The Influence of Group Work Stages among Learners in Learning English Language

The Influence of Group Work Stages among Learners in Learning English Language

Nurfarah Saiful Azam, Mohamed Hafizuddin Mohamed Jamrus, Noor Aizah Abas, Nadiah Zubbir

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803272S

Received: 21 August 2024; Accepted: 30 August 2024; Published: 20 September 2024

ABSTRACT

Teamwork involves individuals collaborating within a group to achieve common goals. In a collaborative learning environment, students share responsibilities, combine knowledge and skills, and provide mutual support. This quantitative research endeavour aims to investigate the dynamics of group work among undergraduates engaged in English language acquisition. A purposive sample of 110 participants responded to the survey, using a 5-point Likert scale based on Tuckman’s (1965) work. The survey is structured into five sections: demographic profiles (Section A), Forming (7 items in Section B), Storming (6 items in Section C), Norming (8 items in Section D), and Performing (8 items in Section E). Findings highlight distinct learner progress stages, including challenges in trust during Forming, positive team leadership but argumentation in Storming, positive Norming with structured procedures, and a lack of fixed procedures emphasizing a potential improvement area in Performing. The data shows a significant association between Forming and Storming stages (r=.555** and p=.000) and a highly significant association between Storming and Norming stages (r=.641** and p=.000). No statistically significant relationship exists between Performing and Forming stages. Future research exploring individual differences, longitudinal studies, language-specific group dynamics, technology impact, and reflective practices can enhance collaborative language learning understanding and refine pedagogical practices.

Keywords: Group work, forming, storming, norming, performing, language learning

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Study

In the context of teaching and learning, group work involves students collaborating in groups to complete assessments and projects, aiming to develop the collaborative skills necessary. In this setting, individual tasks are divided into parts, allowing students to work through them together. According to [3], the primary objective of incorporating group work into educational practices is to act as a catalyst for learning. The Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing (FSNP) model introduced by [14] represents the four stages of psychological development that teams undergo while executing a project. Progressing through these stages, teams overcome challenges, develop collaborative skills, and ultimately align their efforts toward achieving a shared objective.

In the initial forming stage of a team, members may feel uncertain about their roles and the team’s purpose, expressing emotions like anxiety or excitement. Establishing rapport and understanding each other’s work styles takes time, and individuals often look to the leader for guidance. This phase involves defining positions within the group [14]. In the storming stage, conflicts may arise regarding authority, management styles, and the team’s mission. Unclear roles can lead to overwhelm or frustration. A recurring issue is the presence of “free riders” who don’t participate in group work [4]. During the norming stage, resolving differences fosters appreciation, respect for the leader’s authority, and a comfortable environment for seeking help and providing feedback. In the final performing stage, the team operates at optimal performance, achieving goals efficiently through hard work and structured processes.

At the university where this study is conducted, students frequently engage in collaborative group work for various assessments. These groups may either be formed by students themselves or assigned by the lecturer. According to [9], learners express a preference for selecting their team members, finding motivation and support for task completion within their chosen groups. Additionally, group work, as noted by [9], fosters social interaction and encourages an understanding of diverse perspectives. This study seeks to investigate the collaborative dynamics of students in English language learning groups, aligning with the Tuckman model. The findings may provide instructors with valuable insights for improving the overall group work learning experience. As per [9], participation in group work not only enhances learners’ acquisition of negotiation skills through task delegation but also improves their listening and problem-solving abilities as they engage with their peers in a group setting.

B. Statement of Problem

[6]’s (2006) study in higher education explored students’ experiences of group work, identifying several aspects contributing to positive experiences, such as active participation from all members, clear goals, role differentiation, relevant tasks, and effective leadership. [7] examined the frequency of small groups in university students’ coursework and its relation to their general attitudes toward learning in groups. The results indicate that successful group work goes beyond instructor efforts; now, it requires campus initiatives and coordination among different departments for students to fully grasp and enjoy the benefits of learning in small groups. According to [13], effective teaching presence is crucial for understanding in the forming stage of group work. In storming and norming, students prefer social presence, favoring teamwork for better interactivity, communication, and collaboration. In the performing stage, cognitive presence directly contributes to positive outcomes in online group work, fostering increased confidence in expressing and defending ideas during discussions. In another higher education study, [10] found that during the forming stage of group work for learning Mandarin as a foreign language, learners assign roles, define goals, and outline tasks. The results indicated strong positive connections between activities and sentiments, sentiments and interactions, and a moderately positive relationship between interactions and activities.

[10] suggested that future research on group work interactions should explore how the context influences groups, create methods for assessing individual contributions, investigate how information processing impacts interactions in diverse groups, analyse group processes, and describe interaction patterns to help groups develop better skills. [13] anticipated future research exploring students from diverse universities with varying coursework assessment plans and online group tasks. Additionally, there is potential for research on teachers’ perspectives regarding online group work and their influence on fostering cognitive presence. On the other hand, [9] pointed out that further studies should explore methods to enhance the effectiveness of online group work in classes, emphasizing the need for instructors to provide clear guidelines for students to establish goals and roles within their groups.

Building on insights from previous studies and addressing existing gaps, therefore, this study aims to explore how learners perceive the influence of the stages of group development, as suggested by the Tuckman model, in the context of group work.

C. Objective of the Study and Research Questions

This study aims to investigate learners’ perceptions regarding the interactions and functioning of group work in the context of undergraduates involved in acquiring English language skills. More specifically, it seeks to address the following questions:

• How do learners perceive the influence of the forming stage in the learning of the English language?
• How do learners perceive the influence of the storming stage in the learning of the English language?
• How do learners perceive the influence of the norming stage in the learning of the English language?
• How do learners perceive the influence of the performing stage in the learning of the English language?
• Is there a relationship between all stages in group work for language learning?

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Tuckman’s Model

In 1965, [14] reviewed fifty-five articles on small group development to identify their recurring concepts and provide a general model for small group development. What he has discovered are the four phases of group development: forming, storming, norming and performing. [14] explained that forming is the stage where groups focus on testing to identify their limits on interpersonal and task behaviour at the beginning of group development. Then, comes the storming stage where emotional responses play a role of resistance to a group influence due to interpersonal conflict and polarisation in the task sphere. When the resistance was solved, the stage where the development of cliques and the adaption of new roles as well as new standards occurred are called norming. After that is the performing stage which [14] described that interpersonal as well as the flexibility of role and function of a group are used and channelled in completing tasks. However, in 1977, [15] revisited this model and added another stage after performing which is called adjourning. [15] explained that adjourning is the termination stage where group development is seen as a life cycle and this stage is “the death of the group”.

B. Group Work in Language Learning (Advantages and Disadvantages)

Previous research has discussed how group work plays a certain role when it comes to language learning. Many researchers discovered that group work played a positive role in fostering a good language learning environment. [3] stated that learning in groups enables students to learn more compared to learning individually as well as improved empirical and theoretical learning combinations. [11] discovered that among Korean language learners, group work encourages students to interact using their targeted language. While [5] discussed how students have a positive view on group work when it comes to English language learning among secondary students. However, most of the scholars that examined group work in language learning also discussed the importance of language instructors’ role to ensure group work is able to be utilized effectively. [11] emphasized how teachers should choose the appropriate group tasks or activities to bring out the best of group work in language learning. Similarly, [5] stated that teachers should be provided with proper training on group work management.

C. Past Studies on Group Work in Language Learning

Several studies have been done to investigate the learning of foreign languages, especially in terms of issues like group work. [11] has studied 28 Midwestern university students in a Korean class with the objective of looking into the combining principles that are essential to group work and identify how these factors influence Korean language learners’ attitude towards group work. These 28 students were given a survey consisting of 20 Likert-scale questions that was designed for both quantitative and qualitative data. [11] discovered that group work offers these students space to interact and practice the target language where by using cooperative learning, students could share their opinion and receive new information. However, instructors must play a vital role in choosing the appropriate topic or task that can ensure the effectiveness of group work. An encouraging second language class could be fostered if the right group or pair activities were created.

[5], on the other hand, collected their data from 150 secondary students. They aimed to examine the students’ perception in group work tasks in English as Second Language class and to investigate whether learning English could be more interesting if it was done through group work. These students were given a survey consisting of four sections and the results were analysed using a quantitative exploratory approach. [5] discovered that students have positive perception when it comes to group work as it is viewed as an effective method of learning. The findings also revealed that there are no prominent distinctions between both genders on their preference of group work and no significant connection between the students’ eagerness to work in groups and their English language performance. [5] also argued that to improve English language pedagogy, it is vital for group work to be taken into account during class.

