Received: 6 March 2019
DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12279
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The role of group dynamics in low-achieving EFL
students’ speaking development
Mohamed Ridha Ben Maad
University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence
Mohamed Ridha Ben Maad, University of
Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Email: ridhamaad@hotmail.com
Int J Appl Linguist. 2020;1–16.
Revised: 29 August 2019 Accepted: 20 October 2019
| Ibrahim Saadi
Exploring group dynamics in a foreign language classroom
has not yet received ample consideration in mainstream
research, notably their specified role in foreign language
development. The study reported presently sought to docu-
ment the particularity of this effect on an uncommonly
chartered segment of the low-achieving students in an
intermediate-level class. Following a time-series design in
which they performed watch-and-tell speaking tasks in a
14-week experimental process, analysis considered audio-
recorded data from 15 participants after being transcribed
and coded. While the results confirmed the positive relation-
ship between the maturity of group processes and the par-
ticipants’ willingness to communicate, they suggested slight
to moderate improvement in their speaking skill develop-
ment which in turn revealed a consistent use of processing
patterns uncommon to group-excepted students.
KEYWORDS
group dynamics, information processing, speech production, WTC
L’étude de la dynamique des groupes dans une classe de
langues étrangères n’a pas suscité suffisamment d’attention
dans les cercles de recherche établies, notamment leur rôle
direct dans le développement linguistique chez l’apprenant.
La présente étude visait à documenter la particularité de cet
effet sur un segment d’élèves peu performants dans une
classe de niveau intermédiaire. Dans un cadre pédagogique
d’éveil des langues, ils ont exécuté des tâches au cours d'un
processus expérimental de quatorze semaines. L’analyse a
pris en compte des performances orales enregistrées de
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijal © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

15 participants après avoir été transcrites et codées. Les

résultats ont confirmé la relation positive existant entre la
maturité des groupes et la volonté des participants de com-
muniquer, mais ils ont suggéré une amélioration légère à
modérée du développement de leurs compétences orales,
ce qui a révélé une utilisation cohérente de modes de
traitement inhabituels pour les étudiants exceptés du
parcours expérimental.

MOTS CLÉS
dynamique des groupes, traitement de l'information, apprentissage
des langues étrangères, production orale, volonté de communiquer

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

As practitioners, many important details escape our attention in the everyday language learning classroom which
thus zooming in on visible pictures and behavioral patterns while unwittingly missing many details deemed conse-
quential to a better understanding of what is in the foreground. Such is the case with the role of group dynamics in a
foreign language learning (FLL) milieu which has been meagerly addressed, contrary to the attention it has garnered
in social sciences (e.g., organizational psychology, psychotherapy, and sociology). In their assertion that groups have
a life of their own, Dörnyei and Murphey (2003: 9) see this research area as “a bit like peeping behind the curtains
and finding out a hidden dimension of a familiar thing, in our case the language classroom.” Throwing the spotlight
on these dynamics would offer stakeholders a more informed understanding of the complexity underlying the visible
constituents of the FLL classroom environment.
One of those aspects which have preoccupied lead FLL scholarship is the area motivation, most particularly the
variable of willingness to communicate (WTC). To the plethora of findings attendant to WTC, the overarching
research format was uniformly limited to correlational analysis, that is identifying the variable(s) most commensurate
with this construct (e.g., perceived competence (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000), social support (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, &
Conrod, 2001), anxiety (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998)). Nonetheless, little if any evidence was docu-
mented to examine the linguistic implications of WTC for learners who were treated as a homogeneous community.
The downside at this juncture consists in the failure to judge whether such correlations have a direct bearing on the
learning process. That is, the picture seems far more complex than considering some foreign language (FL) learners
as more willing than others to communicate in FL classes. The group dynamics undergirding the FL classroom con-
text may well exert a substantial bearing on the learning behavior of all learners tough not in the same way. In this
vein, low-achieving learners may also benefit from the group processes in their own way as to enhance their WTC
level and thus their learning course.
Anchored in the processing-based theoretical stance (Skehan, 1998), group dynamics is purported to mediate—
among other factors such as task design/sequencing, teaching methods, and motivation—the processing patterns
that shape the course of FL learning. In fact, the research attempt reported presently is an extension to a research
project Ben Maad (2012) in which individual's goal orientations, a basically phenotypic constituent of one's motiva-
tional outlook, shape different processing biases in response to cognitively challenging learning activities. The focus
on the socially encumbered concept of group dynamics here is hoped to contribute additional insights into the
nature of learners’ processing behavior when their group perceptions interlace with their motivational dispositions
being represented by their WTC.
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 3

