English language teachers usually categorize levels of learner proficiency into three basic parameters: beginners, intermediate, and advanced Harmer, 2007a.. In these distinctions, teach
INTRODUCTION
Background and rationale for the study
English is recognized globally as a vital "link language" that facilitates communication among individuals who do not share a common native language.
In recent decades, Vietnam has experienced a notable rise in English language teaching and learning, both within its formal education system and through private institutions This trend is largely driven by increased Foreign Direct Investment and a growing influx of international visitors, facilitated by Vietnam's active participation in global organizations The formal education sector has integrated English into curricula across all levels, from primary to tertiary institutions Additionally, the establishment of numerous private language schools has catered to the high demand for English learning, particularly in major urban areas, offering diverse courses that attract significant enrollment.
The diverse population of English language learners varies significantly in terms of motives, age, and proficiency levels (Ur, 1996) These differences are crucial for teachers to consider when selecting teaching methods, structuring lessons, and offering additional resources (Brown, 2000; Jafar & Meenakshi, 2012).
2 of how proficient students has drawn much attention as Brown (2000) asserted
In the realm of English language teaching, proficiency levels are typically classified into three categories: beginners, intermediate, and advanced Teaching beginners is often perceived as requiring minimal effort and can be particularly motivating for educators, as these learners tend to show noticeable improvement in their skills.
Teaching beginners is often regarded as the most challenging level of language instruction, as many educators assert (Brown, 2000) Practitioners like Mciver (2020), Pachina (2020), Sigworth (2016), and Turner (2019) agree that this task is far from easy Beginners typically possess little to no prior knowledge of the English language, which can lead to significant stress (Harmer, 1998) Some learners even express feelings of inadequacy in their English skills (Sigworth, 2016), which can contribute to higher dropout rates in English learning (Harmer, 1998).
While observing beginner English classes at the Australia International English School (AIES), the researcher noted that learners frequently repeated words and dialogues after their teachers or audio recordings This practice is closely associated with oral drills (ODs), a fundamental component of the Audio-lingual Method (ALM) as highlighted by Nunan (2003, 2015).
The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) has been recognized as one of the most influential language teaching methods throughout history, maintaining its popularity over time and continuing to be integrated into modern language instruction Its foundational principles are rooted in structural linguistics and behaviorism, which have shaped its approach to language teaching.
Research indicates that various online resources offer valuable advice for teaching beginner learners Notably, several educators (Brand, 2017; Buckley, 2019; Raap, 2020; York, 2020) recommend common techniques that can enhance the learning experience.
ODs Several scholars have also mentioned ODs as an integral component for language instruction given to beginners For example, Tiwari (2008) emphasized
Sufficient practice and drills are essential in language teaching, particularly for beginners, as emphasized by Reid (2016) The use of oral drills (ODs) has been supported by various authors, including Harmer and Brown, for beginner-level classes Despite some criticism of ODs, such as in Wong and VanPatten (2003), these traditional techniques remain prevalent, even among those who do not adhere to the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) (Cook, 1982).
Despite the popularity of ODs in beginner English classes, there is a notable lack of literature regarding the perceptions of both teachers and learners on these techniques, particularly in Vietnam This gap has motivated the researcher to undertake a systematic study aimed at understanding how teachers and learners in beginner classes perceive the use of ODs.
Aims of the study
This study investigates how teachers of beginner classes perceive the use of ODs in EFL classrooms at AIES Additionally, it explores the opinions of AIES beginner learners regarding the application of ODs in their English classes.
Research questions
In accordance with the aims mentioned above, two research questions are proposed as follows:
(1) What are teachers’ opinions about the use of ODs to teach English in their beginner classes at AIES?
(2) What are beginner learners’ opinions about the use of ODs to learn English at the beginning level at AIES?
Significance of the study
This study aims to address the gap in literature regarding teachers' and learners' perceptions of using ODs in English language teaching, particularly at the beginner level While previous research has primarily focused on the effectiveness of ODs in enhancing learners' performance, this investigation encourages teachers to reflect on their current practices It systematically explores how teachers utilize ODs and their perspectives on these methods in beginner classes Additionally, the study reveals learners' opinions, offering valuable insights for teachers to reconsider and improve their teaching strategies.