D. Conceptual Framework

One of the most popular classroom activities is group work, fostering various learning opportunities for participants. According to [12], group interactions involve competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating to ensure the success of group assignments. The study’s conceptual framework, depicted in Figure 1, is rooted in [14]’s (1965) four stages of group interaction. The forming stage marks the initial meeting of participants, commencing the group work. Following is the storming stage, characterized by potential disagreements and conflicts among team members. The norming stage follows, where differences are resolved, and the focus shifts to completing the group task. Finally, the performing stage allows participants to showcase their completed group product.

Fig.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study

METHOD

This quantitative study explores group work dynamics among undergraduates learning a foreign language. A purposive sample of 110 participants responded to a 5-point Likert-scale survey rooted in Tuckman (1965), revealing variables detailed in Table 1. The survey comprises four sections: demographic profile (Section A), Forming (7 items in Section B), Storming (6 items in Section C), Norming (8 items in Section D), and Performing (8 items in Section E).

TABLE 1 Distribution of Items in the Survey

TABLE 2 Reliability of Survey

Table 2 illustrates the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach alpha of .852, thus, revealing a good reliability of the instrument chosen/used. Further analysis using SPSS is done to present findings to answer the research questions for this study.

A. Demographic Profile of the Participants

The participants of this study consist of 83% female students and 17% male students. Female displays as the majority participants in the study. Within the 110 participants, 71% are from Science & Technology, 12% from Social Science & Humanities and 17% from Business & Management. Out of the 110 students, 46% are in Semester 1-3 while 48% are students from Semester 4-6 and only 6% are of Semester 7 and above. 99% of the participants are familiar with group works while 1% are not. This entails that the majority of the participants are aware of what group work is.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Findings for Forming

This section presents data to answer research question 1 – How do learners perceive the influence of the forming stage in the learning of the English language?

TABLE 3 Mean Scores of the Influence of Forming in Learning English Language

Table 3 describes the mean for forming stage. The highest mean is at 4.4 (SECTCaFQ2) where at the start, learners assign specific roles to team members. At a mean of 4.3 (SECTCaFQ3), at the start, learners are trying to define the goal and what tasks need to be accomplished. At 4.2 (SECTCaFQ1), at the start, learners try to have set procedures or protocols to ensure that things are orderly and run. At 3.8 (SECTCaFQ7), at the start, although learners are not fully sure of the project’s goals and issues, they are excited and proud to be on the team. At 3.3 (SECTCaFQ6), at the start, it seems as if little is being accomplished with the project’s goals. At 3.3 (SECTCaFQ4), at the start, team members are afraid or do not like to ask others for help. The lowest mean is at 2.9 (SECTCaFQ5) where at the start, team members do not fully trust the other team members and closely monitor others who are working on a specific task.

B. Findings for Storming

This section presents data to answer research question 2 – How do learners perceive the influence of the storming stage in the learning of the English language?

TABLE 4 Mean Scores of the Influence of Storming in Learning English Language

Table 4 indicates the mean for storming stage. The highest mean is at 4 (SECTCbSQ2) where during discussions, the team leader tries to keep order and contributes to the task at hand. A similar mean for two items, SECTCbSQ1 and SECTCbSQ3 at 3.5. For SECTCbSQ1, during discussions, learners are quick to get on with the task at hand and do not spend too much time in the planning stage and, for SECTCbSQ3, during discussions, the tasks are very different from what we imagined and seem very difficult to accomplish. At 3.4 (SECTCbSQ6), during discussions, there is a lot of resistance to the tasks on hand and quality improvement approaches. At 2.9 (SECTCbSQ4), during discussions, learners argue a lot even though they agree on the real issues. The lowest mean falls at 2.8 for SECTCbSQ5 where during discussions, the goals they have established seem unrealistic.

C. Findings for Norming

This section presents data to answer research question 3 – How do learners perceive the influence of the norming stage in the learning of the English language?

TABLE 5 Mean Scores of the Influence of Norming in Learning English Language

Table 5 presents the mean for norming stage. The highest mean is at 4.4 for SECTCcNQ4 where in the group, “we have accepted each other as members of the team”. At 4.3 (SECTCcNQ5), in the group, learners try to achieve harmony by avoiding conflict. At the same mean of 4, reflects at SECTCcNQ1 and SECTCcNQ2. For SECTCcNQ1, in the group, learners have thorough procedures for agreeing on their objectives and planning the way they will perform their tasks. For SECTCcNQ2, in the group, learners take their team’s goals and objectives literally, and assume a shared understanding. At 3.8 (SECTCcNQ3), in the group, the team leader ensures that they follow the procedures, do not argue, do not interrupt, and keep to the point. At 3.4 (SECTCcNQ6), in the group, the team is often tempted to go above the original scope of the project. At 3.3 (SECTCcNQ7), in the group, learners’ express criticism of others constructively. The lowest mean point is at 3 for SECTCcNQ8 where in the group, learners often share personal problems with each other.

