Due to certain limitations of the study noted above, further studies could be conducted to gain insight into some of the following aspects.
Firstly, the other studies should be conducted over a longer period of time to help learners fully perceive the effectiveness of the treatment. Students have a better chance to apply the strategies in practice. Moreover, the teacher would have more time to review prior knowledge for weak students before training. It would create excitement for students who are not confident about their language.
Second, in order to measure the reliability, validity, and generalization of the collected data and findings, it is advisable that future studies do research with a larger sample size. It is also suggested that future researchers adopt random sampling instead of convenient sampling in their research. Those findings will be very helpful since they will allow for the establishment of a population generalization.
Third, it is recommended that future studies assess the impact of feedback in the evaluation phase of the metacognitive strategy training procedure. Following the evaluation phase, teachers should re-examine students' feedback forms to identify their feelings about their peers' performance in order to collect data and adjust teaching methodologies to improve the research's effectiveness. It is highly advisable that all components related to measurement for the research as well as training procedures be included in feedback forms.
5.5 Conclusion
The main conclusions of the study, including the effects of metacognitive strategy training on oral English communication and the positive attitude of students through the training, are summarized in this chapter. Along with the pedagogical implications for teachers and students drawn from the discussion of the study, the recommendations and suggestions for more research based on the findings of this study have also been presented.
Word count: 28.368 words
100
REFERENCES
Al-Nouh, N. A., Abdul-Kareem, M. M., & Taqi, H. A. (2015). EFL College Students' Perceptions of the Difficulties in Oral Presentation as a Form of Assessment. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 136-150.
Abu El Enein, A.H. (2011). Difficulties encountering English majors in giving academic oral presentations during class at Al-Aqsa University. PhD Thesis, Gaza, Islamic University of Gaza.
Alqurashi, H. S., & Assulaimani, T. (2021). The Effect of Classroom Management in Oral Communication and Willingness to Communicate: A Case Study of Saudi Learners of English as Foreign Language. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 5(2), 73-84.
Alm, F., & Colnerud, G. (2015). Teachers' experiences of unfair grading. Educational Assessment, 20(2), 132-150.
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT journal, 56(1), 57-64.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. ERIC Clearing house on Languages and Linguistics.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Backlund, P. (1994). Oral communication assessment: An overview. Assessing communication in education: A handbook for media speech and theatre educators, 203-217.
Barman, Binoy (2014). The linguistic philosophy of Noam Chomsky. Philosophy and Progress, 51(1-2), –. doi:10.3329/pp.v51i1-2.17681
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (Vol. 4). New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson Education.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In L. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 77–106). New York: Wiley.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Brown, R. A. (2004). Motivation for learning English among Japanese university students. Information and Communication Studies, 32, 1-12.
Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagory. In J. C. Richard, &R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-14). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL quarterly, 23(4), 647-678.
Castro, O., & Peck, V. (2005). Learning styles and foreign language learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 401-409.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dửrnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence:
A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
102
Cer, E. (2019). The instruction of writing strategies: The effect of the metacognitive strategy on the writing skills of pupils in secondary education. Sage Open, 9(2), 2158244019842681.
Chuang, Y. Y. (2009). A study of College EFL Students' affective reactions and attitudes toward types of performance-based oral tests. Journal of Educational Research, 43(2), 55-80.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach: CALLA in Arlington, Virginia. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(3- 4), 379-394.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Chamot, A. U. (2007). English language learners. International handbook of English language teaching, 15, 317.
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El Dinary, P., Carbonaro, G. & Robbins, J., (1993).
Methods for teaching Learning strategies in the foreign language classroom and Assessment of Language skills for instruction. Final report. Georgetown University. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED365157.pdf
Chen, T.U., & Chang, G.Y. (2004). The Relationship between Foreign Language Anxiety and Learning Difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 37 (2), 279- 289.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1990). Language anxiety:
Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417-446
Cloudia Ho, Ya-Yu (2020). Communicative language teaching and English as a foreign language undergraduates communicative competence in Tourism English. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 27(), 100271–. doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100271
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: clarifying the issues. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Revised version.
