Attitude of Students On Interactional Group in Language Learning

ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS ON INTERACTIONAL GROUP
IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Echague, Isabela
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
BACHELOR OF ARTS
(English)
by
AILEEN MAY M. DARAN
April 2016
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis attached hereto, entitled, “ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS ON

INTERACTIONAL GROUP IN LANGUAGE LEARNING”, prepared and submitted
by AILEEN MAY M. DARAN in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR of ARTS in ENGLISH is hereby endorsed.
ALEX L. SORIANO, MS
Adviser
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree BACHELOR

OF ARTS in ENGLISH.
PANEL MEMBERS
ADALYN C. SORIANO, MAT JOHN N. CABANSAG, Ph.D.

Member Member
Recommending Approval:
Approved:
ADALYN C. SORIANO, MAT
Program Chair, AB English
JOHN N. CABANSAG, Ph.D.

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Recorded:
AMBROCIA A. GAFFUD, Ph.D.

University Registrar
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her sincere gratitude and appreciation to
people who contributed in the completion of this study:
Alex L. Soriano, the researcher’s Adviser, for providing the necessary resources
to start and finished the research;
Dr. John N. Cabansag and Adalyn C. Soriano, her panelists, for unselfishly
sharing their intellectual expertise that made the course of the study uncomplicated;
Dr. Diosdado C. Cañete, the researcher’s statistician, for his valuable time and
effort that helped the author in analyzing and interpreting the statistical;
The AB English fourth year students, her classmates, for always extending their
help and showing encouragement to the researcher to reach her goals;
Her loved ones, who always encouraged her and for provided the emotional,
spiritual, moral and financial support;
Her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Daran, who gave her the needed strength to stand
firmly despite all circumstances. Her sister, Diana Rose Daran, for her moral support and
giving pieces of advice that motivated the author to finish what she started.
Above all, to Almighty Father, source of unending blessings, strengths,
knowledge and wisdom and who made everything possible for the completion of this
study. For Him, all the Glory, Honor and Adoration are due.
The Researcher
DEDICATION
This Piece of work is sincerely and humbly dedicated to
Our Almighty Father for providing me always the needed strength and guidance
in this world. And to my family, Source of my unending inspiration
and unchanging love, I tenderly dedicate
this humble piece of Work.
Aileen May
ABSTRACT
Interactional group is a teaching strategy in which students work cooperatively in
a small group with individuals of different talents and abilities to complete a common
goal. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of the students' profile
in terms of their gender, age and year level and their attitude on interactional group in
language learning. This research studied the relationship of these three identified critical
factors related to the respondents. The respondents were second year and third year AB
English students who were enrolled for the school year 2015-2016. Data was collected
from a standard questionnaire. Data shows that the attitude of students on interactional
group in language learning is positive; however, their positive has no significant
relationship with their profile except for some statements under age and year level.
Since the attitude of the students on interactional group in positive, it
recommended that this type of teaching or learning approach should be integrated to the
syllabus of AB English courses.
Key words: Interactional Group, Language learning, Attitude, Perception.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ABSTRACT ...................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Scope and Delimitation ........................................ 4
Definition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conceptual Framework ........................................ 11
Hypothesis of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

Research Design ............................................. 14
Respondents of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Data Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Statistical Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
IV. PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Students’ Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Attitude of students on Interactional Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
in Language learning
Relationships between Respondents’ profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
on Interactional group in Language learning
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
APPENDICES
A. Letter to Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Letter to respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C. Questionnaire for respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
D. Certificate of Statistician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
E. Curriculum Vitae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1 Distribution of Respondents According to their gender . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Distribution of Respondents According to their age .............. 16
3 Distribution of Respondents According to their year level . . . . . . . . . . 17
4A Assessment of 2nd year students on their attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
on Interactional Group in Language learning
4B Assessment of 3rd year students on their attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
on Interactional Group in Language learning
5 Relationship of Respondents’ Attitude with their Gender . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6 Model Summary of dependent variable: gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7 Anovab (gender) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8 Relationship between attitude of students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
on Interactional group and their age
9 Model Summary of dependent variable: age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10 Anovab (age) ............................................. 24
11 Relationship of the Respondents’ Attitude ..................... 25
with their Year Level
12 Model Summary of dependent variable: year level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13 Anovab (age) ............................................ 26
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES Page
1 Research Paradigm of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ix
1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Language plays a very important part of everyday life. It is used to communicate
with others and a tool for exchanging ideas between individuals.
Some students experience a high level of stress because of their daily activities in
school; they often experience academic failure and low self-esteem. Language learners
may feel stuck and unsure of how to feel better when using or learning the second
language. They find difficulties in terms of speaking the target language especially when
reporting in front or unexpected oral recitation without preparation before entering to
their English class. Students who feel anxious in their second language may find their
study less enjoyable and it leads them to lose their motivation to study English.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the significance of group work in
the classroom, because of its real influence on the students' language learning. The
popularity of group work in teaching has been beyond the reasonable doubt for many
years (Harmer, 2011). Petty (2001) states that a good understanding between students and
an encouraging student-centered confidential atmosphere can be created inside the class
with the existence of group work. (as cited by Murad, 2015)
According to Gomleksize (2007) cooperative learning is when students work
together to achieve specific goals. A more comprehensive definition for cooperative
learning is reported by Wichadee (2007) in her study of the effect of cooperative learning
on students’ English reading skills. Wichadee states that cooperative learning is a
pedagogical approach that encourages student-student interaction by working in small
groups to intensify their learning and reach their intended objective. Considerable
2
research shows, that cooperative learning results in higher achievement and more positive
relationships among students (Wichadee, 2007).
Group work also depends on the attitude of the students. Hashemi (2005) states
that attitudes towards something is the extent to which students accept the subject and
their opinion towards it while the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005) defined
attitudes as ‘the way someone thinks and feels about somebody or something’ (p. 85) (as
cited by Taqi1 & Al-Nouh, 2014)
Desirable attitudes toward student group work include beliefs that group work
helps learning, helps in the productive use of time, and aids learning retention. They
reflect enjoyment at participating in group work and feel that group work is easier and
more interesting than working alone. Additional desirable attitudes include feelings of
relaxation while working in group settings and confidence in one’s ability to make a
personal contribution to group outcomes (Cantwell and Andres 2002). Past research has
shown that positive attitudes toward group work are associated with higher levels of
sociability, lower levels of social anxiety, stronger mastery of performance goals, and
higher levels of learning awareness (Cantwell and Andrews 2002).(as cited by Forrester,
2010)
The attitude of students on interactional group in language learning requires more
research to be done. Hence, this study.
2
3
Statement of the Problem
The attitude of students on interactional group in language learning requires more
research to be done. Hence, this study aimed to determine the attitude of students on
Interactional Group in language learning at Isabela State University, Echague, Isabela.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents (gender, age and year level)?
2. What is the attitude of students on Interactional group in language learning?
3. What is the significant relationship between the respondents’ profile and their
attitude on interactional group in language learning?
Objectives of the study
The present study aimed at investigating the attitude of students on Interactional
Group in language learning.
Specifically, this study aimed to:
1. Determine the profile of the respondents (gender, age and year level).
2. Determine the attitude of students on Interactional group in language learning.
3. Determine the significant relationship between the respondents’ profile and
their attitude on interactional group in language learning.
Significance of the Study
The researcher views that the following benefits may be derived from the study:
To the students, the result of the study will be helpful for the learners to boost
their self-confidence, to increase their academic performance and to see beauty in
language learning and not just problems at times;