Scope of the study
This study, conducted at AIES (Long Thanh Branch, Dong Nai Province), aimed to investigate the perspectives of teachers and learners regarding the use of oral drills (ODs) in beginner English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms It involved 92 beginner learners enrolled in a Conversational English course and five teachers responsible for the classes attended by these learners Among the various types of ODs, the research focused on four commonly used methods: Repetition Drill, Dialogue Memorization, Single-slot Substitution Drill, and Question-and-answer Drill, with further details provided in Sections 3.5.1.1 and 4.1.
Outline of the thesis
The study consists of five chapters Chapter 1 presents the introduction, in which the background to the study, aims of the study, research questions, scope of the study, and
The study is structured into five chapters, beginning with an outline of the research Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature to establish the theoretical background, focusing on beginner English learners, the Audiolingual Method, and related concepts such as definitions, typologies, characteristics, and prior research Chapter 3 details the methodology, including the research design, site, tools, participants, data collection procedures, and analysis Chapter 4 presents the key findings from interviews and questionnaires, along with a discussion of these results Finally, Chapter 5 concludes the study with implications and suggestions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Beginner learners of English and teaching beginner learners of English
Language proficiency levels are typically categorized into beginners, intermediate learners, and advanced learners (Harmer, 2007b; Ur, 1996) However, teachers and schools often struggle to agree on the precise meanings of these terms (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2007b) This lack of consensus arises from the notion that what constitutes a beginner for one person may differ for another (Brown, 2001, p 96) Consequently, it is essential to establish a clear and consistent definition of the term "beginners" for the purposes of this study.
According to Brown (2001), beginners in language learning are defined as individuals with minimal or no prior knowledge of the target language, often possessing only a few hundred words and some basic survival phrases He categorizes these learners as "false beginners," distinguishing them from "true beginners," who have no familiarity with the language at all This classification suggests that the beginner group includes both "true beginners" and "false beginners."
In his works, Harmer (1998, 2007a) categorizes language learners into two groups: true beginners, who have no knowledge of English, and false beginners, who possess some knowledge but cannot effectively use the language.
Beginners, as defined by Harmer (1998, 2007a), are considered "true beginners" according to Brown (2001) While these definitions differ slightly, both emphasize the importance of the language knowledge that learners have already acquired (Ur).
Also making an attempt at classifying beginners, Grundy & Maley (1994) proposed a list of categories of beginners as follows:
- beginners with/without second language learning experience
The typology of language learners is complex, with overlapping categories For instance, "beginners with/without second language learning experience" can be considered synonymous with "absolute beginners" and "false beginners." Additionally, "absolute beginners" are referred to as "true beginners" in Brown (2000).
In recent years, there have been significant global initiatives aimed at standardizing the assessment of language learner competence (Harmer, 2007b) A prominent example is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), introduced by the Council of Europe in 2001 This framework features a continuum of proficiency levels, ranging from A1 to C2, accompanied by descriptive "Can Do" statements that outline learner capabilities (University of Cambridge, 2011).
The following figure presents the CEFR, compared to the three levels of language proficiency: beginners, intermediate, and advanced
Figure 2.1 Terms for different student levels (Harmer, 2007b, p 95)
As can be seen in Figure 2.1, the “true beginners” and “false beginners” are relatively pre-A1 learners in the CEFR
The rise of English as a global language has led to the belief that there are no absolute beginners in English, as individuals worldwide can recognize various common phrases and words, such as "made in Vietnam."
“jeans”, “OK”, “bye”, etc.) (Grundy & Maley, 1994, p 5) That being said, absolute beginners are “not yet extinct” (Stevick, 1986, as cited in Grundy & Maley, 1994, p
5) All things considered, in the context of this study, beginners incorporate
In beginner-level English classes, learners can be categorized as "true/absolute beginners" or "false beginners." True beginners have no prior knowledge of English, while false beginners have some experience with the language before joining the class Despite being less common, true beginners are still a relevant group within this classification.
2.1.2 Teaching beginner learners of English
Teaching beginners is often seen as motivating for both teachers and learners due to the clear visibility of learner progress However, Brown (2000) emphasized that there are challenges associated with teaching beginners that should not be overlooked.
