English For Specific Purposes: Mu-Hsuan Chou
English For Specific Purposes: Mu-Hsuan Chou
English For Specific Purposes: Mu-Hsuan Chou
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Cooperative learning has frequently been used in language classrooms, from in-class task-
Available online 28 May 2011 based group work to group presentations. Research suggests that cooperative learning pro-
vides mutual support, as well as successful and effective learning outcomes of tasks. The
Keywords: present research addressed a number of problems discovered in group oral presentations
Learner strategy in an EAP context where cooperative learning is the core of the course. As learning is
Oral presentation strongly related to strategies or approaches adopted to facilitate one’s comprehension
Cooperative learning
and production of the target language, the purposes of the present study were to investi-
EAP
EFL
gate the use and influence of learner strategies in cooperative and individual learning, and
the benefits of cooperative learning in improving students’ English speaking ability.
Fifty-two, third-year French major college students taking the Professional English
Course at a college in Taiwan participated in the study. All participants were required to
give oral presentations on the topics taught in class. Research methods included question-
naires, interviews, and oral assessments. The findings showed that, first, certain learner
strategies had positive impacts on the students’ language performance in the two types
of presentation and second, that group oral presentation had the greatest influence on
improving students’ speaking ability, while other forms of cooperative learning activities
enhanced their motivation for learning.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the past few decades, cooperative learning has been promoted in language classrooms as a way of increasing learning
and teaching efficiency, learner motivation, and communication and collaboration between learners. Learning with peers
provides learners with plenty of opportunities to practise the target language via the exchange of ideas. As the saying goes,
‘Two heads are better than one.’ The benefits of cooperative learning appear to override those of individual learning. In par-
ticular, research has suggested that cooperative learning is beneficial to Asian learners who are influenced by Confucianism,
in the sense that it alleviates their anxiety and concern about ‘face’ when learning with peers (Flowerdew, 1998; Hofstede,
1980). As a result, cooperative learning has become an important approach used by many teachers.
The success or failure of cooperative learning, however, can be influenced by a great number of variables, ranging from
language input and output, interaction, and sociocultural elements to individual differences and affective factors. My initial
interest in conducting this research resulted from an unsuccessful and problematic cooperative EAP classroom in a college in
Taiwan. The students who took the English course had to give oral presentations in groups twice a semester. Owing to the
large size of classes in this college (more than 50 students in a class unit), presentation in groups is frequently used in order
to improve the efficiency of teaching and learning. In the present case, the students had taken their French major courses
⇑ Present address: Department of Foreign Language Instruction, Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, 900 Mintsu 1st Road, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan.
Tel.: +886 7 3426031x5221.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
0889-4906/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 273
together over the past two years (four semesters), and had gained the experience of giving oral presentations at least once or
twice every semester. They thus had regular group members to work with; that is, they were familiar with each other in terms
of personality and learning styles, at least to a certain degree. In their third year of study, they were taught by the researcher,
and several problems were discovered during their group oral presentations. Whereas recent research has focused primarily
on the positive effects of the cooperative learning of small-scale tasks or activities carried out in the language classroom, the
present study explores the problems occurring at various stages of group oral presentations. Since choices of learner strategies
are closely related to how learners comprehend and produce the target language (Cohen, 1998; Griffiths, 2007), it is worth
investigating the application of learner strategies in group and individual presentations, and the influence of learner strategies
on the students’ language performance in both types of presentation. Students’ performance in individual presentations could
serve as a benchmark to compare performance in group presentations. In addition, the extent to which the type of cooperative
learning activity encourages and benefits oral ability is also explored. It is hoped that the results will shed light on problems
occurring in oral presentations in an EAP context, and provide EFL teachers with a better understanding of the learning process
and the development of English speaking ability in the two types of oral presentation.
Cooperative learning by definition relates to the amount of group support; the degree to which individual members of a
group need to learn from each other’s strengths and weaknesses to develop an achievable goal and to exhibit their skills
(McCafferty, Jacobs, & Iddings, 2006, pp. 4–5). The term cooperative learning is often used interchangeably with collaborative
learning; the former tends to be used with primary and secondary learners, the latter with older learners. Sharan and Sharan
(1992), however, considering the teacher’s influence on student–student interaction in class, suggest that cooperative learn-
ing is more general and allows students a great deal of control over such matters as topic selection, communication with
group members and the process of collaboration. In their definition, collaboration is seen as a process generating cooperative
learning. Other studies also note that cooperative learning activities are associated with gains in achievement, higher-level
thinking and self-esteem (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1995). In the present study, the nat-
ure of the group work investigated was closely related to this broader, more general, sense of cooperative learning. Therefore
the term ‘cooperative learning’ was used in preference to collaboration.
According to Jacobs and McCafferty (2006), cooperative learning is connected to second language learning and teaching in
seven interrelated areas: the input hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis, sociocultural theory, con-
tent-based instruction, individual differences and affective factors. The input hypothesis suggests that second language
acquisition is driven by language input, that is, listening and reading. The outcome of language input is, however, unobserv-
able unless it is shown through output or other forms of observable interaction. Swain (1993; also see Jacobs & McCafferty,
2006, p. 20) notes that output facilitates language acquisition in terms of ‘‘promoting fluency via meaningful language use,
pushing learners to engage in syntactic processing of language, and promoting opportunities for feedback from others’’. In
cooperative learning, speaking or writing meaningful language fluently, whereby learners have to interact and negotiate
with each other to accomplish a task, is highly valued. Learners in the present study needed to read extensively in and after
class and to cooperate in order to accomplish a goal (i.e., oral presentations). During the process of cooperation, learners uti-
lized their own cultural background, each other, artefacts for communication and the environment to create a physical and
mental learning space in a particular sociocultural context.
