MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY DUONG TIEU LINH FACTORS AFFECTING GIA LAI HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENGLISH SPEAKING FLUENCY Field: Theory and Methodology of English
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
In the race of globalization and modernization of society, being capable of using English has become one of the most vital factors connecting people from different regions, cultures, religions, and nations Many people are expected to be verbally competent to communicate fluently in English Accordingly, the primary objective of any English language teaching should be to provide learners with the ability to communicate effectively in English (Davies & Pearse, 1998) or, in other words, to achieve communication target
During the process of teaching English, I realize that one of the four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) that most English learners wish to master as soon as possible is speaking, which Ur (1996) emphasizes to be the most important to make learners become English speakers Thus, speaking skill is a means of thinking, academic learning (Goh, 2007) and a crucial component of communication (Shumin, 2002) Similarly, according to Anggryadi (2014), many speakers believe that making speaking a success is the primary goal of learning English as a foreign language
Despite the fact that the English learners, particularly Vietnamese high school students are aware of such great importance of speaking skill, they are always struggling to speak or give any utterances in English In fact, it is clear that a great number of high school students frequently have difficulties in speaking, especially, speaking fluency Many students even burst into tears or cannot say anything or express their ideas during their speaking performance (Khong, 2019) As a result, their achievements in speaking English at school are usually limited compared to other skills such as reading, listening or writing (Khong, 2019) This is also a big problem faced by high school students in the mountainous areas
In reality, up to now, it is undeniable that many studies as to the factors causing this speaking problem have been conducted in the world in general and in Vietnam in particular For example, MacIntyre, Clément, Sezgin, and Noels (1998) explored the effect of self- confidence on oral performance Park and Lee (2005) studied the links between anxiety, self- confidence, and speaking performance in second language learners Tanveer (2007) investigates the elements that cause language anxiety in twenty language learners learning to speak and the influence of anxiety on communication in the target language, and his findings are equivalent to those of Park and Lee
(2005) Furthermore, Bozorgian (2012) did a study to evaluate the relationship between listening skill and other speaking talents Besides, in Vietnam, Khong (2019) investigated the internal and environmental factors that impact students' fluency development at a secondary school
However, those studies only concentrate on elements or groups of factors that impact learners' oral fluency separately or jointly in various circumstances Therefore, there is a shortage of research on factors affecting speaking fluency for high school students in Vietnam, particularly in mountainous regions where English has lately been taken into account by learners For this reason, I conducted a study on the topic "Factors affecting
Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency", which may address the gap that decides which aspects are much more significant in order to develop learners’ speaking fluency and, as a result, to find the most appropriate teaching methods to help improve high school students' English speaking skills in general.
Aim and objectives of the study
This study aims to find out factors affecting high school students’ English speaking fluency in Gia Lai province After investigating the factors, it also offers some solutions to improving students’ Engish speaking ability and speaking fluency
To fulfill these aims, the specific objectives of the study include:
- Investigating what factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency
- Finding out to what extent these factors affect Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency.
Research questions
In order to reach the above aims and specific objectives, the research is expected to answer the following questions:
1 What are factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency?
2 To what extent do these factors affect Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency ?
Scope of the study
This research was carried out with participation of 150 eleventh grade students from four high schools in Gia Lai province in the second semester of the school year 2021-2022 The researcher did not analyze factors affecting all aspects of speaking skills but only focused on factors perceived to influence their speaking fluency through the descriptive study with two main instruments, consisting of the questionnaire and interview.
Method of the study
The current research was designed as a descriptive study using both quantitative and qualitative methods to find the answers for the research questions Due to the safety during the Covid-19 pandemic, data was collected through a set of the survey questionnaire which was delivered online to the eleventh-grade students from four classes at four high schools in Gia Lai province via Google form Besides, in order to collect more information to reinforce the findings found from the survey questionnaire and to make the study more reliable, the informal interviews with 8 out of 150 students from these high schools were also carried out Finally, based on the study's findings, comments, recommendations, and conclusions were provided.
Significance of the study
By doing this study, the researcher hopes that the high school students will be assisted in improving their speaking ability in general and speaking fluency in particular Moreover, the research aims to serve as a beneficial resource for high school students to be more aware of the importance and necessity of fluent English speaking Besides, through the findings of the study, the students may select the most appropriate methods for themselves for their speaking enhancement and English teachers can adapt and develop the best curriculum for their own students with a major aim of bettering their students’ speaking fluency The findings of the study might be also utilized as a starting point for additional research on relevant topics.
Organization of the sudy
The study is divided into the chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 – Introduction – presents rationale, aim, objectives, the research questions, the scope, significance and organization of the study
Chapter 2 – Literature review – presents the concepts relevant to the speaking skills, speaking fluency, factors affecting English speaking skills and a review of previous studies related to the topic
Chapter 3 – Research methodology – presents research method, participants, instruments, data collection procedures and data analysis method
Chapter 4 – Findings and discussion –focuses on presenting, analyzing and discussing the results obtained from the survey questionnaire and interviews Besides, the chapter also presents some discussions and interpretations of the findings of the study
Chapter 5 – Conclusion and implications- is a review of the study, and points out implications for the improvement, its limitations and suggestions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Speaking fluency
It's crucial to define what the term " speaking fluency" means before diving into research of factors affecting speaking fluency One of the most crucial factors which students need to enhance in the process of learning to speak English is speaking fluency Mastering speaking skill in general and developing oral fluency in particular are regarded as the goals of high school students because these advantages help them become more confident in communication
In fact, the definition of fluency has the Latin origin meaning as
“flow” It can be the same as other language define about fluency as flow or fluidity as stated by Kopponen and Riggenbach (2000, cited in Jamatlou,
This term is also related to "communication" (Harmer, 2007, p 142) In a conversation, for example, a student may make a grammatical error yet still be able to speak fluently (Crowther et al.,2015) Then, the student can communicate without searching for words, allowing his or her communication to be comprehended quickly In fact, speaking fluency has been defined as the “automaticity and speed of speech production” (Brand & Gửtz, 2011, p 256) However, automaticity and speed of speech production may not always make a speech comprehensible, comprehensibility being “a measure of listeners’’ perceived ease or difficulty of understanding L2 speech” (Crowther et al., 2015, p 81)
Richards (2009, p.14) mentions brave definition about fluency,
“natural language use occurring when a speaker engages in meaningful interaction and maintains comprehensible and ongoing communication despite limitations in his or her communicative competence” And nowadays, the definition of fluency itself closer to simple definition of the term in applied linguistics also seem to share at least one feature resembling
Fillmore (cited in Richards, 1990, p 75) identifies four abilities that might be subsumed under the term fluency as follows “the ability to fill time with talk, the ability to talk in coherent, reasoned and semantically dense sentences” showing “a mastery of these mantic and syntactic resources of the language”; “the ability to have appropriate things to say in a wide range of contexts” and the ability to be creative and imaginative in language use
The more recent study about fluency (Jamatlou, 2011) shows that fluency might be rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative intention into language under the temporal constraints of on-line processing This earlier concept of fluency has been acceptable by most of the teachers and researchers since they have to realize that fluency is different in nature from other components of oral proficiency such as range of vocabulary and complexity of syntax which are associated with linguistic knowledge of accuracy
In simple words, according to Riddel (2001, p 118) "fluency is the ability to talk freely without too much stopping or hesitating" The good English speaker should be able to use English language fluently with no difficulties Brown (1994) stated that “fluent speakers can participate in any conversation with a high degree of fluency” He explains that their speech should be accepted and well understood by native speakers Students who do not care about making mistakes/errors and who have an idea in their minds of what they want to communicate, and they say it with whatever words and language feel the most natural They make frequent mistakes, sometimes in every sentence; their grammar can be a mixture of English and their native language They either do not know or do not care if they are making errors or mistakes In this case, these learners have high fluency, but low accuracy
In the context of language teaching and learning, fluency is defined as the ability to speak communicatively, fluently and accurately Fluency usually refers to express oral language freely without interruption In teaching and learning process, if the teacher wants to check students’ fluency, the teacher allows students to express themselves freely without interruption The aim is to help students speak fluently and with ease The teacher does not correct immediately whereas the idea being that too much correction interferes with the flow of conversation (Pollard, 2008, p 16)
To sum up, there are various definitions mentioned above In this study, English speaking fluency is regarded as an ability to speak English without or with scarcity of hesitation, repetition or breaking in a sentence or in a conversation.