According to Brown (2000), the most challenging level of language instruction arises from the limited proficiency that learners have achieved in the target language While Harmer does not explicitly label teaching beginners as the most difficult, the implications of this assertion highlight the complexities involved in language acquisition at the initial stages.
Teaching beginners often faces a significant risk of failure due to the stress associated with language learning, which can exceed their expectations (Harmer, 1998, 2007a) Many novice learners encounter challenges in language comprehension and production, which can hinder their progress and discourage them from continuing their studies (Harmer, 2007b) As a result, a considerable number of beginners may withdraw from language learning altogether (Harmer, 2007a, 2007b) To mitigate this high dropout rate among learners (Harmer, 2007b, p 96), it is essential to implement effective strategies tailored to the needs of beginner English learners.
Beginning learners have limited abilities to memorize vocabulary and structural patterns, making traditional techniques for advanced learners unsuitable (Brown, 2000; Harmer, 2007b) Therefore, a tailored approach for teaching beginners is essential (Brown, 2000) It is crucial to avoid overwhelming them with abstract discussions or excessive linguistic knowledge in their native language (Harmer, 1998, 2007a; Brown, 2000) Instead, beginners should be introduced to simple vocabulary and provided with opportunities for enjoyable, stress-free practice (Harmer, 2007b) Consequently, scholars recommend using Oral Drills (ODs) in beginner classes, a key feature of the Audiolingual Method (Brown, 2000; Harmer, 2007a, 2007b; Nunan, 2015).
The Audiolingual Method (ALM)
ALM derived from the Army Specialized Training Program, which was informally called the “Army Method” in the 1940s (Harmer, 2007a, p 49; Richards & Rodgers,
In 2001, U.S universities developed a language program to enhance conversational fluency among army personnel, addressing the government's request for proficiency in the languages of both Allied forces and adversaries (Brown, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) This program emphasizes oral activities, including extensive pronunciation and pattern drills, as well as role-playing dialogues to facilitate effective language learning (Brown, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
52) In the conventional classes of the program, almost no explicit grammatical instruction is to be given and virtually no translation is to be provided (Brown, 2001, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011)
The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) emerged in the 1950s, rooted in structural linguistics and behaviorism (Brown, 2000; Celce-Murcia, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Nunan, 2003, 2015) According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), the rise of structural linguistics reflects the attitudes of 19th-century linguists, who viewed language study as intertwined with philosophy and a mentalist approach to grammar, considering grammar as a branch of logic From a structural perspective, language is seen as a system of related elements used to encode meaning (Richards & Rodgers).
Language consists of essential elements that serve as its "building blocks," including phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences These components are organized hierarchically, and structural linguists assert that mastering a language involves understanding and aggregating these fundamental elements.
Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and “applying the accumulations and experiences into generating language” (Lin & Chen, 2010, p 22)
A fundamental principle of structural linguistics is the preference for spoken language over written language, as highlighted by various scholars (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011; Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodger, 2001) Brook (1964) emphasized that spoken language is primary, while written language is secondary (as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p 55) The progression of language skills follows a specific order: listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Liu & Shi, 2007) Additionally, language difficulty is systematically graded, ensuring that beginners encounter simple speech, intermediate learners face more challenging material, and advanced learners tackle complex language (Harmer, 2007a; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
ALM is grounded in structural linguistics and emphasizes the behavioral theory of learning, which is a key aspect of American behavioral psychology This theory posits that humans possess a diverse range of behaviors, encompassing all forms of learning Proponents of behavioral theory advocate for conditioning and habit formation as essential models of learning.
Language learning is fundamentally a process of habit formation, where learners engage in repetitive verbal and nonverbal behaviors until they become ingrained habits Successful learning hinges on three key factors: a stimulus that initiates behavior, a response elicited by that stimulus, and reinforcement that evaluates the response as appropriate or inappropriate, thereby encouraging its recurrence.