In addition, individual differences, learner autonomy, and affective factors also determine group dynamics, atmosphere,
interactions and success. For many years, Chinese students have been labeled ‘silent’ and ‘reticent’ in the language classroom
(Flowerdew, 1998; Zhang & Head, 2010). Flowerdew (1998), in her research on the effect of cultural differences on group
work, discovered that group work is a suitable strategy for Chinese students who tend to be silent because of concern over
‘face’. Cooperative learning diminishes their apprehension and uncertainty. In Japan, Joritz-Nakagawa (2006) conducted re-
search on the use of cooperative learning to accomplish a term project in a group of Japanese university students, noting, as
did Flowerdew, that cooperative learning increased learner motivation and willingness to participate in class. In order to in-
volve students in interaction, Dörnyei and Malderez (1997) emphasized the importance of the dynamics of group learning in
shaping the L2 learning process. They suggested that group work can help change learners’ behavior and attitudes, building
confidence and a cohesive relationship through the quantity and quality of interaction between members. Although there
are many advantages of cooperative learning, learning with group members is different from independent or individual
learning in the sense that multidimensional factors involved in learning with peers can influence students’ choice of learning
strategies and linguistic performance. This again is a reason for investigating learner strategies and language performance in
cooperative and independent learning.
Nevertheless, group work is not without its difficulties. Long (1977, p. 289), for example, stated that although bigger
groups offer more problem-solving resources, an increase in size brings extra problems of intra-group organization and
communication. Jacobs (1988, p. 97), in his study of university students’ group activities in Thailand, found that groups
did not necessarily cooperate equally and a lack of cooperation led to complaints, arguments, and group dysfunction. Dörnyei
and Malderez (1997) indicated that individuals in groups may behave differently than they would outside the group. Group
oral presentation, unlike conventional in-class group discussion, tasks, or activities, thus requires the careful organization of
materials, cooperation among group members, and a lucid presentation. The differences in learning outcomes between
group and individual work remain unknown.
274 M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285
In the past few decades, research on group work and speaking ability has been conducted in terms of discourse anal-
ysis in the L2 classroom, with an emphasis on strategies for teachers to organize and operationalize effective in-class
activities or informal group discussion (Bejarano, Levine, Olshtain, & Steiner, 1997; Dörnyei & Malderez, 1997; Long,
1977). In 1996, Ferris and Tagg (1996, p. 311), surveying the academic faculty’s opinions towards ESL students in four
universities, found that faculty were ‘‘most concerned with ESL students’ ability to express themselves fluently in class
discussions and to give clear, coherent answers’’. Thus, the extent to which students can communicate with peers and
answer questions was a primary concern in classroom oral activities. In their study of cooperative learning activities
and academic bilingual proficiency, Liang and Mohan (2003) found Chinese immigrant students in the USA had difficul-
ties in maintaining L1 and developing L2 in academic discourse, suggesting that the translation from L1 to L2 caused
problems of miscommunication in cooperative learning activities. Recently, researchers have begun to be particularly
interested in investigating oral performances in formal settings, such as academic and conference presentations, of
non-native English speakers (e.g., Morton, 2009; Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005). Although studies by
Rowley-Jolivet and Carter-Thomas (2005) and Morton (2009) have focused on genre, and the rhetorical and lexical appro-
priacy used in oral presentations, other features of oral performance, such as organization, exposition of professional
knowledge, fluency, phonetic and phonological appropriacy, and the language of EFL learners in academic presentations,
remain under-researched. In the present study, two types of oral presentation – group and individual – were examined.
Since group work and/or group presentation are frequently used in Chinese culture (Flowerdew, 1998; Zhang & Head,
2010), one might expect cooperative learning activities to benefit students’ oral performance, but the extent to which
they do so remains unclear.
When learning and using a target language, learners may deploy a number of strategies to facilitate comprehension and
to improve performance. Learner strategies are categorized in different ways, but they generally include learning strategies,
language use and communication strategies (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). By using learning strat-
egies, learners consciously or possibly subconsciously use methods or approaches appropriate to their needs to memorize
and understand the target language, to monitor and evaluate learning progress, to compensate for lack of knowledge and
to interact with other people.
On the one hand, cognitive strategies’ refer to strategies of identification, comprehension, grouping, retention, and storage
of language material; this type of strategy also includes several language use strategies, such as retrieval, rehearsal, and pro-
duction of language (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002). On the other, ‘metacognitive strategies’ are those used by learners to regulate,
monitor, or manage their learning process. Whereas learning strategies are frequently used to strengthen learners’ linguistic
competence, language use strategies relate closely to learner performance in the target language. In the case of preparing
oral presentations in an EAP setting, learning strategies and language use strategies become essential, since students need
to comprehend materials and to give a speech. According to Cohen (1998), language use strategies can be divided into four
categories (see also Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002):
1. Retrieval strategies: strategies used to call up language material from storage, and to memorize or recollect information
that has been forgotten.
2. Rehearsal strategies: strategies for practising target language structures, which can be part of language learning or part of
language use.
3. Cover strategies: strategies for creating an appearance of language ability, so as not to look unprepared, foolish, or even
stupid and
4. Communication strategies: strategies used to convey a message that is meaningful and informative for the listener or
reader, such as topic avoidance, message reduction, code switching, and paraphrasing; or leaving a message unfinished
if information cannot be bridged.
