California State University, Long Beach

Many foreign language educators advocate the use of group work for a variety of reasons. (For the purpose of this paper, the term group work refers to the classroom dynamic in which the class is divided into groups of two to four students working together on a common task). Omaggio (1986), for example, supports the use of group work in the foreign language classroom for communicative practice, making three pedagogical claims: group work provides students with more opportunities to practice the language; it takes some of the pressure off students who may feel intimidated in a whole-class setting, and it can increase the quality of communication. Long and Porter (1985), in an excellent review of related research, find much support for the three pedagogical arguments cited above. They point out that in addition to these arguments, group work has been shown to provide a greater variety of language practice, to help to individualize instruction, and to increase student motivation.

Long and Porter also offer support for using small groups because of the increased amount of negotiation shown in studies examining interlanguage talk, or conversation of non-native speakers. Hatch (1983) and other researchers argue that learners must be active participants when being addressed in the second or foreign language. In other words, learners must act as true conversational partners by exhibiting such behaviors as nodding, rephrasing, and asking for clarification. Doughty and Pica (1986) find that English as a second language (ESL) students show more negotiation for meaning in small groups than in traditional teacher-fronted, wholeclass settings. Yet Long and Porter caution that the type of task performed in group work is essential in matters such as negotiation. In previous work, Long (1981), also using adults studying ESL, found that required two-way tasks produce significantly more negotiation work than one-way tasks. An example of a one-way task is a student describing a picture to the class or to group members. An example of a common two-way task is that of decision-making. Studies have made distinctions between two-way tasks when, for example, decisions were reached by students in a wholeclass or small-group setting democratically (= a voluntary two-way task), and when each student in a group had specific information to report and based on that information, a group decision could be reached (= a required two-way task). In a Pica and Doughty (1985) study, students in small groups working on a voluntary two-way task showed more participation than the teacher-fronted setting, but no difference in negotiation behaviors was shown between the two learning settings. Yet in a later study, these researchers found that a required two-way task produced significantly more participation and negotiation behaviors than when the students were in the teacher-fronted setting (Doughty and Pica 1986).

The aforementioned studies have shown that group work promotes more participation than teacher -fronted work (with students acting independently) when a two-task is voluntary, and even more participation as well as   —181→   negotiation when the task requires the participation of all group members. Yet in these studies, the effects of group versus individual work on achievement were not tested. To my knowledge the only study testing this issue in the field of foreign language research was that of Kersemeier (1980). Using high school students studying Spanish, Kersemeier examined whether or not students participating in a series of small-group interaction activities would develop better conversational skills than students in traditional classes. His experiment involved 71 students in four equivalent classes, two experimental (small groups) and two control (regular classes, with students acting individually). Oral evaluations (of comprehension, response, structure, and pronunciation) of all subjects revealed no significant differences between the classes for achievement variables. Although student achievement on oral evaluations favored the experimental classes, it was not significant.

The Kersemeier study showed no difference in effect by learning setting on achievement of oral evaluations that stressed accuracy. Although group work has not been shown to be better than individual work on oral accuracy tasks, it would be interesting to examine if it has positive effects on the achievement of written tasks, specifically requiring grammatical accuracy. Many foreign language professionals (see, for example, Omaggio) suggest the following as one pedagogical approach in dealing with the study of grammar: a grammatical point is studied first by the student at home, then discussed by the teacher in class, and then the students are given an opportunity to discuss the grammatical point and work on related exercises among themselves in pairs or small groups. By this suggestion, it is assumed that by talking and working together, the students will better understand the grammatical point, and will do better on exercises, exhibiting greater grammatical accuracy. Yet is working in small groups or pairs actually beneficial for this type of activity? Or is it an activity that is better performed individually? The following study was conducted to examine this classroom approach to foreign language learning, and specifically, to examine the achievement of college-level students studying Spanish on selected grammatical and lexical topics in one of two learning settings: small groups and individuals. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the preference of these learners for the two learning settings. The study was conducted , therefore, to help evaluate the role of group work in the Spanish language classroom.