Factors affecting speaking fluency
One of the most important influences on language learning success or failure is probably the affective side of the learner (Oxford, 1990)
The affective factors relate to moods, feeling, and attitudes towards language learning (Meng & Wang, 2006) especially towards learning speaking fluency which is researched in this study Krashen (1985) views that affective variables are one of the most important factors which may impede students from learning Therefore, there is a so called “affective filter” or a mental block” that correlates negatively with learning When this block or filter is high, learning will be low and vice versa Thus, the emotional aspect of the learner is undoubtedly one of the most important impacts on language acquisition success or failure (Oxford, 1990; Dornyei and Ryan, 2015) Besides, according to Krashen (1982), three out of many categories belonging to affective factors which have been proven to be associated strongly with second language learning success in research over the previous decade are motivation, confidence, and anxiety However, within the scope of this study, overall, the affective factors are regarded as anxiety, motivation and fear of making mistakes, which are the primary factors influencing high school students’ speaking fluency
Anxiety is a feeling of tension, apprehension and nervousness associated with the situation of learning a foreign language (Horwitz et all cited in Nascente, 2001) Furthermore, Nascente writes that among other affective variables, anxiety stands out as one of the main blocking factors for effective language learning The fact that anxiety plays an important role in students’ learning is also shared by other researchers like Horwitz (1991) as cited in Sylvia and Tiono (2004) He believes that anxiety about speaking a certain language can affect students’ performance It can influence the quality of oral language production and make individuals appear less fluent than they really are Additionally, too much anxiety leads to low willingness to communicate fluently (Wu & Lin, 2014)
Motivation is an essential factor to achieve proficiency in a second language (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) Ausubel’s (1968) cognitive theory of learning posited a circular relationship between learning and motivation:
“motivation can promote learning and learning can produce motivation again” (Hong & Ganapathy, 2017, p 17) Gardner and Lambert (1972) identify two types of motivation when it comes to language learning: instrumental and integrative Instrumental motivation is the drive to learn the L2 for some sort of material gain or advantage, such as improving their speaking skill for job opportunities or an increase in salary or income; integrative motivation is when people want to learn the L2 with a view to “participating in the culture of its people” (Mahadi & Jafari, 2012, p 232) Thus, motivation, which derives from both external and internal sources, deeply influences students’ speaking skills or speaking fluency
As argued by many theorists (Tsui in Nunan, 1999; Yi Htwe, 2007; Robby, 2010), fear of making mistakes becomes one of the main factors of students’ reluctance to speak in English With respect to the fear of making mistake issue, Aftat (2008) adds that this fear is linked to the issue of correction and negative evaluation Thus, the students’ fear of being laughed at by other students or being criticized by the teacher when making mistakes is one of the most common obstacles for students in speaking classes As a result, students commonly stop participating in the speaking activity (Hieu,
2011) Therefore, it is important for teachers to convince their students that making mistakes is not a wrong or bad thing because students can learn from their mistakes
Students perform a speaking task under a variety of conditions Nation
& Newton (2009) believe that performance conditions can affect speaking performance Some types of performance conditions that Nation & Newton
(2009) suggest include planning time, time pressure, and the amount of support
“It has been suggested that providing learners with more planning time prior to conducting the task helps learners produce more fluent and complex language” (Patanasorn, 2010) Planning time also helps students improve not just their grammatical complexity but also their fluency (Yuan & Ellis, 2003)
In a laboratory study by Wendel (1997), learners were asked to watch two films and then retell them under two conditions: 10 minutes’ planning and no planning Wendel found that the speech rate under the planning condition was significantly higher than that under the no- planning condition, and concluded that planning benefited fluency
In another study, Mehnert (1998) explored the effect of manipulating length of planning time The results were consistent with those of Wendel regarding fluency Sangarun (2005) explored the effects of guided pre-task planning and found an overall positive effect of planning on fluency Gilabert
(2007) found that planned conditions resulted in greater fluency
Time pressure influences a speaker's decision to prioritize fluency over correctness and complexity Ellis and Yuan (2005) showed that under time pressure, speakers spoke as fluently but with less syntactic complexity and syntactic variety than without time pressure Similar findings based on the same data had already been presented by Yuan and Ellis (2003) Finally, Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2011) found that under time pressure fluency was higher but syntactic complexity lower than without time pressure Speakers used the available time to construct more complex sentence structures (more sentences containing subordinate clauses, and more varied grammatical verb forms) This did not slow down speech (e.g., fewer syllables per minute) Overall, in these studies, time pressure did negatively impact syntactic complexity
The support from peers is an important component that may influence student learning language achievement When students perceive that they are emotionally supported by their classmates, they tend to engage more actively and make a greater effort in their speaking performance as an instance (Goodenow, 1993; Wentzel, 1994) In addition, peer support should be considered essential to language learners because students spend considerable time together learning the language and encounter similar language-learning challenges Learners may receive support from their classmates not only in the form of friendship but also in ways that facilitate learning Peer support has greater reciprocity because peers share equal status (Cauce et al., 1982; Hartup, 1989; Wentzel, 1994)
To sum up, the quantity of peer support makes things simpler because it is easier to convey a speaking topic with others than by themselves (Thornbury, 2005)
According to Bohlke (2014), it will be difficult for language novices to pay attention and create fluent speech if they lack automation This is also corroborated by Nguyen, H T et al (2015, p 52), who state that "fluency also arises from automation"
Students can take up language spontaneously and subconsciously if they are exposed to English environments such as teachers speaking English all the time, English tapes, English books, and newspapers for them to use A positive mood and an appropriate environment can also help students to speak actively, correctly, and fluently Students may definitely automate to develop fluency in their speaking if instructors place them under increasing time constraint on a regular basis (Nguyen, 2015)
It is not practical to concentrate on speaking fluency and accuracy at the same time due to restricted attentional capacity As a result, during the activity, the meaning may be the primary emphasis, and the linguistic form can be highlighted later (Willis, 2005)
Maurice's (1983) 4/3/2 approach is also useful for progressively improving learners' speaking fluency The speaker first speaks for 4 minutes about a topic, then repeats the theme for 3 minutes, and finally delivers the same speech for 2 minutes Obviously, talking about the same issue three times increases learners' familiarity with the information, which decreases fear and improves fluency in subsequent performances