Cohen, A.D. (2000). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York, NY: Longman.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Dhanapala, K. V. (2010). Sri Lankan university students’ metacognitive awareness of L2 reading strategies. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 16(1), 65-82.
Donna W. & Marcus C. (2016) Teaching students to drive their brains.
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
De Boer, H., Donker, A. S., Kostons, D. D., & Van der Werf, G. P. (2018). Long- term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 98-115.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties.
Sage Publications, CA, USA.
Farzam, M. (2018). The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy training on intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 193-202.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–
911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flowerdew, J., Miller, L., & Li, D. (2000). Chinese lecturers' perceptions, problems and strategies in lecturing in English to Chinese-speaking students. RELC Journal, 31(1), 116-138
104
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., & Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(3), 248-258.
Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied linguistics, 11(4), 341-363.
Halliday, M. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed). Pearson
Education Limited
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hapsari, Astri. (2019). Language Learning Strategies in English Language Learning: A Survey Study. Lingua Pedagogia, Journal of English Teaching Studies. 1. 58-68. 10.21831/lingped.v1i1.18399.
Harris, A. J. (1968). Research on some aspects of comprehension: Rate, flexibility, and study skills. Journal of Reading, 12(3), 205-260.
Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction:
Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 392-404.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality assurance in education.
Holec, H. (1981): Autonomy and foreign language learning. Janus Book Pub/
Alemany Pr.
Hummel, K. M. (2014). Introducing Second Language Acquisition: Perspectives and Practices (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Hyland, K. (2019). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics) 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing:
Contexts and issues. Cambridge university press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-285). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every. Teacher Should Know. Heinle &Heinle.
O'malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.
Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers
Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30(1), 65-84
Jackson, J. (2003). Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context:
Perceptions of business students in Hong Kong. System, 31, 457-469
Jaramillo, M. V. (2021). Developing aural and oral skills of beginner learners of English as a foreign language through explicit metacognitive strategies training. Latino Americana de Estudios Educativos, 17(1), 120-141.
Jones, B., Palincsar, A., Ogle, D. & Carr, E. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning:
cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lam, W. Y. (2010). Metacognitive strategy teaching in the ESL oral classroom:
ripple effect on non-target strategy use. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 2-1.
Lammers, W. J., & Murphy, J. J. (2002). A profile of teaching techniques used in the university classroom: A descriptive profile of a US public university. Active learning in higher education, 3(1), 54-67.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lau, J. Y. (2015). Metacognitive education: Going beyond critical thinking. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education, 373-389.
Le, L. C. (2011). Form-focused instruction: A case study of Vietnamese teachers’
beliefs and practices. PhD Thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’
English speaking skill.
106
Li, N. (2020). Construction and Application of the Multi-intermediate Multi-media English Oral Teaching Mode. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 26(4).
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language teaching, 44(1), 64-77
Liu, W. (2013). Role of teachers in oral English teaching. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Engineering and Applications (IEA) 2012: Volume 4 (pp. 13-18). Springer London.
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. a
Macintyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
Mahdavi, M. (2014). An overview: Metacognition in education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2(6), 529-535.
Marianne, C. M. (2002). What is makes sense to teach grammar through context and through discourse? In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Mazdayasna, G. (2012). Objective assessment of oral presentations and EFL learners’ speaking development. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies, 1(1), 23-38.
Meloni, C., & Thompson, S. (1980). Oral reports in the intermediate ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (4), 503-510.
Mohseni, F., Seifoori, Z., & Ahangari, S. (2020). The impact of metacognitive strategy training and critical thinking awareness-raising on reading comprehension. Cogent education, 7(1), 1720946.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use, 89(1), 76–91. doi:10.1111/j.0026- 7902.2005.00266.x
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Ofodu, G. O., & Adedipe, T. H. (2011). Assessing ESL students' awareness and application of metacognitive strategies in comprehending academic materials. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(5), 343-346.
O’Malley, J.M. & A.U. Chamot. (1990).Learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Maley, J. and Valdez, P. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learner. USA: Longman.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ockey, G. J., & Li, Z. (2015). New and not so new methods for assessing oral communication. Language Value, 7, 1-21.