2001) Among those three paramount factors, Richards and Rodgers (2001)
Reinforcement plays a crucial role in increasing the likelihood of behavior repetition, ultimately leading to habit formation (p 56) This concept is applied in language teaching through the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM), where language learning is viewed as a series of stimulus-response interactions (Richards & Renandya, 2002; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) In this context, the stimulus represents the teaching material provided to students, the response is the students' reaction to that material, and reinforcement encompasses positive feedback from teachers or peers, as well as the satisfaction students derive from their language learning experiences.
The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) gained significant prominence in the United States over an extended period, with its variants still present in teaching methods today Its success throughout much of the twentieth century can be attributed to its strong theoretical foundations, well-designed coursebooks, and the effective practice of conversational skills by students However, in the 1970s, ALM faced criticism from two main fronts The rise of new linguistic theories, particularly Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar, challenged the behavioral and structural linguistics that underpinned ALM Consequently, the method was found lacking in addressing key aspects of language nature and learning theory, leading to learners' difficulties in applying their acquired skills in real-life communication.
13 situations (Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), thereby leading to the breakdown in enabling learners to be communicatively proficient in the long run (Brown, 2001)
Notwithstanding decrease in its popularity, ALM is hailed as being one of the most prevalent methods in the evolution of language teaching (Aprianto, Ritonga, Marlius,
The method discussed remains highly popular today, as noted by Nunan (2003) and Mei (2018) A key characteristic of this approach is the use of various ODs, which have been extensively utilized (Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007b; Nunan, 2003) and continue to be relevant (Nunan, 2015; Wong & VanPatten, 2003) This use of ODs is particularly beneficial for English beginners (Harmer, 2007a; Nunan, 2015; Mei, 2018).
Oral drills (ODs) in English language teaching
The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) is characterized by its distinctive use of oral drills (ODs), which, according to Nunan (2000), has significantly influenced second and foreign language teaching more than any other method (as cited in Mei, 2013, p 229) Scholars such as Brown (2001, 2007), Harmer (2007a, 2007b), and Khetaguri & Albay (2016) have noted the extensive use of ODs in ALM However, despite its popularity, there has been inconsistency in defining the primary influence of ODs, highlighting the necessity for a clear operational definition of ODs for this study.
Matthews, Spratt, and Dangerfield (1991) used the term “a drill” or “drills” to indicate
“a type of highly controlled oral practice in which the students respond to a given cue The response varies according to the type of drill” (as cited in Khetaguri & Albay,
In 2016, a definition of a drill emphasized three key characteristics: the teacher's highly controlled role, the use of oral practice as the channel, and the mechanism of students responding to specific cues However, this definition lacks clarity and transparency.
14 how the students respond to the clue despite the reference to a variety of students’ responses which rely on what kind of drills is employed
Tice (2012) defines "drilling" as the process where students listen to a model—be it a teacher, a recording, or a peer—and repeat what they hear This definition contrasts with that of Matthews, Spratt, and Dangerfield (1991), as it emphasizes the method of conducting drills and highlights repetition as the primary focus However, this emphasis on repetition can lead to deficiencies in generalization, since repetition is merely one of the key components of oral drills (ODs).
According to Brown (2001), a drill is defined as a technique that emphasizes a minimal number of language forms, typically one or two, through repetition Drills can be conducted either chorally, with the entire class participating in unison, or individually This definition provides a clear understanding of oral drills (ODs) and their functions in practicing grammatical or phonological structures Brown also highlights the importance of repetition in drilling students and categorizes the technique into choral and individual repetition Unlike Tice (2012), Brown's definition does not limit drills to mere repetition, as it allows for various types of repetition to be utilized.
Harmer (1991) utilized the term “oral drills” and described them as “very controlled
The characterization of drills as "fairly repetitive" (p 92) oversimplifies their essential aspects Harmer (2007a) offers a more nuanced definition, describing drills as a technique where teachers guide students in repeating words or phrases, both collectively and individually, followed by practicing similar substituted phrases This updated perspective provides a more thorough understanding of the fundamental elements of drills.
Drills in language learning involve students' responses, either through choral or individual repetition and substitution, while the teacher acts as a guide However, the term "direction" alone fails to capture the unique aspect of drills, which is their emphasis on highly controlled practice As noted by Richards and Schmidt (2010), the concept of "drill" encompasses these essential elements of structured learning.
