Using minimal responses to improve efl high school students speaking ability

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING VINH UNIVERSITY TRAN THI NGAN USING MINIMAL RESPONSES TO IMPROVE EFL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY MASTER’S THESIS IN EDUCATION Nghe An, 2017 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING VINH UNIVERSITY TRAN THI NGAN USING MINIMAL RESPONSES TO IMPROVE EFL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Code: 60140111 MASTER’S THESIS IN EDUCATION Supervisor: Dr Tran Thi Ngoc Yen Nghe An, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr Tran Thi Ngoc Yen, who directly supported and encouraged me during the preparation of this study I am truly grateful to her for her professional advice, invaluable support and guidance she offered to help me carry out the study I would also like to thank to the students of the two classes I worked with in order to gather data for my study I am also indebted to my friends for proofreading the first draft of the thesis Last but not least, I would like to express my special heartfelt appreciation to my parents without whose unceasing support, patience and understanding I could not have been able to complete my study i ABSTRACT The main goal in this study is to find out if using minimal responses has any effect on EFL learners’ speaking ability In order to achieve the mentioned goal, a study was carried out among forty 10th graders 10 at a high school in Ha Tinh province The participants were divided into two groups, each of which had 20 students One served the control group and the other treatment group Before the treatment, all participants did a general English test Then both groups were asked to sit the pre-test before participating in the speaking sessions A post-test was administered after the treatment to measure the participant’s speaking fluency and accuracy The collected data were analyzed in terms of fluency (number of words per minute) and accuracy (number of errors per 100 words) The data indicated that the students’ speaking fluency and accuracy improved to a great extent than that of the control group Based on the findings, some implications for teaching English speaking were proposed Limitations of the study were also pointed out and further research was suggested TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Scope of study 1.5 Organization of the thesis CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Speaking ability 2.1.1 Definition 2.1.2 Functions of speaking 2.1.3 The nature of speaking ability 2.1.4 Micro and macro skill of speaking ability 2.1.5 The aspects of speaking ability 2.2 Assessing speaking ability 2.2.1 Indicators of speaking ability 2.2.2 Fluency, accuracy and complexity 10 2.2.3 Rubrics for assessing speaking ability 14 2.2.4 Methods to assess speaking ability 16 2.3 Teaching speaking to EFL learners 24 2.3.1 EFL learners’ difficulties in learning to speak English 25 2.3.2 Factors affecting EFL learners’ speaking ability 27 2.3.2.1 Age or Maturational Constraints 27 2.3.2.2 Aural Medium 28 2.3.2.3 Socio-Cultural Factors 28 2.3.2.4 Affective Factors 28 2.3.3 Methods and activities to improve speaking ability 30 2.3.3.1 Accuracy-oriented activities 30 2.3.3.2 Fluency-oriented activities 31 2.4 Minimal responses in language teaching 31 2.4.1 Definition of minimal responses 31 2.4.2 Types of minimal responses 32 2.4.3 Minimal responses in teaching speaking to EFL learners 33 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 35 3.1 Research questions 35 3.2 Participants 35 3.3 Materials 36 3.4 Procedures 38 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 41 4.1 Results 41 4.1.1 General English test results 41 4.1.2 Pre-test and post-test results 44 4.1.2.1 The pre-test 44 4.1.2.2 The post test 45 4.1.3 The increases 47 4.2.1 The effects of minimal responses technique on EFL learners’ speaking fluency 59 4.2.2 The effects of minimal responses technique on EFL learners’ speaking accuracy 59 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 60 5.1 Summary of findings 60 5.2 Implications 61 5.3.