FACTORS AFFECTING MOTIVATION FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATION IN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS a SURVEY AT HUNG VUONG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIESFACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ************************ PHẠM THỊ HỒNG VÂN FACTORS AFFECTING MOTI

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

************************

PHẠM THỊ HỒNG VÂN

FACTORS AFFECTING MOTIVATION FOR STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS: A SURVEY

AT HUNG VUONG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

CÁC YẾU TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN ĐỘNG LỰC THAM GIA TRONG GIỜ HỌC NÓI CỦA SINH VIÊN HỌC NGHỀ: NGHIÊN CỨU KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

CĐN HÙNG VƯƠNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English teaching methodology

Code: 60.14.01.11

Hanoi – 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

************************

PHẠM THỊ HỒNG VÂN

FACTORS AFFECTING MOTIVATION FOR STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS: A SURVEY

AT HUNG VUONG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

CÁC YẾU TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN ĐỘNG LỰC THAM GIA TRONG GIỜ HỌC NÓI CỦA SINH VIÊN HỌC NGHỀ: NGHIÊN CỨU KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

CĐN HÙNG VƯƠNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English teaching methodology

Code: 60.14.01.11

Supervisor: Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh, Ph.D

Hanoi – 2015

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled

“ Factors affecting motivation for students’ participation in English speaking lessons: A survey at Hung Vuong Vocational College" is the result of my own

research for the Degree of Master of Arts, and that this thesis has not beensubmitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution

Hanoi, 2015

Phạm Thị Hồng Vân

First of all, I wish to send my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Nguyen ThiNgoc Quynh, Ph.D for her valuable guidance, helpful suggestions and criticalfeedback throughout the research

Also, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to all the lecturers in theDepartment of Postgraduate Studies, College of Foreign languages, VNU for theiruseful lessons from which I have benefited a lot for the accomplishment of thisstudy

I am greatly indebted to my first year students of business accounting fromHung Vuong Vocational College for their participation and assistance withoutwhich this study could not have been successful

Last but not least, I would like to express my special thanks to my lovingparents, my husband, who offered me their love, care, support and encouragement

so that I could accomplish my study

This study aims to investigate factors affecting motivation and differencesbetween high achievers and low achievers in speaking lessons of the first -yearstudents of business accounting at Hung Vuong Vocational College Usingcorrelation and Man-Whitney U test to analyse the data, the result shows thatlearners are highly motivated by their job orientation, teacher’s good pronunciation,group cohesion and task difficulty They are also demotivated by extra homework,ineffective L1 & L2 use, L2 use outside the class, their lack of self-confidence Thestudy also finds out some differences between two groups in terms of instrumentalorientation, self-confidence, affiliative motive, teacher’s L2 use, desire to speak aswell as teacher, classroom goal structures, task difficulty and classroom atmosphere

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACTi ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

PART A INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 1

3 Scope of the study 2

4 Methods of the study 2

5 Design of the study 2

PART B DEVELOPMENT 3

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

1.1 Theoretical background of motivation in L2 learning 3

1.1.1: Terminological issues 3

1.1.2 Importance of motivation in L2 3

1.1.3: Major approaches and theories on language learning motivation 4

1.1.3.1.Behavioral approach 4

1.1.3.2 Psychological- cognitive approach 4

1.1.3.2.1 Achievement motivation theory 5

1.1.3.2.2 Attribution theory 5

1.1.3.2.3 Self-efficacy theory 5

1.1.3.2.4 Self-determination theory 5

1.1.3.3 Socio-cultural and contextual approaches 6

1.1.3.3.1 Linguistic self-confidence 6

1.1.3.3.2 A situated concept of L2 motivation 7

1.1.3.3.3 A process-oriented approach to L2 motivation research 7

1.1.4: Factors affecting motivation in L2 learning 7

1.1.4.1 : Dornyei (1994a)’s framework 7

1.1.4.2: New factors added to Dornyei’s framework 11

1.2 Theoretical background of speaking in L2 learning 12

1.2.1 Communicative competence 12

1.2.2 Communicative language teaching ( CLT) 13

1.2.3 Guidelines for implementing communicative tasks 14

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 15

2.1.Research questions: 15

2.2 Research setting and participants 15

2.3 Techniques of collecting data 16

2.3.1: Quantitative research : questionnaire 16

2.3.2 Qualitative research- interview 16

2.4 Procedure 16

Chapter 3 Data analysis 3.1 Personal information of the students taking part in the survey 17

3.2 Factors affect students’ participation in speaking lessons 17

3.2.1 Language level 17

3.2.2 Learning situation level 18

3.2.2.1 Teacher-specific components 18

3.2.2.2 Group-specific motivational component 22

3.2.2.3 Course-specific motivational component 24

3.2.2.4.Environment-specific component 24

3.2.3 Learner level 25

3.3 Differences in factors between high achievers and low achievers 26

3.3.1 Language level 26

3.3.2 Learner level 27

3.3.3 Learning situation level 28

3.3.3.1 Teacher-specific components 28

3.3.3.2 Group-specific motivational component 31

3.3.3.3 Course-specific motivational component 32

3.3.3.4 Environment-specific motivational componen 33

Part C Conclusion

4.1 A summary of findings and implications 34

4.1.1 Factors highly motivate learners 34

4.1.2 Factors demotivate learners 34

4.1.3 Factors give learners a moderate level of motivation 35

4.1.4 Differences between two groups in terms of language level 36

4.1.5 Differences between two groups in terms of learner level 36

4.1.6 Differences between two groups in terms of teacher-related factors 37

4.1.7 Differences between two groups in terms of group-related factors 37

4.1.8 Differences between two groups in terms of course-related factors 38

4.1.9 Differences between two groups s in terms of environment-related factors 38

4.2 Recommendations to motivate students to speak English in class 39

4.3 Limitations of the study 41

4.4 Suggestions for further studies 41

REFERENCES 42

appendix 1 Questionnaire for students ( Vietnamese) I appendix 2 Questionnaire for students (translated into English) IV appendix 3 Guiding interview questions for students VII appendix 4 Test of normality IX