2 | B A CKG R O U N D

2.1 | Group dynamics and learning

The study of group dynamics has spanned over a century spawning a substantial corpus of findings mainly reported
in organizational literature. Its main unit of analysis is the group which is defined by Shaw (1976: 446) as “two or
more people who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by
each other person.” Such influence matrix is the outgrowth of processes such as cohesiveness and norm consolida-
tion which emerge and evolve in the group's life cycle (Crano, 2000; Forsyth, 2010; Hadfield, 1992; Trognon & Batt,
2011) and here lies the key role of group managers (e.g., trainers, teachers, coaches) to optimize such processes and
minimize conflicts detrimental to their development. As any other kind of behavior, learning is interestingly
influenced by the individual's peer surroundings, and so groups become “tools for learning and their animation a busi-
ness” (Trognon & Batt, 2011: 1389). This partly explains the big interest allotted to learning and skill development in
organizational studies. At this point, related literature clustered around two research strands: one associating group
dynamics with the attitudinal and affective outcomes of group dynamics on the learner and another one probing the
cognitive changes the learner goes due to group influence.
The group stands as a resource for the individual to optimize her learning in a manner unfeasible outside the
group premises. Hadfield (1992: 10) considers that positive group dynamics “can have a beneficial effect on the
morale, motivation, and self-image of its members, and thus significantly affect their learning.” A high-functioning
group therefore offers an environment of safety wherein the individual's task engagement reaches optimal levels. A
high flow of proportionate communication therefore arises in the group, thus bouncing ideas off one another, sharing
feedback, and bringing varied knowledge base to bear on a problem. The psychological defenses offered by the
group increase the drive level of the individual members to partake further in internal communication flow (Dundis &
Benson, 2003; Gorse & Sanderson, 2007; Trognon & Batt, 2011). Zajonc (1965) concludes that compresence—the state
of responding in the presence of others—prompts individuals to maximize their effort to even grapple with complex
tasks. Individuals are at this point driven by the desire to project and maintain a positive self-image within the group,
or perhaps a fear of being associated with undesirable qualities that may cause group repulsion (Goffman, 1959).
There is also a good deal of literature reporting a significant influence for group dynamics on individuals’ cogni-
tive disposition. Research within this purview refers to learning as a process in itself which affects task performance
effectiveness and not as a mere outcome of such effectiveness (Edmondson, 1999). Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, and Boh
(2006) observed that groups of three or four members outperform the best of an equivalent number of individuals
working on their own on problem-solving as well as concept attainment activities. They efficiently engage in some
collective reasoning. Hinsz, Tindale, and Vollrath (1997) view groups as better processors than individuals because
groups, Trognon and Batt (2011: 1389) maintain, “adopt strategies inaccessible to individuals, for example transactive
memory, built by distributing information according to competences of their members.” Accordingly, group members
benefit from one another's expertise and knowledge of who knows what.

2.2 | Group dynamics in FLL context

Among the changes that marked communicative language teaching paradigm shift in FL research, there was a grow-
ing interest has brought into prominence the value of collaborative work. A new outlook was henceforth advanced,
shifting the mainstream focus away from the study of the experience of FLL as an isolated phenomenon into the
study of that experience as being part of the group whole. In terms of pedagogy, the FL pedagogical community has
voiced awareness of the issues and the weight of the group in learning outcomes. By way of illustration, Chang
(2010) gave anecdotal account of why some of her students had better a learning experience while others tended to
disengage due to the high or low functioning nature of their respective groups. Research-wise, it was only until the
4 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

mid-1990s that the concept of group dynamics was explicitly checked and empirically verified by Clément, Dörnyei,
and Noels (1994). This landmark study paved the way for substantial research follow-up led by Dörnyei (Dörnyei &
Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998). While this research line was geared towards a case-making effort to
accentuate the place group dynamics in a FL classroom, recent research has developed a more specified stance while
examining the direct bearing of such dynamics on learning outcomes (Alikhani & Bagheridoust, 2017; Chang, 2010;
Fushino, 2010; Poupore, 2016; Vosburg, 2017; Wazzan, 2015).
It should be noted that the extant FLL literature has revolved around what Poupore (2016) termed the socio-
contextual perspective which exclusively places emphasis on motivation. A large share of such interest has been
directed to the variable of willingness to communicate (WTC) which MacIntyre et al. (1998): 542) refer to as the
“readiness to enter discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons.” Readiness, at this point, is not
merely confined to the individuals’ intentions and persistence to engage, but also to their self-perceived ability to
execute. This variable lends itself to the novel motivational research wave in the 1990s led by Zoltan Dörnyei and
co-researchers. Motivation was henceforth considered as a situated process that evolves in its interaction with sev-
eral situation-specific motives, such as task sequencing and teacher intervention, goal orientations and, most particu-
larly here, group dynamics (Dörnyei, 2003). Focus on FL learners WTC would accordingly offer an incisive account of
their motivational disposition which is malleable in nature. This perhaps explains the particular attention of many of
the above-mentioned studies to examine its correlation with group dynamics (Alikhani & Bagheridoust, 2017; Chang,
2010; Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Fushino, 2010; Poupore, 2016; Vosburg, 2017). Despite the considerable findings in
support of the correlation between WTC and group dynamics, it yet remains unclear how such combination has
direct implications for the FLL experience.
One issue which touches upon the study of group dynamics in FLL context and elsewhere consists in the treat-
ment of groups as fully homogeneous entities, whether in terms of to their behavior and performance/learning out-
comes. As group members are not equally resourced, each develops strategies commensurate with her ability as well
as her status/role in the group. Hager (2012: 1392) presumes that “there may be, and typically is, important learning by
individuals within the group at the same time as the group itself is learning,” and so group learning does not nullify indi-
vidual learning. In the case of FLL, it seems misleading to view group performance as invariable among the group mem-
bers since individual differences and task difficulty level(s) may have their share of influence on such performance.
Another issue with the study of group dynamics and language learning is that it has remained unspecified about
how this variable affects the FL learning process. The extant findings were limited to documenting increases or
decreases in FL performance outcomes. Poupore (2016), for instance, reported a positive relationship between group
learning and the amount of language produced, but concluded that the amount of language produced does not nec-
essarily lead to acquisition. His account does not go beyond conjecture, as he admittedly states that “if a positive
group work climate leads to more language being produced and/or a stronger willingness to communicate, then it
can be assumed that it may also lead to language learning development” [italic author's emphasis] (Poupore, 2016:
13). In the same vein, Alikhani and Bagheridoust's (2017) reliance on Cambridge PET data collection procedure did
not give specified information beyond referring to improved speech. Overall, the outcome-oriented treatment of per-
formance here does not seem to reflect the possible variation in group learning.
Nonetheless, some research models may provide more specified information about the developmental course of FL
learning with group dynamics in the spotlight. Inspired by works from cognitive psychology (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989),
Skehan (1998) proposed a processing-based account of FL development based on a dual system: a rule-based mode
and a memory-based mode. Each of these modes draws on a unique way of functioning. Whereas the rule-based sys-
tem develops through the internalization of new forms and rules and their continual restructuring, the memory-based
system develops through the storage of lexical depository of formulas and their automaticity. These two developmental
courses are in constant competition due to the limited capacity of FL learners, leading to a disproportionate focus on
one of the three performance areas of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Interestingly enough, in a recent study
claiming that the dual-system is subject to processing biases due to learner differences, Ben Maad (2012), suggested
that individuals’ goal orientations may direct their focus towards either mode in view of the nature of tasks at play.
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 5

Performance-oriented students—using Dweck's (1986) learner taxonomy—were found to adopt a processing orientation
favoring automaticity, whereas task-oriented students had predilection for complexity and elaboration.
In this vein, the proficiency level of a given group member may determine not only her power position within
the group, but also her processing biases toward using one or another mode in response to other variables such as
the extent of task difficulty. That is, it is hardly expected that a mixed-ability group performs the task without having
differences in terms of achievement goals and the strategies to fulfill those goals. In the case of low-proficiency indi-
viduals, group processes may energize their motivational disposition toward task achievement. Yet, such influence
most likely directs them toward processing patterns not necessarily adopted by the other higher-achieving members
of the group. Hence, it would seem simplistic to subsume all the group members into the same basket of group-
based effect irrespective of their proficiency differences. In light of this assertion, the study reported presently
sought to document the effect of group dynamics on processing patterns adopted by low achievers in particular.
Building on this line of reasoning, it was hypothesized that (i) group dynamics have a significantly positive influ-
ence on low-achievers’ willingness to engage in speaking tasks and (ii) such influence leads to further development in
their FLL process.

3 | T H E ST UD Y

3.1 | Participants

Out of preliminary pool of 32 tertiary students who were carefully chosen to inform the study, only 15 of them
volunteered to engage in and finish the experimental course (control group (N = 8) and a focus group (N = 7)). The
subjects, aged between 18 and 20, were native speakers of Arabic, almost all the participants had ~9 years of learn-
ing English in public schools as some of them spent variable learning periods in English-speaking country on
government-sponsored scholarships. The sampling process focused on low-achievers whose motivational disposition
would most likely be the lowest among their peers. The informants were selected on the basis of a proficiency test
which, according to an estimate by a number of experienced ELI faculty members, sorted them into an intermediate
level. The decision to use a small number of participants was justified the exigencies of the 20-week experimental
course and data processing that might compromise quality of the data. The fieldworker could hardly ensure stable
commitment seeing the multi-tasking of administering the questionnaires and managing the tape-recording episodes.

3.2 | Research method

To address the hypothesized role of group dynamics in enhancing low-achievers’ willingness to communicate and
their speaking abilities, this study opted for a mixed-methods scheme. On one hand, it used a between-subjects
design to measure the extent of group influence in the participants’ willingness to engage in EFL speaking tasks. This
includes their in-class participation within small groups and in front of the whole class, interaction within their
groups, and management of task difficulties. On the other hand, the study sought to examine whether differences in
group beliefs are reflected in the speaking performance of the participants based on a within-subjects design with
repeated measures. In view of that, a 2 × 2 time-series plan (Group [Minus vs. Plus] Task [Time 1 vs. Time 6]) was car-
ried out to study the relationship between their WTC level and their processing decisions as reflected in the speaking
areas of fluency and complexity. The procedure spanned over six task performance episodes of equal intervals, the
first and last of which were subject to subsequent analysis.
Two independent variables were suggested to inform the experimental procedure: the presentation task-type
familiarity and the group dynamics-focused intervention (GDFI) factor. As to the task-type familiarity, it was treated
as a two-level variable where participants at the beginning of the experiment were claimed to be unfamiliar with the
6 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

task(s) particularly considered for data collection and analysis. However, repeating the same sequencing protocol and
task structure, yet with different topics in each assignment, would help them improve their speaking performance
(Ben Maad, 2012; Bygate, 2001). Also, standardized was the planning factor as all the participants were equally
allowed for a 20-min planning time prior to performance. Therefore, the only variance under consideration was task-
type familiarity which was operationalized into two levels: task-type familiarity and task-type nonfamiliarity.
As far as the GDFI variable is concerned, it was only measurable through pre-post comparison of the informants’
perceptions about the class group(s). Their perceptions would include beliefs about the group, engagement with the
group, and managing difficulties at a group level. The treatment of GDFI concerned only the experimental group where
their control counterparts were quite often to engage in the speaking tasks individually. It helped the former group max-
imize their interaction in the pre-task planning period though group work and pair work. The GDFI variable was not
expected to be effective in the advent of the experiment. The extent of its effect would peak by the end of the experi-
mental course, that is, when it reaches maturity in terms of cohesiveness and norm. In this respect, the teacher's inter-
vention was only limited to promoting group-based activities (pair work and group work) and forming mixed-ability
groups. The latter control procedure was a necessary to work with balanced and comparable groups in terms of size
and proficiency-based stratification, so as to secure consistency in terms of group management and later in the findings.
The effect of group dynamics and task-type familiarity was examined at the level of two outcome variables: the
extent of participants’ WTC and their speaking performance. On one hand, the WTC variable would give an account
about their willingness to engage in speaking activities in fulfillment of the regular class curriculum. Related results
were expected to report changes in the participants’ perceptions about speaking task engagement in view of their
exposure to the experimental course. On the other hand, this change would be closely scrutinized at two speaking
performance levels of fluency and complexity, each distinguished by two discourse analytic measures. Whereas flu-
ency was represented by speech rate per minute and the number of dysfluency markers per minute, the complexity
area was illustrated by the amount of subordination per T-unit and the percentage of lexical diversity. Overall, the
within-subjects variance in speaking performance would consist in the differences between the first (Time 1) and the
last (Time 6) score sets (Time 1 and Time 6) along these four discourse analytic measures.