Drill is a traditional language teaching technique, especially prevalent in the audiolingual method, that focuses on practicing sounds and sentence structures through guided repetition This method often includes pattern practice, which specifically targets grammar and sentence formation.
Drill is a technique used in language teaching that focuses on grammatical and phonological practice, aligning with Brown's (2001) analysis It emphasizes repetition as a key method for training students, supplemented by various forms of controlled practice Notably, grammatical practice is referred to as "pattern practice" in this context.
Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, and Wheeler (1983) used the term “oral drills” (p 24) or
Drilling, as described by Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, and Wheeler (1983), involves creating new utterances based on an original pattern through a structured approach of stimulus, response, and reinforcement This method begins with simple repetition and progresses to more complex drills, reflecting the behaviorist theories of learning The focus is on students' responses, which evolve from basic repetition to intricate drills, ultimately aiming for students to generate new speech based on provided cues This process underscores the cyclical nature of oral drills (ODs) in language learning.
The analysis indicates that oral drills (ODs) are primarily defined by several key aspects Scholars often use the term "oral" to distinguish these drills in language teaching from those in other fields (Harmer, 1991; Hubbard et al., 1983) Additionally, ODs are frequently labeled as language teaching techniques (Brown, 2001; Richards & Schmidt, 2010) A significant emphasis is placed on repetition and various forms of practice, such as substitution, which are recognized as essential for drilling students (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2007a; Richards & Schmidt, 2010; Tice, 2012) Functionally, ODs aim to provide students with practice in grammar and phonology (Brown, 2001; Richards & Schmidt, 2010) Lastly, a defining characteristic of ODs is their high degree of control, as noted by Matthews, Spratt, and Dangerfield.
Thanks to the anatomy provided above, a definition of ODs employed in this study is proposed as follows:
Oral drills are structured techniques in language teaching that require students to respond to various cues by repeating or practicing specific language elements.
The definition aims to capture the essential features of oral drills (ODs), including terminological transparency, the teacher's highly controlled role, and the mechanism of students responding to various cues through repetition or practice of language aspects Additionally, it provides a brief overview of the typology of ODs, which will be explored in greater detail in the following section.
There is a relatively wide diversity of opinion on the typology of ODs mainly because
(1) the same kind of ODs may differently be termed by various scholars and (2) a kind
Discrepancies in the classification of ODs by different authors can lead to confusion for researchers, who may struggle with whether to include or exclude certain drills from their studies.
There are two main attempts to classify ODs: Brooks (1964, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (2011)
2.3.2.1 Types of ODs according to Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011)
Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) proposed a typology comprising 11 kinds of ODs, the descriptions and corresponding examples of which are presented in detail as follows a Repetition Drill
- The students immediately and accurately repeat what they hear
- This drill is employed to train the students for the utterances in the conversation
T : Good b Single-slot Substitution Drill
- The teacher utters a line of the conversation
- Then, he/she says a word or a phrase (which is called a cue)
- Next, the students say the line provided, replacing a word or a phrase with the given cue
T : Good c Multiple-slot Substitution Drill
- The implementation of this drill is similar to that of Single-slot Substitution Drill
- The teacher provides the students with multiple cues at one time
- The students have to judge where to fit the given cues into the line
- The students are expected to make any change if necessary
- The lesson starts with short dialogues between two people that the students are required to memorize Before that, the students are asked to repeat the dialogue line by line
- The students memorize the dialogue, using imitation
- One student takes one role; the teacher the other
- The students and the teacher then switch roles
- The alternative way of conducting this drill is that one half of the class takes one role and the other half takes the other role
- Student pairs can also play roles for the rest of the class
T : Excuse me What time is it?
Then the students and the teacher switch roles./Student pairs can also play roles for the rest of the class
S : Excuse me What time is it?
S : Thank you e Complete the Dialogue
- The teacher removes some words or phrases from the dialogue with which the students have dealt in advance
- The students are asked to supply the removed words to complete the dialogue
The teacher uses the dialogue in Dialogue Memorization, removing some words from it and asking the students to provide the missing words
T : Excuse me What (blank) is it?