3
4
To the teachers, the result of the study may serve as a guide for language teachers
in terms of helping them increase their understanding of language learning. This study
also provides insights into how educators can develop appropriate interventions to
decrease the anxiety among language learners.
To the future researchers, it may serve as a good basis for the other researchers to
increase the academic performance of the learners in language learning.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study focused on the Attitude of students on Interactional Group in language
learning at Isabela State University, Echague, Isabela. The study used total enumeration
from 2nd year and 3rd year AB English students as respondents during the second
semester, School Year 2015-2016.
Definition of Terms
For clearer understanding of the study, the following terms are hereby defined
operationally:
Age. This refers to the amount of time during which the respondents has lived or
existed.
Gender. It is a range of characteristics, physical, mental, and behavioural
characteristics of the respondents.
Year level. It refers to the number of credit hours of the respondents has earned in
every semester.
4
5
Attitude. It refers to a person views something to behave towards it, often in an
evaluative way.
Interactional group. It refers to the dynamics of the team and the way students in
the group interact with one another.
Language learning. It is the process of learning the English language that used
and understood by a community.
5
6
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Related Literature
The use of pair and small group work has preoccupied teachers’ minds for quite a
long time, particularly when it comes to how they should be implemented. Shimatani
(1986) argues that L2 teachers should admit the fact that the language classroom is an
artificial setting for language learning. To increase the effect of small group activity in
such a context, to decrease tension, and to control students’ affective filter, Shimatani
(1986) provided the following guidelines for the successful use of small group work in
L2 classes:
 First, the teacher should behave as a consultant by supporting, praising, and
encouraging group members.
 Second, the necessity of leadership should be recognized. A great person who can
both skillfully and expressively control the group is a key to lower the tension
level.
 Third is the fact that the teacher should not assign routine tasks for pairs to do in
order to engage them more.
McDonough (2004) stated that the use of pair and small group activities in L2
classrooms is supported both theoretically and pedagogically. The study was carried out
in the Thai EFL context, trying to investigate whether the learners in pairs and small
groups showed improved production of the target forms; the researcher also explored the
learners’ and practitioners’ perception about using pair-work and small-group activities.
6
7
The results indicated that the participants who had done the activity in pairs with
more participation demonstrated improved production of the target forms.
Moreover, Scrivener (2011) argues that group work allows students to develop
their critical skills and helps them to challenge assumptions. He further states that this
type of learning strategy helps students to evaluate each other's work and ideas and thus
they learn from each other. Personal experience suggests that group work in EFL
classrooms provide students with the opportunity to express themselves in the target
language. Burdett and Hastie (2009) argue that working in groups creates a kind of
supportive atmosphere where ideas and opinions are developed as it is wheeled from a
member to another in the group.
However, it sometimes inhibits the performance of the weakest members as those
who are good in the group dominate the tasks carried out (Payne and Monk-Turner,
2006). Group work increases student participation in classroom. According to Tanveer
(2008) students in groups communicate enthusiastically with each other. They learn how
to communicate and share ideas. Moreover, group work gives confidence to students to
become skilled through discussions. Students weigh the good and bad sides of a given
condition together and then attempt to discover a rational clarification to the problem.
Schmidt (2009) states that a group has a leader that encourages the members of the group
to focus on growth.
McFadden (2010) suggested that pair-work activities assisted learners to practice
speaking and use all their opportunities in class. They had a more genuine conversation
than when they worked alone. The activities are more 'daily-life' oriented; the students
worked in teams and it was similar to real communication. Harmer (2007) argued that
7
8
pair-work was a good technique to develop in the classroom. It built an optimistic
environment and children were less afraid of making mistakes in class. According to his
view, the use of pair work in an EFL setting was a way to promote risk-taking since pair-
work activities fostered learners' contributions. (as cited by Zúñiga, 2013)
Bibi (2002) reported that teaching English grammar through group work activities
played a positive role in improving the academic achievement, the four language skills of
the students studying English at elementary as well as secondary stage.
Colina and Garcia-Mayo (2007) compared the effectiveness of three task types
(jigsaw, dictogloss and text reconstruction) in fostering focus on form and metatalk
among low-proficiency students. Twenty-four first year undergraduate students at the
elementary level participated in the study. Twelve self selected pairs were divided into
three groups and each group consisting of four pairs completed one task. The same
passage was used to design the three tasks. The pairs' dialogues were recorded and then
transcribed in order to identify LREs. The results indicated that all task types generated
many LREs with text reconstruction producing the largest number. The most discussed
linguistic features during the tasks were determiners, connectors, and spelling. The
linguistic features most talked about during the text reconstruction task were articles,
passive voice, prepositions, subject-verb agreement, and verb form.
Baleghizadeh (2010) investigated the impact of peer interaction during an editing
task on EFL learning in Iran. Sixty-two university students majoring in English literature
participated in the study and were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups.
Learners' proficiency level was determined through a paper-based version of the TOEFL
test. The task employed in this study was a text editing task which contained grammatical
8
9
errors featuring the use of articles, subordinating conjunctions and prepositions. The
experimental group consisting of forty students performed the activity in self-selected
pairs, while twenty two students in the control group performed the editing task
individually. The results showed that students’ overall performance significantly
improved when they collaborated in pairs than when they did the activity on their own.
Yet, this improvement was not persistent in different linguistic features. Although pair-
work improved learners' performance in case of articles and subordinate conjunctions,
this fact was not observable for prepositions. (as cited by Abadikhah & Harsini, 2014)
Goss, Ying-Hua and Lantolf (1994), who compared grammatical tasks completed
individually and in pairs by learners of Spanish, found modest differences in favor of
pairs but only on some grammatical features.
Arbab (2003) examined the effects of cooperative learning on general science
achievement of 9th class students. In the experiment of two weeks’ time, she found on
the basis of pretest and posttest scores that cooperative learning had more positive effect
on students’ general science achievement as compared to usual method of teaching
general science.
Foster and Skehan (1999) investigated the effects of different pre-task planning