Oradee, T. (2012). Developing speaking skills using three communicative activities (discussion, problem-solving, and role-playing). International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 533.
Panggabean, C. I. T., & Triassanti, R. (2020). The implementation of metacognitive strategy training to enhance efl students oral presentation skill. English Education: Journal of English Teaching and Research, 5(1), 32-40.
Pihie, Z. A. L., & Akmaliah, Z. (2009). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: An analysis of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention of university students.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 338–349.
Pham, T. S. T. (2020). Using role-play to enhance the oral communication performance of non-English major freshmen at Van Lang University.
https://tapchicongthuong.vn/bai-viet/using-role-play-to-enhance-the-oral- communication-performance-of-non-english-major-freshmen-at-van-lang- university-77116.htm
108
Rahman, M., M. (2010). Teaching oral communication skills: A task-based approach. English for Specific Purposes World, 1(27).
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. Tesl-Ej, 7(2), 1-18.
Rashtchi, M., & Khani, P. (2010). Improving EFL learners' oral proficiency through metacognitive strategy instruction.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 7- 23.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the" good language learner" can teach us. TESOL quarterly, 41-51.
Tong, J. (2010). Some observations of students’ reticent and participatory behavior in HongKong English classrooms. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7 (2), 239-254.
Swanson, S., Frankel, R., & Sagan, M. (2005). Classroom encounters: Exploring the impact of cultural differences. Marketing Education Review, 15(3), 37- 48.
Tong-Fredericks, Cecilia (1984). Types of oral communication activities and the language they generate: A comparison. , 12(2), 133–145. doi:10.1016/0346- 251X(84)90023-x
Trang, T. T. T., & Baldauf, R. B. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to English language learning-the case of Vietnamese students. The journal of Asia TEFL, 4(1), 79-105.
Tuan, L. T. (2012). Teaching and assessing speaking performance through analytic scoring approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 673.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Vo. T. T. (2009). How to teach speaking skill to 11th graders in a communicative way: a case study at Nguyen Trai high school.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 44–64).
Harlow, England: Longman
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied linguistics,19(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515
Wong, L. L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2), 144-163.
Whitehead, D., & Schneider, Z. (2007). Mixed-methods research. Nursing and Midwifery research: methods and appraisal for evidence-based practice, 249- 267.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). 'it was nice to see that our predictions were right':
Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555
APPENDIX E1: CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN
1. Em có cảm thấy cách hướng dẫn của giáo viên có giúp ích gì em nhớ lại kiến thức cũ và cách triển khai ý tưởng chưa trong giao tiếp bằng miệng chưa? Em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé? (Phase 1)
2. Khi giáo viên trình bày chiến thuật siêu nhận thức mẫu thì em có cảm thấy nó có quá khó cho mình thực hiện không? Em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé? (Phase 2)
3. Em có gặp khó khăn gì trong quá trinh thực hành chiến thuật siêu nhận thức không? Em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé? (Phase 3)
4. Trong phần tự đánh giá phần nói của mình, em có gặp khó khăn gì không? Em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé? (Phase 4)
5. Em sẽ sử dụng chiến thuật siêu nhận thức cho các hoạt động nói khác chứ? Em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé? (Phase 5)
6. Nhìn lại 5 nội dung đánh giá lại dưới đây, em cảm thấy mình tiến bộ ở phần nào nhất?
Tại sao?
+ Từ vựng và ngữ pháp
+ Nội dung
+ Phát âm
+ Lưu loát
+ Tương tác
7. Trong suốt khóa học 2 tháng về việc sử dụng chiến lược siêu nhận thức trong phần giao tiếp Tiếng Anh bằng miệng, em có đề xuất gì thêm về sự hướng dẫn của giáo viên để việc học của em thêm hiệu quả hơn không? Cụ thể là phần gì và em vui lòng giải thích rõ nhé?
APPENDIX E2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Do you feel that the teacher's guidance helped you recall prior knowledge and how to implement ideas in oral communication performance? Please explain more. (Phase 1)
2. When the teacher presented or modeled metacognition strategies, did you find it too difficult for you to perform oral communication performance? Please explain more. (Phase 2) 3. Did you have any difficulty in practicing metacognition strategies? Please explain more.