Subjects

The subjects of this study were 18 university-level students at the University of Texas at Austin, enrolled in one section of a first-semester Spanish course in the Summer, 1984. Summer courses last five weeks and meet three hours a day, five days a week.

Several instruments were used to assess relevant background characteristics of the subjects such as language learning aptitude, general aptitude, and prior study of foreign language. Language aptitude was measured by the Short Form of the MLAT, a standardized test of language aptitude¹¹⁶. (For details of the MLAT, see Carroll and Sapon 1959). General aptitude was measured by the subjects' SAT Verbal scores. Background in prior study of foreign language was elicited by a questionnaire developed by the experimenter.

Materials

The textbook used in all beginning Spanish classes at the University of Texas at Austin was Castells and Lionetti (1983), La lengua española. The grammatical and lexical topics covered in the course coincided in sequence with those presented in the textbook. For almost all of the grammatical and lexical topics studied, the experimenter provided the students with homework assignments, which usually included exercises with accompanying answers. Of the grammatical and lexical topics covered in the course, only ten were selected for use in the study. The ten topics were:

1. saber vs. conocer

2. indirect object pronouns

3. pedir vs. preguntar

4. gustar-type verbs

5. indirect and direct object pronouns

6., 7., 8. preterit vs. imperfect

Three different testing formats:

#6 -paragraph in English, identify if underlined words would be preterit or imperfect if in Spanish;

#7 -fill-in Spanish sentences and short paragraph with appropriate verb forms;

#8 -fill-in lengthy Spanish paragraph with appropriate verb forms

9. reflexives

10. hacer with time expressions.

In addition, four other «dummy» topics were   —182→   covered, but these were not used in the study. For all topics, the students were given a homework assignment with the answers provided. On the following day, the students were given a practice sheet to be completed in a small group or individually, depending on their assignment. After completing the practice sheets, the entire class was given a quiz, which contained new questions of the same type presented in the homework assignment and practice sheet. Each of the grammatical and lexical topics was later tested on sections of one-hour exams taken in the whole-class arrangement.

At the end of the course, the students were given a questionnaire developed by the experimenter on which they were asked to rank their preference for working in small groups or individually.

Design

The study was designed for a two group learning approach. Based on the results of the MLAT, students of each ability level (high n = 6; medium, n = 8; and low, n = 4) were randomly assigned to one of the two learning settings. Eight students were assigned to work in the individual setting, working independently of one another. Ten students were assigned to work in groups. The group setting was comprised of two or three small groups of two to four students in each small group. An attempt was made for each small group to have one high-ability student, one or two medium-ability students, and one low-ability student. Due to occasional absenteeism, each small group did not consistently have one subject from each of the three ability levels. However, each small group did have at least one subject from at least two of the ability levels. The individuals comprising each small group varied from lesson to lesson so that students would not find themselves always working with the same people. Those assigned to the small-group setting were told to work together as much as possible on the grammatical and lexical topics, making the activity a voluntary, two-way task.

Of the 25 class sessions, parts of 10 days were used for the actual study. Four other «dummy» practices were also interspersed in the course, whereby the students assigned to the individual setting worked in small groups, and vice-versa. In this manner all subjects had experience working in both learning settings.

Procedure

The activities for this beginning Spanish course were commonplace to many foreign language classrooms, varying from teacher-led discussion and explanation of vocabulary, themes, grammar, and culture, to student-centered activities such as group work for discussion, games, and vocabulary practice. During all of these activities, a tape-recorder was used. The constant presence of the audio-recorder was used so that students would not be certain which activity of the class was actually used in the experiment and, consequently, would not act in an unnatural manner. The students were not told that only certain segments of the class would be used in the study. A questionnaire administered at the end of the course revealed that only 5 of the 18 students assumed that the topic of the experiment was that of group vs. individual work. Of the five, three said that the experimenter had a bias in favor of small-group work.