Despite the neatness of this and other category systems, actually classifying categories used in real-life situa-
tions, especially by learners, is not straightforward (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002). When a learner performs a language task
in a certain situation, he or she may use a variety of overlapping strategies. In order to analyze learner strategies
efficiently, strategies that share similar characteristics, such as some of the cover and communication strategies, are
analyzed more generally below under the category of communication strategies. In the present study, the aim was
to investigate the influence of learner strategies on two types of oral presentation, and it involved three research
questions:
1. How far did learner strategies vary between group and individual oral presentations?
2. What were the differences in language performance between group and individual oral presentations?
3. How far did different types of cooperative learning activities improve the students’ English speaking ability?
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 275
4. Research method
The research was undertaken with a group of 52 French major college students taking the Professional English course in
their third year of study; the college is located in the urban area of southern Taiwan. The course was designed for students
majoring in foreign languages in their third year of study in terms of learning English and developing language proficiency
and skills from diverse, specialized fields within an academic year (two semesters). The topics covered in class ranged widely
from computer technology, medicine, space exploration, sports, environment, law, literature and culture to business and
economics. The students were required to read articles extensively, undertake small-scale research based on the themes
in the course book and give presentations related to the topics twice a semester. Themes were chosen by the teachers,
but the topics were decided by students drawing lots.
Of the various methods used to investigate learning strategies, such as observation, structured interviews, questionnaires
and think-aloud tasks, structured interviews and questionnaires have been found to be particularly successful (Chamot,
1987; Cohen & Aphek, 1981; Ellis, 1994 Mangubhai, 1991; Rubin, 1981; Wenden, 1986). As these were straightforward to
administer in the college class context, both were accordingly adopted for the present study. The strategies in the question-
naire were adopted from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) designed by Oxford (1990), learning strategies
proposed by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and language use strategies formulated by Cohen (1998). Follow-up interviews
with more than three-quarters of the participants were conducted face-to-face and based on the questions in the
questionnaire.
Data collection consisted of two stages. In the first stage, the students gave presentations in groups, where the group
members and leaders were decided by themselves. There were twelve groups with four to six participants per group, and
each group had one team leader. The reason for giving a flexible range of groupings with four to six participants in one group
was because they had had regular classmates to work with in a group. If they had been equally divided into four per group,
some of them would have had to work with unfamiliar classmates from other groups, which could well have had a negative
effect on the cooperation process. As mentioned in the introduction, the participants were already familiar with their regular
group members; thus, problems resulting from unfamiliarity with partners during cooperative learning were reduced to a
minimum. Each group gave presentations twice a semester, and all students completed a questionnaire regarding learning
strategies and strategy use in the context of cooperative learning (Appendix A). The second stage started in the second
semester, where the same participants gave two presentations individually. After the two presentations, they completed
a questionnaire similar to the one they had answered in the first stage, but in the context of individual learning (Appendix
B). In both types of presentation, each student needed to speak for six to seven minutes. The reliability of the two question-
naires was 0.82 and 0.85 by Cronbach’s Alpha respectively, which was considered adequate for the purposes of this study.
In addition to questionnaires and interviews, the language performance data between group and individual presentation
were seen as required potential evidence of the manifestation of learner strategies. A rating scale was accordingly developed
by the researcher in order to assess the criteria set for the oral presentation. The scale was divided into five categories – orga-
nization, content, fluency, pronunciation and vocabulary – with detailed descriptors (Appendix C). The rating scale was
checked by having another teacher rating the participants’ in class presentation. The Pearson correlation of the ratings
was r = 0.706 (p = .000).
5. Results
The application of metacognitive strategies varied markedly between group and individual presentations. The percentage
of the participants who adopted metacognitive strategies increased substantially in individual presentations (Table 1).
Reasons for inefficiency in group presentations included the length of time needed to communicate with each member, reach
mutual agreement, gather information, and work with group members at the same pace. According to the interview with the
team leaders, after agreeing on a certain topic, the content and structure of each sub-topic was decided by each member. The
team leaders said that they simply put sub-topics together without considering the connection between different parts. As
regards their oral performance in both types of presentation, all but nine (82.7%) participants agreed that they made more
progress with their English-speaking ability in individual presentations (B6).
A paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare the difference of using metacognitive strategies for the two types of
presentation. There was a statistically significant increase of mean scores in strategy use from the group to the individual
performance, p < .0005 (two-tailed) (Table 2). The means of metacognitive strategy use increased from group to individual
Table 1
Comparison of metacognitive strategies between group and individual presentations from the questionnaires.
Table 2
Paired samples test result of metacognitive strategies between group and individual presentations.
Variable 95% CI Mean Time 1 Mean Time N1/N2 t-value p-value Effect size
(SD1) 2 (SD2) (eta squared statistic)
A1 & B1 .66, .38 1.37 (.49) 1.88 (.32) 52 7.42 p < .0005 .52
A2 & B2 .70, .42 1.31 (.47) 1.87 (.35) 52 8.02 p < .0005 .56
A3 & B3 .60, .32 1.42 (.50) 1.88 (.32) 52 6.61 p < .0005 .46
A4 & B4 .58, .30 1.33 (.47) 1.77 (.43) 52 6.36 p < .0005 .44
A5 & B5 .52, .25 1.54 (.50) 1.92 (.27) 52 5.65 p < .0005 .39
presentations and were .51 (A1 & B1), .56 (A2 & B2), .46 (A3 & B3), .44 (A4 & B4), and .38 (A5 & B5) with a 95% confidence
interval. The eta squared statistics indicated large effect sizes.
Cognitive strategies were widely adopted by the participants at the preparation stage in both types of oral presentation.
However, the difference in the application of cognitive strategies, compared with metacognitive strategies, was not very
marked between the two types of presentation (Table 3). The t-test showed that there was no statistical significance in cog-
nitive strategy use between group and individual performance (Tables 4). Although the eta squared statistics of A8 & B9 (.16)
indicated a large effect size, the statistics of the remaining three cognitive strategies (A6 & B7 = .08; A7 & B8 = .02; A10 &
B11 = .10) indicated moderate effect sizes.
The data showed that, in general, cognitive strategies were deployed at a personal and basic level; in other words, the
participants needed to go through the process of collecting and preparing materials no matter what type of presentation
was used. (Riley & Harsch, 1999; see Anderson, 2005), exploring the use of learner strategies in ESL and EFL settings, discov-
ered that learners in second language settings used more metacognitive strategies than foreign language learners. The for-
eign language learners, in contrast, reported using more cognitive strategies than second language learners. When Tables 1
and 3 were compared, the participants (EFL learners in the present case) deployed cognitive strategies almost equally in both
types of presentation, but used metacognitive ones more in individual presentations, which implied that individual presen-
tations provided more opportunities for EFL learners to cultivate metacognitive strategies.
The frequency of using communication strategies differed in group and individual presentations. Specifically, communi-
cation strategies were less frequently deployed in individual presentations, where the percentage of gestures and synonyms,
new words and unfinished messages was reduced (Table 5). The t-test showed that there was a statistically significant
Table 3
Comparison of cognitive strategies between group and individual presentations from the questionnaires.
Questions A6 & B7 say or A7 & B8 practice A8 & B9 A9 & B10 A10 & B11
write new words (%) pronunciation (%) note-taking (%) skim/scan (%) make summary (%)
Group 86.5 84.6 61.5 90.4 63.5
Individual 94.2 86.5 73.1 90.4 73.1
Table 4
Paired samples test result of cognitive strategies between group and individual presentations.
Variable 95% CI Mean Time 1 (SD1) Mean Time 2 (SD2) N1/N2 t-value p-value Effect size
(eta squared statistic)
A6 & B7 .15, .00 1.87 (.35) 1.94 (.24) 52 2.06 p = .044 .08
A7 & B8 .06, .02 1.85 (.36) 1.87 (.35) 52 1.00 p = .322 .02
A8 & B9 .21, .03 1.62 (.49) 1.73 (.45) 52 2.58 p = .013 .16
A10 & B11 .18, .01 1.63 (.49) 1.73 (.45) 52 2.33 p = .024 .10
Table 5
Comparison of communication strategies between group and individual presentations from the questionnaires.
Questions A11 & B12 A12 & B13 A13 & B14 A14 & B15 A15 & B16
Gesture (%) New words (%) Synonyms (%) Unfinished message (%) Use L1 (%)
Group 69.2 76.9 88.5 71.2 32.7
Individual 42.3 38.5 61.5 57.8 28.8
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 277
decrease in mean scores in the use of the three communication strategies from group to individual, p < .0005 (two-tailed)
(Table 6). The three means that decreased in communication strategy use were .27 (A11 & B12), .39 (A12 & B13), and .26
(A13 & B14) with a 95% confidence interval. The eta squared statistics (A11 & B12 = .27; A12 & B13 = .38; A13 &
B14 = .27) indicated large effect sizes. This corresponded with their report of using retrieval strategies in the next section
(Section 5.4), where the majority of the participants found it easier to memorize the content of their individual
presentations.
With reference to the retrieval strategies, percentage data showed there was a significant difference in memorizing con-
tent between the two types of presentation (Table 7). Approximately half reported that the information for each member in
group presentations was limited and easy to memorize, and they could speak with the help of visual aids instead of mem-
orizing everything from the notes. All but three participants (94.2%) said that it was easier to retrieve what had been forgot-
ten in a group presentation than in an individual presentation (A18). Twelve of them reported that, in individual
presentations, they knew what to say in front of the audience; however, owing to a large amount of content having been
prepared, it was hard to remember everything. Only 34.6% of the participants said that it was easy to retrieve the content
in individual presentations (B19).
Rehearsal strategies were more frequently adopted in group presentations than individual ones (Table 7). The t-test
showed that there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores in rehearsal and in the use of one retrieval strategy
from group to individual, p = .001, p = .004, and p < .0005 (two-tailed) (Table 8). The means that increased in the two types of
strategy were .19 (A16 & B17), .15 (A19 & B20), and .55 (A20 & B21) with a 95% confidence interval. The eta squared statistics
(A16 & B17 = .19; A19 & B20 = .15; A20 & B21 = .56) indicated a large effect size. This corresponded with their reports of
using retrieval strategies in the next section (Section 5.4), where the majority of the participants found it easier to memorize
the content in the individual presentations. As mentioned above, communication strategies were frequently used in group
presentations to help compensate for insufficient information and rehearsal strategies were not used as frequently in group
presentations as in individual ones. Approximately 86.5% of students believed that rehearsal helped them learn English and
speak fluently in front of an audience (A21 and B22), but they also reported that it was relatively easier and more efficient for
individual presenters to rehearse than group presenters, since it was often hard to get everyone together for practice.
Language performance was established by means of the descriptors on the presentation rating scale (see Appendix C). In
the case of the group presentations, the separate sections tended to be loosely connected both thematically and logically,
Table 6
Paired samples test result of communication strategies between group and individual presentations.
Variable 95% CI Mean time Mean time 2 (SD2) N1/N2 t-value p-value Effect size
1 (SD1) (eta squared statistic)
A11 & B12 .15, .39 1.69 (.47) 1.42 (.50) 52 4.34 p < .0005 .27
A12 & B13 .25, .52 1.77 (.43) 1.38 (.49) 52 5.65 p < .0005 .38
A13 & B14 .15, .39 1.88 (.32) 1.62 (.49) 52 4.34 p < .0005 .27
A14 & B15 .04, .23 1.71 (.46) 1.58 (.50) 52 2.82 p = .007 .13
A15 & B16 .02, .09 1.33 (.47) 1.29 (.46) 52 1.43 p = .159 .04
Table 7
Comparison of retrieval and rehearsal strategies between group and individual presentations from the questionnaires.
Questions A16 & B17 A17 & B18 use things A19 & B20 A20 & B21 short time
memory (%) to retrieve memory (%) rehearsal (%) for rehearsal (%)
Group 53.8 92.3 73.1 34.6
Individual 73.1 94.2 88.5 90.4
Table 8
Paired samples test result of retrieval and rehearsal strategies between group and individual presentations.
Variable 95% CI Mean Time 1 (SD1) Mean Time 2 (SD2) N1/N2 t-value p-value Effect size
(eta squared statistic)
A16 & B17 .30, .08 1.54 (.50) 1.73 (.45) 52 3.49 p = .001 .19
A17 & B18 .06,.02 1.92 (.27) 1.94 (.24) 52 1.00 p = .322 .02
A19 & B20 .26, .05 1.73 (.45) 1.88 (.32) 52 3.05 p = .004 .15
A20 & B21 .70, .42 1.35 (.48) 1.90 (.30) 52 8.02 p < .0005 .56
278 M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285
with the result that the mean scores for the first and second presentations were just 5.9 (SD = 1.69) and 6.8 (SD = 1.20) out of
10 (Table 9). Problems occurred when the introduction and conclusion were not strongly connected to the topics or the sup-
porting details. Specifically, two-thirds of the groups had difficulties in summarizing the main points in their talk. They
either muddled through the conclusion without referring to the purpose or the content, or else they finished abruptly. When
the participants presented individually, however, the organization of their presentation was more specific, with a mean score
of 7.7 in the first presentation. After feedback, a clear introduction describing the purpose of the talk was included and a
conclusion obviously linked to the topic was given. The mean score accordingly increased from 7.7 (SD = 1.44) to 8.1
(SD = 1.03).
As regards content, the majority of the participants had a limited understanding of the overall content, except for the
parts they themselves presented in group presentations. The mean scores were 6.9 (SD = 1.35) and 7.1 (SD = 1.12). This
was particularly clear when they were asked questions by the researcher; only one-third of the speakers could explain
the whole content. Apparently, the negotiation, communication, and connections between team members regarding linking
sub-topics and ideas had not been managed smoothly. This situation improved in the individual presentations, where the
majority of the speakers were more confident when presenting, describing, and arguing the ideas or propositions in their
speech. Questions regarding their presentations randomly asked by the audience and the researcher were answered without
difficulty, showing that they had understood the relevant sub-topics presented. The mean scores consequently increased to
7.8 (SD = 1.27) and 8.3 (SD = 1.04). The standard deviation of organization and content in group presentations was larger
than in individual ones, which implied that the variability of participant performance group presentation was more than that
in the individual ones. Data from the two questionnaires show that the participants used metacognitive strategies more fre-
quently in individual than in group presentations, which may well account for why the content of their speech was more
consistent and well-organized in their individual work. In short, the results were in line with O’Malley and Chamot’s
(1990, p. 8) general point that ‘‘students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or
opportunity to plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their accomplishment’’.
With respect to fluency, the majority of the participants expressed themselves fluently and naturally, whereas the
remainder tended to pause for lexical repairs. The mean scores for fluency were 7.1 (SD = 1.44) and 7.3 (SD = 1.40), and
the variability was very small. Interestingly, compared with group presentations, the mean scores for fluency in the individ-
ual presentations decreased slightly to 6.4 (SD = 1.56) and 6.7 (SD = 1.09), suggesting more variability compared with the
group presentations. The participants spent more time pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repairing in indi-
vidual than group presentations. As the participants switched to different sections of their presentations, they needed more
time to formulate syntactic structures and/or search for vocabulary they had memorized. This corresponded with the par-
ticipants’ statements about spending more time on memorizing the content and on keeping the presentation going.
The participants’ performance in pronunciation and use of vocabulary in both presentations was similar. Only a few par-
ticipants’ pronunciation was correct and clear with appropriate intonation and a good command of rhythm, with mean
scores of 6.9 (SD = 1.32) and 6.9 (SD = 1.36) for group work, and 6.5 (SD = 1.43) and 6.6 (SD = 1.32) for individual presenta-
tions. Other students’ pronunciation was less accurate, and might have been influenced by their native language, Chinese,
and their major language, French. In addition, the accuracy of pronunciation was influenced by new terminology, words,
and/or names in other foreign languages. When it came to vocabulary, some terms were explained unclearly, some left unex-
plained, and others were explained in Chinese by a small number of participants. The mean vocabulary scores for group work
were 7.4 (SD = 1.20) and 7.3 (SD = 1.32), and for individual work, 7.3 (SD = 1.12) and 7.6 (SD = 1.35). The standard deviation
in the pronunciation and vocabulary sections remained close and showed little variability for both types of performance.
From the participants’ point of view in Question B23, they considered preparing and presenting specialized knowledge the
most difficult part of the oral presentations, with the mean being 3.69 out of 5 (Table 10). They also reported that it was hard
to give a fluent talk since this depended on their memory of the content and their psychological awareness of, for example,
anxiety or nervousness (M = 3.38). Next, organizing a presentation and using appropriate language for the presentation were
Table 9
Comparison of language performance between group and individual presentations.
Table 10
Students’ perception of the degree of difficulty of the performance in oral presentations (group and individual presentations).
both moderately difficult for the students, with the means of 2.81 and 2.75, respectively. Finally, using correct pronunciation,
intonation, and having good English rhythm was not viewed as a problem compared with other factors.
After finishing the two types of presentation, the participants provided feedback on their performance in the type of pre-
sentation in which they believed they had done better (B24), and the type of oral presentation they disliked (B25).
Thirty-five out of 52 participants thought that they performed better in individual presentations for three main reasons.
First, 22 of the 35 said that they had a clearer and better understanding of, and control over, the content and the procedure
of the presentations, and this made it easier for them to convey their ideas to the audience. More than one-third of the 22 empha-
sized that the information collected for individual presentations was more comprehensive and the ideas were better organized
and more consistent than for group presentations. Three participants specified that giving individual presentations allowed
them to develop independent thinking, which further helped them speak fluently. Second, ten of the 35 participants said that
individual presentations avoided (a) disagreement over the presentation, something which frequently occurred in group situ-
ations during the discussions with their partners, and (b) overlap in the content of the sub-topics. Three people said that team-
work was highly important in group presentations; thus, if any of them failed to perform well, it could undermine the marks of
the other team members. The other seven participants reported that it was quicker and more efficient to prepare individual pre-
sentations. Fourteen out of the 52, on the other hand, felt that they performed better in the group presentations. Owing to the
small amount of content that needed to be prepared by each speaker, nine of them considered it easier to cope with just their
own parts. Seven also felt less apprehensive while standing with their team members in front of the audience.
When it came to the least preferred type of presentation, 39 of the 52 did not like group presentations for three main
reasons. The first reason concerned time-consuming cooperation and negotiation within groups. The situation became worse
when there were ‘irresponsible’ team members who did not take the presentation seriously, and this led to inefficient time
management, poor quality of the oral report, and complaints. In addition, fifteen people said that it was hard to distribute
work to group members equally and fairly; some, particularly those whose English ability was higher, tended to take or
be given charge of important sub-topics and to talk more in the presentations. Finally, six participants were concerned that
the sub-topics of group presentations were not well-organized and that they, as speakers, merely became familiar with cer-
tain points without understanding the entire context.
According to the participants’ feedback and reflections on their performance in the two types of academic oral presenta-
tion, it was clear that individual presentations were preferred by the majority of the participants. Do these results, however,
imply that cooperative learning was of little use and impractical for language learning, or simply that the students found it
hard, in practice, to work together, owing to the constant failure of communication in groups? In order to answer this ques-
tion, three types of cooperative learning activities commonly used on the course were listed in the questionnaire (B26 and
B27; Appendix B) for the participants to choose which was the most motivating and which helped them improve their
English oral ability. These were: (1) in-class discussion on questions related to course content, (2) in-class task-based
activities, and (3) group oral presentations (the focus of the present study).
In terms of the most motivating type of cooperative learning activity, 23 out of 52 participants preferred in-class discus-
sion. Half of the participants said that discussion with group members and answering the questions was quick, efficient,
interesting, and less stressful. The most important advantage was that they could train their ability to improvise and respond
spontaneously. Answering the questions in the discussion could, they said, bring them up to speed with the article they were
going to learn about in class. Also, seven participants noted that such an activity was more interactive and communicative, in
the sense that group members could exchange interesting ideas; this corresponded to the view that group learning provides
English learners with a rich discourse environment and multiple opportunities for face-to-face interaction to exchange infor-
mation about academic content and procedures (Díaz-Rico, 2008, p. 365). Three further students said that they felt a sense of
confidence and self-fulfillment when they answered questions correctly. Despite these positive reactions, however, the over-
all benefit of in-class discussion in terms of improving students’ English oral ability was not as great as expected. Only eleven
participants felt that their oral ability had improved through spontaneous responses.
Next to the in-class discussion, task-based activities were favored by another sixteen participants. Six students said that
task-oriented activities allowed them to work together and learn from each other, which improved communication. The
other six participants said that this kind of small task encouraged them to practice the vocabulary and deploy the knowledge
or language skills they had just acquired or learned in class. Another three said that it was efficient and interesting to work
with group members. Surprisingly, only seven participants reported that their language ability had improved during task-
based activities. According to the follow-up interviews with five students, in order to get the task done on time, not all group
members spoke English during the discussion. In addition, when the results were reported, only one or two students in the
group performed in front of their classmates.
Group presentation was the least preferred type of cooperative learning, being chosen by only thirteen participants, since
it was large-scale and took more time to complete compared with the other two types. Although group presentation was not
a favorite type of cooperative learning activity for the majority of the participants, the impact on their English oral ability
280 M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285
was nevertheless positive. Nearly two-thirds reported that their English speaking ability had improved markedly from group
oral presentations. More than half said that giving a presentation was not like answering a question or doing a small task; it
required the skills to organize a large amount of information in a structured fashion, to present a talk, explain terms, and
expound their views on topics to the audience. Ten participants specifically highlighted the point that oral presentation
was an essential way to practice their reading, writing, and speaking abilities. In addition, the other nine said that their oral
ability was reinforced through the process of rehearsal. Although spontaneous speech was preferred by the majority of the
participants, memorizing sentences helped them speak more fluently and remember the grammatical structure of English.
6. Discussion
Recent research on cooperative learning emphasizes the importance of group dynamics, the creation of a motivating envi-
ronment, group formation, and the benefits of group learning on teaching (Bejarano et al., 1997; Zhang & Head, 2010). The
present study, however, more closely examined the influence of learner strategies on academic group presentations. The
learner strategies that varied markedly between group and individual presentations were metacognitive and communication
strategies, as well as minor differences in cognitive strategies.
The situation with respect to retrieval and rehearsal strategies was that, owing to the larger amount of information need-
ing to be comprehended, stored, retained, and produced in individual presentations, the majority of the participants spent
more time rehearsing before the presentation, and memorizing and retrieving information during the talk. Communication
strategies, however, were more frequently used in group than in individual presentations. In group presentations, the par-
ticipants tended to use visual aids rather than memorization to help them retrieve information and they deployed more
communication strategies to express the meaning of a word they had forgotten, or to hunt for an appropriate hedge for a
difficult message they wanted to deliver in the speech. The degree of interactiveness of the speech event in group and indi-
vidual presentations was clear in the present study and the same situation also applied to the research of L1 and L2 academic
presentations carried out by Zareva (2009). Zareva, researching L1 and L2 college students’ use of circumstance adverbials in
academic presentations in the USA, found that her L1 students presented informally and tended to keep the audience in-
volved in their presentations. The L2 presenters, on the other hand, focused more on informational content and the formal
delivery of speech, excluding negotiation and communication with the audience. Interestingly, the EFL participants in the
group presentation in the present study and the L1 presenters in Zareva’s study shared the same feature of using a fairly
communicative and interactive style of speech. Moreover, the formality of presentations and the lower degree of interactive-
ness on the part of Zareva’s L2 presenters paralleled the performances of the individual presenters in this study.