conditions –teacher-led, solitary and group-based- on learners’ language in a decision-
making task. Of interest is the finding that the group planning condition did not confer
advantages for the learners in terms of the fluency, accuracy and complexity of the
language produced. Solitary planners produced language that was more complex and
more fluent. Nevertheless, studies comparing individual and pair work on writing and
grammar-focused tasks showed some advantage for pair work.
9
10
Kiran Akhtar et al (2012) concluded that the students were satisfied with the
planning and monitoring process used in cooperative learning. They felt that it was
adaptable for normal classroom teaching. Students believed that group tasks clear their
concepts more than individual learning. It also makes learning interesting, it provides fun,
done in satisfactory situation and their socialization enhance. Students also expressed that
during the assigned work, they felt responsibility of work, committed to success of each
member and their group.
Akinbobola (2009) also concluded that the result is not surprising because in
cooperative learning, students are trained on how to interact positively, resolve disputes
through compromise or mediation and encourage the best performance of each member
for the benefit of the group. Akinbobola (2009) contends that when students are
successful, they view the subject with a very positive attitude because their self-esteem is
enhanced. (as cited by McLeish, 2009).
Gillespie (2006) has indicated that over the past twenty years the use of small
groups has become common place within colleges and university class rooms.
In the study of Mulryan (1994) and Mengduo & Xiaoling (2010) investigated
students’ attitudes and showed that in cooperative situations, students believed that their
teachers paid more attention to their feelings. Students also noted that their peers liked to
help one another and they were more motivated to learn. Overall, cooperative learning
appears to lead to a greater affective perception of others, more positive attitudes, and
increased humanity. Recently, several other researchers (Le, 2010; Thanh-Pham,
2010a&b) investigated students’ attitudes toward cooperative learning, and their attitudes
toward subject matter in the Vietnamese setting of higher education. The results of these
10
11
studies indicate that students working in cooperative learning groups enjoyed cooperative
activities and obtained more knowledge because cooperative learning improved their
relationships with their peers, decreased conflict in the group and enhanced their self-
esteem. Also, students in the cooperative learning groups felt more interested in learning,
and less anxious, perceiving cooperative learning as a valuable way to effectively
increase their knowledge.
Furthermore, Laguador (2014) stated that Cooperative learning has been widely
embraced by mathematics teachers as well as for literacy learning. Cooperative learning
is a great tool that can be used to improve student achievement in any classroom. It also
fosters tolerance and acceptance in the community, which improves quality of
everybody's life. Multiple researches have shown that cooperative learning strategies can
be utilized to promote deeper understanding. Educators can use various strategies of
cooperative learning along with their instructional techniques to enhance learning in a
classroom. This will result in higher student achievement.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
The use of pair and small group work has been supported within the interactionist
and sociocultural theories of learning. According to Ellis (2005), the studies conducted
within the theoretical framework of Long’s (1983) ‘interaction hypothesis’, mainly
centered on negotiation of meaning which was fostered during pair and group work. They
indicated that using proper tasks would increase the opportunities for interaction and
negotiation of meaning. Nevertheless, the results of these studies were not indicative of
interlanguage development.
11
12
More recent studies have adopted a sociocultural perspective (SCT) which urges
the learners to produce output collaboratively (Swain & Lapkin 1998). Originated in the
works of Vygotsky (1978, 1986), SCT is based on the concept that human activities occur
in cultural contexts and are mediated by language and other symbolic systems, and can be
best appreciated when explored in their historical development (John-Steiner & Holbrook
1996). One major tenet of SCT stated above is the social nature of human development,
that is, learning and cognitive development of individuals have their origins in social
sources. Lantolf (2000) elaborated more on this concept and stated that “at first the
activity of the individuals is organized and regulated (i.e. mediated) by others, but
eventually, in normal development, we come to organize and regulate our own mental
and physical activity through the appropriation of the regulatory means employed by
others” (pp. 13-14).
Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) have also stated that interaction and knowledge
co-construction can be promoted in tasks that require learners to participate in group and
pair-work. The question now is whether pairs of learners interacting to complete a task
would perform better than individual learners and would acquire the knowledge co-
constructed during their interactions.
Figure 1 shows the independent variable contains the respondents’ profile such as
gender, age and year level and the dependent variable contains the Attitude of students on
Interactional group in language learning.
The said variables were utilized to identify if they have relationship with the
attitude of students on interactional group in language learning of the said students.
12
13
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Respondents’ Profile
ATTITUDE OF
 Gender
STUDENTS ON
 Age INTERACTIONAL
 Year level GROUP IN LANGUAGE
LEARNING
Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
Hypothesis of the study
The study tested the null hypothesis below:
There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ profile and their
attitude on interactional group in language learning.
13
14
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used the descriptive –correlational method to determine the
relationship between the respondents’ profile and the attitude of students on Interactional
group in language learning.
Locale and Respondents of the Study
This research was conducted at Isabela State University, Echague, Isabela. The
study used total enumeration from 2nd year and 3rd year AB English students as
respondents during the second semester, School Year 2015-2016.
Research Instrument
A standardized questionnaire was administered, adapted
fromhttp://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/612ee88798a69edbc08446d6058cceaf.pdf.
A Likert scale of 35-item questionnaire strongly agree (5), agree (4), moderately agree
(3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1) on the attitude of students on interactional
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher secured permission from the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS) through the recommendations of the Thesis Adviser, Research Class Professor,
14
15
Program Chair and Dean, College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) prior to administering the
questionnaire to the respondents of the study.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data were computer- processed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). The data gathered was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The
descriptive statistics like Arithmetical mean and percentage was used to analyze the
demographic profile of the respondents. T-test was used to analyze the level of significant
of the Likert Scale Data on attitude of students on interactional group in language
learning.
15
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Profile of the Respondents
Table 1. Gender of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage

Second year Female 115 84.56
Male 21 15.44
Total 136 100
Third year Female 52 83.87

Male 10 16.13
Total 62 100
Table 1 indicates the respondents profile in terms of their gender. As the table
reveals majority of the respondents in second year were female with frequency of 115 or
84.56 percent while male respondents had frequency count of 21 or 15.44 percent. The
table also reveals majority of the respondents in third year were female with frequency of
52 or 83.87 percent while male respondents had frequency count of 10 or 16.13 percent.
Table 2.Age of Respondents
Range Frequency Percentage

Second year 16-20 127 93.38
21-25 8 5.88
26-30 1 0.74
Total 136 100
Third year 18-20 59 95.16

21-23 3 4.84
Total 62 100
17
Table 2 shows the respondents profile in terms of their age. As the table reveals,
majority of the respondents in second year were ranging from 16 to 20 years old with
frequency of 127 or 93.38 percent. The respondents ranging from 21 to 25 years old had
frequency count of 8 or 5.88 percent and the respondents ranging from 26 to 30 had
frequency of 1 or 0.74 percent respectively. The table also reveals that majority of the
respondents in third year who with age ranging from 18 to 20 had a frequency of 59 or
95.16 percent while the respondents with age ranging from of 21 to 23 had frequency
count of 3 or 4.84 percent.
Table 3. Year level of Respondents
Year level Frequency Percentage

Second year 136 68.69
Third year 62 31.31
Total 198 100
Table 3 shows that majority of the respondents were the second year AB English,
numbering to 136 students or 68.69 percent of the respondents. Sixty two (62) students
were from third year AB English which represent 31.31 percent of the respondents.
17
18
Attitude of the Respondents on Interactional Group in Language Learning.
Table 4A. Assessment of 2nd year students on their attitude on Interactional Group
Factors Mea Descriptive Value

n
1. I like English learning activities in which students work together in pairs or 4.00 Agree
small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other students. 3.03 Moderately Agree
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of time. 2.23 Disagree
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment. 3.75 Agree
5. It helps students solve tasks better and faster. 3.81 Agree
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice. 3.91 Agree
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help everyone. 2.57 Moderately Agree
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each other. 4.15 Agree
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each other. 3.97 Agree
10. Students give more help to each other. 3.92 Agree
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities when working 4.04 Agree
in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency. 4.01 Agree
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English. 3.95 Agree
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat. 2.33 Disagree
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group. 3.85 Agree
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate to 3.63 Agree
others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others. 3.69 Agree
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or group. 3.73 Agree
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is. 3.21 Moderately Agree
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone. 3.43 Moderately Agree
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel involved or 3.01 Moderately Agree
satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally involved 3.68 Agree
in a group achievement.
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for my 3.65 Agree
learning as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided evenly. 3.8 Agree
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work. 3.58 Agree
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends. 2.87 Moderately Agree
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel better about 3.63 Agree
myself.
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas. 3.57 Agree
29. Even when pairs are well organized, I don't believe they are a more 2.94 Moderately Agree
effective way of using class time.
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or pair. 3.95 Agree
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a pair rather 3.15 Moderately Agree
than individually.
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair. 3.28 Moderately Agree
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups. 2.76 Moderately Agree
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members. 2.9 Moderately Agree
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group. 3.13 Moderately Agree
Grand Mean 3.46 Moderately Agree
18
19
19
20
Table 4B. Assessment of 3rd year students on their attitude on Interactional Group
Factors Mea Descriptive Value

n
1. I like English learning activities in which students work together in pairs or 4.19 Agree
small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other students. 3.24 Moderately Agree
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of time. 2.34 Disagree
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment. 3.98 Agree
5. It helps students solve tasks better and faster. 4.00 Agree
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice. 4.13 Agree
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help everyone. 2.47 Moderately Agree
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each other. 4.23 Agree
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each other. 4.18 Agree
10. Students give more help to each other. 4.29 Agree
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities when working 4.35 Agree
in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency. 4.34 Agree
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English. 4.27 Agree
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat. 2.76 Moderately Agree
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group. 3.90 Agree
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate to 3.85 Agree
others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others. 3.92 Agree
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or group. 3.94 Agree
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is. 2.98 Moderately Agree
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone. 3.48 Agree
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel involved or 2.98 Moderately Agree
satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally involved 3.89 Agree
in a group achievement.
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for my learning 3.61 Agree
as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided evenly. 4.02 Agree
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work. 3.84 Agree
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends. 2.97 Moderately Agree
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel better about 4.03 Agree
myself.
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas. 4.03 Agree
29. Even when pairs are well organized, I don't believe they are a more 3.21 Moderately Agree
effective way of using class time.
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or pair. 4.11 Agree
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a pair rather 3.29 Moderately Agree
than individually.
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair. 3.63 Agree
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups. 2.73 Moderately Agree
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members. 2.79 Moderately Agree
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group. 3.53 Agree
Grand Mean 3.64 Agree
20
21
Table 4A and 4B reveal the level of perception of the respondents on
interactional group, second year and third year students’ response in all items with a
mean of 3.46 (2nd year) and 3.64 (3rd year) with the descriptive value of Moderately
Agree and Agree. It is obvious that the responses are positive. This was in line with the
study of Gillies (2000) who found that group work built a positive learning environment
where students become actively involved in learning.
Yossiri (2012) also found that almost 6 participants out of 12 in their attitudes
were positive about teacher’s activities, considered these as beneficial for them to
develop their confidence for playing their roles to participate actively in the classroom.
All these students regarded classroom activities as the tools that enable them to cope
with the communicative problems for their future at their work-world organizations.
These all 6 participants possessed same views regarding use of activities.
Hyland (2006) argues that teachers should monitor and facilitate the
communication among the students of the same group as this would provide them with
the best atmosphere to use their language and improve it. Moreover, it could be deduced
that because of the diversity of levels in the same class, and in the same group as well,
students might become dependent.
Relationship of Students Attitude and their Profile (Gender, Age, and Year Level)
The research correlated the respondents such as gender, age and course level. It
was found out that among the three, only gender has no significant relationship. The
tables below show the statistical analysis indicating the relationship.
21
22
Relationship of the Respondents’ Attitude with their Gender
Table 5. Relationship of Respondents’ Attitude with their Gender.
Factors t-test P-value

