Using lexical chunks to support grade 12th students in learning to speak English – Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng Anh – Nghiên cứu

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE BÙI THỊ THANH USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO SUPPORT GRADE 12THSTUDENTS IN LEARNIN

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE

BÙI THỊ THANH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO SUPPORT GRADE 12THSTUDENTS IN LEARNING TO SPEAK ENGLISH

– A STUDY AT VU TIEN HIGH SCHOOL OF THAI BINH

( Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng Anh -

Nghiên cứu tại trường THPT Vũ Tiên, Thái Bình)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

Hanoi - 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE

BÙI THỊ THANH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO SUPPORT GRADE 12THSTUDENTS IN LEARNING TO SPEAK ENGLISH

– A STUDY AT VU TIEN HIGH SCHOOL OF THAI BINH

( Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng Anh -

Nghiên cứu tại trường THPT Vũ Tiên, Thái Bình)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

Supervisor: Dr Le Van Canh

Hanoi- 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

CANDIDATE‟S STATEMENT……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… ii

ABSTRACT……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……… iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES……… v

PART A- INTRODUCTION……… 1

1 Rationale……… 1

2 Aims of the study……… 2

3 Research questions……… 2

4 Method of the study……… 3

5 Scope of the study……… 3

6 Design of the study……… 3

PART B DEVELOPMENT……… 4

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……… 4

1.1 SPEAKING SKILL……… 4

1.1.1 The importance of speaking……… 4

1.1.2 What is involved in speaking a foreign language? ……… 6

1.2 LEXICAL CHUNKS……… 7

1.2.1 Definition of lexical chunks……… 7

1.2.2 Classification of lexical chunks……… 9

1.2.3 Advantages of using lexical chunks in teaching speaking… 12

1.2.3.1 Promoting language fluency……… 12

1.2.3.2 Enhancing language accuracy……… 14

1.2.3.3 Increasing learners‟ motivation……… 15

1.3 Lexical classroom activities……… 16

1.4 Summary……… 18

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……… 19

2.1 Action research……… 19

2.2 Reasons for adopting action research 20

2.3 Research instruments……… 20

2.4 Research procedure……… 21

2.5 Participants……… ……… … ……… 23

2.6 Summary……… 23

CHAPTER III: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION………… 24

3.1 Results from students‟ pre- treatment questionnaire ………… 24

3.1.1 Students‟ attitude and motivation to learn to English in

speaking lessons……… 24

3.1.2 Factors prevent students from speaking English in the classroom.……… 28

3.2 Results from students‟ post-treatment questionnaire……… 28

3.2.1 Students‟ attitude and motivation to learn English when they are taught lexical chunk……….……… 28

3.2.2 Students‟ opinions about the benefits of using lexical chunks in speaking lessons……….……… 29

3.2.3 Students‟ opinions about factors affecting the effectiveness of learning lexical chunks in speaking lessons……… 33

3.2.4 Students‟ recommendations for the improvement of learning lexical chunks in speaking lessons……… 34

3.3 Summary……… 35

CHAPTER IV: MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF LEXICAL

CHUNKS……… … 36

PART C CONCLUSION……… 39

1 Conclusion……… 39

2 Implications ……… 39

3 Limitations and iSuggestions for further study……… 40

REFERENCES……… 41 APPENDICES……… I

APPENDIX A:PRE- TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ……… I APPENDIX B: POST – TREATMENT QUESTIONAIRE……… III APPENDIX C: SAMPLE LESSON PLAN……… VII

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

1 List of tables

Table 1.1: Nattinger and DeCarrico‟s classification of lexical chunks 10 Table 1.2: Lewis‟ typology of lexical chunks……… 12 Table 3.1: The degree of the students‟ interest in speaking lesson…… 24 Table 3.2: Factors prevent students from speaking English in the