Arevart and Nation (1991) endorse this strategy, claiming that learners speak faster and with fewer hesitations in the 2-minute talk than in the 4- minute talk According to Zhou (2006), the 4/3/2 approach significantly improves Chinese EFL learners' speaking fluency As a result, learners' fluency may be steadily improved by talking about the same topic for 4 minutes, 3 minutes, and 2 minutes Furthermore, because some set phrases and expressions reduce cognitive stress (Lewis, 1993), free up attention capacity (Skehan, 1996), and speed up speech processing (Goh, 2003), EFL students must memorize a broad vocabulary and retrieve it automatically when speaking
Thus, automaticity can improve their speaking fluency (Wood, 2001; Wood, 2004; Zhou & Wang, 2007)
2.3.4 Teacher’s Corrections and Feedback during speaking activities
Most students want and expect their teachers to give them feedback on their performance However, all speaking production should not be dealt with in the same way Harmer (1991) asserts that the decisions that the teachers make about how to react to students’ performance will depend upon the stages of the lesson, the activities, the types of mistake made and the particular student who is making that mistake If the teachers correct whenever there is a problem, the conversational flow as well as the purpose of the speaking activity will be destroyed (Harmer, 1991) If the students are corrected all the time, they can find this very demotivating and become afraid to speak They suggest that the teachers should always correct the students’ mistakes positively and with encouragement (Baker & Westrup, 2003)
Review of Previous Studies Related to the Topic
There were many different studies conducted significantly related to speaking skills and speaking fluency
MacIntyre, et al (1998) investigated the impact of self- confidence on oral performance According to the findings of their study, the learners' desire to speak was partly influenced by their level of self-confidence Park and Lee
(2005) investigate the relationships between anxiety, self-confidence, and speaking performance in second language learners One hundred thirty-two Korean college students engaged in English conversation lessons took part in their study According to the findings of their study, learners' anxiety level was negatively connected to their oral performance Tanveer (2007) analyzes the factors that generate language anxiety for twenty language learners in learning speaking and the impact of anxiety on communication in the target language, and his findings are comparable to those of Park and Lee (2005) The findings revealed that students' stress, anxiety, or nervousness may affect their language learning and performance abilities According to them, "the more anxiety, the worse the performance."
Feyten (1991) investigated the link between listening ability and foreign language competence, listening ability and foreign language listening comprehension skills, and listening ability and foreign language oral proficiency abilities The findings indicate a strong relation between listening ability and foreign language competence, listening ability and foreign language listening comprehension abilities, and listening ability and foreign language speaking proficiency skills Besides, Bozorgian (2012) conducted research to investigate the link between listening ability and other linguistic abilities His findings show a strong relationship between listening comprehension and linguistic skills According to him, the better the listening score, the higher the speaking score
In addition, Lukitasari (2008) performed a research that focused on students' ways for overcoming speaking difficulties in speaking class Her study's population consisted of first semester students from Muhammadiyah University in Malang, Indonesia According to the findings of her study, students in her speaking class had several speaking issues, such as hesitation, lack of ideas, poor or unequal involvement, and using their mother language The study's findings also show that the students' speaking ability was poor because they did not grasp the three aspects of speaking, which are vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation
Zhang et al (2004) conducted research on the factors influencing Chinese college students' oral fluency in English in the setting of China The findings indicated that the primary factors influencing Chinese students' oral fluency are opportunities to speak English and the surroundings, whereas listening and knowledge of the target culture are minor ones
Yurong and Nan (2008) explored how affective variables influence oral English fluency in College English students The study's findings revealed that four affective variables influenced the development of oral English
Khong (2019) conducted research on the internal and external elements that influence students' fluency development at a secondary school The results revealed that there were numerous issues with improving students' fluency, with many factors from both students and teachers being listed, such as learning styles, students' habit of using mother tongue, students' low motivation, and low English level accounting for poor vocabulary, structure, and pronunciation
As can be seen from the review, prior research has only looked at single components or sets of factors that influence learners' oral fluency independently or jointly in different settings Therefore, it seems that there is a scarcity of studies on oral fluency for high schools in Vietnam, especially in mountainous areas where English has just been paid more attention to recently This study might fill these gaps and assist educators and teachers in determining which factors are much more important and the levels of their impacts on students’ speaking in order to improve learners' speaking fluency and, from that, to find the most suitable ways of enhancing students' English speaking skills in general
In summary, this chapter has presented theoretical background knowledge relevant to the topic of the study It has discussed some definitions on speaking skills, speaking fluency, factors affecting speaking fluency and a review of some previous related studies The following chapter will display the details as to research methodology.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research method
This study is done as a qualitative and quantitative study because it is appropriate for the research aim and objectives According to Bouma (1996,
173), "both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are vital to the research process in the social sciences" (1996, 173) Moreover, Creswell (2012, 535) emphasizes that combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies provides a greater grasp of the study problem than using either method independently, which Brewer & Hunter (1989) consider as “legitimate inquiry” research designs In order to meet the research objectives, and improve the study's reliability and validity, two types of data collecting instruments were utilized to answer the research questions: questionnaires and interviews In this case, the quantitative data from the questionnaire with SPSS and the qualitative data from the interview both supported and enhanced each other.
Participants
This research was conducted thanks to the cooperation of 150 students of grade 11 at 4 high schools in Gia Lai province According to Hair et al
(2010) and Leedy & Ormrod (2005), the sample size must be at least 4 or 5 times bigger than the number of variables or as large as possible Therefore,
150 students are surveyed for the appropriate sample size
For the fact that the researcher is teaching English at one of those schools and I would like to get ideas of different students from different schools to make sure the reliable data for the study Thus, the research site was not 1 but 4 high schools in Gia Lai province
Table 3.1 The information of the students participants for the survey
As for the students’ background, the total participants in this study comprised 150 students of grade 11 with 64.6 % males and 35.4% females chosen at random from the above schools There were 3 main reasons for choosing this group First of all, students of grade 11 had learnt English for at least 5 years (4 years in lower-secondary school and over 1 year in high school) Next, they had little pressure of the General Certificate of Secondary Education, which emphasizes mostly on grammar and other skills, not speaking skills Last but not least, the number of students is sufficient enough to help the researcher get reliable data for the study.