1. I like English learning activities in which students work together in pairs or .232 ns .817
small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other students. -.135 ns .892
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of time. -.869 ns .386
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment. -.156 ns .876
5. It helps students solve tasks better and faster. -.580 ns .563
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice. .561 ns .575
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help everyone. .583 ns .561
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each other. .280 ns .780
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each other. .443 ns .658
10. Students give more help to each other. -.219 ns .827
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities when working 1.322 ns .188
in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency. -1.198 ns .233
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English. -.611 ns .542
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat. -.415 ns .679
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group. .977 ns .330
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate to 1.082 ns .281
others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others. -1.678 ns .095
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or group. .169 ns .866
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is. .870 ns .386
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone. -.725 ns .469
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel involved -1.160 ns .248
or satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally .418 ns .676
involved in a group achievement.
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for my -1.163 ns .246
learning as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided evenly. -1.710 ns .089
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work. .333 ns .740
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends. -.964 ns .337
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel 1.579 ns .116
better about myself.
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas. -.004 ns .997
29. Even when pairs are well organized, I don't believe they are 1.055 ns .293
a more effective way of using class time.
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or pair. .904 ns .367
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a pair 1.386 ns .168
rather than individually.
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair. .620 ns .536
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups. .306 ns .760
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members. -.717 ns .474
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group. .894 ns .373
ns
-not significant
22
23
Table 6. Model Summary of the dependent variable (gender).
R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of the

Model R Square estimate
1 .386a .149 -.035 .371
a. Predictors: (Constant)
Table 7. ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df. Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3.889 35 .111 .809 ns 0.767a
Residual 22.257 162 .137
Total 26.146 197
Table 5, 6, and 7 indicate the overall relationship in terms of the respondents’
gender. The correlation coefficients were near zero and these imply a very low
relationship. The probability values were all beyond the 0.05 level of significance. It was
evident that gender was not significantly related on their attitude on interactional group
in language learning. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
As argued by Rue and Byars (1993), teachers as immediate supervisor of
instruction need to consciously encourage members of different characteristics to form
and actively participate in group collaborative activities and interact well with group
members of opposite characteristics in order to reach high performance goal.
Relationship of the Respondents’ Attitude with their Age
Table 8, 9, and 10 present the overall significant relationship of the respondents’
attitude with their age. It was found out that their attitude on interactional group in
language learning and their age has a positive relationship since the probability values
were less than 0.05 level of significance.
23
24
Table 8. Relationship between attitude of students on Interactional group and their age
1. I like English learning activities in which students work together in pairs -.975 ns .331
or small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other students. -.313 ns .755
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of time. .012 ns .991
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment. -.787 ns .433
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice. -.017 ns .986
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help .071 ns .944
everyone.
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each other. -.038 ns .970
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each other. 2.411* .017
10. Students give more help to each other. -1.995 * .048
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities when -1.061 ns .290
working in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency. 1.532 ns .128
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English. .569 ns .570
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat. -.258 ns .796
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group. .386 ns .700
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate -.356 ns .722
to others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others. -1.030 ns .305
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or group. 1.218 ns .225
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is. -1.204 ns .230
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone. -1.774 ns .078
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel involved .449 ns .654
or satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally .883 ns .378
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for my .393 ns .695
learning as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided evenly. -1.516 ns .131
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work. .521 ns .603
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends. 1.297 ns .197
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel 1.033 ns .303
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas. .525 ns .600
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or pair. -.479 ns .633
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a pair .197 ns .844
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair. -1.530 ns .128
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups. -.484 ns .629
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members. -1.127 ns .262
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group. 2.112* .036
*- significant **-highly significant ns

-not significant
24
25
Table 9. Model Summary of the dependent variable (age)

1 .466a .217 .048 1.301
Table 10. ANOVAb
Model Sum of df. Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
1 Regression 76.055 35 2.173 1.284 .152a
Residual 162 1.692
Total 274.152 197
350.207
There were three statements which found to be significantly related to their age.
The statements “It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each
other” was found to have significant relationship with that of their age (t=2.411, p-value
=0.017), “Students give more help to each other” (t=-1.995, p-value=0.048) and the
respondents’ perception on the statement “I often feel in charge when working within a
group” (t=2.112, p-value=0.036) was significantly related with their age. It implies that
respondents have different perception on the said statements. The remaining statements
were not within the significance level.
This was in line with the findings of Greenop (2007) reported that students
enjoyed their ability to talk and hear other people’s opinion. Moreover, some reported
that they understood the topics better when working in a group. Very few students
preferred the traditional methods of examination.
25
26
Relationship of the Respondents’ Attitude with their Year Level
Table 11 .Relationship between the attitude of students on Interactional group and their
Year Level (2nd year & 3rd year)