Table 3.3: The degree of students‟ motivation in speaking lesson after

Table 3.4: Students‟ opinions about the accuracy in speaking lesson

Table 3.5: Students‟ opinions about the fluency in speaking lesson

Table 3.6: Students‟ opinions about their improvement in speaking

Table 3.7: Students‟ opinions about the advantage of learning lexical

Table 3.8: Common factors affected the effectiveness of lexical

Table 3.9: The students‟ recommendations for the improvement of

2 List of charts

Figure 3.1: Students‟ need to learn to speak English……… 25 Figure 3 2: Students‟ interest toward learning grammar……… 25 Figure 3.3: Students‟ efforts toward learning to speak English……… 26 Figure 3.4: Students‟ opinions about the accuracy in speaking lesson

Figure 3.5: Students‟ opinions about the fluency in speaking lesson

Figure 3 6: Students‟ opinions about their improvement in speaking

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Acquiring vocabulary is a critical issue to help students develop their vocabulary to speak English and improve their speaking skills In Wilkins‟ words (1972:111)

“Without grammar, very little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed”

Krashen argues that vocabulary plays a fundamental role in verbal communication

“In order to communicate well in a foreign language, students should acquire an adequate number of words and should know how

to use them accurately If acquirers do not recognize the meaning of the key words used by those who address them they will be unable

to participate in the conversation”

(Krashen, 1983 cited in Lewis, 1993: 23)

He further clarifies that if the students‟ vocabulary is poor, they cannot communicate effectively no matter how good their grammatical knowledge might be “If our students know the morphology and the syntax of an utterance addressed to them, but do not know the meaning of key lexical items, they will be unable to participate in the communication For this reason, we are not impressed with approaches that deliberately restrict vocabulary acquisition and learning until the morphology and syntax are mastered” (Krashen, 1983 cited in Lewis, 1993: 23)

Three basic elements of a language are phonology, vocabulary and grammar In fact, both grammar and phonology are embedded in vocabulary because we cannot teach vocabulary without teaching the students how to pronounce the words and how words are put together to make grammatical sentences According to Michael Lewis (1993), vocabulary is more than

words; they are “grammaticalised lexis” (1993: vii) However, EFL teachers seem to overemphasize learning grammar more than vocabulary in their teaching The role of vocabulary has long been underestimated in EFL education

Lewis (1993) proposes the Lexical Approach and brings the field to systematically examine the nature of lexis in second language acquisition According to him “the grammar/ vocabulary dichotomy is a false Often when

„new word‟ are introduce into the class it will be appropriate not simply to present and record the word but to explore the grammar of the word” (Lewis, 1993: 115) He strongly argues that “language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar” (Lewis, 1993: vi) The pairing of grammar and vocabulary is best seen in lexical chunks, which are retrieved and processed as whole units These units may not only enhance the accuracy and fluency of the language, but also speed up language processing significantly These characteristics of lexical chunks motivate me to experiment using lexical chunks to develop my students‟ speaking skills

2 Aims of the study

The thesis is primarily aimed to gain understanding of the extent to which lexical chunks can motivate and benefit students in their speaking activities and then give some suggestions for teachers to stimulate students to speak and overcome the difficulties they face with in using lexical chunks to teaching speaking skills and some suggestions for the next cycle of the research on the topic

3 Research questions

The study was designed to answer the following questions:

(1) To what extent does the use of lexical chunks influence the students‟ motivation to speak English as measured by their self-

reported changes in their confidence and participation in speaking English?

(2) What do the students self-report on the benefits of using lexical chunks to their speaking English in the classroom?

(3) What are students‟ perceived difficulties in learning to speak English with this teaching strategy?

4 Scope of the study

The study is limited to the understanding of the impact of using lexical chunks on students‟ speaking skills development It is just a small – scale action research project, which was undertaken to improve my teaching practice

5 Method of the study

A quantitative method was used to gain the aim of this study, which is exploratory in nature Data were collected by means of pre- and post – treatment questionnaires It is noted that the primary aim of the study is to gain understandings of the extent to which using lexical chunks can support students in learning to speak English for my teaching practice rather than to find out the cause – and – effect relationship between the use of lexical chunks and students‟ speaking proficiency Therefore, pre – and post –

treatment questionnaires are appropriate for this aim

6 Design of the Study

The thesis is composed of three following parts:

Part A: Introduction provides the rationale, aims, scopes, method and

design of the study

Part B: Development- consists of four chapters

Chapter I: Literature Review: This chapter provides the theoretical background for the study

Chapter II: Research methodology- Presents research questions, action research, reasons for adopting action research, research instruments, research procedure and participants

Chapter III: Data analysis and discussions - The detailed results of the survey and a comprehensive analysis on the data collected are focused

Chapter IV: - This chapter presents the findings and offers recommendations for more effective application of lexical chunks

Part C: Conclusion: Some limitations of the study, suggestions for future research and conclusions of the study are presented in this part

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter deals with the theoretical background t I employed for the study

1.1 SPEAKING SKILL

1.1.1 The importance of speaking

According to Byrne (1991), among the four language skills, listening and reading are considered as the receptive skills, speaking and writing as the productive skills They are also divided according to the manners by which they are formed The skills in connection with manual script including reading and writing are called literacy skills The ones which are related to articulator organs are called the oral skills consisting of listening and speaking Of the four skills, speaking plays a very important role since it is the step to identify who knows or does not know a language Anyone who knows a foreign language can speak that language Byrne (1991:9) states that „We learn English in order to be able to speak easily, comfortably, confidently This is true for people who need to learn English for work or study, or even for those who want to learn Spanish or Chinese for travel Most people want to learn to speak” Pattison (1992) confirms that when a person speaks of knowing or

learning a language they mean being able to speak the language Thus,

speaking is a type of linguistic output By producing the output, learners are expected to notice the gap in their knowledge and then find ways to bridge the gap

Therefore, the importance of speaking in learning a second or foreign language has been stated by many scholars For example, Newmark (quoted from Brumfit C J and Johnson K., 1979: 161) gives an example of a person who wants to smoke but cannot know how to speak to borrow a stranger

“lighter or match” As for him, the person may know the structure taught by

the teacher, yet cannot know the way to get his cigarette lit by the stranger when he has no matches is to walk to him and say one of the utterances “Do you have a light?” or “Got a match?” or “Do you have a fire?” or “Do you have illumination?” or “Are you a match‟s owner?”

Hence, the aim of teaching speaking skill is to help learners have communicative efficiency or in other words is to teach learners the way to communicate “appropriately” and efficiently It can be seen from the example give by Newmark of a man who is good at structures but fails in utterance competence

Thus, in order to help learners develop communicative efficiency in speaking, balanced activities approach should be used to combine language input, structured output and communicative output

 Language input is presented to learners through listening and reading activities and the language heard and read outside

of class Language input provides learners with the material to begin producing language themselves Language input may be content oriented or form oriented

 Structured output emphasizes correct form Basing on the specific form or structure that the teacher has just introduced, learners may have options for responses Structured output is designed to make learners comfortably producing specific language items recently introduced, sometimes in combination with previously learned items

 Communicative output primarily aims to complete a task, such as obtaining information, developing a travel plan… In order to complete the task, learners not only use the language that the teacher has just presented but also draw on any other

vocabulary, grammar, and communication strategies that they know In communicative output activities, the criterion of success is whether the learner gets the message across Accuracy is not a consideration unless the lack of it interferes with the message

In a balance activities approach, the teacher uses a variety of activities from these different categories of input and output Learners at all proficiency levels, including beginners, benefit from this variety, it is more motivating, and it is also more likely to result in effective language learning

1.1.2 What is involved in speaking a foreign language?

Speaking was defined as „an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information‟ (Florez ,1999 cited in Bailey, 2005: 2) It is „often spontaneous, open- ended and evolving‟, but it is not completely unpredictable In other words,

„speaking consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning‟ (Balley, 2005:2)

Brown (1994: 258) makes the following list of skills & knowledge that

a good speaker has to possess:

 The sounds, stress pattern, rhythmic structures and intonations

of the language

 Vocabulary that is understandable and appropriate for the audience, the topic being discussed, and the setting in which the speech act occurs

 Strategies to enhance comprehensibility, such as emphasizing key words rephrasing, checking for comprehension, using gestures

or body language

 Attention to the success of the interaction and adjusting components of speech

1.2 LEXICAL CHUNKS

1.2.1 The definition of lexical chunks

Although the concept of „lexical chunks‟ is frequently used, it is not easy to define it (Weinert,1995:182) In fact, “lexical chunks” are defined differently in the literature They may be “prefabricated patterns” (Hakuta, 1976), “lexicalized stems” (Pawley & Syder 1983), “speech formulae” (Peters, 1983), or “ready-made (complex) units” (Cowie 1992), etc The diverse definitions of the term show both the significance and the complexity

of this linguistic area

Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:1) define the lexical chunks as lexical phrases They describe lexical phrases as:

„chunks‟ of language of varying length… they are multi-word lexical phenomena that exist somewhere between the traditional poles of lexicon and syntax, conventionalized have more idiomatically determined meaning than language that is put together each time… Each is associated with a particular discourse function, such as expressing time, a month ago, or relationships among ideas, the higher X, the higher Y

According to this definition, lexical phrases have not only syntactic structure, but also functional meanings, such as greeting (how are you?), expressing summary (all in all or above all), and expressing relationships among ideas or things (not only_, but also_), expressing time relationship

(a … ago), expressing comparative relationship (the er the _ er), which makes lexical chunks differ from other conventionalized or frozen forms such as idioms or cliché

Viewing vocabulary as more than words, Lewis (1993) initiates the term “grammaticalised lexis” (1993: vii) He modifies the connotation of lexicon from single words to the collocation of many ritualized bits of language, and explains that lexis is different kinds of multi-word chunks, which are word chunks connected by grammar rules, and, “when combined, produce continuous coherent text” (1997:7) Thus, “lexical chunks” can be understood as “grammaticalized lexis” Lewis‟s concept of lexicon is the basis for a lexical view of language and the lexical approach to second language teaching

According to Moon‟s (1998:40) definition a lexical chunk is a word item, which can be referred to otherwise as a vocabulary item consisting

multi-of “a sequence multi-of two or more words This sequence multi-of words semantically and/or syntactically forms a meaningful and inseparable unit” Moon‟s definition focuses on the form of the lexical chunk, and points out that the form contains its particular meaning as a unit

Taking a psycholinguistic perspective, Wray (2000) defines lexical chunks as:

„A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated; that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar‟ (p 465)

Wray‟s definition shows that a lexical chunk is a ready-made meaningful linguistic unit that is memorized and operated in use instantly This suggests that using lexical chunks to facilitate students‟ speaking could help to reduce the cognitive load of the students while speaking English as a foreign language

As can be seen from this definition, the basic characteristic of the lexical chunks is fixed or semi-fixed lexical phrases, which can be stored and retrieved automatically as a whole unit in the process of language acquisition Learners do not have to analyze and focus on the individual words of the phrases, but should pay more attention to the whole chunks This can facilitate not only the fluency but also efficiency of the language production

1.2.2 Classifications of lexical chunks

As there is no generally accepted definition, there is no fixed classification of chunks in the existing linguistic field Many linguists bring forward their own criteria from different perspectives

Among them, the classifications presented by Nattinger & De Carrico (1992) and Lewis (1993) seem to be more widely accepted than others These classifications are reviewed below

The classifications given by Nattinger and De Carrico (1992:37-44) are primarily based on structural criteria

Table 1.1: Nattinger and DeCarrico’s classification of lexical chunks

Poly words:

(1) Polywords are short phrases which

function very much like individual lexical

qualification of the topic at hand, relate one

topic to another, summarize, shift topics

and so on.)

(2) They allow no variability

For the most part (qualifier)

In a nutshell (summarizer)

By the way (topic shifter) I’ll say ( agreement marker) All in all (summarizer)

By and large (qualifier)

Institutional expression:

(1) Institutionalized expressions are lexical How are you? (greeting)

phrases of sentence length, usually

functioning as separate utterances

(2) They are invariable

(3) They are mostly continuous

Institutionalized expressions are proverbs,

aphorisms, for social interaction They are

used for quotation, allusion or direct use

Nice to meet you (closing) There you go (approval) Give me a break (objection)

Sentence builders:

(1) Sentence builders are lexical phrases

that provide the framework for whole

sentences

(2) They contain slots for parameters or

arguments for the expression of entire

ideas

(3) They allow considerable variation of

phrasal (NP, VP) and clausal (S) elements

(assertion): I think (that) X

It seems (to) me that X

I think that it’s a good idea (relators): Not only X but also Y (summarizer): My point is that X (request):Modal +you + VP (for me)

Phrasal constraints:

medium length phrases,

(2) They allow variation of lexical and

Summarizer; in sum, in short Greeting: dear… (Nam, Mr.) Closing: yours truly/ sincerely Qualifier: as far as I know/ can tell

According to Nattinger & De Carrico (1992:44), lexical phrases types differ in grammatical level, in the kind of substitution they allow, and to whether they are typically continuous or discontinuous

Lewis (1993:92-95) classifies the lexical chunks into four different basic types They are polywords, collocations, institutionalized utterances and sentence frames and heads

Table 1.2: Lewis’ typology of lexical chunks

Polywords: Extension of words, which is

composed of more than one word And it is

often considered to be the essential vocabulary

for learners to acquire

by the way, upside down, as soon as, on the one hand, talk about, after all, grow up and so

on

Collocation: refers to pairs of words that

frequently co-occur with each other These

frequent associations merge into habitual

connection and sometimes they are in a fixed

order

community service, absolutely convinced knife and fork, bread and butter play the basket ball

Fixed expressions/Institutionalized utterances:

Chunks that are called whole units and

conventionalized in the language They tend to

express pragmatic rather than referential

meaning The chunks may be full sentences,

usable with no variation but always with

instantly identifiable pragmatic meaning

accepting: I’d be delighted to offering: can I give you a hand supposing: If I were you…

I’ll get it; We’ll see;

Inviting: Would you like a cup of coffee?

Semi-fixed expressions/Sentence frames and

heads: serve as the framework builder of the

Lewis (1993) claims that the first two categories are concerned mainly with referential meaning, and the latter two with pragmatic meaning The two most important classifications are collocations and institutionalized expressions The former one is message-orientated, and the latter one is pragmatic in character

As can be seen from the classifications listed above, there is still no fixed standard for classification of lexical chunks, and researchers set up their own criteria for their own research aims However, when we use these criteria, we must be aware that all of these lexical chunks range between two extremes from absolutely fixed to highly free Therefore the categorization is fuzzily edged, and sometimes it is quite difficult to make specific boundaries between these types

1.2.3 Advantages of using lexical chunks in teaching speaking

As stated in 1.2.1, lexical chunks can be viewed as “prefabricated patterns”, “speech formulae”, “ready -made units” they are helpful to L2 learning Scholars have summarized three major benefits of using lexical chunks in teaching speaking These are enhancing students‟ fluency, accuracy, and motivation These three benefits are discussed in detail in the following sections

1.2.3.1 Promoting language fluency

Fluency in spontaneous connected speech may take the adult learner of

a foreign language years to achieve Quintero et al considers fluency as “the ability to produce language rapidly, coherently, appropriately, creatively as well as automatically (1998:13) From this definition, fluency not only involves the speed of the language production but also the logical organization of the production

Pawley and Syder (1983) claims that native speakers show a high degree of fluency when describing familiar activities and experiences in familiar phrases and they consider “native-like fluency” as the ability

“native speakers have to produce long strings of speech which exceed their capacity for encoding and decoding speech It relates

to language production and is the ability to link units of language with facility” (p 191)

They seem to have the ability to produce long strings of speech

by “expanding on or combining ready-made construction” with little

“encoding work” (1983:208) Pawley and Syder (1983:192-194) argue that it

is impossible for speakers to compose more than about 8-10 words at a time However, native speakers can fluently say multi-clause utterances which are stored as whole chunks and are frequently used It can be concluded that using lexical chunks may simplify the learners‟ language processing significantly, thereby reducing the students‟ cognitive load while speaking the target language

According to Willis (2003), lexical chunks help to develop students‟ fluency in that:

“The only way we can produce language rapidly and fluently is building up by routines and rely on ready – made elements and chunks.”(p 4)

In a similar vein, Nattinger and DeCarrico（1992）point out that fluency is based precisely on lexical phrases They also state that it is lexical phrases that offer ready access to social interactions and provide an easily retrievable frame for actual communication They elaborate this as follows:

“It is our ability to use lexical phrases, in other words, that helps us speak with fluency This prefabricated speech has both the

advantage of more efficient retrieval and of permitting speakers (and hearers) to direct their attention to the larger structure of the discourse, rather than keeping it focused narrowly on individual words as they are produced (p.32)

By stringing lexical chunks together, it is possible for speakers to produce stretches of fluent language Using lexical chunks reduces the load

of language processing, which not only facilitates speakers to employ regular, patterned segments of discourse with fluency but also enables learners to focus more on the content of the language

In his „Lexical Approach‟, Lewis (1993: 121) maintains that “fluency is achieved largely by combining chunks reducing processing difficulty.” Stemming from this, it is thus reasonable to assume that fluent English speaking can be assisted by better using lexical phrases/chunks

Lewis (1997:15) also states that “fluency is based on the acquisition of

a large store of fixed and semi-fixed prefabricated items” It implies that lexical chunks provide an easily retrievable frame for language production, and thus enhance the fluency of the language production

1.2.3.2 Enhancing language accuracy

According to Pawley and Syder (1983:193), one of the most difficult tasks for even the most proficient non-native speaker is to learn to select the subset of utterances that are customarily used by native speakers Thus, lexical chunks as a „mini-grammar‟ would help learners to speak the target language more idiomatically (Pawley and Syder, 1983)

Furthermore, in order to achieve accuracy, one must store a large amount of lexical chunks Pawley and Syder (1983) suggest that lexical chunks “form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in everyday conversation […] Coming ready-made, [they] need little encoding

work” (p 13) It means that if learners start from the ready-made chunks that compose a large number of the native speakers‟ language, the accuracy of languages can be ensured

As for Lewis (1993:87) “a large proportion of languages consist of meaningful chunks, which can be found in the utterances of native speakers who employ a large number of pre-assembled chunks to produce fluency and accuracy Therefore, to master a language, learners must know not only its individual words, but also the ways to piece them together”

1.2.3.3 Increasing learners’ motivation

Motivation is one of the most powerful influences on learning a language As for Lewis (1993:27) “learners always feel pressure have to produce more than they can, and they quickly become discouraged when they are able to express little of what they wish.” He states that lexical chunks would allow the expressions that they are yet unable to construct creatively from rules, simply because these chunks can be retrieved as wholes when the situation called for them

Hakuta (1976) points out that lexical prefabricated patterns:

“enable learners to express functional meanings that they are yet unable to construct from their linguistic system, simply storing them in a sense like large lexical items” (p.333)

He also notes that:

“if learners always have to wait until they acquire the con-structural rules for forming an utterance before using it, then they may become frustrated and run into serious motivational difficulties in learning the language, for the functions that can be expressed (especially in the initial stages of learning) would be severely limited”

(Hakuta, 1976:333)

In Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching, Nattinger & DeCarrico state:

“Lexical phrases… allow for expressions that learners are yet unable to construct creatively, simply because they are stored and retrieved as whole chunks, a fact which should ease frustration and

at the same time promote motivation…”

(Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:114)

In addition to the three major above- discussed benefits, acquisition of lexical chunks have been proved to facilitate learners acquire grammar better

“Many linguists now believe that social interaction come before the syntactic structures and provide the basis for them Infants learn what language is used before they learn how to speak it Children learn the conventions that make utterances into speech acts before they learn how to frame the utterances as grammatical sentences”

1.3 Lexical classroom activities

Lewis (1993:126) recommends the following classroom activities For example:

special offer urgent promotional

letter

Example 1

Small Nice Classy Reasonable

popular

Italian Chinese Thai Indian

complaint resignation

acceptance Example 4

Example 3

have a break, shall we?

get the early train

go to the bank first

………

Example 5

Good morning (Ladies and Gentlemen) On behalf of……may I welcome you to…… It is a great pleasure to have you with us today I hope you enjoy your visit/meeting/ the conference If there

is anything we can do to help, please do not hesitate to ask Now, you don‟t want to me all day so I‟ll hand you over to my colleague… (who will over to you… take you to….)

Example 7

In this study I used all these activities The results referring this extent

to which they support students‟ speak will be presented on chapter III

1.4 Summary

This chapter has presented some theoretical background knowledge related to the topic of the study It has discussed some concepts and ideas concerning to the issue of lexical chunks Besides, the benefits of using lexical chunks which include enhancing fluency, accuracy, motivation, and facilitating the acquisition of the target grammar have also reviewed in this chapter These benefits constitute a frame of reference for the research design presented in chapter II that follows

Let‟s

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the methodology I employed for the achievement of the aims and objectives of the study and the data collection procedures This was intended to be an action research Given the purpose of the study, I employed a quantitative method The data were obtained by means of a survey questionnaire and then analyzed quantitatively

2.1 Action research

Action research defined by Carr and Kemmis (1986: 162) “is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out”

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988: 5) “Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out.” These authors list three following defining characteristics of action research:

 it is carried out by practitioners (for our purposes, classroom teachers) rather than outside researchers;

 secondly, it is collaborative;

 and thirdly, it is aimed at changing things” (cited in Nunan 1992:17)

Cohen and Manion (1985) argue that “action research is first and foremost situational, being concerning with the identification and solution of problem in specific context” (citied in Nunan, 1992:18)

In summary, action research is a kind of scientific study often carried out by a teacher or an educator in order to solve a practical problem in a

classroom As its name suggests, action research focuses mainly on the actions of both students and teachers Those actions are aimed at solving the problems which are related to classroom teaching and learning The problems solved by action research are often practical and useful for teachers Besides, action research is also for professional developments By carrying out action research teachers know how to find out and solve problems in their own teaching contexts Such knowledge would help them to become better teachers

2.2 Reasons for adopting action research

As stated in chapter 1, the aim of this study is to explore the possibility

of using lexical chunks to increase students‟ confidence and participation in classroom speaking activities In other words, the study serves my own pedagogical purpose, i.e to improve students‟ oral fluency and accuracy in English The study was conducted by myself as a classroom teacher in my own classroom and through the collaboration with my own students All these fit well with the features of action research described by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)

2.3 Research instruments

Questionnaires are commonly used in educational research in general and in ELT research in particular According to Mc Donough J &McDonough

S (1997: 170-171) the use of questionnaires in research has some advantages:

(a) The knowledge needed is controlled by the questions therefore

it is a good deal of precision and clarity

(b) Questionnaires can be used on a small scale, in house, and on a large scale

(c) Data can be gathered in several different time slots: all at once

in a class at convenience when a suitable respondent happens to

come along, and different locations at different times, but in all of these data is comparable

In this study, a written questionnaire was administered to 70 students at grade 12th form students at Vu Tien school of Thai Binh to complete All the questionnaire responses were analysed in terms of percentage This was to identify the extent to which the intervention affected students‟ motivation to speak English in the classroom according to the students‟ self- reports

2.4 Research procedures: I followed the following steps

Step 1 - Problem identification: As a teacher, I observed that my students

were reluctant to speak English in the classroom In order to find out the reasons, I designed a pre – treatment questionnaire (see Appendix A) seeking for relevant information The questionnaire was administered to seventy grade

12 students at Vu Tien high school This pre- treatment questionnaire was designed with 2 questions The aim of this was to elicit the students‟ opinions about their motivation in learning speaking English (Students‟ motivation was measured with their aptitude, interest, attitude, desire and effort in learning) and some information relating to factors affecting students‟ motivation in learning speaking English Having collected the questionnaire, I analysed the responses to identify most important information for the design of the treatment The analysis of the pre – treatment questionnaire indicated the common problems students were faced with in speaking English For example, students English did not motivate to learn to speak English because speaking was not tested, examined or marked Secondly, as teaching English

is exam- oriented, like other teachers I emphasized on teaching grammatical structures being useful for students‟ tests and final exams Moreover, they seemed to lack good speaking strategies One example of this poor speaking strategies was that they tended combine single words in their mind and

translated the mental sentences before uttering them As a result of low attention to learn speaking English, students could not speak English fluently and accurately and even they could not express what they wanted because of lexical deficiency

Step 2 - Plan of action: In looking for the solution in the literature, I found

Lewis‟ (1992) Lexical Approach interesting I designed the treatment and

used it in the classroom

Step 3 – Action: In order to use lexical chunks to support students in learning

to speak English, I must try my best to prepare for new application First of all, while planning the lesson I took into account the topic and the objectives

of the lesson to design appropriate classroom activities Next, I chose lexical chunks relating to the topic, commonly used while talking about the topic and being familiar to students Then, basing on lexical classroom activities by Lewis (1993) I designed my own lexical classroom activities that were suitable to my students‟ level and chose lexical chunks relating and being suitable to different topics (see Appendix B for the sample lesson plan).After that I carried out a post – treatment questionnaire to get information from my students This questionnaire was designed to obtain students‟ evaluation of the benefits of my experimental teaching strategy, i.e use of lexical chunks,

to their speaking Post-treatment questionnaire consists of 3 questions The

aim of this was to gather information about:

(1) students‟ attitude and motivation changes after using lexical chunks to support grade 12th form students in learning to speak English

(2) The students‟ opinions about the benefits of using lexical chunks to learn to speak English

(3) The students‟ opinions about the factors for the improvement of speaking lesson using lexical chunks (see Appendix C)

Step 4 - Analysis of data: The data gathered through the questionnaire were

statistically analyzed in terms of percentage (see details in chapter III) to identify the extent to which the treatment supported students in their speaking

activities

Step 5 - Plan for future Action: The treatment really supports students in

their speaking skills improvement On the basis of the students‟ responses and suggestions, the next cycle of action research will be presented in Section 4.2 However, this is beyond the present study and will not be described in detail

in this thesis

2.5 Participants: The participants in this study were seventy students at

grade 12th at Vu Tien school of Thai Binh, which were placed in 2 groups 12A 8 an 12 A9 All of them had learned English at junior high school for 4 years and two years at Vu Tien high school Their knowledge of English and their English vocabulary was at acceptable level However, they could not communicate with each other effectively This was mainly because of some problems mentioned above

2.6 Summary: To sum up, chapter 2 has mentioned the methodology

employed in the study including action research, the subject of the study and the data collection instrument and the intervention procedure