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research 61 v 5.3.1 Limitations 61 5.3.2 Suggestions for further research 62 APPENDIX A 66 APPENDIX B 69 APPENDIX C 70 APPENDIX D 71 APPENDIX E 72 APPENDIX F 73 APPENDIX G 74 APPENDIX H 75 APPENDIX I 76 APPENDIX K 77 APPENDIX L 78 APPENDIX M 79 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 The scoring rubric of speaking 15 Table 3.1: The speaking topics of sixteen units in “Tieng Anh 10” 37 Table 4.1 The experimental and control group’s Score in general English test 40 Table 4.2 Mean and standard deviations of general English test in the experimental group and the control group 42 Table 4.3 Mean and standard deviations of the pre test in the treatment group and control group 43 Table 4.4 Mean and standard deviations of the pre test in the treatment group and control group 44 Table 4.5 Means and standard deviations of fluency in the post test for both groups 45 Table 4.6 Means and standard deviations of error in the post test for both groups 46 Table 4.7 Means and standard deviations of wpm in the pre test and the post test for both groups 46 Table 4.8 Means and standard deviations of errors in the pre test and the post test for both groups 48 Table 4.9 Means, standard deviations of number of words per minute in eightspeaking topics for all groups 50 Table 4.10 Means and standard deviations of wpm in the first session and the last session of both groups 50 Table 4.11 The increase difference between of wpm in the first session and the last session by all participants (P) in the treatment group and control group 52 Table 4.12 Mean and standard deviations of wpm in the first half and the second half of the course for both groups 52 Table 4.13 Mean and standard deviations of wpm in the first half and the second half of the course for both groups 53 vii OF CHARTS Table 4.14 Means and standard LIST deviations of error in the first session and the last session of both groups 54 Table 4.15 Mean and standard deviations of error in the first half and the second half of the course for both groups 55 Table 4.16 The increase difference error between the first session and the last session by all participants (P) in both groups 57 fluent? In B.Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp 123-48) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Harmer, Jeremy, (2001) The practice of English language teaching Harlow: Longman Hasselgren, A (1998) Smallwords and valid testing Unpublished doctoral thesis Department of English, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Islamiyah, SuaibatuL (2007) Teaching Speaking Through VCD for the Second Year Students of SMPN Labuan Haji in the School Year 2006/2007 STKIP Hamzanwadi Selong Unpublished S-1 Thesis Krashen, S.D (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition Oxford:Pergamon Press Kendon, Adam, Harris, Richard M & Key, Mary Ritchie (1975) Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction Walter de Gruyter.[ Online] http://books.google.com/books?id=rNy1hVGq2sMC&hl=zh-CN[Accessed: November 25,2008] Koponen, M (1995) Let your language and thoughts flow! Is there a case for fluency in ELT and applied linguistics? Paper presented at the Language Testing Forum, Newcastle, UK, November 1995 Lennon, P (1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach Language Learning, 40, 387-412 Luoma, S (2004) Assessing speaking Reid, Julie Gender Differences in Minima/Responses.[Online]http://www.latrobe.edu.au/linguistics/LaTrobePapersin Linguistics/Vol%2005/0 8Reid.pdf [Accessed: Nov.30, 2008] Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M & Biber, Douglas (2002) Using Corpora to Exp/ore Linguistic Variation John Benjamins Publishing Company [Online]http://books.google.com/books?id=nMjptmcSYUcC&printsec=frontcover& h l=zh- CN [Accessed: Nov.30,2008] Revell, (1979) Teaching Techniques for Cunicative Eng/ish London:MacMillan Publisher LTD Richards J C and Theodore S R (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language 63 Teaching (2nd ed) Combridge, Combridge University Press Sharna, Robina Macro Ski// of Speaking Intrenet Tessol, http://w.w.w Ehow Com Shumin, (1997), Factors to consider Developing Adult EFL Student's Speaking Abilities English Teaching Forum, Vol 35, No 3, Underhill, (1987) Testing spoken language A handbook of oral testing techniques Cambridge: Cambridge University Press UR (2000) A course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Stoval, Grace, (19980 Modules for Professional Preparation of Teaching Assistants in Foreign