1. I like English learning activities in which students work together in pairs or 1.437 ns .153
small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other students. .778 ns .438
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of time. .089 ns .929
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment. .626 ns .532
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice. 1.053 ns .294
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help everyone. -1.901 ns .059
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each other. -2.387* .018
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to each other. .376 ns .707
10. Students give more help to each other. 1.417 ns .158
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities when working .031 ns .975
in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency. 1.079 ns .282
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English. -.606 ns .545
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat. 2.306* .022
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group. -.570 ns .569
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate to 1.349 ns .179
others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others. -.060 ns .952
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or group. -.678 ns .499
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is. -1.846 ns .067
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone. -.076 ns .940
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel involved -.116 ns .908
or satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally 1.213 ns .227
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for my -2.000 * .047
learning as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided evenly. -.429 ns .668
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work. 1.204 ns .230
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends. -.228 ns .820
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel .515 ns .607
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas. 1.638 ns .103
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or pair. -1.359 ns .176
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a pair -.578 ns .564
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair. .619 ns .537
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups. -.336 ns .738
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members. -1.750 ns .082
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group. 2.051* .042
*- significant **-highly significant ns
-not significant
26
27
Table 12.Model Summary of the dependent variable (year level)

1 .528a .279 .123 .435
Table 13.ANOVAb
Model Sum of df. Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
1 Regression 11.863 35 .339 1.787** .008a
Residual 162 .190
30.722
Total 197
42.586
Tables 11, 12, and 13, indicate the relationship between the attitude of students
on interactional group in language learning and their year level. It shows the correlation
coefficient and the probability value on each of the statements which is less than the
0.05 level, signifies a significant relationship.
In terms of their year level, four statements were found to be significantly related
to their year level. The statements “It gives students more chances to exchange ideas
with each other” (t=-2.387, p-value= 0.018), “I don't like pair-work because I have to
move my seat” (t=2.306, p-value=0.022), “It is important that other group members take
responsibility for my learning as well” (t=-2.000, p-value0.047) and “I often feel in
charge when working within a group” (t=2.051, p-value=0.042) were found to have
significant relationship with the attitude of students on interactional group in language
learning and their year level. The negative statement “I don't like pair-work because I
have to move my seat” having significant relationship with year level indicates that the
27
28
higher year level students are not comfortable with physical movement in the classroom.
This statement however has little bearing to language learning. On the other hand, the
three statements are contributory to language learning through interactional group.
The finding above is in conformity to the study of Doff (1989). In his research
Doff claims “pair work and group work encourage students to share ideas and
knowledge”. Jia (2003) holds that effective language learning depends on structuring
social interaction to maximize the needs of communication in the target language. For
example, students divided into six groups in a class can get six times as many
opportunities to talk as in full-class organization. Cooperative language learning creates
natural, interactive contexts, where students listen to each other, ask question, and
clarify issues. Group interaction assists learners in negotiating for more comprehensible
input and in modifying their output to make it more comprehensible to others (Crandall,
1999; kagan, 1995).
28
29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the attitude of students on interactional
group in language learning by the second year and third year learners of College of Arts
& Sciences. There were 198 respondents for this study who are enrolled of the school
year 2015-2016.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe the data of the study
employing frequency counts, percentages, mean, and t-test with the aid of statistical
software. The study aimed to determine the profile of the respondents, the attitude of
students on interactional group and the significant relationship between the respondents’
profile and their attitude on interactional group in language learning. The following
results were obtained:
1. In terms of their profile:
a. The result of the study revealed majority of the respondents in second year
are female with frequency of 115 or 83.56 percent while the majority of the
respondents in third year are also female with frequency of 52 or 83.87
percent.
b. As to their age, majority of the respondents in second year were range of
16-20 years old with frequency of 127 or 93.38 percent while the majority of
respondents in third year were range of 18-20 years old with frequency count
of 59 or 95.16 percent.
29
30
c. And majority as to their year level were second year with a frequency of
136 or 68.69 percent.
2. In terms of findings to the study:
a. The respondents perceived a positive response on interactional group in
language learning as a tool of learning the English language.
b. There was no significant relationship between their gender and their
attitude on interactional group in language learning.
c. As to their age, item number 9, 10 and 35 revealed a significant
relationship with their attitude on interactional group in language
learning.
d. The result also revealed that four items has significant relationship which
are item number 8, 14, 23 and 35 in terms of their year level.
e. The findings revealed that except the gender, the profile of the
respondents has a significant relationship to their attitude on interactional
Conclusion
The respondents expressed positive views on interactional group in language
learning. Therefore, learning language through interactional group is applicable to the
university level students. This is because through the conversations in their groups they
may learn new words to be added to their vocabulary. Also, they will be able to correct
the errors of their group mates without hesitations, and by this they will learn from each
other’s knowledge and experiences.

30
31
The significant relationship of the respondents’ attitude with some of the
statements under the variable Age and Year Level implies areas of consideration when
implementing Interactional group. Overall, the statements having significant
relationship, underscore the importance of collaborative learning through interaction and
also the involvement of each student in the learning process.
Recommendations
In connection with the findings and conclusions, the researcher would like to
recommend the following:
1. Since majority of the respondents perceived positive views on interactional
group in language learning, teachers should integrate this approach in the
classroom. Teacher should be creative enough to design activities that will
involve the students, and encourage collaboration and sharing of knowledge; and
2. Also, future researchers may conduct similar study using different respondents
from other programs, and explore other factors contributing to the use of
interactional group in language learning.
31
32
REFERENCES
Akinbobola, A. . (2009). Enhancing Students’ Attitude Towards Nigerian Senior.
Arbab. S.. (2003). Effects of Cooperative Learning on General Science Achievement of

9th Class Students. Unpublished Master dissertation, Rawalpindi: PAF College of
Education for Women.
Baleghizadeh, S. . (2010). The impact of peer interaction on an editing activity in EFL

classes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 721-727.
Bibi, A. . . (2002). The comparative effectiveness of teaching English grammar with the
help of textbook and by using group work activities. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University. Dawn, p. 20.
Brudett, J. & Hastie, B. . (2009). Practicing Satisfaction with Group Work Assignments.
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: University of South
Australia. vol 6(1). pp: 60-71.
Cantwell, Robert H. and Beverly Andrews . (2002). “Cognitive and Psychological