Instruments
To identify factors affecting high school students’ speaking fluency, the researcher employed two major research instruments namely questionnaire and interview to collect data for the study Each instrument had its own advantages, therefore, this combination was believed to bring about the best results for the research Questionnaire, which was regarded as one of the most common and useful instruments for data collection in a research (Gall & Borg, 1989), was used as the main tool for the study It was administered to seek the participants’ factual perceptions of factors affecting their speaking fluency Then, the students’ interviews provided opportunities for clarification, explanation of questionnaire findings and for confirmation of the reliability of their answers given in the questionnaires
According to McMillan and Schumacher (2014), a questionnaire is the most favoured technique for collecting attitudes, motivations, and opinions Additionally, Brown and Coombe (2015) supported that a questionnaire provides a relatively cheap, quick, and efficient way of obtaining large amounts of information from a large sample of people The current study was conducted in a limited time and studied on a small group of participants, for which a less structured questionnaire was entirely appropriate The questionnaire used in the current study was sequenced in a clear structure convenient for participants to provide their responses in the way they deeply believe in (Baron-Cohen et al., 2000) The questionnaire related to factors affecting high school students’ speaking fluency, was adapted from the study by D.T.B.Ngoc and T.T.D (2020) The five-point Likert scale was used to measure participants’ responses with five levels, including Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly agree and with values of 1 –5 ranged from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”: Strongly Disagree=1, Disagree=2, Neutral=3, Agree=4, Strongly Agree=5
Bourque and Clark (1994) listed three ways to design questions to determine data from samples These are: (1) Developing your own questions
(2) Adapting from other questionnaires (3) Adopting from other questionnaires In fact, for this research, although some questions relevant to factors affecting speaking fluency were found at the end of the related papers, no any research had discussed the same factors exactly as those in this paper so the author was not able to replicate any study and adopt from previous studies for this research Therefore adapting from other questions was considered to design more valid and reliable questionnaire
In order to avoid misunderstanding the questionnaire might cause to the respondents, a Vietnamese version was used To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire, the researchers conducted piloting the questionnaire before its actual administration (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2002) The questionnaire was piloted with the participation of twenty participants who were different from the actual ones The results of a Scale Test run on the data of the pilot study showed that they were reliable enough to be delivered in the official study (α=.890) After the questionnaires were administered to the participants, quantitative data collected were subjected to the Statistics Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20
The questionnaires were delivered online to the eleventh grade students belonging to four classes at four high schools in Gia Lai with the permission of the four principals of those schools The specific time for questionnaire delivery and gathering was stated in detail in the section 3.4
The questionnaire had two main parts The first part was to gather data on general information consisting of learners’ variables: gender, self- perceived speaking proficiency, and how long they have learned English The second part was the questions for students, including 21 questions designed in both English and Vietnamese The set of the questions belonged to five groups, representing the five main factors affecting students’ speaking fluency
Group 1: statements on affective factors (Anxiety, motivation and fear of making mistakes)
Group 2: statements on performance conditions (Planning time, time pressure and peer support)
Group 4: statements on teacher’s feedbacks on students’ speaking performance
Group 5: statements on topical knowledge
In order to collect additional information as well as cross-validate data obtained from the questionnaires, interview was used as the second method for the research which “allow respondents to say what they think and to do so with greater richness and spontaneity” (Miller & Brewer, 2003, p 167) It also helped the researcher to solve problems on missing data, incomplete or not entirely relevant information of the questionnaires The interview aimed to seek the opinions and perceptions of the respondents relating to factors affectings their students speaking fluency For confidential purposes, the names of interviewees were reported under pseudonyms The interviews addressed to 8 students and were done via telephones, zoom, zalo depending on respondents’ availability The semi-structure interviews were conducted to make interviewees feel open- minded, comfortable and relaxed to answer the interview questions By doing so, the researcher expected to have a better understanding of the students’ concrete learning situation and to find practical evidence for the research questions.
Data collection procedures
Collecting data is one of the crucial step which determines the success of one research Because of the current Covid-19 pandemic, the data collection was carried out completely online from the beginning of March to the end of this month
In the first stage, the researcher asked four high school principals and the head teachers of four eleventh grade classes for permission to conduct the surveys with their students Then, on the first day of March, the researcher started to deliver the link to the online survey questions in Google form to those students via those classes’ Zalo groups During the survey, if the students did not understand any questions, they could ask for the researcher’s online support After seven days, the researcher received 179 students’ responses to the survey, which were downloaded and opened in the Excel workbook However, due to the duplication of the respondents and their lack of information in the responses, 150 out of 179 responses officially served as the research data
For the next stage, in order to gain in-depth information and to complement data from the questionnaire, and therefore, to increase the reliability and validity of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted Specifically, eight students were chosen at random and interviewed individually and each interview lasted about 5 to 10 minutes Then, data from the interviews were coded, categorized, and analysed based on thematic relationships The researcher double-checked the transcriptions before sending them back to the interviewees for their feedback on their loyalty If the transcriptions carried any differences against the interviewees’ ideas, they were revised with the consensus of the interviewees.
Data Analysis Method
For this work, both quantitative and qualitative analysis was implemented on the data, including (1) the quantitative results of the questionnaires completed by 150 students and (2) the qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews of 8 students to meet the objectives of the research
To investigate the data statistically, SPSS methods were ultilized so as to calculate Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation and percentages IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is reckoned as a computer application that supports statistical analysis of data, generating tabulated reports, charts, and plots of distributions and trends, descriptive statistics, and complex statistical analysis
The factors affecting the students’ speaking fluency in the questionnaire were coded as follows:
Factor 1 was named as AFFECTIVE FACTORS and coded as AF
Factor 2 was named as PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS and coded as PC
Factor 3 was named as AUTOMATION and coded as AU
Factor 4 was named as TEACHER’S FEEDBACK and coded as TF
Factor 5 was named as TOPICAL KNOWLEDGE and coded as TK Besides, with regards to 8 students as 8 interviewees in the interviews, they were also coded as S1, S2 to S8 for analysis
“Internal validity in relation to questionnaires refers to ability of your questionnaire to measure what you intend it to measure.” (Saunders et al.,
2008, p372) For this research, before the instrument was distributed to the sample of population, the researcher conducted a validation test on the instrument, where the researcher tested the questionnaire with two stages, namely by expert validation and then, validity and reliability test to construct validity The research used statistics to calculate correlations between different variables in order to find the relations and measure the strength of that Also finding correlations between different sub-factors of variables were performed to see that they are gathered properly or not