3.3 | Instruments and procedures

3.3.1 | The questionnaire

A two-scale questionnaire was developed to obtain an estimate of the informants’ willingness to engage in the
speaking tasks and their perceptions about peer groups and group work. Following in part Pawlak and Mystkowska-
Wiertelak (2015) and Weaver (2005), the questionnaire revolved around three speaking-specific ideas: speaking in
front of a large group (e.g., “Speak individually in front of the class”), engagement in a speaking task within a small
group (e.g., “Help my group to finish the speaking task”), and persistence to speaking task difficulties (e.g., “Speak
when I am NOT sure that my answer is correct”). It consisted of seven statements representing the three areas to
which the participants responded to a five-point Likert rating scale which ranged from 1 = Definitely agree; 2 = Proba-
bly agree; 3 = Not sure; 4 = Probably disagree; to 5 = Definitely disagree. One reason to opt for this response format
was to document neutral responses knowing that the participants, essentially low achievers in comparison with their
group peers, might try to save face by giving approving responses that would not truly represent their reflections.
The second scale focused on the participants’ reflections on matters related to group work and group relations.
It was adapted from two well-cited psychometric tests, one designed by Matsubara (2007) and another by Rosenfeld
and Gilbert (1989). Only minimal modifications were added to maintain the specificity of this study, such as changing
context-general like “assignment” by “speaking task” and eliminating expression “in English” since all the participants
would naturally use their native language in intragroup communication. Also formatted into a five-point rating range
and assigned the same scoring values were six statements conceived to represent three main themes. The first two
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 7

items were intended to rate attitudes toward group work (e.g., “I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three
classmates”), the next two ones to measure attitudes toward group structure (e.g., “I learn better when I have one
leader in a group”), and the last two entries to estimate attitudes toward group cohesiveness (e.g., “I enjoy studying
with a group composed of people who fit together”).
The paper-and-pencil questionnaires were pilot-tested with students from the same institute but not being part
of the main sample. The preliminary internal consistency and reliability results emanating from the pilot test were
encouraging (Scale 1: α = .92 and lowest intrascale r = .58, p < .01; Scale 2: α = .90 and lowest intrascale r = .52, p <
.01). It should be noted at this point that only the control group were requested to respond to the questionnaire prior
to the experiment, whereas the focus group took the same psychometric test after the last experimental episode.
The rationale behind that decision was that students, if subjected to the same test over a 20-week span, might expe-
rience some feeling of ennui or perhaps lose the straightforwardness that usually comes with first-time tryouts.
Instead, a number of control measures were observed. An information session was held with the participants to con-
firm their commitment, secure their official agreement, and accentuate confidentiality. The session covered many
points such as the statement of the objectives of the experiment, the need to maintain confidentiality, the possible
follow-ups succeeding the experiment, and the estimated time of the study.

3.3.2 | The narrative speaking task

To comply with the purpose to examine the effect of group dynamics and WTC on students’ in-class speaking per-
formance, the study focused on structured narrative activities. One reason for that choice was that narratives would
make participants’—notably the weakest links in their groups—speaking performance flow uninterrupted by their
peers. The stories in focus revolved around topics familiar to the participants (e.g., recycling experience, star biogra-
phy) to be narrated based on a definite number of 12 picture prompts. While committed to a watch-and-tell perfor-
mance of the task, the participants had to serialize output in a sequential way. They were therefore constrained to a
single schematic sequential structure (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005) compelling a cause–effect pattern in their speech
production. It also follows that focus on structured narratives would ease the cognitive load on the task takers in
comparison with unstructured narrative tasks which, normally based on a loose time line and little guiding data, might
have overburdened the participants already lacking enough linguistic resourcefulness.
The administration of the narrative tasks was carried out in six occasions during which all the students were
audio-recorded while only the renderings of the target participants were counted in the target data. The fieldworker
did not have any follow-up discussions with the participants so as to ward off any additional pressure on them. Prior
to the performance of the task, the participants were allowed for a 20-min planning time, collaborating with their
group peers to gather materials, rehearse, develop ideas, seek feedback, among other things. The story tellers had to
address their peers so that the latter could take notes for a follow-up writing activity was not part of the data consid-
ered in the study. In fact, having a listener was deemed crucial since, as Ortega (2005: 97) argued, “the element of an
authentic listener [may] push to the foreground the affective and social dimension of task performance.” Also, the
peer listener variable might draw away the speaker's feeling of the presence of the fieldworker, thus alleviating unnec-
essary pressure. On the whole, while using the same task structure to provide a baseline measure to offset other task
effects, only the performances in the first and last episodes were recorded and considered for subsequent analysis.

3.3.3 | GDFI intervention

The fieldworker divided the students into small groups of five to six members each three times over the experimental
process. Each time it was announced to form groups, all the students were distributed into preliminary pools based
on their proficiency level. They chose one another to formulate their teams of mixed ability to engage in classroom
8 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

activities collaboratively until their groups were asked to disband and enter a new round of group formation. The
fieldworker communicated his instructions either through the group leaders or sometimes directly to the groups. To
ensure a balanced workload distribution within each group, it was stated that group achievement and responsibilities
would be evaluated individually. Furthermore, a reward system based on intergroup competition was considered
whereby all the group members—most particularly the leaders—would view it as their responsibility to leave no
member behind. The fieldworker had to monitor the distribution of responsibilities within each group, possible inter-
nal conflicts, and the norms adopted in addition to follow-ups with group leaders when necessary to grapple with
some issues. In light of the fieldworker's responsibilities and the aim to work closely and meticulously with the
groups, it was decided to focus on a small number of participants for the subsequent data collection.