D. Findings for Performing

This section presents data to answer research question 4 – How do learners perceive the influence of the performing stage in the learning of the English language?

TABLE 6 Mean Scores of the Influence of Performing in Learning English Language

Table 6 exhibits the mean for performing stage. The highest mean is at 4.5 for SECTCdPQ8 where in the end, learners get a lot of work done. At 4.3 (SECTCdPQ1), in the end, their team feels that they are all in it together and shares responsibilities for the team’s success or failure. The mean of 4.2 falls for three items (SECTCdPQ3, SECTCdPQ5 and SECTCdPQ6). For SECTCdPQ3, in the end, learners enjoy working together as they have fun and productive time. For SECTCdPQ5, in the end, learners fully accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses. For SECTCdPQ6, in the end, learners are able to work through group problems. At a similar mean of 4, falls for two items, SECTCdPQ4 and SECTCdPQ7. For SECTCdPQ4, in the end, the team leader is democratic and collaborative. For SECTCdPQ7, in the end, there is a close attachment to the team. The lowest mean point is at 3.5 for SECTCdPQ2, in the end, learners do not have fixed procedures, they make them up as the task or project progresses.

E. Findings for Relationship between all Stages in Group Work for Language Learning

This section presents data to answer research question 5 – Is there a relationship between all stages in group work for language learning? To determine if there is a significant association in the mean scores between forming, storming, norming, and performing data is analysed using SPSS for correlations. Results are presented separately in Table 7, 8, and 9 below.

TABLE 7 Correlation Scores between Forming and Storming Stages

Table 7 delineates there is an association between forming and storming stages. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between forming and storming stage (r=.555**) and (p=.000). According to [8], coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between forming and storming stages.

TABLE 8 Correlation Scores between Norming and Performing Stages

Table 8 shows there is an association between norming and performing stage. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between norming and performing stage (r=.641**) and (p=.000). According to [8], coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between norming and performing stage.

TABLE 9 Correlation Scores between Performing and Forming

Table 9 reveals there is no association between performing and forming stage. Correlation analysis shows that there is no significant association between performing and forming.

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, we will examine the results presented in the preceding chapter, delve into the study’s conclusions, and provide recommendations and suggestions for future research endeavors.

A. Descriptive analysis and discussion of the first research question (How do learners perceive the influence of the forming stage in the learning of the English language?

During the forming stage, learners engage in several key activities, as reflected in the mean scores. The highest mean, 4.4 (SECTCaFQ2), indicates that learners, at the start, actively assign specific roles to team members. This suggests a proactive approach to task allocation and division of responsibilities within the group. Similarly, with a mean of 4.3 (SECTCaFQ3), learners express their focus on defining the goals and tasks necessary for accomplishment, emphasizing the importance of clarity and shared understanding from the outset.

Furthermore, the mean of 4.2 (SECTCaFQ1) underscores learners’ efforts to establish set procedures or protocols at the start, aiming to ensure orderliness and smooth operation within the group. This highlights the recognition of the value of structure and organization in the initial stages of group collaboration.

However, challenges emerge during the forming stage, as indicated by the mean score of 2.9 (SECTCaFQ5). Learners express a lack of complete trust among team members, coupled with a tendency to closely monitor others who are working on specific tasks. This suggests that, despite the positive aspects of role assignment and goal definition, there may be initial hesitations and concerns about teamwork dynamics and member reliability.

Additionally, a mean score of 3.3 (SECTCaFQ6) suggests a perception among learners that little is being accomplished with the project’s goals at the start. This points to potential frustrations or uncertainties during the forming stage regarding the group’s progress and goal attainment.

Conversely, a positive outlook is presented with a mean score of 3.8 (SECTCaFQ7), where learners, despite not being fully sure of the project’s goals and issues, express excitement and pride in being part of the team. This positive sentiment hints at the motivational aspects and team spirit that can emerge during the forming stage, contributing to a sense of belonging and enthusiasm.

