that the “dysfunctions of
the group process were hidden” from the teacher.

percentage being registered by ‘Incident’ which was meant tobe a role play. This is largely accounted for by the instructions

The three activities with the highest levels of production,

given to class C being not clear enough, horseplay on the part

(education, young people, and life in Japan),were the ones thatof some groups, and failure to hand in a recording by one

after initial discussion of division of labour, demanded the leastgroup. Zero was scored in class D in the ghost story, where

teamwork with each student then concentrating on writing

Kento did 98% of the telling after being nominated by thehis own section of the report. The lower percentages are to beothers to do so and Tatsuya made only a brief interjection.

found in the tasks which depended on more collaboration withTakeshi and Masahiko’s zeros can generally be accounted
for by their having withdrawn and shy personas respectively.

team mates (commercial, incident and ghost story).

John Fawsitt

191

While we also must take into account the fact that any

While there had been an improvement in their speed ofincrease in percentage of the output might solely be due toundertaking the task and quantity of the material oral or written

increasing familiarity with making recordings, we must also

they produced. I have not detected any similar change in theremember that the reassigned students were working with newquality of their oral production nor in their awareness of thepartners and were having to once again try to find their own

language. They do however appear more relaxed with Shunplace or role within their new group.

swearing to himself as he tried to remember the ghost story andTeita chuckling to himself ironically.
End of Course Group Work Survey
2nd

3rd

1 Which was more enjoyable the 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

56

2. Which did you work harder in the 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

1

10

3. Which had better team work the 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

65

4. Which recordings were better the 2nd or 3rd term’s?

4

7

The results of the end of course survey while generally

I also find that the range of tasks provided were nottending to show more satisfaction with the third term’s work,

carefully thought about enough with a view to providing

show that a slight majority found the team work in their old

uniform data. It would perhaps have been better to order thegroup was superior. Again for general enjoyableness the third

tasks according to how much cooperation or extroversion theyterm was favoured by only a small margin; perhaps this isdemanded.

connected to their answer to question two where almost all feltthat they had had to do more.

Summary and Conclusions
Noticing that some students in my high school classes

I included a small space for the students to comment

seemed to be estranged from their groups and consequently did

freely, in their L1 or English on the group work. Most

not contribute or gain as much from group work as their peers.

expressed satisfaction, however one respondent expressed

I decided to see if whether removing them from these groups

strong displeasure at being ‘forced’ into platinum.

and placing them in a group of students with similar groupprofiles would lead to any increase in their oral production

One factor that cannot be discounted is the progression of

I embarked on a course of tasks aimed at creating audio

the school year towards its final examinations and assessment’s

recordings that might provide evidence of any change in theinfluence on student production. Several students, for example

level of oral production elicited from these students.

Tatsuya, were put on notice by their homeroom teachers thatthey would be kept back a year if their grades did not improve.

My next step was to initiate my study by gathering audio

While this kind of background may not vitiate the researchdata from several classes of existing groups among whose

entirely it does have a great influence on student performance.

members there were students who seemed unassimilated. I then

192

Effect of Grouping Lower Output Learners on Oral Production

moved these students to a new group (platinum) and continued

ten classes and fifty groups. I carefully sorted and filed themto record their output.

according to class and group. When I eventually came toanalyse them I found I had accumulated over fourteen hours of

The data shows a definite increase in their contributions

recordings I embarked on their analysis and found that between

however several factors mitigate against this being

work and family I did not have nearly enough time to getcompletely reliable data. Firstly there was a large amountthrough it all. I then had to reduce the scope of my research toof task difference, then increasing fluency in the use of thejust the three classes that had provided the most consistent data

recorders and accustomisation to the recording cycle increased

and spread of student ability. I have learned as a researcher

productivity anyway, and finally student consciousness of the

not to bite off more than I can chew and to think through theneed to perform academically was raised by out of class forces.

process keeping in mind the more practical issues that might

Based on literature written on this area that I was ablearise along the way.

to find, it is clear that personal relationships and identity
are recognised as important factors in language acquisition

I have also come to realise the difficulty of achieving

affecting learners working in groups and that group dynamics

laboratory like conditions to produce reliable data vis a vis

is a rich and vibrant field of linguistic study. The consensus

language acquisition. The everyday bedlam of a class ofamong researchers seems to be that people can not be justteenage boys does not readily lend itself to cool observation.

expected to work together they have to be taught how to

Impressions (which are frequently misleading) have to bethrough social and cooperative skill building activities.

taken on the fly. Perhaps this merely reflects the true nature ofReflections

our work, where we work with myriad personalities in infinite

In my efforts at research I focussed primarily on

combinations; some happy, and some not.

accumulating a large mass of data via audio recordings from

Appendix : End of Year Survey
Class

Group

1. Which was more enjoyable
the 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

the 2nd or 3rd term’s?

Comments on group work: English or 日本語。
Answer

3. Which had better team work
the 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

AnswerAnswer

2. Which did you work harder inthe 2nd or 3rd term’s group work?

4. Which recordings were better

Answer

John Fawsitt

193

Bibliography
ANDERSON Cameron; KILDUFF Gavin J.

Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The

competence-signaling effects of trait dominance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 96(2), February 2009, pp. 491503
COHEN Elizabeth G. ( 1994 )Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups, Review of Educational

Research Spring 1994, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1-35
CUTRONE Pino

Using Group Work to Facilitate Speaking in an Oral English Class in Japan: A consideration of the Positive

Benefits of such an Approach. Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies (Nagasaki Gaidai Ronsou) Vol.4(2002 12 30) pp. 67-77
長崎外国語大学 ISSN:13464981長崎外大論叢第４号 (Downloaded from NII-Electronic Library Service)
DöRNYEI Zoltan (1997)

Psychological Processes in Cooperative Language Learning: Group Dynamics and Motivation

The Modern Language Journal 81
KLUGER Jeffrey (2009)
LEKI Ilona (2001)

Why Bosses Tend to be Blowhards. TIME March 16, p.41
“A Narrow Thinking System”: Nonnative-English-Speaking Students in Group Projects Across the

Curriculum TESOL Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring
OXFORD Rebecca L. (1997)

Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning and Interaction: Three Communicative Strands inthe Language Classroom The Modern Language Journal, 81, iv
PICA Teresa (1987)

Second-Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom Applied Linguistics, Vol. 8, No. 1 ©

Oxford University Press,
RAMBO Eric & MATHESON Neil (2003)

The Effect of “Coordinator Roles on Student Group-Work Productivity” Kwansei

Gakuin University Journal of Policy Studies No14 MarchTOWNSEND Jane S. (1998)

Silent Voices: What Happens to Quiet Students During Classroom Discussions? English Journal

February
TOWNSEND Jane S. & FU Danling (1998)
October

Quiet Students across Cultures and Contexts English Education, Vol. 312, No. 1