Language Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistic Widdowson, H G (1985) Teaching Language as Communication Oxford: OxfordUnivesity Press Zimmerman, D.C & West, C (1975) Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation [ Online1http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/zimmermanwest1975 pdf [Accessed:Nov.28,2008] 64 APPENDIX A GENERAL ENGLISH TEST Time: 45 minutes I Listening Listen to Rebecca and Adam planning a night together For each question choose the correct answer Rebecca and Alan decide to meet on A Wednesday B Thursday C Friday They decide to A stay in and watch a DVD.B go out for a drink C go out for dinner The Orange Tree is on A Church Road B Love Lane C Potter Street They will meet at A Ten past seven B Twenty to seven C Seven twenty Rebecca met Charlie A at a party B on a skiing holiday C at the sports centre II Choose the best answer A, B or C The room is a bit hot Let’s turn on the _ A heating B air conditioning C cooker There is a spacious _ where we can cook and eat our meals A dining room B kitchen C living room The men _ very busy A am B is C are I’m afraid our hotel is booked A very B totally C fully Where _you live when you were a child? A did B were C The master bedroom has a(n) _ bathroom 65 A rooftop B separate C en suite _ car is that green one there? B Who’s A Who C Whose III Read the article about Jim Kendrick’s commute* Choose the best word to fill the spaces *commute = a journey to and from work (1) day, Jim Kendrick leaves home at five o’clock in the morning and drives to work That’s not unusual lots of people get up early to drive to work But Jim Kendrick’s work is 320 kilometres away from his home It (2) him three and a half hours to get from his home in San Antonio, Texas to his job at the port in Houston In the evening, he does the journey (3) , and gets home at nine o’clock (4) the evening Recently, Jim won a competition - ‘America’s Longest Commute’ He won $10,000, enough to pay for his fuel for one year Reporters asked Jim why he drives so far to work He replied, ‘I have a lovely house in San Antonio I (5) want to leave it And I like the drive too It gives (6) energy I’ll probably (7) journey for another five or ten years Then I’ll look for a job (8) home A All A takes B Every B gets C Most C makes A again A on B still B at C enough C in A don’t B didn’t C can’t A me A this B my B those C mine C these A nearly B nearer C nearest IV Writing Read the information about a school theatre trip Complete Emma’s notes 66 Join us in a school trip to Stratford-on-Avon Dear Students, on Saturday th June Our Stratford-on-Avon trip is very popular Unfortunately we cannot get You can spend the morning shopping For enough tickets to see „Macbeth So we lunch we will have a picnic near the river have tickets for „As you like it’ instead In the afternoon we will see William Shakespeare’s play „Macbeth’ The tickets are a little more expensive so the trip will now cost £18 per Price: £15 person Meet at River Road car park: 8.30 a.m Return: 6.30 p.m Arrival and departure times are the same Mrs Wentworth English Teacher Emma’s notes: School Trip Name of Town: (1) Name of the Play: (2) Cost: (3) Meeting place:(4) Return time: (5) 67 APPENDIX C PRE ENGLISH SPEAKING TEST Topics for speaking Introduce yourself Talk about your family Talk about your hobbies POST ENGLISH SPEAKING TEST Topics for speaking: Introduce yourself Talk about your school Talk about the kind of film you like 68 APPENDIX D NUMBER OF WORDS PER MINUTE OF THE TREATMENT GROUP IN THE 8-SESSIONS O H P L1 A1 30 A2 33 A3 40 A4 35 A5 33 A6 55 A7 27 A8 32 A9 38 A10 38 A11 45 A12 25 A13 31 A14 30 A15 32 A16 30 A17 33 A18 25 A19 25 A20 29 L2 L3 31 35 40 34 36 55 29 32 39 40 44 28 31 30 32 32 34 27 27 33 L4 31 37 42 35 40 58 34 34 42 42 48 30 34 33 32 35 38 30 33 35 35 42 45 40 45 62 38 40 47 45 48 35 39 39 36 35 40 35 38 40 69 PIC L5 39 47 50 45 47 65 45 46 55 50 55 40 45 45 40 40 45 37 45 45 L6 L7 50 55 60 50 50 65 50 55 66 50 63 48 58 59 57 45 49 50 60 55 L8 60 60 68 60 55 75 60 60 70 52 69 50 58 62 60 49 52 69 72 65 73 70 73 75 60 80 70 74 75 57 75 50 60 65 65 55 71 73 75 71 APPENDIX E NUMBER OF WORDS PER 100 WORDS OF THE CONTROL GROUP IN THE 8-SESSIONS O H P L1 B1 12 B2 10 B3 12 B4 12 B5 11 B6 12 B7 14 B8 11 B9 12 B10 13 B11 11 B12 15 B13 13 B14 13 B15 16 B16 10 B17 