B. Descriptive analysis and discussion of the second research question (How do learners perceive the influence of the storming stage in the learning of the English language?)

The storming stage is characterized by various dynamics, as reflected in the mean scores. The highest mean, 4 (SECTCbSQ2), indicates that learners perceive a proactive role played by the team leader during discussions. The team leader is seen as contributing to the task at hand and maintaining order, showcasing effective leadership qualities. This suggests that, despite potential conflicts inherent in the storming stage, the team leader’s efforts contribute positively to the group’s functioning.

Similarly, with a mean of 3.5 (SECTCbSQ1), learners express a tendency to swiftly engage in the task during discussions, minimizing time spent in the planning stage. This may signify a sense of urgency and a desire for action, characteristic of the storming stage where conflicts and challenges emerge.

Conversely, challenges are evident in the mean score of 3.5 (SECTCbSQ3), where learners find the tasks during discussions to be very different from their initial expectations, making them appear difficult to accomplish. This highlights the potential dissonance and adjustment required during the storming stage as learners grapple with unforeseen challenges.

A lower mean of 2.9 (SECTCbSQ4) indicates that, during discussions, learners experience a significant amount of argumentation, even when there is agreement on the real issues. This suggests that, despite shared understanding on essential matters, disagreements may arise during discussions, contributing to the storming stage’s characteristic conflicts.

Moreover, a mean of 2.8 (SECTCbSQ5) portrays a perception among learners that the goals established during discussions seem unrealistic. This points to a potential mismatch between initial expectations and the perceived feasibility of set goals, underscoring the turbulent nature of the storming stage.

In addition, a mean score of 3.4 (SECTCbSQ6) suggests the presence of resistance during discussions, particularly concerning the assigned tasks and approaches for quality improvement. This resistance further illustrates the challenges encountered in the storming stage, as learners grapple with differing opinions and approaches.

C. Descriptive analysis and discussion of the third research question (How do learners perceive the influence of the norming stage in the learning of the English language?)

The norming stage is characterized by the establishment of group norms, cohesion, and a shared understanding. The highest mean, 4.4 (SECTCcNQ4), suggests that learners perceive a strong sense of acceptance within the group. They acknowledge and embrace each other as valuable members of the team, indicating a positive and cohesive group dynamic during the norming stage.

Additionally, a mean score of 4 (SECTCcNQ1 and SECTCcNQ2) indicates that learners perceive the presence of thorough procedures for agreeing on objectives, planning task execution, and a literal interpretation of team goals. This reflects a commitment to structured processes and a shared understanding, contributing to a harmonious and effective working environment.

Furthermore, at a mean of 3.8 (SECTCcNQ3), learners acknowledge the role of the team leader in ensuring adherence to procedures, minimizing arguments, interruptions, and emphasizing staying focused on the task at hand. This highlights the importance of leadership in maintaining order and facilitating effective communication during the norming stage.

However, challenges emerge with a mean score of 3.4 (SECTCcNQ6), suggesting that the team is often tempted to go above the original scope of the project during the norming stage. This indicates a potential struggle in maintaining a balance between enthusiasm and adhering to established project parameters.

Moreover, at a mean of 3.3 (SECTCcNQ7), learners’ express constructive criticism of others within the group. This suggests an openness to feedback and a collaborative spirit, contributing to a positive group culture during the norming stage.

The lowest mean, at 3 (SECTCcNQ8), indicates that learners are less inclined to share personal problems with each other during the norming stage. This may suggest a focus on task-related aspects rather than personal sharing, aligning with the norming stage’s emphasis on task cohesion.

D. Descriptive analysis and discussion of the fourth research question (How do learners perceive the influence of the performing stage in the learning of the English language?

The performing stage, characterized by effective collaboration and productivity, is reflected in the high mean score of 4.5 for SECTCdPQ8. This indicates that, in the end, learners perceive that a significant amount of work is accomplished during the performing stage, emphasizing the group’s effectiveness in achieving its goals.

Furthermore, with a mean score of 4.3 (SECTCdPQ1), learners express a sense of shared responsibility for the team’s success or failure during the performing stage. This underscores a collective mindset, where individuals feel a strong connection and mutual accountability towards the team’s outcomes.

The mean score of 4.2 for three items (SECTCdPQ3, SECTCdPQ5, and SECTCdPQ6) suggests positive dynamics during the performing stage. Learners report enjoying working together, fully accepting each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and demonstrating the ability to work through group problems. These aspects contribute to a favorable and productive working environment.

Moreover, at a mean of 4 for SECTCdPQ4 and SECTCdPQ7, learners perceive a democratic and collaborative team leader and a close attachment to the team during the performing stage. These aspects highlight the importance of effective leadership and strong interpersonal bonds, fostering a positive group atmosphere.

However, challenges are identified with a mean score of 3.5 for SECTCdPQ2, indicating that, in the end, learners report not having fixed procedures and making them up as the task or project progresses during the performing stage. This suggests a potential need for more structured approaches or guidelines to maintain efficiency and clarity.

E. Inferential analysis and discussion of the fifth research question (Is there a relationship between all stages in group work for language learning?)

This section of the research paper explores the relationship between all stages in group work for language learning, specifically addressing research question 5. The analysis involved evaluating the mean scores for forming, storming, norming, and performing stages, and the results are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

In Table 7, the correlation between forming and storming stages is examined. The data reveals a significant association between these stages, with a strong positive correlation (r=.555** and p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), this indicates a robust positive relationship between forming and storming stages in the group work process.

Moving on to Table 8, the correlation between storming and norming stages is investigated. The analysis demonstrates a highly significant association between these stages, marked by a strong positive correlation (r=.641** and p=.000). This implies a robust positive relationship between storming and norming stages, showcasing the interconnectedness of these phases in group work.

However, Table 9 presents the correlation between performing and forming stages, indicating no significant association between them. The analysis suggests that there is no statistically significant relationship between performing and forming stages in the group work process.

These findings shed light on the dynamics within different stages of group work for language learning. While forming and storming stages exhibit a strong positive relationship, norming and performing stages also demonstrate a significant positive correlation. The absence of a significant association between performing and forming stages suggests that these phases may operate somewhat independently in the group work context. These insights contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how learners perceive the various stages of group work and their interplay in the language learning process.

CONCLUSION

Answering the research question 1 “How do learners perceive the influence of the forming stage in the learning of the English language?”, the research discovered that learners’ perceptions of the forming stage in English language learning encompass a range of activities, including role assignment, goal definition, and the establishment of procedures. According to [13], they emphasized the significance of teachers’ demonstrations and examples during the forming phase of group work formation. These instructional aids play a crucial role in enhancing students’ understanding and visualization of the subject matter. While positive aspects such as excitement and pride are evident, challenges related to trust and perceived progress may also arise, highlighting the complex nature of the forming stage in group work.

Addressing the research question 2 “How do learners perceive the influence of the storming stage in the learning of the English language?”, the data revealed that learners’ perceptions of the storming stage in English language learning encompass both positive and challenging aspects. While the team leader’s active role and a swift engagement in tasks are positive indicators, challenges arise in the form of unexpected difficulties in tasks, argumentation despite agreement on real issues, and perceived unrealistic goals. This can be related with a study done by [10] where they reported, in the storming stage, characterized by discussions, learners concurred that the team leader should be the individual striving to maintain order and actively contributing to the task at hand. These findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of learners’ experiences during the storming stage of group work in English language learning.

Regarding the research question 3 “How do learners perceive the influence of the norming stage in the learning of the English language?”, the data indicated that learners’ perceptions of the norming stage in English language learning are predominantly positive, marked by a strong sense of acceptance, structured procedures, effective leadership, and constructive criticism. [2] reported that aligning the group’s planning activities across levels is essential to enhance dependency awareness, leading to more effective coordination. Consequently, the norming stage frequently impacted learners’ group interactions. However, challenges related to project scope and a lower inclination for personal sharing also emerge, providing a nuanced understanding of learners’ experiences during the norming stage of group work.

On the other hand, addressing the research question 4 “How do learners perceive the influence of the performing stage in the learning of the English language?”, it is discovered that learners’ perceptions of the performing stage in English language learning are predominantly positive, emphasizing effective collaboration, shared responsibility, enjoyment in working together, and a close-knit team. While positive leadership and strong interpersonal relationships are highlighted, the identified challenge of lacking fixed procedures indicates an area for potential improvement in maintaining organizational structure during this stage of group work. Similarly, [1] reported in their research that the samples indicated the significance of the performing stage, especially in providing them with gratifying experiences while collaborating, sharing responsibilities, and reaching a consensus on each aspect discussed at the conclusion of their group assignments.