(Phase 3)
4. In the self-evaluation of English oral communication, did you have any difficulties?
Please explain more. (Phase 4)
5. Will you use metacognitive strategies for other English oral activities? Please explain more. (Phase 5)
6. Looking back at the 5 re-evaluations below, in which part do you feel you have improved the most and please explain more.
+ Vocabulary and grammar + Contents
+ Pronounce + Fluency + Interaction
7.During the two-month course on using metacognitive strategies in English oral communication, would you suggest any additional teacher guidance to make your learning more effective? Specifically what part and please explain more.
APPENDIX
D PRE-TEST ORAL COMMUNICATION SCORES OF CONTROL GROUP
Control group's pre-test scores
Participants CON1 FL1 VOGR1 PRO1 IN1 CON2 FL2 VOGR2 PRO2 IN2
FINAL 1
FINAL
2 FINAL
CSV01 9.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 2.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 3.5 6.5 6.2 6.4
CSV02 7.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 2.5 8.5 7.0 7.5 6.0 2.5 5.5 6.3 5.9
CSV03 7.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 2.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 5.0 3.5 5.2 5.2 5.2
CSV04 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 2.5 6.0 7.0 5.5 6.5 2.5 6.0 5.5 5.8
CSV05 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 2.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 7.5 2.5 6.6 6.9 6.8
CSV06 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 2.5 9.0 10.0 7.5 8.5 2.5 6.8 7.5 7.2
CSV07 7.5 9.0 7.5 8.0 5.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 7.4 6.6 7.0
CSV08 7.5 8.5 6.5 5.5 5.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 6.5 4.0 6.6 6.5 6.6
CSV09 7.5 9.0 8.0 10.0 5.0 8.5 10.0 6.5 10.0 6.0 7.9 8.2 8.1
CSV10 7.5 7.0 6.5 7.5 5.0 6.5 8.0 7.0 8.0 5.5 6.7 7.0 6.9
CSV11 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 7.5 6.0 6.2 6.9 6.6
CSV12 7.5 7.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.5 7.5 7.0 5.0 6.6 6.8 6.7
CSV13 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 2.5 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 5.8 6.2 6.0
CSV14 7.5 7.0 9.0 8.0 2.5 8.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 2.5 6.8 6.4 6.6
CSV15 7.0 7.5 6.5 7.0 2.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 2.5 6.1 6.5 6.3
CSV16 7.5 7.0 5.0 7.0 2.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 2.5 5.8 5.0 5.4
CSV17 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 2.5 7.5 6.0 7.5 5.5 3.0 5.9 5.9 5.9
CSV18 8.0 9.0 7.0 7.5 3.0 9.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 2.5 6.9 6.8 6.9
CSV19 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 3.5 8.5 8.5 7.0 6.5 4.0 6.6 6.9 6.8
CSV20 7.5 5.0 7.5 8.5 5.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 6.7 7.2 7.0
CSV21 7.5 7.5 10.0 8.0 3.0 9.0 8.5 10.0 8.5 2.5 7.2 7.7 7.5
CSV22 7.5 8.0 8.5 7.0 2.5 8.0 6.5 9.0 7.5 2.5 6.7 6.7 6.7
CSV23 6.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 4.0 6.1 6.3 6.2
CSV24 6.0 9.0 8.0 7.5 5.0 5.5 10.0 6.5 8.0 6.0 7.1 7.2 7.2
CSV25 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.5 8.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 6.3 6.7 6.5
CSV26 5.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 5.0 5.7 6.4 6.1
CSV27 6.0 7.5 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 7.0 5.0 6.3 6.2 6.3
CSV28 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 2.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 5.9 6.4 6.2
CSV29 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 2.5 5.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 2.5 6.1 5.7 5.9
CSV30 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.5 2.5 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.0 2.5 5.7 6.2 6.0
CSV31 8.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 2.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 2.5 6.3 5.7 6.0
CSV32 7.5 6.5 8.0 6.0 2.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 5.5 3.0 6.1 6.0 6.1
CSV33 8.5 8.0 6.5 7.5 3.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 2.5 6.7 6.6 6.7
CSV34 6.5 5.5 6.0 6.5 3.0 7.0 7.0 5.5 5.0 3.5 5.5 5.6 5.6
CSV35 6.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.5 6.0 5.0 7.0 2.5 4.9 5.4 5.2
CSV36 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 2.5 5.9 6.0 6.0
CSV37 7.5 8.5 6.5 6.0 3.0 8.5 9.0 6.0 7.0 2.5 6.3 6.6 6.5
CSV38 8.0 8.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 7.4 7.0 7.2
6.3 6.4 6.4 Notes
CON :Content mark _1: Marked by rater 1
FL : Fluency mark _2: Marked by rater 2
VOGR: Vocabulary and Grammar mark Final 1: Average mark by rater 1
PRO: Pronunciation mark Final 2: Average mark by rater 2
IN: Interation mark
APPENDIX
D POSTTEST ORAL COMMUNICATION SCORES OF CONTROL GROUP
Appendix D1 Control group's pre-test scores
Participants CON1 FL1 VOGR1 PRO1 INCO1 CON2 FL2 VOGR2 PRO2 INCO2
FINAL 1
FINAL
2 FINAL
CSV01 9.0 7.5 8.5 7.5 2.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 7.5 2.5 7.0 7.2 7.1
CSV02 9.0 7.5 8.5 6.5 2.5 9.5 7.5 8.5 7.5 2.5 6.8 7.1 7.0
CSV03 6.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 5.0 3.0 5.2 5.1 5.2
CSV04 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 3.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 3.5 6.1 5.3 5.7
CSV05 9.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 3.5 7.5 10.0 8.0 7.5 2.5 6.9 7.1 7.0
CSV06 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 2.5 9.0 10.0 7.5 9.0 2.5 6.8 7.6 7.2
CSV07 9.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 7.5 10.0 9.0 9.5 7.0 8.2 8.6 8.4
CSV08 9.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 5.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.2 7.2 7.2
CSV09 8.5 10.0 6.0 10.0 6.5 10.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 8.2 8.8 8.5
CSV10 7.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.5 7.5 6.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 7.3 7.2
CSV11 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.8
CSV12 7.0 6.5 6.0 7.5 5.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 6.8 6.7
CSV13 8.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 6.4 6.2 6.3
CSV14 7.5 8.5 9.0 8.0 2.5 8.0 8.5 7.5 7.5 2.5 7.1 6.8 7.0
CSV15 7.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 2.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 2.5 6.2 6.7 6.5
CSV16 7.5 6.0 5.0 7.0 2.5 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.5 2.5 5.6 5.4 5.5
CSV17 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 5.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 5.0 6.4 7.2 6.8
CSV18 9.0 9.0 8.0 7.5 5.0 9.0 7.0 9.5 8.0 5.0 7.7 7.7 7.7
CSV19 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 3.0 6.2 6.0 6.1
CSV20 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 5.0 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.4 6.3 6.4
CSV21 7.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 3.0 9.0 8.5 10.0 8.5 2.5 7.0 7.7 7.4
CSV22 7.0 8.0 8.5 7.0 2.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.0 2.5 6.6 7.4 7.0
CSV23 7.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 6.2 6.9 6.6
CSV24 6.5 9.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 5.5 10.0 7.0 8.0 6.0 7.4 7.3 7.4
CSV25 7.5 7.5 6.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 6.6 7.1 6.9
CSV26 6.5 7.0 7.0 8.0 4.0 7.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 5.0 6.5 6.7 6.6
CSV27 7.5 7.5 8.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 6.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.9
CSV28 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 2.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 5.9 6.4 6.2
CSV29 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.5 6.5 7.5 7.0 8.0 2.5 6.1 6.3 6.2
CSV30 7.5 6.5 6.0 7.5 5.0 8.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 5.0 6.5 6.7 6.6
CSV31 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.5 4.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.7 6.5 6.6
CSV32 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.0 2.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 7.5 3.0 6.4 6.8 6.6
CSV33 8.0 8.5 6.5 7.5 4.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 2.5 6.9 6.5 6.7
CSV34 7.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 7.5 3.5 6.2 6.7 6.5
CSV35 7.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 2.5 5.3 5.4 5.4
CSV03 7.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 6.2 6.1 6.2
CSV04 8.0 8.5 7.5 6.0 3.0 8.5 9.0 6.0 7.0 2.5 6.6 6.6 6.6
CSV05 8.5 8.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 5.0 7.5 7.1 7.3
6.6 6.8 6.7
Notes
CON : Content mark _1: Marked by rater 1
FL : Fluency mark _2: Marked by rater 2
VOGR: Vocabulary and Grammar mark Final 1: Average mark by rater 1
PRO: Pronunciation mark Final 2: Average mark by rater 2
IN: Interaction mark
Appendix D1 PRE-TEST ORAL COMMUNICATION SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Participants CON1 FL1 VOGR1 PRO1 INCO1 CON2 FL2 VOGR2 PRO2 INCO2
FINAL 1
FINAL
2 FINAL
EXSV01 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 2.5 7.5 6.0 7.0 6.0 3.0 6.3 5.9 6.1