PART A INTRODUCTION

1.Rationale of the study

In recent decades, English has been more and more important in Vietnam It is nowwidely known as the major language of intercommunication, internationalcommerce and business, science and technology and so on Thus, people with goodEnglish proficiency will have a brighter future They will have a great deal ofchances to apply for a good job with high salary

At Hung Vuong Vocational College, English is a compulsory subject with 120periods Teachers must teach four skills of which listening and speaking skills must

be paid more attention That is one of the main tasks of the college that must trainstudents to be communicatively competent After the course, students have to beable to communicate successfully in social situations It is a big challenge forteachers because at secondary and high schools, listening skill and speaking skillhave been paid little attention As a result, from my observation and my teachingexperience, I realized that only some learners get involved in the speaking activitieswhile others keep silence or do other things

Motivating students in English speaking lessons is every teacher’s challenge,especially in vocational college They are unwilling to take part in speakingactivities in class This may be caused by many factors Therefore, this study willinvestigate factors affecting the students’ participation in English speaking lessons.The researcher hopes that this study will help teachers at the vocational college tofind suitable methods to motivate learners

2 Aims of the study

This study aims at investigating factors affecting learners’ motivation to speakEnglish among students of business accounting field at Hung Vuong VocationalCollege Three main purposes are summarized below:

1 to investigate factors affecting learners’ motivation to speak English

2 to investigate differences in factors between high achievers and low achievers

3 to give motivational strategies to motivate learners

3 Scope of the study

The study was conducted with the sample selected from one hundred and nine first year students of business accounting at Hung Vuong Vocational College

eighty-to explore faceighty-tors affecting learners’ motivation in English speaking lessons andcompare differences between high achievers and low achievers in terms of factors

4 Methods of the study

To achieve the aims of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods areused The data was collected from learners’ questionnaire papers and interviews.After the data was collected, analyzed and discussed, some conclusions will bedrawn, and some suggestions will be made in the thesis

5 Design of the study

The first part, introduction, includes the rationale, the aims, the scope, the methodand the design of the study

The second part, development, includes three chapters Chapter one, literaturereview, provides a theoretical background of motivation, factors affecting languagelearning This chapter also summaries the theoretical background of speaking in L2learning This is viewed as the theoretical framework for the investigation in thenext chapter Chapter 2, methodology gives the context of the study, the researchquestions, the participants and data analysis procedure Chapter 3, data analysis,gives a detailed presentation of data

The final part is conclusion This part provides the summary of the findings andsome implications for teachers of English as a foreign language In addition, thispart gives some limitations of the study and some possible suggestions for furtherresearch

Among many of definitions of motivation, Dornyei (2001: 7) gave a comprehensiveone which concerned “ the choice of a particular action, the persistence with it andthe effort expended on it” It shows how behaviour starts, is directed andmaintained Therefore, motivation is a study of process that give behaviour energyand direction “ the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person thatimitates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates and evaluates the cognitive andmotor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized,operationalised and acted out” ( Dorney, 2001: 9)

In the 1990s, many works examined the relationship between learners andclassroom environment, ( e.g Brown, 1990, 1994; Clement, Dornyei & Noels,1994; Crookes & Schmitdt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994a, 1994b; Julkunen, 1989, 1993;Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Skehan, 1989, 1991; Ushioda, 1994, 1996a; William,1994) ( cited in Dornyei, 2001: 11)

Lastly, in Dornyei and Otto (1998); Dornyei (2000, 2001), motivation began to beseen as dynamic and temporal They defined motivation as “ a dynamic view”, or “changes of motivation over time” Motivation can not be viewed as a stable attribute

of learning that remains constant for several months or years Instead, students’motivation fluctuates, going through “ ebbs and flows” ( Dornyei, 2001: 19)

1.1.2 Importance of motivation in L2

Motivation is considered as a crucial factor in achieving a second language Gardnerand Lambert (1972) emphasized that motivation can influence what, when and howlearners learn That is, motivation determines strategies to achieve the goals, theeffort and persistence Littlewood (1998: 53) indicated that “ motivation is thecrucial force which determines whether a learner embarks on a task at all, howmuch energy he devotes to it, and how long he preserves"

1.1.3 Major approaches and theories on language learning motivation

1.1.3.1 Behavioral approach

According to the behaviourists, all learning takes place through the process of habitformation Learners receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment andpositive reinforcement for their correct repetitions and imitations As a result, habitsare formed ( cited in Lightbown & Spada,1993: 23) In other words, behavioristsexplain motivation in terms of external stimuli and reinforcement In the classroom,teachers often offer stimuli or reinforcement after a student performs in the foreignlanguage This view is equivalent to Dornyei’s (1994) reward system, feedback

1.1.3.2.Psychological- cognitive approach:

Cognitive psychologists search for motives for human behaviour in the individualrather than in the social being, focusing primarily on psychological or internalfactors, placing much more emphasis on individual’s choice ( Keller, 1983, p.389)

1.1.3.2.1 Achievement motivation theory

Atkinson (1966) viewed achievement behaviour as the result of emotional conflictbetween hopes for success and fears of failure He proposed that students’motivation is a stable trait across different contexts, which arises largely from twopersonality orientations: the achievement-oriented personality and the failure-threatened personality Thus, his theory placed a great importance on need forachievement and self-confidence which are mentioned in Dornyei’s (1994)framework