First Week of Class. The first day of class the students were told that a dissertation study was to be conducted by their teacher using them as subjects; and that in order to remain in the course, they would have to sign a form, consenting to participate in the study. All students signed the form. The students were also told that at all times the class would be audio-recorded. They were not informed of the topic or purpose of the study.

During the first week of class, background information was elicited from the students. The MLAT Short Form was administered. The students were given a questionnaire to determine prior study of foreign language.

In addition to providing background information, all subjects practiced working in small groups with tape-recorders.

Learning Settings

For each of the 10 selected grammatical and lexical topics, all students were given a homework sheet with exercises; and the answers to the exercises. On the following class day, the teacher briefly summarized the major points presented in the homework, answered questions, and divided the students into the individual setting and the group setting.

Individual Setting. The students assigned to the individual setting went to an adjacent classroom. There the teacher or a helper gave them a practice sheet identical to the one   —183→   given the students in the small groups. Students in the individual setting were told that they could consult their books or notes, but not each other. The time allotted to complete the practice sheet, which varied from 8 to 18 minutes, was about the same for the individuals and the small groups. After the timed practice, the teacher or helper collected the practice sheets. At this time, the individuals were given a quiz to complete. The quiz and the time to complete it were the same as for the students in the groups. The teacher or helper was present throughout the work in the individual setting to answer questions, and to ensure that the students worked independently.

Group Setting. Students were assigned to work in the small groups by the teacher/experimenter. An audio-recorder was placed in the middle of each group. After turning the machine and adjusting the volume, all students in the small groups were given a practice sheet. The students were told that they should consult and help one another, if they chose to do so. The students were allowed to ask questions of the teacher or helper only after they had consulted their group members. After the allotted time for the practice, the teacher or helper in the group setting collected the practice sheets. At this point the students in the groups were given a quiz with the same format as the practice sheet.

Whole-Class Setting. After taking the quiz, the students of the individual setting joined their classmates in the regular classroom. At this time the practice sheets completed in the individual and group settings were returned to their respective owners, and the answers to the practice were given by the teacher. Any questions about the practice or quiz were answered.

Each of the ten grammatical and lexical topics was later tested on sections of one-hour weekly exams given in the whole-class setting.

Coding of Quizzes and Exams

All coding of the quizzes and exams was done by one grader, and checked by a second grader. Most items were scored as follows: 1 point for correct lexical/grammatical choice and correct form; 1/2 point for correct choice with incorrect form; and no credit given for incorrect choice. An example of scoring for pedir vs. preguntar is:

Ana pregunta por Luis 1 pt. correct choice and form

*Ana preguntas por Luis ½ pt. incorrect form, correct choice

*Ana pide por Luis No credit-incorrect lexical choice.

Raw scores were converted to percentage correct scores prior to data analysis.

Background characteristics of the subjects for language learning aptitude, general aptitude, and prior foreign language study, as measured by MLAT scores, SAT Verbal scores, and number of semesters of foreign language study at or beyond the high school level, respectively, showed no significant differences between subjects in the individual and group settings for any of these characteristics when a t-test was used to test for equal means by learning setting.

Group versus Individual Work

Who did better, then, on the experimental tasks: those who worked in groups or those who worked independently? It turns out that taking the cumulative quiz and exam means, the small groups outperformed the individuals on the quizzes 67.7% to 64.9%, and on the exams 72% to 71.3%, respectively. As presented in Table 1, these differences, however,

were not statistically significant when t-tests were performed. A more sensitive test, a multivariate analysis of variance, was conducted for the ten topics tested on quizzes, and on sections of the exams. Of the total of twenty tests, no test showed significant differences between the small groups and the individual subjects. The means of each of the topics for the quizzes and exams across both learning settings are given in Table 2.