3.4 | Coding and scoring procedures

The collected audio-recordings were transcribed using English standard orthography and the transcription conventions
in Mackey and Gass (2005: 224). The coding process focused on four measures to account for two outcome variables.
On one hand, the fluency variable was represented by (i) a temporal measure to calculate the velocity of speech pro-
duction (i.e., the number of pruned syllables with repetitions), false starts, self-corrections discounted to be divided by
number of seconds and multiplied by 60 and (ii) a hesitancy measure of false starts, repairs, hesitations to be divided
by number of seconds and multiplied by 60. On the other hand, the complexity variable which included two measures:
(i) a subordination measure which was meant to gauge the extent of structural complexity in the transcripts (i.e., the
number of nodes divided by total number of T-units) and (ii) a lexically focused measure that calculated the percentage
of lexical density (i.e., the number of lexical words divided by the number of total words then multiplied by 100).
To secure adequate scoring reliability, a coding scheme—inspired in the main by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) and
Sangarun (2001)—consisted of definitions and instructions about data identification. It was reviewed for clarity by
experienced research faculty during the coding process. Furthermore, a sample of transcripts (around 10 % of the
whole data) was randomly selected for check-coding to examine the level of coding variance. A co-coder who had a
background knowledge related to field research carried out this task with reference to the coding scheme. An inter-
coder reliability test was conducted for the four speaking performance measures, with Speech rate measure showing
the lowest score (88%) and the Subordination measure the highest (92%). With reference o Mackey and Gass (2005),
the percentage agreement between the co-coder and the fieldworker was estimated acceptable. Still, the main dif-
ferences identified were discussed with the co-coder until consensus was reached and scoring finalized.

4 | RESULTS

It is crucial to scrutinize any possible distributional issues related to the collected data before verifying the hypothe-
ses. According to the findings reported in Table 1, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity were not violated,
and so yielding little chance to misinform the subsequent inferential test of multivariate analysis. As to normality, the
data silhouette seems to be evenly skewed with six positive distributions against seven positive ones for both scales.
All the items suggest skewness values fluctuating between .49 (Item 2) and −.26 (Item 13), yet within the acceptable
2.00/−2.00 range. As regards the assumption of homogeneity, it was also verified in view of the nonsignificant
values obtained through Levene's Test of Homogeneity. Although the P value of .08 (Item 11) is low comparably with
the other items, it is still conventionally estimated as nonsignificant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Also worth-
addressing is the account of reliability because of the context-specific nature of and the considerable modifications
applied to the adapted items. The reliability results attested that the questionnaire measured what it was expected
to measure, showing scale alphas above the conventionally required value of α = .70 (i.e., α = .94 for Scale 1 and α =
.96 for Scale 2).
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 9

TABLE 1 Descriptive and variance results for perceived TWC and group dynamic

Group
meanscontrol Distributionskewness Partial
Subscale experimental Levene's F P η2

Willingness to communicate (α = Item 1 1.38 3.71 .38 .32 50.08 .000 .79
.94) Item 2 1.50 3.86 .49 .26 30.45 .000 .70
Item 3 2.00 4.42 −.12 .75 24.43 .000 .65
Item 4 1.87 4.28 −.13 .35 22.92 .000 .64
Item 5 1.75 4.42 .13 .64 48.26 .000 .79
Item 6 1.87 4.14 −.01 .63 18.17 .001 .58
Item 7 1.62 4.71 .09 .51 140.20 .000 .92
Group dynamics (α = .96)
Item 8 1.25 4.72 .15 .78 198.88 .000 .94
Item 9 1.75 4.57 .11 .81 53.55 .000 .81
Item 2.00 4.14 −.20 .29 25.16 .000 .66
10
Item 1.87 4.71 −.26 .08 37.97 .000 .75
11
Item 1.87 4.42 .11 .61 25.13 .000 .66
12
Item 2.00 4.71 −.26 .24 37.92 .000 .75
13

To verify the hypothesized relationship between group dynamics willingness to communicate, a correlational anal-
ysis of the questionnaire data was carried out. Table 2 gives a detailed account about the size of such correlations.
Overall, it suggests that the two subscales correlate significantly across all the items from both ends. The highest case
of significance corresponds to Item 7/Item 8 correlation point (r = .931, p < .01). The lowest however is associated

TABLE 2 Correlations between the WTC and group dynamics subscales

Willingness to communicate

Subscale Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7

** ** ** ** ** **
Group dynamics Item 8 .883 .857 .729 .745 .869 .703 .931**
.000 .000 .002 .001 .000 .003 .000
** ** ** ** ** *
Item 9 .861 .738 .761 .818 .705 .604 .842**
.000 .002 .001 .000 .003 .017 .000
* * * * ** *
Item 10 .619 .613 .608 .538 .706 .547 .880**
.014 .015 .016 .039 .003 .035 .000
** ** * ** ** *
Item 11 .732 .787 .639 .729 .755 .636 .877**
.002 .001 .010 .002 .001 .011 .000
* ** ** ** ** **
Item 12 .601 .647 .818 .790 .790 .661 .842**
.018 .009 .000 .000 .000 .007 .000
** ** ** ** ** **
Item 13 .783 .774 .721 .705 .762 .696 .863**
.001 .001 .002 .003 .001 .004 .000