From the validity test of the questionnaire in this research, it could be seen that most of the item questions got the sig value (2-tailed) < 0.05 and the value of Pearson correlation were mostly positive Therefore, it could be concluded that all of the questions items in the questionnaire were valid due to the fact that they met the validity requirements
Reliability is “concerned with the robustness of your questionnaire and, in particular, whether or not it will produce consistent findings at different times and under different conditions” (Saunders et al., 2008, p373) Furthermore, according to Goforth (2015), reliability test including Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient tool to measure the internal concept consistency of Likert scale question, examining the reliability of all the statements in scaled questions In the scope of this study, in order to assess reliability, reliability test involves Cronbach’s alpha to measure the consistency of a questionnaire, majorly demonstrated by Likert scale questions The five-point Linkert scale with five levels was previously mentioned in detail in the section 3.3.1
Laerd Statistics (2013) also believes that “Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency ("reliability") It is most commonly used when there are multiple Likert questions in a questionnaire that forms a scale and researchers wish to determine if the scale is reliable Cronbach’s alpha is expressed as a number between 0 and 1 (Table 3)
Cronbach's alpha Internal consistency α ≥ 0.9 Excellent
Internal consistency describes the extent to which all the items in a survey measure the same concept and hence it is connected to the inter- relatedness of the items within the survey (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011)
With respect to the validity and reliability of the data, there were 5
Likert scale questions in this questionnaire which began with explanation of terms in order to avoid any misunderstanding In addition, questionnaire was anonymous, which was notified in the message when distributed In order to generate trustworthy results, reliability test was included in data analysis For the results of the reliability test, it was known that the Cronbach’s alpha number was 0.898 (> 0.06) (see table) Therefore, it could be concluded that the research instrument used to measure the influence of affective factors, performance conditions, automation, teacher’s feedback and topical knowledge on the speaking fluency was reliable
The data result was presented in table 3.3, which was the reliability of 5- Likert scale questions
Table 3.3 Reliability test of all 21 Likert scale questions
Furthermore, the descriptive test relating to item-total statistics was also performed with the aim of increasing the reliability of the data Table 3.4 showed the results of the test
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
For the result of the scale test, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 21 5- Likert scale questions was 898 which was above than the required value, which was 0.60 (Cronbach, 1951) However, the Corrected Item-Total Correlation of 4 variables (TF3, TK1, TK2, TK3) was 048, 044, 128 and 163 respectively (< 0.3), the author decided to eliminate these variables to increase the reliability of the data
Affective factors (AF): no variable is eliminated The variable has the lowest Corrected Item-Total Correlation at 602 (AF5)
Performance conditions (PC): no variable was eliminated The variable has the lowest Corrected Item-Total Correlation at 303 (PC3)
Automation (AU): no variable was eliminated The variable has the lowest Corrected Item-Total Correlation at 352 (AU3)
Teacher’s feedback (TF): one variable (TF3) was eliminated The variable has the lowest Corrected ItemTotal Correlation at 308 (TF2)
Topical knowledge (TK): all of three variables were eliminated After elimination, all of the the samples left (17) had a good reliability and internal consistency
To sum up, so far, the research methodology, the participants of the research, the data collection instruments as well as the procedures of collecting and analysing data have been reported With the careful design of questionnaires and students’ interview questions together with the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in analysing data, the findings of this study promise to be reliable and valid to the readers.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Gia Lai high school students’ perception of the importance of
This section reports the findings on the students’ perception of the importance of speaking skills In reality, this part is not directly aimed at finding the answer to the research questions but merely has a contribution to confirm the importance of speaking skills that may directly lead to the students’ motivation to improve their speaking skills as well as speaking fluency
The questionnaire data analysis results about the students' perceptions of importance of speaking skills are summarized in Table 4.1
Table 4.1 The students’ perception of the importance of speaking skills
N Min Max Mean Std Deviation
How important are speaking skills to you?
As can be noticed in Table 4.1, the overall mean score of students’ perception toward the importance of speaking skills is 3.67 out of 4 (1= “Not important”, 2= “Little important”, 3= “Important” and 4= “Very important”), which means that this skill plays a greatly significant part among high school students (M= 3.67, Min= 1, Max= 4, SD= 550)
Figure 4 1 Students’ evaluation of the importance of speaking skills
Together, the pie chart also indicated clearly the importance of speaking skills in percentage According to the results shown in the chart, a total of 90% of participants believed that speaking was very important and important, respectively Meanwhile, it was noticeable that only 0.67 % of them considered this skill not essential Furthermore, obviously, the data from the interviews generally aligned with quantitative findings Most of the respondents who were invited to the interviews showed their total agreement with the significance of speaking skills For example, S1 and S8 emphasized that “Getting fluent in speaking English” was “his/her very first target” when learning English In the same vein, S3, S4 and S5 believed strongly that when they spoke English well, they could “look cool and create a great impression on the listeners” In another way, S2 and S7 shared the same idea of the wish that they could speak English better in order not to "lose face" and "to be able to earn a lot of money in the future." while there was only one interviewee, S6, had no idea of the importance of this oral skill
When comparing our results to those of older studies in terms of the importance of the speaking skills, it must be pointed out some relevances between findings in this study and others For example, according to Ur
(1996), speaking skill was the most crucial factor in helping learners become fluent English speakers or speaking ability was a tool for academic learning, and an essential part of communication (Goh, 2007) Similar to this, many native English speakers, according to Anggryadi (2014), think that mastering speaking was the main objective of studying English as a foreign language
From the quantitative and qualitative findings, it can be concluded that most of the students had positive perspectives on how beneficial the speaking skills could be to themselves, which could be reckoned as the most prominent reason encouraging the students to improve their speaking fluency or their speaking skills in general.
Gia Lai high school students’ evaluation of their English speaking
The next of the questionnaire was regard to students’ evaluation of their own English speaking fluency ability, as indicated in Table 4.2
The descriptive statistics of frequency were run to figure out the students’ self-evaluation of their English speaking fluency in a detailed valid percent
Table 4 2 Students’ self-evaluation of their speaking skills
It was important to highlight the fact from table 4.2 that up to 34% and
62 % of the respondents were not completely fluent and not very fluent at speaking English, respectively, which meant that there were 96% of high school students who were not confident in their speaking fluency Thus, in terms of the students’ speaking fluency, in fact, despite their perceptions of the great importance of speaking skills as analizied above, the percentage of students who were weak in speaking English was noticable These facts and figures were completely consistent with what was found in the interviews Specifically, 7 out of 8 of the interviewees said that they usually "got stuck" or "had nothing to say" when speaking English Suprisingly, only 1 out of 8 was satisfied with his fluent oral ability by expressing that "I can speak spontanuously in English without pausing."
From the factual figures, consequently, it could be concluded that finding out what factors and to what extent they affected high school students’ speaking fluency became an extremely essential and urgent task for the researcher in the hope that the students could be assisted to improve their speaking competence effectively.
Factors affecting students’ speaking fluency
This section demonstrated the findings on the factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency investigated through the set of questionnaire consisting of four clusters: affective factors, performance conditions, automation and teacher’ feedback In other words, the answer to the first research question: “What are factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ English speaking fluency?” would be addressed in this part
The questionnaire data analysis results about the factors affecting high school students were indicated and summarized in Tables 4.3 to 4.7 In addition, the interview data of the participants' perceptions as to those factors were also presented and discussed relevantly
With regards to statistics, the descriptive tests were run to check whether the factors, including affective factors, performance conditions, automation, and teacher’s feedback, affected Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency
In this Descriptive test, the variables namely TF3 (Teacher’s feedback) and TK1, TK2, TK3 (topical knowledge) that had been eliminated due to their low Corrected Item-Total Correlation (< 0.3) were not included Table 4.3 Factors affecting students’ speaking fluency
AF1 I am anxious that my ability in speaking English isn’t good 3.77 993
AF2 I feel so anxious that I usually utter “uh,ah,uhm…”when being asked to speak in English 3.74 1.006
AF3 I don’t always have enough motivation and confidence to take part in an English conversation 3.76 981
AF4 When I am motivated and confident in speaking classes, I can speak more fluently 3.73 1.008
AF5 I am hestitant to speak English because I am afraid of making mistakes 3.99 875
AF6 I want to improve my speaking fluency 3.73 1.008
PC1 I realize that time for speaking lesson is too short 3.76 721
PC2 I don’t have a lot of chances to speak because better students are always the first to give their ideas 4.01 839
PC3 In speaking tasks, when I have much time for preparation, I can speak more fluently 4.01 807
PC4 When I am under time pressure in my speaking performance, I focus on fluency by using simple sentences 3.93 636
PC5 I can speak more fluently during speaking tasks when my classmates are supportive and tolerant 3.93 724
AU1 I don’t usually speak English in class, which hinders my speaking fluency improvement 4.01 839
AU2 In English classes, I can speak fluently when my English teacher gives every instructions in English 3.76 981
AU3 I am more fluent in English when I usually practise talking a certain topic many times 4.08 773
AU4 Taking part in English clubs, tutorial groups… outside classroom improves my English speaking 4.01 823
Teacher’s correction on my pronunciation or grammar interrupts my speaking fluency during my speaking performance
I feel motivated to keep talking in English when my teacher gives me positive feedbacks or comments like “Good”,
Generally, as can be noticed from the results in table 4.3, the overall mean score of students’ perception was 3.88 out of 5.0, with the lowest score being 3.73 and the highest being 4.08 It meant that all of the respondents shared their agreements with all of the statements on the factors (automation, performance conditions, affective factors, and teacher’s correction), or it could be assumed that those factors did have effects on their speaking fluency
Turning to the details, the data analysis of the impact of each factor on the students’ speaking fluency to varying degrees was provided as follows:
Effect of automation factor was examined via four items, as indicated in Table 4.4
Table 4.4 Automation affecting students’ speaking fluency
AU3 I am more fluent in English when I usually practise talking a certain topic many times 4.08 773
AU1 I don’t usually speak English in class, which hinders my speaking fluency improvement 4.01 839
AU4 Taking part in English clubs and tutorial groups outside classroom positively improves my English speaking 4.01 823
AU2 In English classes, I can speak fluently when my English teacher gives every instructions in English 3.76 981
In general, it can be seen from Table 4.4 that the mean values of this set of items range from 3.76 to 4.08, with the total mean score of 3.97 This implies that the participants agreed with the fact that automation could highly affect their speaking fluency improvement Specifically, the learners approved of repetition of practising speaking a certain topic having a contribution to enhancing their speaking smoothness (AU3, M=4.08, SD=.773) Moreover, most of the participants supported the fact that joining in English environments, such as positively participating in English clubs and tutorial groups (AU1, M = 4.01, SD =.839) or frequently listening to their teachers’ English instructions (AU2, M = 3.76, SD =.981), was able to better their fluency in English Thus, it was clear that the less the students spoke
English, the more they hindered themselves from getting improvement in oral fluency (AU1, M=4.01, SD= 839)
As illustrated above, as for automation in practicing speaking English, it can be inferred from the findings that immersing in English environment or creating a habit of using English had a great influence on the students’ speaking enhancement
The above-mentioned findings were also supported by the qualitative data gathered through semi-structured interviews in regards to the impact of the automation factor More than a half of the students including S1, S3, S4, S5, S7 and S8 insisted that they could speak “more confidently and fluently” on the topic about which they “used to talk many times before” Some students also shared the same point that they seemed to become “tie oneself into knots” when being asked about “unfamiliar things that they hadn’t rehearsed in English before” (S2, S5 and S6) Furthermore, surprisingly, the interviewee S7 happily to share her interesting experience that “My participation in English tutorial groups on Facebook and practising speaking English with my friends in those groups has also had a significant impact on my English speaking, particularly my fluency." Besides, S1,S3 and S5 added that they could "imitate some English statements without any pauses" that they listened to many times from their English teachers in the classroom As a matter of the fact, S2 “revealed a secret” that “whispering or mumbling to myself in English every day brings a very satisfactory results in speaking”
Furthermore, S6 stated that, in reality, he did not pay much attention to practicing or learning English; however, he could “utter some utterances like native speakers that his foreign friends usually speak in online games.”
Thus, the findings from the results were similarly supported by other researchers For instance, Bohlke (2014) stated that if there was no automation, it would be very difficult for language learners to concentrate and produce fluent speech and Nguyen, H T et al (2015, p 52) also claimed that fluency also originates through automation Students can take up language spontaneously and subconsciously if they are exposed to English environments
The next part of the questionnaire consists of five items with regards to performance conditions, including chances to speak (PC2), speaking time (PC1, PC3, PC4), and peer support (PC5), as indicated in table 4.5
Table 4.5 Performance conditions affecting students’ speaking fluency
PC2 I don’t have a lot of chances to speak because better students are always the first to give their ideas 4.01 839
PC3 In speaking tasks, when I have much time for preparation, I can speak more fluently 4.01 807
PC5 I can speak more fluently during speaking tasks when my classmates are supportive and tolerant 3.93 724
When I am under time pressure in my speaking performance, I focus on fluency by using simple sentences
PC1 I realize that time for speaking lesson is too short 3.76 721
Table 4.5 illustrates the findings on how the students’ speaking fluency was affected by the subfactors in terms of performance conditions As can be seen from table 4.5, the total Mean score was 3.93, which indicated that the majority of the students were supportive of the fact that it would be hard for them to practice and express their smoothness in oral presentations if they had no chances to speak in class Hence, the teachers’ priority and major attention to good students in the classroom usually cause silence, passiveness, and hindrance towards others (PC2, M=4.01, SD=.839) Furthermore, time was one of the integral elements fostering the students’ speaking fluency To be more specific, insufficient preparation time for English speaking performances could result in total disfluency; conversely, the more preparation time the students had, the more fluent their utterances became (PC3, M = 4.01, SD =.807) Besides, when being asked whether time pressure impacted their speaking fluency, they also expressed considerable approval (PC4, M=3.93, SD=.636) With the similar influential level (PC5, M= 3.93, SD=.724), their classmates’ tolerant and supportive attitudes towards their speaking performance also helped make their speaking fluency improvements It was obvious that with the support of one or some partners, students could be motivated to speed up their speaking
As a matter of fact, the data obtained from the interviews also accorded with the questionnaire data All eight students were asked about what types of agents concerning the performance conditions prevailing in their speaking frequency Three-forth (S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S8) strongly advocated that
"the constraint of preparation time for each speaking task as well as each lesson was too short.", while S1 claimed that some teachers always invited the good English students to save time, which was the reason why they stated that they "had no chance to raise our voice." Additionally, S7 emphasized that in his case, "classmates’ encouragement" could "arouse me to make an effort to speak as much as possible" while presenting in English