As regards language performance in the two types of presentation, on average, the participants performed better in struc-
turing and arranging the content in individual presentations, which was consistent with the finding that using more meta-
cognitive strategies helped them understand and present specialized knowledge. Interview feedback from the participants
also supported this fact. As regards fluency, the participants spoke more fluently in group than in individual presentations, in
the sense that they spent more time retrieving information. Their performance in terms of pronunciation and the use of lan-
guage was similar in both types of presentation.
When asked to evaluate the three most commonly used types of cooperative learning activity, the majority of the partic-
ipants considered group presentations beneficial for the development of their oral ability but they did not view group pre-
sentations as a stimulating or interesting way to work with group members or to participate in class. In Liang and Mohan’s
(2003) study, their sample of Chinese immigrants in the USA also expressed contradictory feelings about cooperative learn-
ing activities in the English classroom, but for different reasons. The Chinese immigrants cared more about the appropriate-
ness of translating meanings from L1 to L2 in academic contexts, whereas the participants in the present study paid more
attention to the type of activity involved and the degree of successful cooperation among team members. Although group
presentations provided the participants with more opportunities to speak English fluently via the process of rehearsal,
the students preferred learning through speaking spontaneously to memorizing from notes.
7. Conclusion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of learner strategies and language performance in group and
individual presentations, as well as the benefits of cooperative learning activities in the development of oral performance.
Fifty-two French major undergraduate students taking a Professional English course in a college in Southern Taiwan partic-
ipated. The students needed to give oral presentations twice a semester; presentations were given in groups in the first
semester and individually in the second. Questionnaires, interviews, and oral assessments were used to collect data.
Riley and Harsch (1999) and Anderson (2005) agree that environment influences learners’ need for strategies, so explor-
ing how strategy use changes when conditions for language use change becomes important in EAP contexts. The results in
this case showed that the use of certain learner strategies varied between group and individual presentations. Metacognitive,
retrieval, and rehearsal strategies were deployed by more participants and used more frequently in individual than in group
presentations, whereas the opposite was the case with communication strategies. Compared with metacognitive and com-
munication strategies, there was little difference in the use of cognitive strategies between the two types of presentation. The
use of learner strategies had an influence on students’ language performance. Significantly, the application of metacognitive
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 281
strategies in the individual presentations had a positive impact on the development of learner comprehension and the
organization of collected materials, the efficiency of the learning process, the acquisition of specialized knowledge and
vocabulary and oral language performance. Individual presentations allowed learners to engage fully in a complete learning
process, something that could be neglected during cooperative learning, even though the work load for each speaker might
be heavier. Although group presentation was considered a less motivating type of cooperative learning activity than other
forms, it was also reported to have a positive influence on the development of linguistic ability, the acquisition of profes-
sional knowledge, the process of preparing small-scale projects and giving a presentation.
Ideally, successful cooperative learning consists of reciprocal support and monitoring, unanimous agreement over a goal,
and mutual respect; however, in practice, individual differences, affective factors, disagreements, and failures to meet dead-
lines are common and unavoidable variables, even for group members who are familiar with each other. From a teacher’s
point of view, each of the two presentation types would seem to serve different pedagogical purposes. For instance, using
group presentations appears to be a useful way to help learners develop effective communication strategies, to expand their
ability to interact with audiences, and to encourage them not simply to memorize large chunks of text. This can potentially
bring EFL learners’ style of giving academic presentations close to the style with which Zareva’s (2009) L1 learners interacted
with the audience in a communicative and relaxed way in EAP settings. Alternatively, it seems that using individual presen-
tations can benefit learners’ development of metacognitive strategies, and the ability to link and organize relevant informa-
tion under a topic. In conclusion, despite the advantages of cooperative learning for Asian language learners, individual work
helps compensate for important learner strategies and processes that cooperative group presentation may downplay.
Acknowledgements
I sincerely thank Dr. Graham Low at the University of York for his patience, insight, and guidance, which encouraged me
to complete this research project. I also thank the three anonymous reviewers who offered me valuable and helpful com-
ments on an earlier version of this article.