Answering the research question 5 “Is there a relationship between all stages in group work for language learning?”, the findings shed light on the dynamics within different stages of group work for language learning. While forming and storming stages exhibit a strong positive relationship, norming and performing stages also demonstrate a significant positive correlation. The absence of a significant association between performing and forming stages suggests that these phases may operate somewhat independently in the group work context. These insights contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how learners perceive the various stages of group work and their interplay in the language learning process.

In summary, all stages in group work have positive influences in the learning of English language. However, the forming stage and storming stage also consist of challenges. When it comes to the relationship between all the stages of group work for English language learning, positive associations can be between forming and storming, as well as norming and performing. The same cannot be said for forming and performing as there is no prominent relationship detected between the two stages.

A. Research Implications

The thorough review of findings across the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages in group work for language learning yields significant implications for pedagogy and suggests avenues for future research. Pedagogically, educators are encouraged to integrate group dynamics consciously into language learning activities, acknowledging the distinct influences of each stage. The positive impact of the norming stage underscores the importance of fostering acceptance, constructive criticism, and harmony within groups. Acknowledging challenges in the storming stage, educators should implement strategies for effective communication and conflict resolution. Recognizing the benefits of the performing stage, activities should be designed to showcase the productivity and shared responsibility inherent in collaborative efforts.

B. Suggestions for Future Research

Future research could delve into individual differences, conduct longitudinal studies, compare group dynamics across different languages, explore the impact of technology, and investigate reflective practices during group work. These research suggestions are targeted towards educators and researchers where they can contribute to a better and enhanced understanding of collaborative language learning and refine pedagogical practices for more effective language education. At the end of it, we all wish for a better language classroom for our learners.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researchers express their deep gratitude to the Academy of Language Studies for their support and spearheading efforts to enhance research practices among academic staff. The expert guidance provided has been instrumental in shaping the preparation of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Awang, S., Razak, S. S. B., & Zakaria, W. N. F. W. (2023). Investigation of Learners’ Perceptions of Stages in Group Work. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(11), 776–790.
2. Bick, S., Spohrer, K., Hoda, R., Scheerer, A., & Heinzl, A. (2017). Coordination challenges in large-scale software development: a case study of planning misalignment in hybrid settings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 44(10), 932-950.
3. Chiriac, E. H. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 558. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00558
4. Chiriac, E. H., & Hempel, A. (2013). Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen]. Lund: Studentlitteratur
5. Gopala Krishnan Sekharan Nair, Rozlan Abdul Rahim, Aileen Farida binti Mohd Adam, Roszainora Setia, Norhayati Husin, Elangkeeran Sabapathy, Razita Mohamad, Shahidatul Maslina Mat So’od, Nurul Izatee Md Yusoff, Razifa Mohd Razlan, Nur Amalia Abd Jalil, Uzah Alwee & Norhafiza Abu Seman. (2012). Group Work in the Secondary ESL Classroom. Asian Social Science, 8(10). DOI:10.5539/ass. v8n10p3
6. Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and Problems with Student Teams: Suggestions for Improving Team Projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82, 11–19. DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19
7. Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., & Littig, P. (2010). University Students’ Attitudes about Learning in Small Groups After Frequent Participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409355867
8. Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research Methods and Statistics – A Critical Thinking Approach (5^th Edition). Boston, USA: Cengage Learning.
9. Kamaludin, P. N. H., Yusof, S. M., Nawi, S. M., Nordin, N. A., Zabidin, N., & Sain, N. (2022). Group Online Engagement: An Analysis from Tuckman Model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(9), 931–949. DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i9/14625
10. Min, O. Y., Mei, L. S., Min, T. A., & Chee, H. W. (2023). Exploring Interactions in Group Work: A Case Study of Learning Mandarin as A Foreign Language. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 13(10). DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i10/19182
11. Pyun, O. (2004). The Role of Group Work in the Second Language Classroom. The Korean Language in America, 9 (June 2004), 169-191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42922866
12. Rahmat, N. H. (2020). Conflict Resolution Strategies in Class. International Journal of Education, 12(3), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i3.16914
13. Rick, A. M. M., Mohd, W. N. H. W., Rahman, M. A., Sukiman, S. A., Mokhtar, R., & Katawazai, R. (2022). Exploring Online Group Work Using Tuckman’s Model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(11), 187–205. DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/14945
14. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),  84–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
15. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. DOI:10.1177/105960117700200404