EXSV02 8.0 8.5 7.5 8.5 2.5 9.0 8.0 8.5 8.0 2.5 7.0 7.2 7.1
EXSV03 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 3.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 9.0 3.5 6.9 7.2 7.1
EXSV04 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 6.4 6.6 6.5
EXSV05 7.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 2.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 2.5 6.1 5.9 6.0
EXSV06 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 2.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 7.0 3.0 6.3 7.0 6.7
EXSV07 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 3.0 6.5 5.0 7.0 6.0 2.5 5.6 5.4 5.5
EXSV08 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 7.3 7.4 7.4
EXSV09 7.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 2.5 7.5 7.0 5.0 6.0 2.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
EXSV10 8.0 6.5 7.5 6.5 4.0 8.0 7.5 6.5 7.0 3.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
EXSV11 8.0 6.0 7.5 7.0 2.5 8.0 5.5 7.0 6.0 3.0 6.2 5.9 6.1
EXSV12 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 3.0 7.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 2.5 6.0 5.9 6.0
EXSV13 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 6.5 6.2 6.4
EXSV14 7.5 10.0 8.5 10.0 2.5 8.5 10.0 8.5 10.0 2.5 7.7 7.9 7.8
EXSV15 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 2.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 6.5 2.5 5.7 6.2 6.0
EXSV16 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 2.5 7.0 5.0 6.5 7.5 2.5 6.3 5.7 6.0
EXSV17 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.8
EXSV18 8.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 4.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.6 6.3 6.5
EXSV19 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 2.5 8.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 2.5 5.9 6.1 6.0
EXSV20 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 2.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 2.5 5.8 6.0 5.9
EXSV21 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 7.4 7.8 7.6
EXSV22 8.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 8.2 8.2 8.2
6.5 6.5 6.5 Notes
CON :Content mark _1: Marked by rater 1
FL : Fluency mark _2: Marked by rater 2
VOGR: Vocabulary and Grammar mark Final 1: Average mark by rater 1
PRO: Pronunciation mark Final 2: Average mark by rater 2
IN: Interative Communication mark
APPENDIX
D POST-TEST ORAL COMMUNICATION SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Appendix D1 The Experimental Group's Post-test Scores
Participants CON1 FL1 VOGR1 PRO1 INCO1 CON2 FL2 VOGR2 PRO2 INCO2
FINAL 1
FINAL
2 FINAL
EXSV01 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 4.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.7 6.7 6.7
EXSV02 8.5 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 7.8 7.9 7.9
EXSV03 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.5 7.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 7.8 7.4 7.6
EXSV04 8.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 6.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.5
EXSV05 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 6.5 7.1 6.8 7.0
EXSV06 8.5 7.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 7.3 7.2 7.3
EXSV07 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 2.5 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 2.5 5.2 4.8 5.0
EXSV08 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 3.5 8.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 3.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
EXSV09 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 6.5 8.0 6.0 7.3 7.2 7.3
EXSV10 8.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 8.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 7.1 7.4 7.3
EXSV11 8.0 6.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 8.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.4 6.9 7.2
EXSV12 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 7.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 5.0 6.6 6.6 6.6
EXSV13 8.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 8.0 8.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.2 7.2
EXSV14 5.0 10.0 8.5 9.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 7.5 9.0 10.0 8.5 8.9 8.7
EXSV15 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 6.5 6.7 7.2 7.0
EXSV16 8.0 8.5 7.0 8.5 6.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.8
EXSV17 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.8
EXSV18 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.2