Preference for Learning Setting

All subjects had had experience working in both learning settings, for the ten experimental topics or for four «dummy» topics. An end of the course questionnaire revealed that fifteen of the eighteen subjects gave higher rankings for group work than for individual work.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of group work versus individual work on a Spanish language learning task. More specifically, this study examined whether or not the classroom approach of group work, with students working on a voluntary two-way task, had more influence on achievement on grammatical exercises than students working independently. The results of the quizzes and exams, which tested short term and long-term retention, in that order, showed no significant difference between small groups and individuals on achievement. The conjecture that the experience of working together and discussing the grammatical topics would be more helpful to students than working alone must be rejected. It can therefore be concluded that, based on these results, performance was not influenced by learning setting. These results support the findings of other studies which tested the effects of small-group versus individual work on achievement, but used math as the target subject matter: Webb (1977), Peterson, Janicki, and Swing (1981), and Webb and Kenderski (1984), among others.

Although learning setting did not influence achievement, the overwhelming preference of the students was for working in small groups. Whereas it may be argued that small-group work is a favorable approach because students seem to enjoy it, based on these results it cannot be argued that group work will provide better results for language learning tasks. The fact that students working in groups did the same as students working individually on grammatical exercises implies that this task is better done at home, where students work individually. Studies involving small groups and interlanguage (Long 1981; Long and Porter 1985; Doughty and Pica 1985, 1986) have shown that students have more opportunities to participate, and show a greater variety of types of participation (including negotiation work), when working in small groups. Even more participation occurs if the task carried out in groups requires a great deal of student participation. According to Pica and Doughty, genuine two-way tasks «... stimulate negotiation for message meaning on the parts of group members, thereby giving them opportunities to produce and receive modified input, and ultimately, to make progress in their second language development» (1985, 247). But a fundamental difference between the above mentioned studies is that the subjects involved were ESL students. When engaging in any task, ESL students use the target language, English, to communicate. With grammatical exercises done in small groups in a foreign language classroom, the language of exchange is likely to be English, as it was in this study. The results of this study suggest that talking about grammar in small groups does not lead to greater accuracy or improved   —185→   grammatical competence in writing. Talking about grammar in English certainly does not lead to greater communicative competence in oral Spanish! Spanish teachers are advised to use group work in their classes, but to be aware that successful group work is highly dependent upon task. All class time, including group work, may be much better spent on meaningful, communicative tasks.

Carroll, John, and Stanley Sapon. Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1959.

Doughty, Catherine, and Teresa Pica. «Information Gap Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition?» TESOL Quarterly 20.2 (1986): 305-25.

Hatch, Evelyn. «Simplified Input and Second Language Acquisition». Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Ed. Roger W. Andersen Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983. 64-86.

Kersemeier Donald Eugene. «An Experiment to Investigate the Effects of Small-Group Interaction Activities on Developing Oral Communication Skills in a Foreign Language»: University of Wisconsin-Madison (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), 1980.

Krashen, Stephen. «The Monitor-Model for Second-Language Acquisition». Second-Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Ed. Rosario C. Gingras. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1978. 1-26.

Long, Michael H. «Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition». Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Ed. Harris Winitz. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 379 (1981): 250-78.

Long, Michael H., and Patricia A. Porter. «Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition» . TESOL Quarterly 19.2 (1985): 207-28.

Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in Context. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle, 1986.

Peterson, Penelope L., Terence Janicki, and Susan R. Swing. «Ability x Treatment Interaction Effects on Children's Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group Approaches». American Educational Research Journal 18.4 (1981): 453-73.

Pica, Teresa, and Catherine Doughty. «The Role of Group Work in Classroom Second Language Acquisition». Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7 (1985): 233-48.

Webb, Noreen M. Learning in Individual and Small Group Settings. Technical Report No. 7, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, 1977.

Webb, Noreen M., and Cathy Moore Kenderski. «Student Interaction and Learning in Small-Group and Whole-Class Settings». The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes. Eds. Penelope Peterson, Louise Cherry Wilkinson, and Maureen Hallinan. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984. 153-70.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 71, Number 1, March 1988