S : uh time What time is it? f Question-and-answer Drill
- The teacher asks the students questions, giving a cue to direct the students to answer
- The students quickly answer the questions
- Or alternatively, the teacher can also provide the students with cues and they ask questions
T : Did you watch TV last night? (give a cue to make the students answer
T : Good Did you do the laundry? (give a cue to make the students answer
S : Did you watch TV last night?
T : Yes, I did Do the laundry
S : Did you do the laundry last night?
T : No, I didn’t g Backward Build-up (Expansion) Drill
- The teacher makes use of this drill as the long utterances cause trouble for the students
- The teacher decomposes the long utterances in smaller phrases
- The teacher has the students repeat phrase by phrase until they can repeat the whole long utterances
- The teacher commences with the final phrase, working backwards toward the beginning of the utterances
- The teacher maintains natural intonation to the highest extent
T : lunch, and dinner (rising and then falling intonation)
T : Breakfast, lunch, and dinner (rising, then rising, and finally falling intonation)
S (repeating) : Breakfast, lunch, and dinner
- The teacher greets one student and asks him/her a question
- He/She answers the question and continues by greeting and asking another student sitting next to him/her a question
- The chain goes around the class
T : Hello, Nam Did you watch TV last night?
Nam : No, I didn’t Hello, Huy Did you do the laundry last night?
Huy : Yes, I did Hello, Nga Did you go to bed late last night?
Nga : No, I didn’t Hello, Thy Did you listen to music last night?
The chain continues i Transformation Drill
- The teacher gives the students a sentence pattern
- The students are expected to transform the given pattern into the expected one, e.g affirmative into negative
S : I didn’t watch TV last night
T : Good I went to bed late last night
S : I didn’t go to bed late last night
T : Good j Use of Minimal Pairs
- The teacher deals with pairs of words that include just one varied sound, e.g night/nine
- Firstly, the students are asked to realize the distinction between the two given words
- Then, the students are expected to properly articulate the words
T : Night Nine (emphasizing on the final sounds)
- The games are intended for the students to have some practice regarding grammatical focuses in the context
- Repetition is also dominant in these games
Games such as Supermarket Alphabet Game are used
2.3.2.2 Types of ODs according to Brooks (1964, as cited in Richards & Rodgers,
Brooks (1964, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) proposed a distinct typology of organizational designs (ODs) that contrasts with the framework established by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) The following outlines the descriptions and examples of ODs as defined by Brooks One key type is repetition.
- The students immediately repeat what they have heard
- They are not allowed to look at the text
- The utterances are required to be brief so that the students can proceed by hearing
- The audio serves as order
- The students are required to repeat the utterances and replace a word with another form of the word
T : I bought the book this morning
S (replacing) : I bought the books this morning
- The students are asked to replace a word with another word
T : I bought this book this morning
S (replacing) : I bought it this morning
- The students are expected to reword an utterance and utter it to another student under orders from the teacher
T : Ask Huy when he did his homework last night
S (rewording) : Huy, when did you do your homework last night?
- The students are supposed to hear an utterance with one word being removed They then repeat the utterance and fill in the blank
T : This is my book and that is (blank)
S (completing) : This is my book and that is yours
- The students are asked to add one word and accordingly change the position of another word
- The students are asked to locate the right place to add one word to the utterance
T : I go to school early Hardly
S (adding) : I hardly go to school early
- The students are required to substitute a phrase or a clause with one word
- A change in voice, mood, modality, etc is made by the students
- The students are asked to combine two single utterances into one
T : I live in a beautiful house It is near the lake
S (combining) : I live in a beautiful house which is near the lake
- First, the students are informed of an expected reaction
- Then, they are asked to respond to an utterance
- The expected reactions can be agreeing, reply to a question, expressing surprise, etc
T (announcing) : (Agree) This restaurant is great
S (responding) : I could not agree with you more
- The students are required to produce an utterance based on some words or phrases provided
- The students keep the change or addition to a minimum
- They are also announced what aspect to use
T (announcing) : (Present continuous) My mom/cooking/the kitchen
S (restoring) : My mom is cooking in the kitchen
Other scholars have contributed to the classification of ODs, but their efforts were limited, often providing only brief descriptions or simple lists of types Their typologies primarily referenced the works of Brooks (1964, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), with some additional ODs included Notably, the compilation by Fransiska and Jurianto (2016) drew from both Brooks' and Larsen-Freeman and Anderson's typologies, suggesting that the number of ODs could potentially be infinite.