Note: Pearson r is significant at the 0.01 level ** and significant at the 0.05 level*.
10 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

with the Item 4/Item10 level (r = .538, p < .05). It is though crucial to mention that the distribution of correlational
matrix does not reflect specific patterns related to inner clusters of one subscale with ones from the other subscale.
That is, there are no correlational differentials associated with any sub-combination from either subscale (e.g., group
cohesiveness or s structure from the group dynamics subscale and persistence from the WTC subscale). In spite of
immutable association between the WTC and group dynamics, it is still indefinite at this juncture to outline the partic-
ulars of such correlation regarding the effect distribution across the control group and the experimental group.
Table 1 also reports evidence for a positive correlation between group dynamics and the participants’ WTC in a
speaking-class environment. A between-subjects analysis of the data presented in the WTC subscale (Items 1–7)
suggests a one-way advantage for the experimental group over the control group, as evidenced by the mean
response distribution of the participants’ responses to the WTC items (i.e., lowest M = 1.38 for the control group
(Item 1); highest M = 4.71 for the experimental group (Item 7)). It is worth reminiscing here that the WTC data were
collected over two rounds. While the questionnaire was administered to the control group prior to the experiment
and to the experimental group by the end of the procedure, both groups were equally subject to the task-familiarity
variable which was indispensably considered due to the time-series model followed. This means that only the experi-
mental group had experienced the group-focused treatment where the control group had not. The shape of the
mean response distribution was reflected by the F test results, thus showing significant differences for all the WTC
items the highest of which was Item 7 (i.e., F = 140.20; η2 = .92).
The findings in the group dynamics subscale (Items 8–13) reveal further details about how group-related percep-
tions also varied for the two groups. Where both groups had almost the same proficiency level, their attitudes
toward task engagement were remarkably different. This assumption was attested by the systematic differences in
the mean responses where the experimental group showed a clear lead such as for Item 9 (i.e., lowest M = 1.25 for
the control group; highest M = 4.72 for the experimental group). Such advantage can be considered as the result of
the persistent group-focused treatment the latter group had received. As all the F results substantiated this differ-
ence pattern for all this subscale, the variance was at its highest when it comes to the participants’ attitudes toward
group work as illustrated in the first two items of the scale (i.e., F = 198.88 and η2 = .94 for Item; F = .53.55 and η2 =
.81 for Item 9). The differences were however stable for the concepts of groups structure and group cohesiveness
with a size of variance ranging from η2 = .66 for Items 10 and 12 to η2 = .75 for Items 10 and 11. These findings point
out to the role of the experimental process in changing low-achievers’ perception of power relations, that is from
regarding the interlocutor variable as a suppressive factor to an associative mediator who would help them consoli-
date their learning commitment. In sum, the direction of the differences corroborates the hypothesis that the group-
based experience has a significant and positive effect on low-achievers’ willingness to engage in speaking tasks.
Regarding the hypothesized effect of group dynamics on speakers’ performance, the findings in Table 3 revealed
mixed results. Focus on the individual effect(s) identified a clearly significant group effect only for the subordination
measure (i.e., F = 48.88; η2 = .65) to a meager significance for the rest of the measures the lowest of which was for
lexical diversity (i.e., F = .04; η2 = .00). Likewise, the individual task-type effect was relatively more significant when
related to the measures of Speech rate (i.e., F = 21.79; η2 = .46) and Subordination (i.e., F = 29.63; η2 = .53). More
importantly, the same variance distribution showed in the combined-effect results for the latter measures. Whereas
speech rate showed acceptable significance yet with a medium effect size (i.e., F = .17.56; η2 = .40), the subordina-
tion measure held the highest degree of variance with a visibly large effect size (i.e., F = 58.26; η2 = .69). Overall, it
follows from these that the effect distribution—whether individual or combined—was not consistent within each
performance area.
To further scrutinize the crossings-marked picture of the group-by-task effect distribution, Table 4 reports mean
scores for each group. This follow-up procedure aimed to identify the direction of such effect, that is which of the
two groups had the scoring lead over the other. At the level of fluency, the control group experienced relatively more
improvement than the experimental group. Not only did such advantage show on the speech rate measure, but also
on the fact that they had less instances of repetitions, false starts, and self-corrections (M = 9.09) than their experi-
mental counterparts (M = 11.83). Less consistency was however identified in the complexity area. Whereas no clear
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 11

TABLE 3 Individual and combined effects on speaking performance

Dependent variable M2 F P Partial η2

Group Speech rate .56 3.99 .056 .13

Dysfluency 55.79 4.81 .037 .16
Subordination .40 48.88 .000 .65
Lexical diversity .04 .04 .949 .00
Task Speech rate 3.08 21.79 .000 .46
Dysfluency 18.20 1.57 .221 .06
Subordination .24 29.63 .000 .53
Lexical diversity 37.95 3.59 .069 .12
Group × Task Speech rate 2.48 17.56 .000 .40
Dysfluency 11.47 .99 .329 .04
Subordination .47 58.26 .000 .69
Lexical diversity 5.40 .51 .481 .02

TABLE 4 Mean performance distribution per group

Group Speech rate Dysfluency Subordination Lexical diversity

Control 95.6 9.09 .25 32.0

Experimental 84.8 11.83 .48 32.16

advantage for either group was detected regarding the lexical diversity measure, the experimental group outscored
their control counterparts almost by the double in terms of the subordination measure with M = .48 and M =
25, respectively. In sum, the mean differences reported presently do not seem all-embracing for either group, with a
limited advantage for the control group specific to speech flow and for the experimental group specific to structural
complexity.
To cast more light on the nature of the mean differences identified above, Figure 1 tracks the direction of these
differences. It displays a graphic representation of the development in each performance area across the two speak-
ing tasks considered for data elicitation. On one hand, fluency showed improvement for both measures even though
such improvement was less vertical when it comes to the experimental group. In fact, they suggested a slight pro-
gress in their speech flow although looking negligent compared to the one associated with the control group. The
same pattern was reiterated for the dysfluency measure although the advantage for the control group was identified
from the first task, that is, prior to the experimental procedure. On the other hand, complexity equally demonstrated
improvement, yet not comparable to with the improvement patterns charted in the fluency area. Although the two
groups started with the same level of subordination, it is only the experimental group that showed improvement of
their structural complexity where the control group's use of subordination exacerbated over time. As for the lexical
density measure, improvement for both groups was evidenced though more manifestly with the experimental group.
On the whole, there was evidence for positive effect of the group and task-type familiarity variables, though not
consistent across the performance areas. Hypothesis 2 was reasonably borne out.