Obviously, in reality, the findings with regard to the impact of the performance conditions on the students’ English speaking fluency that was reported in this study had been similarly emphazied not only by Nation & Newton (2009) and Dinh, T.B.N et al (2020) but also other researchers For example, Patanasorn (2010) and Yuan & Ellis (2003) pointed out providing learners with more planning time prior to conducting the fluent speaking task Besides, influence of time pressure was also found in the research by Ellis and Yuan (2005) and the findings on peer support towards the students’ speaking performance was investigated by other scholars (Goodenow, 1993; Wentzel, 1994)
Concerning students perception of impact of teacher’s feedback and correction on their fluency in speaking, the data analasis was indicated in table 4.6 as follows:
Table 4.6 Teacher’s correction affecting students’ speaking fluency
Teacher’s correction on my pronunciation or grammar interrupts my speaking fluency during my speaking performance
I feel motivated to keep talking in English when my teacher gives me positive feedbacks or comments like
A Summary of the Key Findings
With the aims to investigate factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency, the author has provided some main characteristics of the current situation of learning and teaching English speaking skills for students in grade 11 in Gia Lai province The survey and interviews show that this skill is of great importance, but in fact, performing this skill effectively or teaching the students to achieve high speaking fluency has been a challenge for the majority of the students as well as the English teachers in this area That is one of the reasons why the research desires to find out the answers to the research questions as to the factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency and their levels of impacts
Initially, the aim, the objectives, and the raised questions for exploration of the answers are set up In response, the author has employed both qualitative and quantitative methods, using a questionnaire and an interview as the main research instruments From the results of the survey questionnaires and interviews and with the support of data analysis by SPSS, the factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency and the extent of those factors on this skill are clearly determined
The analysis leads to the following conclusions as the answers to the two main reseach questions as followed: the automation factor is recognized as the key one by most of the participants Accordingly, practicing speaking frequently on a certain topic in English as well as participating in English clubs or groups plays an integral part in bettering students’ speaking fluency Moreover, teachers’ using English in their teaching also has a great contribution to their students’ speaking improvement The next salient element is performance conditions, which are mainly about opportunities to speak English, time pressure, and peer support These subfactors, thus, impact directly on the learners’ oral performance Besides, affective factors including fear of making mistakes, anxiety, or motivation rank the third, having an effect on the students’ fluency so significantly that both the teachers and the students must take notice of it in speaking lessons In addition, the findings provide additional information about the influence of teachers’ feedback and correction on learners’ fluency in speaking performance, which is mentioned to be the last major factor
In terms of the levels of the influence of each factor or subfactor on the students’ speaking fluency, thanks to the values of the mean scores of the subfactors, the extent of effects of the variables on the fluency of the students is different, with automation or speaking frequency having the largest impacts and emotional components like learning motivation and confidence having the lowest Additionally, other agents such as intensity of English practice or fear of error making affect positively or negatively on their succes in speaking.
Recommendations
In light of the study's findings, some recommendations for school administrators, teachers and students were also offered
First, the teachers should stimulate and give equal chances to every student in the class so that they can express their opinions in English as much as possible
Besides, the teachers ought to encourage their students to build a habit of using English by both being a good example for them and choosing fascinating topics in order that they will be used to using English enthusiastically during the lessons Modifying the topics to introduce students and connecting them to their interests is also an effective way to increase students’ engagement in speaking sessions In that way, the teachers can use a variety of activities, including interviews, role-playing, story-telling, discussions, games, etc Importantly, creating a cooperative and supportive environment, fostering a warm, positive atmosphere during English speaking classes, or setting up English clubs, is also one of the most essential solutions to boost the students’ speaking fluency
Moreover, it is also crucial that the teacher choose the speaking tasks that are comprehensible inputs to the students’ levels and give them a reasonable period of preparation time and performance time in order to avoid time pressure greatly resulting in their disfluency Finally, with regards to the feedback of the teachers on the learners’ oral performance, teachers should not criticize them or give them bad ones as their students make mistakes
Instead, they will feel more motivated and confident in the continual speaking presentation with the teachers’ constructive comments or prompts
To foster the growth of their speaking fluency, students should make every effort to determine the most effective strategy
First of all, they should actively study English by utilizing the numerous tools that are already available, such as watching English movies, songs with and without subtitles, or via English applications supporting their speaking practice As often as they get the chance, students should practice positively their English through conversation with friends or native speakers in and outside the class
Especially, each individual must prepare himself/herself to work harder at learning English and overcome affective obstacles to speak English as much as possible Thus, students should think independently and discover their own motivation for studying English, since motivation is crucial for developing students' speaking skills
Additionally, shy students should try their best to leave out their anxiety about making errors or even facing ridicule from their peers because they should view making errors as natural and normal parts of learning the language
Last but not least, the students must pay attention to their English teacher's feedback due to the fact that listening to the teachers’ assessment plays an important role in bettering and enhancing their speaking
For successful English speaking classes to happen, it is not only the teachers’ endeavours themselves but also the school administrators who should have an important role
First, the school administrators should arrange a more reasonable number of students in each English class instead of being overcrowded (over 45 students per class), which can effectively create more chances for students to speak up in the class
Furthermore, school administrators ought to provide more facilities and conditions for teachers to improve their knowledge of teaching methodology In order for the teachers to be familiar with new teaching techniques in organizing communicative activities and encouraging them to keep up with the latest information in the field of TESOL is obviously crucial
As a matter, it is also necessary for the school administrators to pay more attention to holding seminars or discussions about English teaching periodically or yearly in the scope of the school or department This is a chance for teachers to share experiences, learn from one another and take part in adapting techniques practically and effectively in teaching English in general and speaking skills in specific
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies
Despite the fact that the researcher has made an effort to find out the factors influencing Gia Lai high school students’ fluency, the study was limited in terms of a number of factors First of all, the research was conducted only at four high schools in Gia Lai, a mountainous area Therefore, the generalization of the results was also limited by the small scale of the study Another limitation was time constraint Thus, it was impossible for the researcher to carry out an extensive study in such a short period of time Besides, the study was a descriptive research into fluency, an aspect of speaking skills, which, as a result, needs further action or experimental research to boost the students’ improvement in their English speaking in a complete way
1 Ahmadian, M.J & M Tavakoli (2011), The effects of simultaneous use of careful
2 Available:http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/anxious.html (June 20,
3 Barkley, E F., Cross, K.P., & Major C.H (2014) Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2 nd edn.) San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass Publisher
4 Baron-Cohen, S E., Tager-Flusberg, H E., & Cohen, D J (2000)
Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience Oxford University Press
5 Bohlke, D (2014) Fluency-oriented second language teaching In M
Celce-Murcia, D Brinton & M Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language or foreign language (4th ed., pp 121-135) Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage
6 Brand, C., Gửtz, S (2011) Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16, 255-275 doi:10.1075/ijcl.16.2.05bra
7 Brown, D.H (1994) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
8 Brown, J D., & Coombe, C (Eds.) (2015) The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning intrinsic eBook Cambridge University Press
9 Budden, J (2004) “Role play” British Council Retrieved April 21, 2019 from http://www.teachenglish.org.uk/think/articles/role-play
10 Byrne, D (1986) Teaching Oral English: Longman Handbooks for
English Teacher Singapore: Longman Groups
11 Cauce, A M., Felner, R D., & Primavera, J (1982) Social support in high-risk adolescents: Structural components and adaptive impact American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 417–428