Cognitive A6. When preparing materials, I said or wrote new English words several times 1 2
strategies 3 4
A7. I practised the pronunciation of English 1 2
3 4
A8. When collecting information, I wrote notes, messages, letters, or reports in English 1 2
3 4
A9. When collecting information, I first skimmed an English passage (read over the passage 1 2
quickly) then went back and read it again carefully 3 4
A10. When collecting information, I made summaries of information that I heard or read in 1 2
English 3 4
Communication A11. When I couldn’t think of a word during oral presentations, I used gestures 1 2
strategies 3 4
A12. I made up new words if I did not know the right ones in English 1 2
3 4
A13. When I couldn’t think of an English word, I used a word or phrase that means the same 1 2
thing 3 4
A14. I left a message unfinished in my presentation if I could not find any words to 1 2
substitute 3 4
A15. When I could not think of the word, I used Chinese or other foreign languages (e.g., 1 2
French) 3 4
Retrieval strategies A16. When giving an oral presentation, I memorized whole information from my notes/ 1 2
draft 3 4
A17. When I forgot the content, I tried to look for things that could help me remember it 1 2
3 4
A18. It was easy for me to remember the content once I forgot when giving group
presentations? Please tick Yes or No
h Yes h No
Cognitive B7. When preparing materials for individual presentations, I said or wrote new English 1 2
strategies words more often 3 4
B8. I practised the pronunciation of English for individual presentations more often 1 2
3 4
B9. When collecting information for individual presentations, I wrote more notes, messages, 1 2
letters, or reports in English 3 4
B10. When collecting information for individual presentations, I spent more time skimming 1 2
an English passage then going back and reading carefully 3 4
B11. When collecting information for individual presentations, I made more summaries of 1 2
information that I heard or read in English 3 4
Communication B12. I used gestures more frequently in the individual presentations when I couldn’t think 1 2
strategies of a word 3 4
B13. I made up new words more frequently in the individual presentations when I did not 1 2
know the right ones in English 3 4
B14. I used synonyms more frequently in the individual presentations when I could not 1 2
think of an English word 3 4
B15. I left a message unfinished more frequently in the individual presentations 1 2
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 283
34
B16. I used Chinese or other foreign languages (e.g. French) more frequently in the 12
individual presentations, when I could not think of the word 34
Retrieval strategies B17. I memorized the entire information from notes/drafts when giving an individual 1 2
presentation 3 4
B18. When I forgot the content, I tried to look for things that could help me remember it 1 2
3 4
B19. It was easy for me to remember the content once I forgot when giving individual
presentations? Please tick Yes or No
h Yes h No
23-1 Complete organization (introduction, supporting details, and conclusion); appropriate and smooth
transitions between ideas
23-2 Explanation of specialized knowledge and terminology without problems
23-3 Fluent speech without pausing for grammatical accuracy too frequently
23-4 Correct pronunciation, intonation, and good rhythm
23-5 Appropriate vocabulary for content
B26. What kind of cooperative activities did you feel motivated to learn from class? Why?
B27. What type of cooperative activity helped you improve your English speaking ability a lot?
Content 8–10 ____ Speaker understands, manages, and expresses the content knowledge,
terminology, and ideas without problems. No irrelevant information. Gives relevant
examples to assist the understanding of content
5–7 ____ Speaker has limited understanding of the content. Has difficulties in expressing
ideas in his/her own words. Talk contains some irrelevant information. Examples are
irrelevant to the topic
2–4 ____ Speaker appears not to understand the content (e.g., has copied and memorized
the information from the Internet). No relevant examples
Fluency 8–10 ____ Speaker can express him/herself fluently and naturally. May be hindered by one or
two conceptually difficult topics
5–7 ____ Speaker can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical
and lexical planning and repair is obvious
2–4 ____ Speaker can only manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances,
with much pausing to search for expressions; false starts and reformulation are very
obvious
Pronunciation 8–10 ____ Pronunciation is clear and standard in general, with occasional examples of a
foreign accent, which do not impede understanding. Speaker shows variation of
appropriate intonation, and a good command of rhythm and stress
5–7 ____ Pronunciation is sometimes unclear or wrong. Foreign accent is obvious. Limited
variation of intonation and rhythm. Stresses are sometimes wrong
2–4 ____ Pronunciation is frequently wrong. Foreign accent is strong, which interferes with
understanding. No variation of intonation or rhythm
Vocabulary 8–10 ____ Vocabulary, language, and grammar are appropriate and comprehensible
5–7 ____ Vocabulary is somewhat difficult to understand. Some words are used wrongly, or
are unexplained, or are in Chinese
2–4 ____ Vocabulary is difficult to understand, with too many words inappropriately used,
which leads to incomprehensibility of content. Chinese is used repeatedly
References
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757–771). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
M.-h. Chou / English for Specific Purposes 30 (2011) 272–285 285
Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group
communicative interaction in the language classroom. System, 25(2), 203–214.
Chamot, A. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71–84). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 221–236.
Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics
(pp. 170–190). London: Arnold.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Díaz-Rico, L. T. (2008). Strategies for teaching English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System, 25(1), 65–81.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297–320.
Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52(4), 323–329.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal, 61(2), 91–99.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jacobs, G. (1988). Co-operative goal structure: A way to improve group activities. ELT Journal, 42(2), 97–101.
Jacobs, G. M., & McCafferty, S. G. (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second language learning and teaching. In S. G. McCafferty, G. M.
Jacobs, & A. C. D. Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 18–29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Joritz-Nakagawa, J. (2006). Integrating global education and cooperative learning in a university foreign language reading class. In S. G. McCafferty, G. M.
Jacobs, & A. C. D. Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 134–152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Liang, X., & Mohan, B. A. (2003). Dilemmas of cooperative learning and academic proficiency in two languages. English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 35–51.
Long, M. H. (1977). Group work in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language – Problems and potential. ELT Journal, 31(4), 285–292.
Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics,
12, 268–298.
McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Morton, J. (2009). Genre and disciplinary competence: A case study of contextualisation in an academic speech genre. English for Specific Purposes, 28,
217–229.
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Riley, L. D., & Harsch, K. (1999). Enhancing the learning experience with strategy journals: Supporting the diverse learning styles of ESL/EFL students.
Proceedings of the HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 12–15.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists
in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 41–64.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117–131.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations. Reviews of Educational
Research, 50, 241–271.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. Colchester, England: Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Wenden, A. (1986). What do second language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7,
186–201.
Zareva, A. (2009). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. English
for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 55–68.
Zhang, X., & Head, K. (2010). Dealing with learning reticence in the speaking class. ELT Journal, 64(1), 1–9.
Mu-hsuan Chou is an assistant professor of the Department of Foreign Language Instruction at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Taiwan. She teaches
core subjects in her department, and English language courses to different majors of students. Her current research interests include assessment and
evaluation, EAP, learner strategy, and learner autonomy.