12 B18 13 B19 11 B20 10 L2 L3 12 11 13 12 10 11 14 12 11 13 11 15 12 13 15 10 12 13 11 10 L4 12 11 12 11 10 10 13 11 10 13 10 14 12 12 14 10 12 12 12 11 11 12 10 10 12 10 12 13 11 12 13 11 12 11 70 PIC L5 11 11 12 10 9 12 10 11 12 11 12 13 10 11 11 10 L6 L7 10 10 11 10 10 12 8 11 10 12 11 11 13 10 13 11 L8 11 10 11 11 12 8 10 10 13 10 11 14 9 14 11 12 10 11 11 12 8 11 14 11 11 15 10 11 13 11 APPENDIX F NUMBER OF WORDS PER MINUTE OF THE CONTROL GROUP IN THE 8-SESSIONS O H P L1 B1 30 B2 34 B3 39 B4 35 B5 33 B6 51 B7 31 B8 33 B9 40 B10 38 B11 48 B12 24 B13 30 B14 29 B15 28 B16 32 B17 32 B18 26 B19 27 B20 28 L2 L3 30 33 39 35 33 50 31 34 39 38 45 25 30 30 27 30 32 25 27 28 L4 30 33 40 36 32 50 32 34 40 38 45 26 31 29 26 31 34 26 27 28 31 35 40 38 33 50 32 35 40 40 44 28 32 30 29 31 34 27 28 27 71 PIC L5 30 36 41 40 33 52 35 37 40 40 44 28 33 33 29 32 35 27 28 28 L6 L7 30 37 42 42 30 52 37 37 39 40 47 30 32 35 28 33 38 28 29 29 L8 31 38 45 44 33 53 37 37 42 42 50 28 31 36 29 34 40 28 29 28 30 37 45 45 32 55 37 37 45 43 50 28 30 37 28 40 40 28 30 28 APPENDIX G NUMBER OF ERRORS PER 100 WORDS OF THE TREATMENT GROUP IN THE 8-SESSIONS O H P L1 A1 10 A2 14 A3 12 A4 A5 14 A6 12 A7 14 A8 13 A9 14 A10 15 A11 10 A12 13 A13 10 A14 15 A15 14 A16 10 A17 11 A18 14 A19 10 A20 14 L2 L3 10 13 11 14 11 13 14 13 15 12 15 13 10 12 10 14 PIC L5 L4 13 11 13 11 13 13 12 14 10 15 11 10 10 10 13 11 10 12 12 10 12 10 11 12 72 8 10 10 9 7 8 7 10 L6 L7 7 5 7 L8 5 5 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 APPENDIX H NUMBER OF ERRORS PER 100 WORDS OF THE CONTROL GROUP IN THE 8-SESSIONS P B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 L1 12 10 12 12 11 12 14 L2 12 11 13 11 12 13 12 11 13 11 15 13 13 11 15 12 13 16 10 12 13 11 10 15 10 12 13 11 10 12 10 11 14 TOPIC NUMBER L3 L4 L5 12 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 9 10 10 13 12 12 11 10 10 10 8 13 12 11 10 14 13 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 14 13 13 10 10 12 11 11 12 12 11 12 11 10 9 73 L6 10 10 11 10 10 12 8 11 10 12 11 11 13 10 13 11 L7 11 L8 12 10 11 11 12 8 10 10 13 10 11 14 9 10 11 11 12 8 14 11 11 14 11 11 15 10 11 13 11 APPENDIX I NUMBER OF WORDS PER MINUTE IN THE PRE-TEST OF TREATMENT GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP P A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 P Treatment group (Number of words per minute) Words B1 32 B2 34 B3 45 B4 40 B5 35 B6 60 B7 30 B8 33 B9 43 B10 38 B11 51 B12 25 B13 35 B14 30 B15 29 B16 35 B17 32 B18 39 B19 29 B20 30 74 Control group (Number of words per minute) Words 31 35 43 38 33 55 30 30 45 38 50 27 35 31 30 36 35 37 33 30 APPENDIX K NUMBER OF ERRORS PER 100 WORDS IN THE PRE-TEST OF TREATMENT GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP Experimental P group Errors P Control group Errors B1 (Number of errors per 100 words) (Number of errors per 100 words) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 10 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 12 B18 B19 B20 10 75 7 10 8 10 11 8 10 APPENDIX L NUMBER OF WORDS PER MINUTE IN THE POST-TEST OF TREATMENT GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP P A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 P Treatment group Words B1 95 B2 70 B3 70 B4 75 B5 70 B6 90 B7 80 B8 73 B9 70 B10 65 B11 70 B12 65 B13 55 B14 78 B15 65 B16 59 B17 70 B18 73 B19 58 B20 72 76 Control group Words 36 40 47 45 36 55 35 34 50 43 55 34 40 38 35 45 40 40 35 34 APPENDIX M NUMBER OF WORDS PER MINUTE IN THE POST-TEST OF TREATMENT GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP P A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 P Treatment group Words B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 77 Control group Words 6 7 7 6 6 ... itself to investigating the use of minimal responses in improving EFL students? ?? speaking ability at a moutainous high school in Ha Tinh It dealt with the use of minimal responses to improve EFL high. .. questions: How does the use of minimal responses affect EFL high school students? ?? speaking accuracy? How does the use of minimal responses affect EFL high school students? ?? speaking fluency? 1.4 Scope... Therefore, the author has decided to conduct the study entitled “ Using minimal responses to improve EFL high school students' speaking ability? ?? with the hope teachers to help their learners get out