12 Chandler, M., (n, d),” What is SPSS”, University of Windsor (2 nd edn.)
White Plain, MY: Pearson Education, Inc
13 Chaney, A.L., T.L Burk (1998) Teaching oral communication in grades
14 Christiane B & Gửtz S (2011) Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2)
15 Crokall, R.L.D (1990) The island ame: Simulation, gaming, and language learning New York: Newbury House
16 Cronbach, L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
17 Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K (2015) Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility Modern Languge Journal 99(1), 80-95 10.1111/modl.12185
18 Dinh, T.B.N & Tran, T.D (2020) Key factors influencing learners’ oral fluency in English speaking classes: A case at a public university in Viet Nam VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.6 (2020) 93-
19 Doff, Adrian (1988) Teach English; A training course for teachers trainer
20 El-Basel, R M (2008) The Effectiveness of Multimedia Program Using
Animation to Develop the Speaking Skill in English for the Pupils of the Primary Stage MA Thesis, Cairo University, Institute of Educational Studies
21 Ellis, R & F Yuan (2005), The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance, in R Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second Language: 167-192, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
22 Ellis, R (2005), Planning and task-based performance: theory and research, in R Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language: Vol 11, 3-34, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
23 Fauziati, E (2009) Introduction to methods and approaches in second or foreign language teaching Surakarta: Era Pustaka Utama
24 Gilabert, R (2007) The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 oral production In M Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp 44–68) Bristol: Multilingual Matters
25 Goodenow, C (1993) Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43
26 Hair et al Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
27 Harmer, J (1991) The Practice of English Language Teaching The 3th
Edition Longman: London and New York
28 Harmer, J (2001) The practice of English language teaching (3 rd edn.)
29 Harmer, J (2007) How to teach English (2 nd edn.) England: Pearson
30 Hartup, W W (1989) Social relationships and their development significance American Psychologist, 44, 120-126 http://irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/4ed5f51f45523
31 Jamatlou, F (2011) Revisiting the Temporal Measures of L2 Oral
Fluency: A Caseof Iranian EFL Learners: University of
32 Khong, T T (2019) A survey on internal and external factors influencing students’ English fluency development at grade 11 in an upper secondary school in Vinh Phuc province Masters thesis, VNU University of Languages and International Studies
33 Krashen, S D (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications
34 Laerd statistics, (2013), “Independent t-test using SPSS Statistics”,
Available at: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/independent-t- test-using-spss-statistics.php
35 Leedy, Paul D and Ormrod, Jeanne E Practical Research: Planning and
Design (8th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005
36 Mehnert, U (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108
37 Meng, X., & Wang, Q (2006) Psychological factors and teachers' language Foreign Language Journal, 4(5), 70-73
38 Nascente, Renata Maria M, (2001), Practical Ways to Help Anxious
39 Nguyen, H T., & Tran, N M (2015) Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at Le Thanh Hien High School Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8-23
40 Nunan, D (2001) Principles of communicative language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
41 Oxford, R L (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher
Should Know New York: Newbury House Publishers
42 Pollard, L (2008) Teaching English: A book to Help You through Your
43 Porter-Ladousse, G (1987) Role play Oxford: Oxford University Press
44 Richards, J C (2009) Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to
Practice (RELC Portfolio Series) Singapore: Regional
Language Center from http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/teachinglistening-and- speaking-from-theory-to-
45 Richards, J.C (1990) The Language Teaching Matrix New York:
Cambridge University Press Riddel, D (2001) Teach English as a Second Language Chicago: McGraw
46 Rogers, J (2007) Adults learning (5th edn) England: Open University
47 Sangarun, J (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning In R Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp 111–141) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
48 Scrivener, J (2005) Learning teaching Oxford: Macmillan Publishers
49 Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & Williams, M (2005) The TKT Course
Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
50 Tavakol, M., Dennick, R., (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”,
International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55 Available at: https://www.ijme.net/archive/2/cronbachs-alpha.pdf
51 Thornbury, S (2005) How to teach speaking London: Pearson Education
52 Van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V (2002) The importance of pilot studies Nursing Standard, 16(40), 33-36 https://bit.ly/3FMuBut
53 Wendel, J (1997) Planning and second language narrative production
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Temple University, Tokyo
54 Wentzel, K R (1994) Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173-182
55 Widdowson, H.G (1978) Teaching language as communication Oxford:
56 Wu, C P., & Lin, H J (2014) Anxiety about speaking a foreign language as a mediator of the relation between motivation and willingness to communicate Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(3), 785-798
57 Yuan, F., & Ellis, R (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–
58 Yuan, F., & R Ellis (2003), The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production, Applied Linguistics 24(1): 1-27
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
This survey questionnaire is designed for the study namely “Factors affecting Gia Lai high school students’ speaking fluency” Your assistance in completing the following questions is highly appreciated Please put a tick ()in the box beside the option(s) you choose
2 How long have you been learning English at school? ……….years
3 How important is the speaking skill to you?
Important Not important at all
4.How do you assess your present level at English speaking fluency?
Part 2: Factors affecting high school students’ English-speaking fluency
(Please put a tick () in the box beside the option(s) you choose)
C o m p le te ly d is a g re e ( 1 ) D is a g re e ( 2 ) U n ce rt a in (3 ) A g re e ( 4 ) C o m p le te ly a g re e ( 5 )
AF1 1 I am anxious that my ability in speaking
2 I feel so anxious that I usually utter
“uh,ah,uhm…”when being asked to speak in English
3 I don’t always have enough motivation and confidence to take part in an English conversation
AF4 4 When I am motivated and confident in speaking classes, I can speak more fluently
AF5 5 I am hestitant to speak English because I am afraid of making mistakes
AF6 6 I want to improve my speaking fluency
PC1 7 I realize that time for speaking lesson is too short
8 I don’t have a lot of chances to speak because better students are always the first to give their ideas
9 In speaking tasks, when I have much time for preparation, I can speak more fluently
10 When I am under time pressure in my speaking performance, I focus on fluency by using simple sentences
11 I can speak more fluently during speaking tasks when my classmates are supportive and tolerant
AU1 12 I don’t usually speak English in class
13 In English classes, I can speak fluently when my English teacher gives every instructions in English
AU3 14 I am more fluent if I usually practise talking a certain topic many times
15 Taking part in English clubs, tutorial groups… outside classroom improves my
16 Teacher’s correction on my pronunciation or grammar interrupts my speaking fluency during my speaking performance
17 I feel motivated to keep talking in English when my teacher gives me positive feedbacks or comments like “Good”, “Well- done”
TC3 18 If I cannot think of what to say, the teacher may prompt me forwards
TK1 19 I want to speak English but I don’t know enough topical vocabulary
TK2 20 I can speak better on familiar topics
TK3 21 I can speak more fluently after the teacher provides knowledge relating to difficult topics.