1.1.3.2.2 Attribution theory

Beside achievement theory, Weiner’s (1992) attribution theory is concerned withthe way in which an individual’s explanations of success and failure influence thatindividual’s subsequence motivation and behavior Students may attribute success

or failure to different causes, depending on their beliefs about who or what controlstheir success or failure These important causes are ability, effort, luck, taskdifficulty, amount of effort, content, degree of difficulty, time and stability, aptitude

or mood This theory is important for teachers to motivate learners in secondlanguage acquisition and this theory is equivalent to Dornyei’s causal attribution

1.1.3.2.3 Self-efficacy theory

Bandura’s ( 1997) self-efficacy theory refers to people’s judgment of theircapabilities to carry out certain specific tasks and accordingly, their sense ofefficacy will determine their choice of activities attempted, the amount of effortexerted and persistence displayed The theory is equivalent to Dornyei’s (1994)perceived L2 competence and self-efficacy

1.1.3.2.4 Self-determination theory

Another theory that is closely related to Dornyei’s (1994) framework is Ryan’s self-determination theory (1985) In their works, they stated that “ when selfdetermined, people experience a sense of freedom to do what is interesting,personally important and vitalizing” Self-determination consists of three needs:competence, autonomy and relatedness An important aspect of self-determinationtheory to be emphasized is autonomy in L2 classroom Dickinson (1995) stated thatL2 motivation and learner autonomy go hand in hand, that is, their learning successand failures are to be attributed to their own efforts and strategies rather than tofactors outside their control (Dickinson, 1995: 173-4) Ushioda (1996b: 2) alsostates, “Autonomous language learners are by definition motivated learners” orNoels, Clement and Pelletier found that “ a democratic teaching style fostersintrinsic motivation” ( cited in Dornyei, 1998: 124) The theory is really related tosome subcomponents in Dornyei(1994)’s framework such as self-confidence,authority type and group cohesion

Delci-It can be seen that the above-mentioned theories tend to emphasize a particulardimension of motivation, focusing on personal traits, beliefs, thoughts, feelings orattitudes and there is a direct relationship with some components or subcomponents

in Dornyei’s motivational framework

1.1.3.3 Socio-cultural and contextual approaches.

For socio-cultural and contextual approaches, researchers see that we acquirelanguage when we engage in meaningful interaction in second language In otherwords, motivation can be seen as result of the interpersonal interaction in a specificenvironment/ situation

1.1.3.3.1 Linguistic self-confidence

Linguistic self-confidence proposed by Clement is a socially defined construct- apowerful mediating process in multi ethnic settings that affects a person’smotivation to learn and use the language of another speech community Thisconcept is extended by showing that there is a “ considerable indirect contact withthe L2 culture through the media” ( cited in Dorrnyei (1998: 123) The concept isrelated to integrative motivation in Dornyei’s framework

1.1.3.3.2 A situated concept of L2 motivation

Motivation researchers in the 1990s started to examine various aspects of thelearning context in which a) the target language is not used as L1 in the communityand b) it is used as L1 Most of learners can not speak well in the first environment.Only in the classroom, they lack time or opportunity to practise L2, which resultsinto embarrassment or stress when they are exposed to the foreign language outsidethe class Krashen (1985: 46) states, for such learners, “ the only input is teachers’

or classmates’ talk-both do not speak L2 well” Therefore, to inhibit the negativeinfluences in the classroom, three recent research directions that have adopted thissituated approach include a) the study of willingness to communicate (WTC), (b)task motivation and c) the relationship between motivation and the use of languagelearning strategies

 WTC is the “ readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with aspecific person or persons, using a L2”, MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei and Noels(1998: 547)

 Task motivation: The components of task motivation are task execution,appraisal and action control Task-based research and the study of task motivation is

“ one of the most fruitful directions for future research” in that these concepts arealso “useful in pulling together diverse approaches within the L2 motivation field” (Dornyei, 2003: 16)

 Motivation and learning strategy use

Learning strategies are techniques that students apply to enhance effectiveness oftheir learning The study of the interrelationship between motivation and learningstrategies was initiated in the mid 1990s by Richard Schmidt, Peter MacIntyre andtheir colleagues ( i.e MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Schmidt, Boraie & Kassabgy, 1996)

To sum up, the view is closely related to teacher’s teaching method in Dornyei ‘s(1994) framework

1.1.3.3.3 A process-oriented approach to L2 motivation research.

The situated approach to motivation research soon drew attention to another aspect

of motivation: its dynamic character and temporal variation A process-orientedapproach can explain “ the ups and downs” of motivation In this process, threestages can be discerned: (1) Preactional stage: Motivation is generated and initiated;(2) Actional stage: executive motivation : ongoing appraisal of the student’sprogress and action control ( self-regulation); (3) Postactional stage: Motivationalretrospection: encouraging self-evaluation and even self-reflection ( cited inDornyei, 2003: 19)

1.1.4: Factors affecting motivation in L2 learning

1.1.4 Dornyei (1994a)’s framework

In the literature on motivation, researchers focused on what specific factors worktogether to create motivation and they built a lot of models focusing on components

of L2 motivation Typical examples are Wlliams and Burdens’s (1997) extendedframework, Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995), Schumann’s neurobiological model, ordescriptive studies of motivation in particular sociocultural contexts However, inthis part, I only mention a framework proposed by Dornyei (1994), which is suitable

to my research Indeed, his framework was rather detailed in factors affectingmotivation to learn English and its structure was clear, easy to understand Heattempted to offer an extensive list of motivational components categorized intothree main dimensions: the Language Level, the Learner Level, and the LearningSituation Level

The first level in Dornyei’s model is the language level, which mentionedintegrative and instrumental motivational subsystems The first describes learnerswho learn a language in order to integrate themselves into the culture of a secondlanguage group and become involved in social interchange in that group The latterrefers to acquiring a language as a means for attaining instrumental goals such asacquiring a degree or certificate, getting a better job Gardner and Lambert (1972)and Spolsky (1969) found that integrativeness accompanied higher scores onproficiency tests in a foreign language ( cited in Brown, 2003: 171)

The second level is the learner level which involves individual characteristics thatlearners have in their learning process The learner level “ involves a complex ofaffects and cognitions that form fairly stable personality traits” ( Dornyei, 1994,p.279) The learner level includes a need for achievement and self-confidence Need for achievement is concerned with a desire to achieve, to become perfect Thisfactor is similar to Atkinson’s achievement motivation construct He also statedthat learners with a high need for achievement are more likely to get better grades.( Dornyei, 1990: 54-60)

Self-confidence is a complex factor, so he defines it with four subcomponents:

a language use anxiety: Anxiety is a feeling of tension and nervousness relating tosecond language learning It is a negative factor in SLA It influences the quality oforal production and makes learners speak less fluently than they are really ( cited inEllis, 1998: 121) There are some reasons for this issue Fear of mistake is one ofthe main factors that hinder learners to speak in the classroom (Robby, 2010) Aftat(2008) stated that learners feel worried when they receive correction and negativeevaluation In addition, learners are afraid of being laughed or mocked by otherstudents and teachers ( Kutus, 2011)

b Perceived target language competence ( PC) is the learners’ belief that they cancomplete the tasks because of their past proficiency level Clement , Baker andMacIntyre (2003) claimed that higher perceived L2 competence and low anxietyincrease willingness to communicate

c attribution theory: past failures and successes affect the future goal andexpectancy of language learning

d self-efficacy refers to individual’s judgement of his/ her ability to perform aspecific action, which can develop not only from past accomplishments, but alsofrom observation of peers, persuasion, reinforcement and evaluation, affect theoutcome of language learning To enhance the sense of self-efficacy, teachershould provide meaningful, achievable tasks

The third level is the learning situation level, which takes into account specificmotivational factors connected with the teacher, the course and the group oflanguage learners

perceived likelihood of success It concerns the task difficulty, the amount effortrequired, the teacher’s guide and assistance etc Satisfaction concerns the outcome

of an activity, which includes both extrinsic rewards ( good grade or praise) orintrinsic rewards, such as enjoyment or pride

Teacher-specific component

Teacher-specific component is another important one Affiliative drive is anextrinsic motive, which refers to students’ need to do well in order to please theteacher Another factor is teacher’s authority type Students will react differently ifteacher is either autonomy supporting or controlling One other factor of theteacher is his/her role in direct socialization of students’ motivation One teachercan model behavior for students, or a teacher can present a task in such as way thatattract learners’ attention to do the tasks, or a teacher can give feedback

Group-specific component refers to the classroom learning which takes places in thegroup as an organizational unit Dornyei (1994a) names this kind of group as “group dynamics” which influence students’ cognitions Four aspects of groupdynamics mentioned in Dornyei (1994a)’s research are “ goal-orientedness”, “norm and reward systems”, “ group cohesion” and classroom goal structure” Thefirst factor is group goal which is considered as “ a composite of individual goals”

In other words, students’ goal is pursuing l2 learning The next factor is norms andreward system, which concerns extrinsic motives that specify appropriate behaviorsfor efficient learning Finally, classroom goal structures can either be competitive,cooperative or individualistic

To sum up, his framework appears to be a comprehensive construct and itsynthesizes various lines of research It shows nearly all important factors affectingmotivation in language learning It can be seen that three levels in his frameworkmanifest three approaches: behavioral, cognitive and psychological, social-contextual approaches Lastly, compared to his framework (2001), emphasizing onlanguage learning and teaching strategies, learning process, time, only hisframework (1994)- simple, focusing on factors, is suitable to my research

However, Dornyei’s (1994) framework lacks some crucial subcomponents Forinstance, he did not mention individual learning techniques as well as the totalteaching periods and environment specific motivational component under thecomponent of learner level and learning situation level respectively In my minorthesis, I only add the environment-related factors to this framework.

Below is Dornyei’s (1994) extended framework of L2 motivation in my research.Table 1: Dornyei’s (1994) framework of L2 motivation (cited in Dornyei, 2001)

Instrumental motivational subsystem

Self-confidence + Language use anxiety + Perceived L2 competence + Casual attributions + Self-efficacyLearning situation level

Course specific motivational

components Interest (in the course)Relevance (of the course to one’s needs)

Expectancy (of success)Satisfaction (one has in the outcome)

Teacher specific motivational

Authority typeDirect socialization of student motivation

- Modeling

- Task presentation

- Feedback

Group specific motivational

components Goal-orientednessNorms and reward system

Group cohesionClassroom goal structure

*Environment-specific motivational

components ( added) Physical conditionClassroom atmosphere

Language environment

* new motivation component added to Dornyei’s framework

1.1.4.2 New factors added to Dornyei’s framework

a Physical conditions

Physical conditions in the classroom such as classroom size, chairs, tables, boardsaffect learners’ participation positively or negatively.

Harmer (2001) emphasized that physical conditions had great impact on students’learning as well as their attitude towards SLA, affecting learners’ motivation Largeclass size and poor facilities demotivate learners dramatically

1.2 Theoretical background of speaking in L2 learning

Discourse competence: The ability to connect sentences in stretches of discourseand to form a meaningful whole out of a series of utterances

Socio-linguistic competence: Sociolinguistic competence includes being culturallysensitive to social rules such as taboos and politeness Sociolinguistic competence isculturally specific

Strategic competence: The verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may

be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due toperformance variables or due to insufficient competence Some examples ofstrategic competence are asking questions, taking turns, using gestures, role playing,etc

1.2.2 Communicative language teaching ( CLT)

CLT has been popular and widespread in L2 language teaching CLT reflects asocial relationship between the teacher and learner This learner-centered approachgives students a sense of ownership of their learning and enhances their motivation (Brown, 1994)

CLT emphasizes the process of communication Learners are actively engaged innegotiating meaning by trying to make themselves understood and in understandingothers within the classroom and activities ( Richard and Rodger, 1986 ) Teachersalso take some roles in CLT approach: teacher facilitates the communicationprocess between all participants in the classroom; teacher is a co-communicatorwho engages in communicative activities with the students in the classroom( Larsen- Freeman, 2001); teacher acts as analysts, counselor and group processmanager ( Richards and Rodgers, 1986)

Brown ( 2007: 241) gave four interconnected characteristics as a definition of CLT

1 Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicativecompetence and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence

2 Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes Organizationallanguage forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enablethe learner to accomplish those purposes

3 Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlyingcommunicative techniques At times fluency may have to take on more importancethan accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use

4 In the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use their targetlanguage, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts under properguidance, but not under the control of a teacher

Besides, Brown (1994b) lists six key words of CLT to better understand what itaims at: learned-centered, cooperative, interactive, integrated, content-centered andtask-based In other words, language teaching should be conductedcommunicatively

In conclusion, chapter 1 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 motivation in L2 study, and some major factors affecting students’ motivation Besides, some different aspects related to speaking were also discussed The following chapter will display the detailed description of the methodology, the procedures of the study under Dornyei ‘s(1994) framework.

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research questions:

1 What factors affect students’ motivation in speaking lessons for first yearstudents of business accounting ?

2 What are the differences in factors affecting the in speaking lessons betweenhigh achievers and low achievers?

2.2 Research setting and participants

The study was conducted at Hung Vuong Vocational College, 401 Au Co Sreet-HaNoi where English is a compulsory subject with 120 periods, taught during the firstterm and the second term The course book chosen is New Headway Elementary byLiz & John Soars which focuses on four skills and language use, grammar

The participants consisted of 189 first-year students of business accounting This isalso the total number of first- year students They came from different provinces inthe country Entering the college, the students’ levels are very different Somelearners have a good command of English The rest have trouble in listening andspeaking; even some of them have a number of limited vocabulary The tests andfinal tests are designed to test four skills and grammar Their average scores at thetwo semesters ranges from 3.0 to 9.5

2.3 Techniques of collecting data.

2.3.1 Survey questionnaire

The questionnaire was written in Vietnamese to avoid language barrier andcommunication breakdown Learners may be comfortable to complete the items inthe questionnaire A preliminary version of questionnaire items was initiallyformulated in English, based on Dorneyi (1994)’s framework

All the questions in the questionnaire adopted a five-point rating scale 189 questionpapers were distributed to the students for collecting data, 142 of them werecompletely filled

students were chosen to take part in the interviews, namely 4 students of highachievers ( average mark >8), 4 of low achievers ( average mark < 6) and 4 ofmedium achievers

2.4 Procedure

The questionnaire written in Vietnamese was delivered to 189 students of businessaccounting The participants finished the questionnaire under the researcher’s guideand monitoring Thirty minutes was given to fill in the questionnaire Data wasanalyzed by using SPSS Some techniques of quantitative data analysis used in thisstudy are as follows

Firstly, a reliability test on all the items was carried out through SPSS version 16and the reliability coefficient was 0.819, which meant that the internal consistency

of the items in the questionnaire was relatively high

Secondly, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation ) and linear regressionwere used to show to what extent each factor affected the participation in Englishspeaking lessons To clarify its correlation, item 33 ( opportunities to use L2 in theclassroom) was dependent variable, other items were independent variables

Thirdly, to test normal distribution for each group, Shapiro-Wilk was used for thesample size smaller than 50 If sig.-value is larger than 0.05, the group is normallydistributed

Finally, if both groups are normally distributed, the independent sample T-test isused to show the mean difference between 2 groups, significant at 0.05 levelwhereas if both are not normally distributed, Mann-Whitney U test is used

Also, interviews were conducted with an attempt to understand students’ responsesbetter

CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS 3.1 Participants

3.2 Factors affecting students’ motivation in speaking lessons

3.2.1 Language level

In Dornyei’s model, language level refers to instrumental motivation and integrative motivation In terms of instrumental motivation, items in the questionnaire are item 2( I may need it later for jobs), item 3 (I want to have good grades) Integrative motivation includes item 4 (I want to understand English-speaking films, videos, TV or radio), item 5 (I want to go abroad) and item 6 (I want to know more the culture and the people of English speaking countries)

Table 3: Factors related to language level

Table 3 revealed that the respondents possessed much a higher level of instrumentalmotivation than that of integrative motivation, with average mean score ofinstrumental motivation at 3.79 whereas integrative motivation was 2.74 It is clearthat instrumental motivation outweighed integrative motivation In the survey, the

students thought that English speaking skill was important for them because “they

want to have good grades” ( item 3)( M: 4.4, SD: 0.7) and because “they need it later for jobs”( item 2) ( M: 3.2, SD: 0.9) In other words, the students of business

accounting at Hung Vuong college were more extrinsically than intrinsicallymotivated

To test the correlation of instrumental and integrative motivation to students’

participation in speaking lessons, regression analysis was employed Only item 2 ( I

may need it for my fob) significantly influenced their motivation to speak English (r

= 372, p<.05) The integrative motivation and item 3 were not statisticallysignificant at 0.05 level, which means there is no relationship with their motivation

to participate in speaking activities

3.2.2.Learning situation level

Table 4: Learning situation level

From the table 4 , as can be seen that group-related factors (M:3.8) and related factors (M: 3.50) had high mean scores Otherwise, the mean score ofcourse-related factors ( M: 2.7) and that of environment-related factors ( M: 2.4)were relatively low However, only teacher-specific components had a significantimpact on their motivation to speak (r:.446) and the others affected less In thefollowing sections, each of these components is to be explored in detail in the hopethat we can find the strengths to promote and the weaknesses to inhibit

teacher-3.2.2.1 Teacher-specific components

Affiliative motive, authority type, direct socialization of student motivation areunder teacher-specific motivational components

3.2.2.1.1 Authority type

The following table showed how the teachers behaved

19.How well do you speak when your teacher

gives you extra homework of speaking topics? 2.4859 .94333

.356 000,

20. How well do you speak when your teacher

Items Mean Std Deviation r p

19, r = 356, p<.05)) and teachers’ carefulness ( item 37b, r = 399, p<.05) Otherfactors relating to authority type were not significant at 0.05 level ( p<.05), whichmeans there was no/little relationship with the students’ motivation

The first factor is that almost the students did not like doing homework ( item

19-M: 2.4) In the interview, some explained : “ The content of the course book is

enough for me to learn, so I don’t like doing extra speaking topic It takes me a lot

of time to prepare”.“ What I learn in the class is too much to learn by heart and practise I don’t like doing extra speaking topics because I don’t have a good memory”( interview 1) In other words, most of the learners did not want to do

further exercises or similar topics which it took a lot of time to prepare Because oftheir lack of basic knowledge, the content in the course book is enough for them torecall and practise again at home, but what the students’ achievement can beenhanced if the teachers give extra homework is not conclusive However, in thecontext of vocational college, this study found that students preferred Englishteachers to give less homework

The second factor is the teachers’ carefulness The item 37b got the mean score of4.2 which means that the students had a high level of motivation in terms of thisfactor They were motivated by teachers’ conscientiousness This factor alsosignificantly affected the students’ motivation to speak English( r = 399, p< 05)

3.2.2.1.2 Direct socialization of student motivation

8 Do you want to speak as well as your teacher.?( M: 3.4, r:.169, p<.05)

36.Semantic scale: good pronunciation / bad pronunciation( M: 4.2, r= 352, p< 05))

The data analysis of item 8 , 36 showed that teachers spoke English very well ( M:4.2), but a moderate number of the students ( M: 3.4) wanted to speak as well astheir teacher Looking at the items related to the modeling, it can be seen that theteachers’ proficiency level (r= 352) affected their students’ motivation moresignificantly than their desire to speak like their teacher (r = 169) In the

interviews, students said: “Before, I hated English Now I like it because I like my

teacher’s voice I wish I could speak as well as her one day “ (extract 1), “Anyone wants to speak as well as the teacher but it is very difficult for me to speak like my teacher, but I hope I can make myself understood”( extract 8) Therefore, with

teacher’s good model, learners will be more intrinsically motivated It is a goal forlearners to achieve, a dream they must pursue

Feedback & assessment

From the table 6, it can be seen that feedback and assessment is the secondimportant factor that facilitates learners’ participation to speak English, with a veryhigh mean score of 3.65 and a high correlation coefficient of 625 Two items inquestionnaire are

18 How satisfied are you with the speaking mark?”,(M: 3.4, SD: 1.35, r:.614,

p<.05)

30 I get help with the language mistakes in the classroom (M: 3.9, SD:0.65, r:-.147, p>.05)

Speaking mark significantly affected their motivation to participate in speakingactivities ( M: 3.4, r: 614, p<0.05), so this factor should be examined further In the

interviews, one said that “ I’m not satisfied with my English speaking mark My

teacher is too strict to give a good mark Often, she gave us mark 5 or 6 The highest mark from my teacher is mark 8, very few marks although we try our best.”( extract 12) Therefore, in my opinion, learners can speak as simply as

possible, even wrong grammar, wrong use of word but they can express the ideasthey have in their minds In this case, teacher should give the learners the mark 9 or

10 Surely, they will be more highly motivated Lastly, item 30 does not have arelationship with their motivation to speak English ( r: -0.147, p>0.05)

To sum up, in terms of feedback, there are only one factor affecting learners’motivation, that is, speaking mark

Task presentation

Task presentation, with the mean score of 3.2 gives learners a moderate level of motivation, which should be examined This component is very important because how learners can learn effectively greatly depend on how teaching is presented.

27 Give clear instructions about how to carry out a task 4.0282 70403 -.107 078

29 The L1 & l2 use distribution is ineffective 2.4648 97967 692 000

Table 7: task presentation

The table 7 stated that only ineffective use distribution of L1 & L2 was significant

at 0.05 level The correlation coefficient was 692 which was relatively high, but themean score was rather low ( M: 2.4, SD: 0.9) I interviewed some learners and they

said : “My teacher tends to use more English than Vietnamese I can’t

understand”( extracts from LA) “ I want my teacher to use bilingual language to express new things or she should express something in simple words.”, or “ I totally like her method of teaching She speaks English slowly, sometimes Vietnamese ” ( extracts from HA) From these comments, it is clear that the

effectiveness of L1 and L2 distribution depends on the students’ proficiency level.However, in this study, with a large number of medium and low achievers, theteachers should use bilingual, sometimes more Vietnamese, to express his/her ideas.