EXSV19 7.5 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 5.0 6.3 6.7 6.5
EXSV20 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 6.5
EXSV21 7.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.5 8.2 8.5 8.4
EXSV22 8.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 8.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 9.4 9.2
7.2 7.3 7.2 Notes CON :Content mark
FL : Fluency mark
VOGR: Vocabulary and Grammar mark PRO: Pronunciation mark
INCO: Interative Communication mark _1: Marked by rater 1
_2: Marked by rater 2
Final 1: Average mark by rater 1 Final 2: Average mark by rater 2
APPENDIX
D POST-TEST ORAL COMMUNICATION SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Appendix D1 The Experimental Group's Post-test Scores
Participants CON1 FL1 VOGR1 PRO1 INCO1 CON2 FL2 VOGR2 PRO2 INCO2
FINAL 1
FINAL
2 FINAL
EXSV01 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 4.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.7 6.7 6.7
EXSV02 8.5 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 7.8 7.9 7.9
EXSV03 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.5 7.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 7.8 7.4 7.6
EXSV04 8.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 6.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.5
EXSV05 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 6.5 7.1 6.8 7.0
EXSV06 8.5 7.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 7.3 7.2 7.3
EXSV07 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 2.5 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 2.5 5.2 4.8 5.0
EXSV08 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 3.5 8.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 3.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
EXSV09 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 6.5 8.0 6.0 7.3 7.2 7.3
EXSV10 8.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 8.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 7.1 7.4 7.3
EXSV11 8.0 6.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 8.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.4 6.9 7.2
EXSV12 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 7.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 5.0 6.6 6.6 6.6
EXSV13 8.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 8.0 8.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.2 7.2
EXSV14 5.0 10.0 8.5 9.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 7.5 9.0 10.0 8.5 8.9 8.7
EXSV15 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 6.5 6.7 7.2 7.0
EXSV16 8.0 8.5 7.0 8.5 6.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.8
EXSV17 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.8
EXSV18 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.2
EXSV19 7.5 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 5.0 6.3 6.7 6.5
EXSV20 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 6.5
EXSV21 7.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.5 8.2 8.5 8.4
EXSV22 8.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 8.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 9.4 9.2
7.2 7.3 7.2 Notes CON :Content mark
FL : Fluency mark
VOGR: Vocabulary and Grammar mark PRO: Pronunciation mark
INCO: Interative Communication mark _1: Marked by rater 1
_2: Marked by rater 2
Final 1: Average mark by rater 1 Final 2: Average mark by rater 2
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A1: Description of Class Procedures LESSON PLAN FOR CONTROL GROUP Course TO_1
Learners 38 (Pre-Intermediate Level) Location A center at Ho Chi Minh City Time 50 minutes
Objective After the course, students are able to:
- Talk a short talk in the photo in 3 minutes.
PROCEDURE
STAGES ACTIVITIES TIME
Pre-task
T shows games on the screen (hot seat) to guess the words in the photo.
T slits class into 2 groups and set rules to play the games.
T leads to the lesson
10 minutes
While-task
T groups class in pairs or groups to discuss 2 pictures on the board.
T supplies new words and some important phrases/ expression on the board.
T explains grammar, vocabulary, some important language features.
Ss work in pairs.
15 minutes
Post-task
- T asks Ss to present their performance individuals and pairs in front of the class.
- T provides feedback form for students and asks them to give comments including some strengths and weaknesses of their friends’ performance.
- T asks Ss to present their feedback.
- T gives comments on students’ performance and feedback.
- Ss takes notes teacher’s comments and important points in their notebook.
25 minutes