Factors Underlying Secondary School Students’ Feelings towards Group Work,”
Educational Psychology, 22, 1, 75-90. .
Colina, A. A. & García-Mayo, M.P. . (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks
by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García-Mayo (Eds.),
Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Crandall, J. . . (1999). Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In Arnold, J

(Eds.) Affect in Language Learning.
Doff, A. . (1989). Teach English: A training course for teachers, Cambridge:.
Ellis, R. . (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition, A Literature Review. Ministry

of Education, New Zealand.
Foster, P.,& P. Skehan, . (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of
planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3/3, 215 –
247.
Gillespie, D. S, & Thomas, E. . (2006). Grouped Out? Undergraduate’s Default

Strategies for Participating in Multiple Small Groups. The journal of General
Education, 55(2,81-102).
Gillies, R. M. . (2000). The maintenance of co-operative and helping behaviours in co-

operative groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 97-112.
32
33
Gomleksize, M. N.. . (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in

teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (case of Firat
University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.
http://dx.d.
Goss, N., Yang-Hua, Z., and J. P. Lantolf, . (1994). Two heads may be better than one:
mental activity in second-language grammaticality judgements, in Tarone, E. E.,
Gass, S. M., & A. D. Cohen, (eds.), Research Methodology in Second-Language
Acquisition, L.
Greenop, K. . (2007). Students’ perceptions of efficacy and preference for two lecture
formats. South African.
Harmer, J. . (2011). how to teach english, Essex: Pearson Longman.
Hashemi, H. . (2005). The effectiveness of a proposed program for teaching Arab

language in achievement and attitudes of non-native speakers in Oman
(Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Cairo University.
Hyland, K. . (2006). English for Academic Purposes: an Advanced Resource.

Institutions: Barriers under Layers of Casual Layered Analysis (CLA). Journal of
Futures Studies, 15(1), 21-38. (n.d.).
Jake M. Laguador . (2014). Cooperative learning Approach in an outcomes-based

Environment.
Jia Guanjie. . (2003). Psychology of foreign language education(2nd edition). Nanning:

Guangxi Education Press .
Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 361-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700212.

Kagan, S. . (1995). We can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL
Classroom.
Kiran Akhtar et al . (2012). A Study of Student’s Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 11; June 2012
p144.
Kuiken, F., & I. Vedder, . (2002). ‘The Effect of Interaction in acquiring the grammar of
a second language’, International Journal of Educational Research 37//3: 343-
58.
Lantolf, J. . (2000). . Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf, (Ed.).

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (p. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
33
34
Le, T. T. . (2010). Infusing Cooperative Learning into An EFL Classroom. English

Language Teaching, 3(2), 64-77.
Learning Theories Knowledgebase. (2011c). Constructivism at Learning-Theories.com.
Long, M. . (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382. McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-
learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context.
System, 32, 207–24.
McDonough, K. . (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group

activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224.
Mengduo, Q., & Xiaoling, J. . (2010). Jigsaw Strategy as a Cooperative Learning

Technique: Focusing on the Language Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 33(4), 113-125.
Mulryan, C. M. . (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group

work in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(5), 280-291.
Payne, B. & Monk-Tuner, E. . (2005). Addressing Issues in Group Work in the

Classroom. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. vol 16,1.pp: 175-179.
Petty, G. . (2001). Teaching Today, UK: Nelson Thornes.
Rue, L. W & Byars, L. L. (1993). Supervision: Key link to productivity (4th ed). USA:
Richard D. Salomon (1989).
Scrivener, J. . (2011). Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide to English Language

Teaching.
Shimatani, H. . (1986). The Use of Small Group Work in the ESL/EFL Classroom:
Theoretical Basis and some Suggestions for Practical Application. Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, No. ED 2.
Stavredes, T. . (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student
success. site:http://learn.education.illinois.edu/file.php/1647/LearningTheory-
Jossey-Bass.pdf .
Storch, N. . (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL.
Storch, N. and Wigglesworth, G. . (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In

M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasksin Formal Language Settings (pp.
157-177). London: Multilingual Matters.
34
35
Storch, N., . (1999). ‘Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical
accuracy’, System 27/3: 363-74.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. . (n.d.). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language
Journal, 83, 320–337. 1998 .
Tanveer, A. . (2008). Group Work vs. Whole Class Activity. BNU. Beaconhouse National
University.
Thanh-Pham, T. . (2010b). Implementing a Student-Centered Learning Approach at

Vietnamese Higher Education.
Thanh-Pham, T. . (2010a). Group Composition of Cooperative Learning: Does

Heterogeneous Grouping Work in Asian Classrooms? International Education
Studies, 3(3), 12-19.
Vygotsky, L. S. . (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. . (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development - ETC 510. (2007-2009). .
Wichadee, S. (2007). The effect of cooperative learning on English reading skills and
attitudes of the first-year students at Bangkok University. Presented at the
conference of languages for specific purposes in Higher Education — Searching
for Common Solutions.
Yossiri . (2012). Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ using Activities in EFL class
Ahmed.
35
____________________
APPENDICES
____________________
A. Letter to Dean
B. Letter to respondents
C. Questionnaire for respondents
D. Certificate of Statistician
E. Curriculum Vitae
APPENDIX A
Republic of the Philippines

Echague, Isabela
DR. JOHN N. CABANSAG

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Isabela State University
Echague, Campus
Sir:
I am conducting my thesis entitled “ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS ON

INTERACTIONAL GROUP IN LANGUAGE LEARNING” as a requirement for the
degree Bachelor of Arts in English.
In view hereof, the respondents of my study will be second year and third year AB
English students of College of Arts and Sciences
In this regard, please allow me to administer the questionnaire to the second year and
third year AB English students who are enrolled for the second semester, school year
2015-2016.
Thank you and God bless!
Respectfully yours,
Aileen May M. Daran

Researcher
Noted by:
ALEX L. SORIANO
38
APPENDIX B

Echague, Isabela
Dear Respondent:
Greetings!
I am a graduating student with the degree Bachelor of Arts in English, currently

conducting a Thesis study entitled "Attitude of students on Interactional group in
Language learning". In this, may I ask for your kind consideration and favor. Please
help me by answering sincerely of the questionnaire given below about your attitude
towards Interactional group in language learning. Your opinion is highly respected and
treated as confidential.
Thank you for taking time to answer the questions sincerely.
Respectfully,
AILEEN MAY M. DARAN