3.2.2.1.3 Affiliative motive

The last component which obtained a modest average mean score was affiliativemotive ( M: 3.0, r= 256, p< 05), having a moderate impact on learners’ intrinsicmotivation The component led to a moderate level of motivation to speak English.The question for this component is “ Do you want to please your teacher?” ( item9) Further interviews were conducted to explore in further details of psychologicalimpact teachers brought learners Interview responses showed that the praises orgood marks from the teachers helped them gain positive impression not only fromthe teachers but also the classmates, especially the opposite sex The following are

the representative extracts from students : “If she praises me in front of the class,

my friends will have a better impression of me I like a girl studying in IT class She

is good at English If I get bad mark, I’ll be ashamed”, “Teachers’ praises are important to me Through her praise, I feel that I have my teacher’s attention”

Therefore, in terms of affilaitive motive, teacher should give praises or positivecomments if possible to motivate this kind of students

3.2.2.2 Group-specific motivational component

This component got the mean score of 3.98, the highest value of all componentsrelating to the learning situation level Its standard deviation was relatively low( SD: 0.24) The group-specific motivational component included goal-orientedness, normand reward system, group cohesion and classroom goal structure which would be explored

in the following section

Table 8: Group-specific motivational component

In which

1 I want to complete the goal of the lesson (M: 2.7, r: 497, p<.05)

35 Don’t make fun of each other’s mistakes ( r: -.127, p> 05)

34 I am satisfied with my group ( M: 4.4, SD: 0.56, r: 227, p<.05)

How well do you speak when you

21.work in pair ( M: 3.1, SD: 0.6, p> 05)

22 work in groups ( M: 4.4, SD: 0.45, p> 05)

23 join game-like competition ( M: 4.5, SD: 0.49, r: 199, p< 05)

24 work individually ( M: 3.0, SD: 0.75, p> 05)

From the table, it can be seen that only goal-orientedness, group cohesion and item

23 should be given attention ( p<.05) The first factor- goal-orientedness got thelow mean score, its value 2.7 It has a significant impact on the students’motivation

to speak English, its correlational coeffiecient 497 Obviously, almost the learnersdid not want to complete the goal of the lesson In the interviews, learners

answered that : “My teacher gives us a lot of speaking topic After reading or

listening skill, I will have 1 or two speaking topics She encourages us to discuss and give ideas, then she writes them on blackboard However, the content in the course book is enough for me to learn” ( extract 4)

The second factor “ I am satisfied with my group” from group cohesion obtained

the high mean core, its mean above 4.4 This implies that the students are reallyhighly motivated by activities relating to the groups Indeed, with the help ofclassmates, they were easy to express their ideas because the classmates would helpthem with the vocabulary when they needed A feeling of anxiety would be

decreased “ When I don’t know what is the meaning of vocabulary, they can tell

me” (extract 1) This factor had a moderate impact on the students( r: 277, p: 01).

The next factor which was significant at 05 level was that the students liked takingpart in competition-like game ( M: 4.5, r: 199) They mostly enjoyed fun activitiesand they would work harder to become winners Games helped learners to havecomfortable atmosphere This factor had a moderate impact on their motivation tospeak ( r: 199)

3.2.2.3 Course-specific motivational component

Among the components of learning situation level, course-specific motivationalcomponent received a relatively low mean score ( M: 2.8, SD: 0.5), which should

be examined and improved The questions are

39.Interest : Attractive / unattractive ( M: 2.3, SD: 0.69, p>.05)

40 Expectancy of success Easy/ difficult ( M: 3.4, SD: 0.9, r: 608, p<.05)

41 Relevance/ usefulness: Useless / useful ( M: 3.2, SD: 0.5, p>.05)

As mentioned above, only item 40-the task difficulty had a significant impact on thestudents (r: 0.6) The mean score of the task difficulty was 3.4 which was measured

on the easy-difficult semantic scale This meant that almost the students felt the taskwas neither too easy nor too difficult In other words, the speaking task helpedlearners to improve the skill because the lesson was suitable to most of them Theinterest of the course and relevance had no relationship with their motivation( p> 05)

3.2.2.4.Environment-specific component

With the mean average of 2.46, environment-specific component should be givenmore care The questions in the questionnaire include:

16 class size ( M: 1.56, SD: 0.61, p>.05)

17 insufficient teaching and learning facilities ( M:1.5423,SD:0.55, p>.05)

31.comfortable classroom environment (M: 2.26, SD: 0.78, p>.05)

32.Opportunities to use L2 outside the classroom(M: 1.7, SD:0.64, r:.342, p< 05)

As mentioned above, only the factor namely opportunities to use English outside theclass had the significant influence on their students’ results ( r = 342, p< 05) Thefactor had a very low mean score, its value 1.7 This means that they had a low level

of motivation to use l2 outside the classroom whereas class size, facilities,comfortable classroom environment had no relationship with their motivation tospeak English ( p>.05)

3.2.3 Learner level

According to Dornyei’s framework, learner level includes two differentmotivational sub-components namely need for achievement and self-confidence

Need for achievement concern the students’ desire to communicate with foreigners.( item 7) Based primarily on his framework, self-confidence is divided into foursubcomponents: Language use anxiety ( item 12, 13, 14), perceived L2 competence( item 21, 22), causal attributions ( item 10, 11) and self-efficacy ( item 15).

Table 9: learner level

need for achievement

7 Do you want to communicate with foreigners? 4.4648 .69100 -.081 .338

causal attributions

10 How unconfident are you when you leave behind

11 How unconfident are you when you get low marks

Language use anxiety

12 when you are called in your English class 2.6752 1.00115 .258 .000

13 other students laugh at you when you make mistakes 2.2254 .60017 .204 .023

14 when teacher gives immediate feedback 2.6831 .76603 .170 .034

The second factor relating to their lack of confidence was language use anxiety withthe mean score of 2.5 Almost the learners felt anxious and confused when theywere called in the class ( M: 2.67, r: 258, p< 05), when they were laughed ( M: 2.2,r: 204, p< 05) and when their teacher gave immediate feedback ( M: 2.68, r: 170,p< 05) Language use anxiety, in general, moderately affected their participation tospeak English in the class.

The third factor is perceived L2 competence with the low mean score of 2.85.Almost of them had trouble in pronunciation and lacked vocabulary to express theirideas The correlation coefficient was above 0.3, which means that this factorsignificantly affected their motivation

On the other hand, the students’ belief on their speaking English better was amotivator for them This factor got the mean score of 3.52 with correlation

coefficient of 299 I asked some learners and they answered : “ Every two units, I

have a paper test and every three units, a speaking test I feel that my ability of speaking English is considerably improved” ( extract 5)

Need for achievement ( item 7) had no relationship with students’ motivation tospeak English ( p> 05)

3.3 Differences in factors between high achievers and low achievers.

Table 10: Differences in factors in terms of language level

Based on an analysis of group comparison ( Mann-Whitney U test), the resultstated that the high achievers had the higher mean score ( M: 4.2) than the low

achievers ( M: 2.8) in terms of item 2 ( I may need it for my job, p< 05) The mean difference was significant ( z= -4.2, p< 05) However, item 3 ( I want to have good

grades) and integrative motivation were not significant at p= .942, 840,

respectively

3.3.2 Learner level

Learner level consists of need for achievement and self-confidence Look at thetable as follows, it is clear that with the significance of 0.05, Mann-Whitney U testshowed that there was no mean difference from item 7, item 15 ( p> 05)

need for achievement

7 Do you want to communicate with foreigners?

2.3636

11.: How unconfident are you when you get low marks

despite having studied seriously

-5.250 000

Language use anxiety

12 when you are called in your English class

Questions Group Mean z P

Low achievers were de-motivated by some factors The first factor is language useanxiety Speaking in the class ( M: 1.5, z= -6.2), being laughed in the class ( M: 2.1,z= -3.2) and their teacher giving immediate feedback ( M: 1.9, z= -3.6) made themanxious The second factor is L2 perceived competence They had trouble inpronunciation ( M: 2.1) and especially lack of vocabulary ( M: 1.5), so they couldn’texpress their ideas they have in mind Lastly, their failure in the past made themhate this subject

Similarly, high achievers felt anxious when they were laughed in the class or whenteacher gave immediate feedback Also, lacking vocabulary in expressing ideas andtheir failure in the past were demotivators which moderately affected theirmotivation to speak in the class

However, high achievers did not feel confused when they were called in the class( M: 3.7, p< 05)

3.3.3 Learning situation level

3.3.3.1 Teacher-specific components

3.3.3.1.1 Affiliative motive

Group N Mean Z P

9.: Do you want to please your teacher? LA 35 2.3429

-5.726 000

Table 12: Differences in factors in terms of affiliative motive

The analysis of Mann-Whitney showed that there was a significant differencebetween high achievers and low achievers ( z= - 5.7, p< 05) The mean score ofhigh achievers ( M: 4.0) was significantly higher than that of low achievers ( M:2.3) Low achievers were not interested in creating a good impression on theirteachers but high achievers were motivated by this factor ( M: 4.0)

Table 13: Differences between 2 groups in terms of authority type

Look at the table, it can be seen that only extra homework of speaking topics is ademotivator for both groups Low achievers( M: 1.4) got the lower mean score than

high achievers ( M: 2.7) Generally they did not like being assigned with thehomework

In terms of teacher’s carefulness, the mean score of low achievers was lower thanthat of high achievers With the mean score of 3.4, the low achievers showed thattheir teacher was not careful They presented their lesson fast whereas highachievers thought that their teacher was fairly conscientious ( M: 4.3)

In terms of teacher’s attitudes to learners, the mean scores of low achievers weremuch higher than that of high achievers: sympathetic ( LA: 4.4, HA: 3.8, z: -3.1);fair ( LA: 4.1 HA: 3.7, z= - 2.2, p<.05), enthusiasm ( LA: 4.2, HA: 4.0, z= -1.2,p< 05)) In other words, low achievers more highly appreciated their teacher’sattitudes than high achievers However, with the mean scores of above 3.7 for bothgroups, the study indicated that both were motivated by their teacher’s attitudes tolearners

3.3.3.1.3 feedback

18 Satisfaction of speaking mark LA 2.0000

Table 14: Differences between 2 groups in terms of feedback

Mann-Whitney U test indicated that satisfaction of speaking mark had a significantdifference between high achievers and low achievers ( z=- 2.2, p< .05,respectively) The low achievers got significantly lower mean scores of 2.0 thanhigh achievers In other words, the low achievers were more demotivated byspeaking mark than high achievers

Similarly, as for high achievers, it is clear that they did not agree with theirteacher’s speaking mark ( M: 2.4)

3.3.3.1.4 Task presentation

Table 15: Differences between 2 groups in terms of task presentation

Similarly, in terms of task presentation, the difference between two groups about

teacher’s way of presenting new task ( item 27: z= -2.2, p< 05)) and L1 & L2 use

distribution ( item 29: z: -6.5, p< 05) were significant at p < 05

As for high achievers, they completely liked their teacher’s way of teaching, whichmade the lessons clear to understand : clear instructions ( M: 4.2), L2 use ( M: 4.1).However, as for low achievers, the mean score of L1 & L2 use distribution was verylow ( M: 1.7, SD: 0.5) They preferred their teacher to use more Vietnamese thanEnglish, or 50 % of English, 50 % of Vietnamese

Table 16: Differences between 2 groups in terms of modeling

As can be seen the table 16, there was a significant difference about the learners’desire to speak as well as their teacher between two groups ( z= -2.9, p= 004) Themean score of high achievers (M: 3.7) was higher than that of low achievers (M:3.0), which means the first would be more intrinsically motivated than the latter iftheir teacher spoke English well As for their teacher’s pronunciation , thedifference between two groups was not significant at p > 05

3.3.3.2 Group-specific motivational component