5 | DISCUSSION

The findings reported presently have accentuated the importance of the socio-contextual angle not only to our
understanding of the FL classroom but also its direct implications for the learning course. Although its inferential part
12 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

FIGURE 1 Estimated marginal means for speaking performance measures

did not yield unreservedly significant results, the follow-up descriptive part of the analysis proved quite revealing in
tracking systematic changes in the participants’ speaking performance. Nonetheless, many insights can be drawn
from the findings that may not only help revisit some of the established findings but also inform comparable research
projects specific to FL learning. Reflections on these results revolve around the informants’ perceptions of the group
experience and their linguistic significance evidenced in the speaking performance data.
The psychometric evidence for a positive correlation between group perceptions and the participants’ WTC in a
speaking-class environment did not accord with the general tendency in the literature. Contrary to this study, self-
report data from Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) and Chang (2010) suggested a weak correlation between one's motiva-
tion for task engagement and his/her perception where the task factor has an overriding effect. Yet, it is worth not-
ing here that these works drew on a population of students presented as homogeneous samples in terms of
proficiency, and thus information about their anxiety level and motivational predispositions remained unverifiable. It
sounds fairly simplistic to contend that the group cohesiveness, for instance, would affect the WTC level of all the
group members in the same way, whether positively or otherwise. Instead, each group member has his/her own per-
ception of the task and such attitude is well susceptible to many individual differences that may include the profi-
ciency level, among other things. It is very unlikely to claim that what motivates the high-achieving member in a
given group does so for another the weakest link in that group.
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 13

Focus on low-achieving students in this study, compared with the rest of their classmates, particularly accentu-
ated the idea that the former benefited from the GDFI experience in their own way. Group cohesiveness would
serve as a social shield against peer pressure and its ensuing hindrances, thus lowering their anxiety level and encour-
aging them to maximize their processing effort while performing a given task. Their motivation for task engagement
would be directed towards a particular type of achievement, not necessarily conceived by the other students with
different proficiency/goal levels. Overall, caution is warranted when associating motivation with group processes as
the individual differences between the group members may unveil information hardly detectable while viewing the
group as a homogeneous entity.
This study also made another stride in the research line connecting group dynamics to FL learning and whose
evidence for such interplay has been limited to psychometric scrutiny (Alikhani & Bagheridoust, 2017; Dörnyei &
Kormos, 2000; Matsumoto, 2010; Vosburg, 2017; Wazzan, 2015). Interestingly here, analysis of the transcribed data
showed that the group environment positively helped the GDFI-exposed students exert a sustained effort to pro-
duce more structurally complex stretches of speech, yet with a noteworthy number of decrements at the level of flu-
ency (e.g., repairs, hesitations, and false starts). Contrarily, the fluency of the GDFI-exempted informants improved,
however with lower instances of subordination. Overall, the two groups likely adopted different behavioral patterns
evidenced by their commitment to two opposite learning modes (McLeod & McLaughlin, 1986). While the GDFI-
exposed students’ appeared to adopt a risk-taking behavior prompting them to engage a “greater variety of syntactic
patterning” (Foster & Skehan, 1996: 304) predisposed to elaboration rather than form, contrary to the GDFI-
exempted group developed an aversive form of motivation (Dweck, 1986) as evidenced in their focus on task com-
pletion with the least exigent processing demands possible. This picture concurs with the behavioral patterns
reported in Ben Maad (2012; 2016) where learners’ goal orientations partly shape their attitudes towards task
engagement, thus their processing biases toward a given speaking area. Similarly, the response patterns of risk-
avoidance or risk-taking—whether attendant to inherent learning goals or to group influence—has bearing on one's
FL learning course.
The dual-processing picture reported presently is justified by a number of researchers who advocate an impor-
tant role for output in language learning. Consistent with McLeod and McLaughlin's (1986) identification of two
competing learning modes, Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim (1998: 118) argued that the areas of fluency and com-
plexity follow different paths of development. Whereas fluency development evolves through a process of
proceduralization and automaticity (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996) which draws on the constant retrieval and
consolidation of the lexical depository, complexity development focuses on restructuring which requires the linguis-
tic encoding of complex conceptual plans evidenced a considerable number of repairs and pauses especially for low-
proficiency learners (Ben Maad, 2012, 2016; Skehan, 1998). In fact, the performance patterns reported in the pre-
sent study (see Figure 1) draw a developmental picture that lends itself to the Complexity theory perspective
(Larsen-Freeman, 2006) which asserts that FLL may take different paths of development. Although constrained by
the short time span in which the study was carried out, this picture offers a realistic account of FLL development
whose course is marked by the roadmap of variables learners may follow. Exposure to GDFI or the lack thereof may
add substance to this picture.

6 | C O N CL U S I O N

This study has explored the role of group dynamics in the speaking performance of low-achievers, a learner segment
meagerly studied in isolation. Following a quasi-experimental design, it was found that group-based engagement in
FL classroom speaking activities has a significant bearing on one's willingness to communicate. Contrary to the main
tendency in the extant literature which attested to the lack of rapport between these two variables, focus on the
low-achieving segment within mixed-ability classes suggested that students’ perception of and interaction with the
peer group may vary, thus affecting their motivational dispositions accordingly. Equally revealing in this study was its
14 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

attempt to draw the concept of group dynamics closer to the area of FL learning. As such, related findings tapped
from transcribed data in response to speaking tasks pointed to the effects of group dynamics on their behavioral ori-
entations and processing decisions. Whereas the GDFI-exposed participants adopted a risk-taking behavior trans-
lated into prioritizing structurally complexified oral production, the GDFI-exempted sample developed an aversive
form of motivation prompting them to focus more on fluency and less on structural complexity.
In view of these findings, it would still unwise to draw firm conclusions despite the implications they may deliver.
The developmental course, though showing relative improvement, does not at this juncture charter the size or the
rate of FL development in the areas of fluency and complexity. An extended examination these areas within the
same experimental framework would likely add plausibility and clarity to the picture drawn here. Also worth-
addressing in related future research is much more spotlight to be shed on the group processes. An in-depth analysis
of such processes—how they are activated and consolidated within and between the groups—would surely offer a
more rigorous account of the nature of effect measured by GDFI which in turn needs more revisions in view of the
lack of related working models.

ORCID
Mohamed Ridha Ben Maad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9730-9167

RE FE R ENC E S
Alikhani, M., & Bagheridoust, E. (2017). The effect of group dynamics-oriented instruction on developing Iranian EFL
learners’ speaking ability and willingness to communicate. English Language Teaching, 10, 44–59.
Baker, S., & MacIntyre, P. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations.
Language Learning, 50(2), 311–341.
Ben Maad, M. R. (2012). The Joint Effects of Goals and Tasks on Speaking Performance and Development: AnInformation-
processing Approach Unpublished thesis from the University of Manouba, Tunis, Tunisia.
Ben Maad, M. R. (2016). The role of L2 learner goal differences in task-generated oral production. Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 48–72.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. B. Skehan, & M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
Chang, L. Y. (2010). Group processes and EFL learners' motivation: A study of group dynamics in EFL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 44(1), 129–145.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language class-
room. Language Learning, 44(3), 417–448.
Crano, W. (2000). Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac-
tice, 4, 68–80.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations and motivations in language learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in task performance. Language Teaching Research,
4, 275–300.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dundis, S., & Benson, S. (2003). Building more effective virtual teams: An examination of the task variable in online group
problem-solving. International Journal on E-Learning, 2, 24–38.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administration Science Quarterly, 4,
350–383.
Ehrman, M. E., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, B. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
Fushino, K. (2010). Causal relationships between communication confidence, beliefs about group work, and willingness to
communicate in foreign language group work. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 700–724.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Oxford, England: Doubleday.
Gorse, C., & Sanderson, A. (2007). Exploring group work dynamics. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University.
BEN MAAD AND SAADI 15

Hadfield, J. (1992). Classroom dynamics. Oxford University Press.

Hager, P. (2012). Group learning. In M. N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1391–1395). United States
of America: Springer.
Hinsz, V., Tindale, R., & Vollrath, D. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction
approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five
Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
Laughlin, P., Hatch, E., Silver, J., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers
problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644–651.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning
orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situa-
tional model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matsubara, K. (2007). Classroom group dynamics and motivation in the EFL context. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006
conference proceedings. JALT: Tokyo.
Matsumoto, Y. (2010). The impact of group dynamics on the L2 speech of student nurses in the classroom. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 180–189.
McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36(2),
109–123.
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning
and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pawlak, M., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of L2 willingness to communicate. System,
50, 1–9.
Poupore, G. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relationship with L2 learners' task motivation and language pro-
duction. Language Teaching Research, 20, 719–740.
Rosenfeld, L., & Gilbert, J. (1989). The measurement of cohesion and its relationship to dimensions of self-disclosure in
classroom settings. Small Group Behavior, 20(3), 291–301.
Sangarun, J. (2001). The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance (Unpublished doctoral thesis), OISE-
University of Toronto.
Shaw, M. E. (1976). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and
task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied
Lingusitics, 17, 84–119.
Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2011). Group dynamics and learning. In M. N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning
(pp. 1388–1391). United States of America: Springer.
Vosburg, D. (2017). The effects of group dynamics on language learning and use in an MMOG. CALICO Journal, 34(1),
58–74.
Wazzan, M. (2015). Group dynamics in the EFL classroom: The role of the cohesive group of Syrian tertiary learners.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199(2015), 184–188.
Weaver, C. (2005). Using the Rasch model to develop a measure of second language learners’ willingness to communicate
within a language classroom. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6, 396–415.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy
and complexity. Technical report 17. Manoa: University of Hawai'i Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

How to cite this article: Ben Maad MR, Saadi I. The role of group dynamics in low-achieving EFL students’
speaking development. Int J Appl Linguist. 2020;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12279
16 BEN MAAD AND SAADI

APPENDIX A. : 6.1 | Group dynamics and WTC scales for speaking activities

State whether you 1 = Definitely agree; 2 = Probably agree; 3 = Not sure; 4 = Probably disagree; or 5 = Definitely dis-
agree with the following.
WTC scale
I am willing to:
1. Speak individually in front of the class. 5 4 3 2 1
2. Speak to a large group. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Participate in a discussion in a small group. 5 4 3 2 1
4. Help my group to finish the speaking task. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Speak when I know my performance is NOT graded. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Speaking when I am NOT sure that my answer is correct. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Modify what I have said in response to an error. 5 4 3 2 1
Group dynamics scale
08. I enjoy working with two or three classmates. 5 4 3 2 1
09. I prefer studying with others to studying alone. 5 4 3 2 1
10. I learn better when I have one leader in a group. 5 4 3 2 1
11. I learn better if I know my role in the group. 5 4 3 2 1
12. I enjoy studying with a group who fit together. 5 4 3 2 1
13. I want to stay in a group where I belong. 5 4 3 2 1