The Researcher
38
39
APPENDIX C
DIRECTIONS: Check the box that corresponds to your answer.
Adapted from the

http://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/612ee88798a69edbc08446d6058cceaf.pdf
Name: _______________________________________ Year level: ____________

Gender: _______ Age: _______
5= Strongly Agree 4=Agree 3=Moderately Agree 2= Disagree 1=Strongly Disagree
ITEMS 5 4 3 2 1
1. I like English learning activities in which students work together
in pairs or small groups.
2. I prefer to work by myself in the English class, not with other
students.
3. Group activities and pair-work in the English class are a waste of
time.
4. It creates a relaxing learning environment.
5. It helps students solve tasks better and faster.
6. It gives each student more time for speaking practice.
7. I don't like pair-work because the teacher cannot reach and help
everyone.
8. It gives students more chances to exchange ideas with each
other.
9. It enhances students’ effective use of English when talking to
each other.
10. Students give more help to each other.
11. Students learn more about how to share the responsibilities
when working in pairs/groups.
12. It helps improve students’ fluency.
13. It helps students feel more confident when speaking English.
14. I don't like pair-work because I have to move my seat.
15. I enjoy working within a pair or group.
16. I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or
communicate to others.
17. I understand information better after explaining it to others.
18. I feel more accepted by others after working within a pair or
group.
19. I often find it difficult to understand what the pair task is.
20. I prefer to work within a pair rather than work alone.
39
40
21. Even when the pair is achieving its goal, I don't really feel
involved or satisfied.
22. I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become
totally involved in a group achievement.
23. It is important that other group members take responsibility for
my learning as well.
24. Pairs should organize themselves so that the work is divided
evenly.
25. I usually make a strong personal contribution to pair-work.
26. I am often afraid to ask for help from my friends.
27. Contributing ideas within a group or pair often makes me feel
28. I can usually understand other group members' ideas.
29. Even when pairs are well organized, I don't believe they are a
more effective way of using class time.
30. It is best when each person helps each other within a group or
pair.
31. I often think the work becomes too confusing when done in a
pair rather than individually.
32. I rarely feel relaxed within a group or pair.
33. I do not feel responsible for others learning in groups.
34. I sometimes feel let down by other group members.
35. I often feel in charge when working within a group.
40
41
APPENDIX D

Echague, Isabela
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the data of the thesis of AILEEN MAY M. DARAN, entitled
“Attitude of Students on Interactional Group in Language learning” was statistically
treated and analyzed for its meaningful interpretation.
DIOSDADO C. CAŇETE, Ph. D.

Statistician
41
42
APPENDIX E
CURRICULUM VITAE
I. PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Name: Aileen May M. Daran

Birth Date: April 20, 1995
Sex: Female
Religion: Born Again Christian
Father: Mercurio A. Daran
Mother: Glory M. Daran
Residence: Kalabaza, Aurora, Isabela
Email add: aileen_420@yahoo.com
II. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Level School Year

Graduated
Tertiary Isabela State University 2016
San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Secondary Doña Aurora National High School 2011

Sta. Rita, Aurora, Isabela
Elementary Aurora Central School 2007

Sta. Rosa, Aurora, Isabela
III. MEMBERSHIP
Organization Year
Member, English Club 2012 – 2016

College of Arts and Sciences ISU-E
42
43
IV. SEMINARS ATTENDED
The Forum (The Official Student Publication Sept. 19-20, 2014

of Isabela State University-Echague)
Campus Journalism Seminar-Workshop:
Responsible Campus Journalism as the Key to Transparency
De Venecia Hall, Isabela State University
Echague, Isabela
The Forum (The Official Student Publication of September 5, 2013

Isabela State University-Echague)
Campus Journalism Seminar-Workshop:
Responsible Campus Journalism:
Catalyst for tomorrow’s engaged citizens
De Venecia Hall, Isabela State University,
Echague, Isabela
43

Attitude of Students On Interactional Group in Language Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitude of Students On Interactional Group in Language Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS ON INTERACTIONAL GROUP

The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

Of the Requirements for the Degree

AILEEN MAY M. DARAN

The thesis attached hereto, entitled, “ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS ON

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree BACHELOR

ADALYN C. SORIANO, MAT JOHN N. CABANSAG, Ph.D.

JOHN N. CABANSAG, Ph.D.

AMBROCIA A. GAFFUD, Ph.D.

people who contributed in the completion of this study:

to start and finished the research;

help and showing encouragement to the researcher to reach her goals;

spiritual, moral and financial support;

Above all, to Almighty Father, source of unending blessings, strengths,

This Piece of work is sincerely and humbly dedicated to

in this world. And to my family, Source of my unending inspiration

and unchanging love, I tenderly dedicate

this humble piece of Work.

Interactional group is a teaching strategy in which students work cooperatively in

group in language learning is positive; however, their positive has no significant

Since the attitude of the students on interactional group in positive, it

syllabus of AB English courses.

Key words: Interactional Group, Language learning, Attitude, Perception.

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Scope and Delimitation ........................................ 4

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Conceptual Framework ........................................ 11

Hypothesis of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

Respondents of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Data Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Statistical Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

IV. PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Students’ Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Attitude of students on Interactional Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Relationships between Respondents’ profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

on Interactional group in Language learning

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

C. Questionnaire for respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1 Distribution of Respondents According to their gender . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 Distribution of Respondents According to their age .............. 16

3 Distribution of Respondents According to their year level . . . . . . . . . . 17

4A Assessment of 2nd year students on their attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

on Interactional Group in Language learning

4B Assessment of 3rd year students on their attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

on Interactional Group in Language learning

5 Relationship of Respondents’ Attitude with their Gender . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6 Model Summary of dependent variable: gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 Relationship between attitude of students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

on Interactional group and their age

9 Model Summary of dependent variable: age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

10 Anovab (age) ............................................. 24

11 Relationship of the Respondents’ Attitude ..................... 25

with their Year Level

12 Model Summary of dependent variable: year level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

13 Anovab (age) ............................................ 26

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND