Tích hợp các hoạt động đa trí tuệ để phát triển kỹ năng nói tiếng anh cho sinh viên chuyên ngữ

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN INTEGRATING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES-BASED ACTIVITIES INTO TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS TO EFL LEARNERS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2019 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CHAU VAN DON INTEGRATING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES-BASED ACTIVITIES INTO TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS TO EFL LEARNERS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Code: 14 01 11 Supervisor: Assoc Prof TRUONG VIEN, PhD HUE, 2019 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ CHÂU VĂN ĐƠN TÍCH HỢP CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG ĐA TRÍ TUỆ ĐỂ DẠY KỸ NĂNG NĨI TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGỮ LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ CHUYÊN NGÀNH LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ NGÀNH: 14 01 11 NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN: PGS.TS TRƯƠNG VIÊN HUẾ, 2019 The dissertation is completed at: UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY Supervisor: Assoc Prof Truong Vien (PhD) Reviewer 1: Assoc Prof Nguyen Van Long (PhD) Reviewer 2: Assoc Prof Nguyen Quang Ngoan (PhD) Reviewer 3: Huynh Anh Tuan (PhD) The dissertation to be defended to Board of Examiners At the Thesis Examination Council of Hue University At 03 Le Loi street, Hue City Date …… month …… year 2019 This dissertation can be found at: - The National Library - The Library of University of Foreign Languages, Hue University (57, Nguyen Khoa Chiem Street, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province) Cơng trình hoàn thành tại: TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ Người hướng dẫn khoa học: PGS.TS Trương Viên Phản biện 1: PGS.TS Nguyễn Văn Long Phản biện 2: PGS.TS Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn Phản biện 3: TS Huỳnh Anh Tuấn Luận án bảo vệ Hội đồng chấm luận án cấp Đại học Huế Họp Số 03 Lê Lợi, TP Huế Vào lúc … giờ, ngày … tháng … năm 2019 Có thể tìm hiểu Luận án Thư viện: - Thư viện Quốc gia - Thư viện Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại Học Huế (Số 57 Nguyễn Khoa Chiêm, TP Huế, Tỉnh Thừa Thiên – Huế) STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP The thesis entitled “Integrating Multiple Intelligences-based Activities into Teaching Speaking Skills to EFL Learners” has been submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis I have fully acknowledged and referenced the ideas and works of others, whether published or unpublished, in my thesis My thesis does not contain work extracted from a thesis, dissertation or research paper previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any other educational institute Signature CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN i ABSTRACT With the philosophy “Every learner is unique and intelligent”, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MIT) has proved to be a humanitarian and favorable premise to foster and promote learners’ language skills Armstrong (2017) remarked while traditional language teaching and learning programs mainly focus on developing learners’ linguistic and reasoning skills, MIT proposes there are many other ways in which learners’ language skills can be developed better As the major aim of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to enable students to promote their speaking skills to achieve progress in communicative competence, EFL instructors should create favorable conditions for students to develop their speaking skills This study was an attempt to investigate the possible effects of integrating MI-based activities into developing the EFL students’ speaking skills, and then to find out the students’ evaluation of such an integration of MI-based activities Therefore, to attain those two main objectives, the mixed research method was adopted: the quantitative approach utilizing a quasi-experimental study in which MI-based activities were integrated into an experiment The participants were 60 EFL second-year students from the research site, randomly selected on their voluntary basis and were divided into an experimental group and a control group The possible effects of such an integration of MI-based activities into the speakingtraining program were measured via the means of a pre- and post-test and the questionnaire administered to the experimental group as the two main research instruments The qualitative approach, aiming at collecting some supplementary evidence regarding the participants’ responses Qualitative data were collected from 30 experimental participants via the evaluation form and the interviews with six randomly chosen participants from the experimental group The findings from the English speaking pre-test and post-test revealed significant statistical differences between the participants’ test scores of their EFL oral performances before and after taking part in the instructional intervention The ii results of data analysis of the test scores shows that there was a significant difference (M = 43) in favor of the post-test Such an improvement of the mean score in the post-test indicates that the program had some effects on improving the students’ speaking skills as well as enhancing their learning motivation From the findings of the study, it is also depicted that the participants had positive evaluation of the integration of MI-based activities Their support and satisfaction of the MI-based activities were indicated at high levels in terms of their better perceptions of their specific MI profiles, their acknowledgement of the benefits of the MI-based activities in facilitating their speaking skills, building up their confidence, promoting their learning motivation, and increasing their engagement in the discussion and interaction activities Based on the above-mentioned findings, some implications are proposed from this research regarding the effectiveness of integrating MI-based activities on developing EFL students’ speaking skills, and the feasibility of promoting EFL students’ oral performances by integrating MI-based activities into EFL speaking training programs iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With all of my gratitude, I would like to express my whole-hearted thanks to the ones who contributed to this thesis with their academic expertise, substantive help or emotional support First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Trương Viên for his continuous guidance, help, support and encouragement throughout the course of this study Secondly, my sincere thanks also go to the lecturers of the University of Foreign Languages, Hue University: Assoc Prof Dr Trần Văn Phước; Assoc Prof Dr Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung; Assoc Prof Dr Lê Phạm Hoài Hương; Dr Trương Bạch Lê; Dr Phạm Hồng Anh, who have whole-heartedly guided me through each phase of this journey I always feel your care about my study and professional development Therefore, once again, I would like to express my deep thanks for all your kind help and enthusiastic encouragement I also own a word of thanks to Assoc Prof Dr Lưu Quý Khương and Assoc Prof Dr Tôn Nữ Mỹ Nhật for giving me such valuable suggestions for improving the quality of my thesis I would also like to express my thanks to the Board of Rectors of my university for creating all the favorable conditions for me to take part in this Ph.D program I am grateful to the lecturers and students of the Foreign Languages Department of the university where the experiment for this study is conducted, particularly the students of second-year EFL class 2014-2018 (DC14) for their participation into the experimental study by filling the questionnaires, taking the pre/post-test, and answering the interview Last but not least, the unconditional, innumerable, great affection, sacrifice and care of my family members for me during my Ph.D program-taking journey beyond words They are always the source of motivation and aspiration for me to overcome all my difficulties and achieve what I have academically dreamed so far iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR European Framework of Reference for Languages CLT Communicative Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language ESL English as a Second Language IC Intelligence Center IQ Intelligence Quotient IT Information Technology LC Learner-centered LLS Language Learning Strategy MI Multiple Intelligences MIDAS Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales MIT Multiple Intelligences Theory MOET Ministry of Education and Training PBL Project-based Learning EF Evaluation Form SLA Second Language Acquisition SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language TPR Total Physical Response ZPD Zone of Proximal Development v least one advantage and one disadvantage of living in country each of the two places (the city and the country) → Feedback: (calling to students to give their answers) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to what he or he has talked about 30 minutes ACTIVITY 2: (Pair work) Discussion - T asks Ss to work in pairs, discuss with each other to find some similarities and differences between life in the city and life in the country (Two students sitting next to each other are paired to work with each other) Time for pair-work discussion: minutes - T gets feedback from Ss Each pair sends ONE student to the front of the class, and presents the results of their pair work discussion → Feedback: (calling to representatives from all of the pairs to give their answers in front of the class) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to the contents of what he or he has just talked about 20 minutes ACTIVITY 3: (Group work discussion) - T asks Ss to work in groups, discuss with one another in groups to give their answers to the following question: “What would you to make your living and working place become better and cleaner?” (Two pairs of students sitting next to each other are requested to work in the same group of 4) Time for group-work discussion: 10 minutes - T gets feedback from Ss Each group sends ONE student to the front of the class, and presents the results of their group work discussion → Feedback: (calling to representatives from all of the groups to give their answers in front of the class) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to the contents of what the speaker has just talked about (Conventional speaking-training method emphasizes on developing students’ linguistic and reasoning skills) POST SPEAKING 30 minutes ACTIVITY 4: Group presentation on “Which place would you prefer to live in: a big city or the country?” - T gives instructions - Ss are requested in group of (2 groups of sitting next to each other are asked to work in a group of 8.) - Time limit for group discussion: 20 minutes Students perform their oral presentation 211 - To encourage Ss to express their ideas on the topic - To promote accuracy and fluency in their English oral skills (Presentation) - To build up cooperation, promote their creativity and presentation → Feedback: (calling a representatives from each skills group to perform their oral presentations in front of the class) → The audience may ask each speaker some questions relating to the contents of what the speaker has just talked about (Conventional speaking-training method emphasizes on developing students’ linguistic and reasoning skills) HOMEWORK 10 minutes ASSIGNMENT HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT T asks Ss to a Project on “How to make your campus become a green, clean and beautiful place to study and live.” Contents: - Giving oral descriptions of students’ life at your campus; - Educating and promoting the awareness of Ss on environmental protection; setting up good examples / mirrors of keeping clean and green environment in the community - Time for Project completion: 07 days - Deadline to submit the products: within 07 days T asks Ss to prepare for next week’s speaking-training lesson: “Which is the better place for shopping: street shopping or a mall?” THE END 212 - To build up and develop Ss’ creativity, cooperation, self-study ability, problemsolving skills and presentation skills APPENDIX 22 CAMBRIDGE ENGLISH: FIRST ASSESSMENT SCALES Assessing Speaking Performance – Level B2 Examiners and speaking assessment in the Cambridge English: First exam Speaking tests are conducted by trained examiners The quality assurance of Speaking Examiners (SEs) is managed by Team Leaders (TLs) who are in turn responsible to a Professional Support Leader (PSL), who is the professional representative of Cambridge English Language Assessment for the Speaking tests in a given country or region All of the examiners (PSLs, TLs and SEs) must prove each year, through a certification process, that they are competent to assess In addition, they are regularly monitored during live testing sessions Although candidates take the test in pairs or groups of three, throughout the test they are assessed on their individual performance and not in relation to each other They are awarded marks by two examiners: an assessor and an interlocutor The interlocutor awards a mark for the performance as a whole, using the Global Achievement scale The assessor awards marks for four individual criteria: • • • • Grammar and Vocabulary Discourse Management Pronunciation Interactive Communication How can I use the Assessment Scales? Examiners use the Cambridge Assessment Scales (B2 Level) to decide which marks to give candidates taking the Cambridge Speaking test (B2 Level) Using the scales yourself during classroom speaking practice tasks will help you to: • analyze your students’ strengths and weaknesses when they Cambridge English: First Speaking tasks • Form an impression of how ready your students are to take the Speaking test The Assessment Scales 213 The Cambridge English: First Assessment Scales are divided into six bands from to 5, with being the lowest and the highest Descriptors for each criterion are provided for bands 1, and and indicate what a candidate is expected to demonstrate at each band Cambridge English: First is at Level B2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), and the descriptors for band and above generally indicate performance of at least B2 level As you look through the scales, it may help to highlight words which make one band different from another For example, under Grammar and Vocabulary, half of the first descriptor at Band is the same as at Band – Shows a good degree of control of simple grammatical forms Band 3, however, has an additional element: … and attempts some complex grammatical forms At Band 5, the new elements are: a range of simple grammatical forms, and control of … some complex grammatical forms Don’t worry if a lot of the terms used in the scales are new to you – in the Handbook for Teachers you will find a Glossary of Terms for Speaking 214 Although all four analytical criteria are assessed across the whole test, Part (the long turn) is the main opportunity for examiners to assess Discourse Management, and Part tends to be when they focus most on Interactive Communication How can I use the Assessment Scales with students? You could: Refer to the scales as you observe students carrying out a Cambridge English: First speaking task Note down examples of performance in terms of the listed criteria Give students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses Think about whether your students are ready for the exam and how they could improve However, it can be difficult for a teacher to manage a speaking practice task (i.e be the interlocutor), make notes of what the students say and refer to the Assessment Scales, all at the same time The following activities are designed to help you get started On the Cambridge English TV YouTube channel there is a video recording of two candidates called Camilla and Johanna taking the Cambridge English: First Speaking test Please note that this example is for the pre-January 2015 version of Cambridge English: First exam You can click on this link to watch the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIp8FVs8-f0 The four activities use this recording to practise using the Assessment Scales Activity Make a copy of the blank Grammar and Vocabulary table on page You will see that statements from the Assessment Scales have been turned into questions Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video part (about 3½ minutes) Note down examples of what Camilla does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page Activity 2: Make a copy of the blank Discourse Management table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video part (from about mins 25 to mins) Note down examples of what Johanna does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page 215 Activity 3: Make a copy of the blank Pronunciation table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video (from about 10 mins 30 to the end) Note down examples of what Camilla does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page 10 Activity 4: Make a copy of the blank Interactive Communication table on page Watch the Cambridge English: First Speaking video (from about mins to 10 mins 30) Note down examples of what Johanna does well and not so well for each of the questions in the Comments box on the assessment sheet Compare the notes you have made with a completed example on page 11 Remember: • In a real Cambridge English: First Speaking test the marks awarded reflect a candidate’s performance across the whole exam and not just in one part of it As you become more familiar with the assessment criteria and gain more experience in analysing your students, you will find it easier to focus on all of the criteria during classroom practice tasks • Being able to refer to the Assessment Scales will help you to analyse your students’ strengths and weaknesses and to estimate whether they are ready for the Speaking test However, it won’t necessarily give you an accurate prediction of the marks that your students will achieve in a real test, as the candidate may be affected by other factors such as nervousness 216 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING GRAMMAR & VOCABULARY Name of student: Does the speaker use simple grammatical forms with control? Good Not so good Does the speaker use complex grammatical forms? Good Not so good Does the speaker use a range of appropriate vocabulary? (Everyday situations / familiar topics / wide range of familiar topic s?) Good Not so good Comments 217 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING DISCOURSE MANAGEMENT Name of student: Are the answers of an appropriate length for the task? Is there much hesitation? Good Not so good Are the contributions relevant? Is there much repetition? Is it well organised? Good Not so good Does the speaker use a range of cohesive devices? And discourse markers? Good Not so good Comments: 218 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING PRONUNCIATION Name of student Are the answers clear? Can the speaker be generally understood? Good Not so good Is the speaker’s intonation appropriate? Good Not so good Does the speaker use sentence stress correctly? Is word stress correct? Good Not so good Are individual sounds clear? Are they correctly produced? Good Not so good Comments 219 Cambridge English: First (LEVEL B2) SPEAKING INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION Name of student: Does the speaker start discussions? Does the speaker introduce new ideas? Good Not so good Does the speaker react appropriately to what the interlocutor or other candidate says? Good Not so good Does the speaker keep the interaction going? Does the speaker say more than the minimum? Does the speaker involve the other candidate? Good Not so good Does the speaker try to move the interaction in an appropriate direction? (‘develop the interaction and negotiate towards an outcome’) Does the speaker need support? Good Not so good 220 APPENDIX 23 The realities of the English speaking skills performed by the participants before the study in terms of Frequency (F) and Percentage (P) Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Items 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 38 39 40 41 SA + A F P 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 25 83.3 25 83.3 30 100.0 28 93.3 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 28 93.3 NS F 5 2 P 16.7 16.7 6.7 6.7 D + SD F P - In this Appendix, “F” stands for “Frequency”, “P” for “Percentage”; “SA” for “Strongly agree”; “A” for “agree”; “NS” for “Not sure”; “D” for “Disagree”; “SD” for “Strongly disagree” 221 APPENDIX 24 The students’ evaluation of integrating MI-based activities aiming at improving their speaking skills in terms of Frequency (F) and Percentage (P) Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Items 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SA + A F P 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 28 93.3 29 96.6 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 29 96.7 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 29 96.7 23.3 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 222 NS F 1 22 - P 6.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 73.3 - D + SD F P 3.3 - 37 Cluster 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 18 25 24 30 28 30 30 30 30 60.0 83.3 80.0 100.0 93.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 - 40.0 16.7 20.0 6.7 - - - In this Appendix, “F” stands for “Frequency”, “P” for “Percentage”; “SA” for “Strongly agree”; “A” for “agree”; “NS” for “Not sure”; “D” for “Disagree”; “SD” for “Strongly disagree” 223 APPENDIX 25 Statistics on Participants’ answers to the evaluation form in terms of Percentage Items Options In the English Very difficult speaking pre-test, the Difficult 04 parts were: OK Easy Very easy Prior to the You lacked of self-confidence; experimental study, Your English speaking skills were quite limited; your difficulties were You had limited English vocabulary; then because: Your teachers did not use a lot of pictures or visual aids in the English speaking training lessons; You were not familiar with using information technology in supporting your oral presentations; The fixed structures and designs of your classroom furniture were inconvenient in conducting speaking activities; The methods of assessment used previously in tests and exams did not encourage your speaking skills; Your classroom activities were not greatly diversified to be suitable with your learning styles; Percentage 53.3% 30% 13.4% 3.3% 0% 100% 93.3% 86.7% 90% In the English Very difficult speaking post-test, the Difficult 04 parts were: OK Easy Very easy After participating You lacked self-confidence; in the experimental Your English speaking skills were quite limited; study, your You had limited English vocabulary; difficulties now are Your teachers did not use a lot of pictures or visual because: aids in the English speaking training lessons; You were not familiar with using information technology in supporting your oral presentations; The fixed structures and designs of your classroom furniture were inconvenient in conducting speaking activities; The methods of assessment used in tests and exams 10% 30% 53.3% 6.7% 0% 46.7% 30% 53.3% 0% 224 83.3% 93.3% 76.7% 96.7% 10% 13.3% 20% Do you like these kinds of MI activities integrated into your speaking lessons? How you rate the MI activities which I designed and conducted in the experimental study? Do you agree that the integration with MI activities has resulted in your higher learning motivation and classroom participation? Do you think that your speaking skills will continue to be developed in the future if you are always encouraged to integrate MI in activities? How much has your intelligences profiles changed after participating in this study? did not encourage your speaking skills; Your classroom activities were not greatly diversified to be suitable with your learning styles; 6.7% Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 86.7 0% 13.3% Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 53.3% 40% 6.7% 0% Yes, I No, I don’t Neutral 100% 0% 0% From 1% to 25% From 26% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% 0% 76.7% 20% 3.3% 0% 86.7% 0% 13.3% 225 ... ĐƠN TÍCH HỢP CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG ĐA TRÍ TUỆ ĐỂ DẠY KỸ NĂNG NĨI TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGỮ LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ CHUYÊN NGÀNH LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ NGÀNH: 14 01 11 NGƯỜI... group of her students Every student chose the sentences which were most suitable for their thinking Depending on the quantity of the sentences students have chosen for each type of intelligence,... Phản biện 1: PGS.TS Nguyễn Văn Long Phản biện 2: PGS.TS Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn Phản biện 3: TS Huỳnh Anh Tuấn Luận án bảo vệ Hội đồng chấm luận án cấp Đại học Huế Họp Số 03 Lê Lợi, TP Huế Vào lúc …