Table 2.1 indicates the typologies of ODs by other authors
Table 2.1 Types of ODs according to different authors
Authors Kinds of oral drills
Backward Build-up (Expansion) Drill, Repetition Drill, Chain Drill, Single-slot Substitution Drill, Multiple-slot Substitution Drill, Transformation Drill, and Question-and-answer Drill Richards and
Substitution Drill, Repetition Drill, and Transformation Drill
Repetition Drill, Substitution Drill, Transformation Drill, and Translation
Repetition Drill, Substitution Drill, Transformation Drill, Replacement Drill, Response Drill, Cued Response Drill, Rejoinder Drill, Restatement, Completion Drill, Expansion Drill, Contraction Drill, Integration Drill, Translation Drill
Imitation Drill, Simple Substitution Drill, Variable Substitution Drill
2.3.2.3 Comparing and contrasting the two typologies
As can be seen from the detailed descriptions above, the two systems of classification share certain similarities, but of course there still exists a clear distinction between them
Conceptual framework
From the reviewed literature in the previous sections, a conceptual framework of the current study is constructed and visualized as in Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework of the study
The literature on ODs has been expanding, covering various aspects such as their origins, definitions, characteristics, and advantages and disadvantages A significant portion of research has focused on how these techniques impact students' mastery of different language areas This study aims to address the gap in literature regarding teachers' and learners' perceptions of using ODs in beginner EFL classrooms.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
Mackey and Gass (2005) describe case studies as providing a holistic view of language learning within specific populations and settings, which aligns with the goals of this study The researcher aims to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the use of ODs, consistent with Creswell's (2007) definition of a case study as an in-depth exploration of a bounded system through extensive data collection The term "bounded" refers to the research being confined by time, place, or physical boundaries This study focuses on a specific group of participants—teachers and beginner learners at the Australia International English School (AIES)—thereby establishing clear context and participant boundaries Thus, the case in this research pertains specifically to the application of ODs in beginner EFL classrooms at AIES.
Research methodologies can be broadly categorized into two main types: quantitative and qualitative Quantitative research focuses on numerical data, as highlighted by Mackey and Gass (2005), while qualitative research emphasizes non-numerical data, such as responses to open-ended interview questions and written texts This study employed a mixed methods design to gather both quantitative and qualitative data Quantitative data were collected through three sets of questionnaires, where participants indicated their practices and opinions by selecting appropriate responses Two questionnaires were distributed to teachers—one assessing the frequency of using ODs in classrooms and the other evaluating their perceptions of ODs Additionally, learner participants completed quantitative questionnaires on the same topic To complement this, six semi-structured interviews were conducted, allowing participants to elaborate on their questionnaire responses, thus providing qualitative insights through discussions with the researcher.
Mackey and Gass (2005) describe quantitative and qualitative approaches as “two ends of the continuum” (p 3), allowing researchers to choose their focus Creswell (2007) emphasizes the importance of prioritizing one form of data over the other (p 22) In this context, the researcher recognized the significance of interview data, which provided a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, leading to a primary reliance on a qualitative approach for the current study.
In a nutshell, by its very nature, the current study applied the design of a mixed methods qualitative-based case study
Context of the study
The current study focuses on AIES, which operates six branches across Vietnam, including three in Ho Chi Minh City, one in Binh Duong Province, one in Nha Trang City, and one in Long Thanh Town, Dong Nai Province, with its headquarters in Ho Chi Minh City For decades, AIES has dedicated itself to providing an optimal learning environment to enhance language proficiency among its students However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the school was temporarily closed due to local government mandates.
The school is working to regain its former prestige by enhancing its campus, improving educational facilities, and offering a broader array of programs to adapt to evolving needs.
Data collection was conducted at the Long Thanh Branch, where the researcher is employed, offering a range of courses including Conversational English, TOEIC/IELTS Preparation, and English for Kids Most students enroll in evening Conversational English classes, attending either Shift 1 (17:30 – 19:00) or Shift 2 (19:30 – 21:00), with classes held on alternating days The school categorizes learners into three proficiency levels: beginners, intermediate, and advanced, with beginners making up the largest group The course book used for Conversational English is Four Corners 1, which will be detailed in the next section.
The course book Four Corners 1
The course book that the school teachers are required to follow for all Conversational
Four Corners 1, authored by Richards, Bohlke, and Renn (2012), is an English language course designed for beginner learners, structured into four levels: A1, A2, B1, and B1+ Each level comprises two books; for instance, to complete the A1 level, students must finish both Four Corners 1A and 1B Each book contains six units focused on various familiar topics, with each unit divided into four lessons (A, B, C, and D) In total, beginner learners engage with 12 units, amounting to 48 lessons, to achieve the A1 level The entire course spans approximately 48 class meetings, plus an additional two sessions for the final assessment.
Each unit is well-organized and offers consistent practice, starting with warm-up activities that introduce everyday objects or activities related to the unit's theme Lesson A follows, presenting 8-10 simple vocabulary items with corresponding images to equip learners with essential language skills This is complemented by question patterns that encourage learners to use the new vocabulary The lesson includes a real-life dialogue between two speakers, highlighting the grammatical focus for later practice and contextualizing the vocabulary Subsequently, learners analyze sample sentences that share the same grammatical structure, followed by exercises such as gap-filling and sentence transformation The lesson concludes with a speaking activity, allowing learners to create new sentences using the vocabulary and grammar points covered.
1 See Appendix 9 for a typical lesson of Four Corners 1
2 For the detailed FQ, please see Appendix 1
Lesson B begins with engaging warm-up questions related to the topic It features a straightforward dialogue that incorporates functional expressions aimed at enhancing native-like proficiency After the dialogue, additional alternatives to the expressions used are provided, giving learners more options for real-life application The lesson then progresses to a listening task.
The article outlines a structured language learning unit that includes top-down and bottom-up listening strategies Each lesson culminates in a speaking task where learners apply functional expressions Lesson C mirrors Lesson A by providing vocabulary, dialogues, grammar presentations, and personalized language use Lesson D focuses on authentic texts to enhance reading skills, followed by a writing task that allows learners to create real-life texts, supported by sample writing The unit concludes with a speaking activity to reinforce language learned throughout A recap summarizes the key points, and audio files accompany various tasks, with occasional pronunciation drills included in earlier lessons.
The Four Corners 1 course book, which is mandated for use by school teachers, increases the chances of ODs being hired to instruct students in Lesson A, Lesson B, and Lesson C.
Table 3.1 summarizes the organization of the course book applied to teach beginners at AIES
Table 3.1 The organization of the course book (Four Corners 1)
8-10 lexical items (with pictures/illustrations)
8-10 lexical items (with pictures/illustrations)
Participants
In this study, data was collected from two groups of participants, consisting of ninety-two beginner learners and five teachers, selected through convenience sampling Details regarding the teacher and learner participants will be provided in the subsequent section.
The five teachers in this study shared several key characteristics: each held at least a bachelor's degree in English linguistics, literature, or related fields, meeting the application requirements for AIES Notably, one teacher was pursuing a master's degree in applied linguistics All participants successfully navigated a rigorous employment process that included applications, interviews, class observations, teaching demonstrations, and job offers Additionally, they possessed substantial teaching experience, with a minimum of six years Their commitment and enthusiasm for teaching were particularly impressive.
The five selected teachers participated in the study due to their long-standing professional relationship with the researcher, who had worked alongside them for at least six years, except for one teacher with four years of experience Residing in Ho Chi Minh City and commuting together to Long Thanh Town provided ample opportunities for discussions and clarifications during bus rides Additionally, the researcher fostered strong connections through daily conversations during breaks, allowing for in-depth exploration of the teachers' perceptions alongside the use of research tools.
The selection of the five teachers was primarily based on their responsibility for beginner English classes, where the use of ODs was particularly evident The researcher noted that the course book's organization and the limited target language exposure for beginners made ODs more prominent Additionally, observations and preliminary discussions with the teachers indicated that ODs were utilized more frequently in the early stages of language learning.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, all classes at AIES were canceled, leading to a restructuring of the teaching approach As a result, each of the five teachers was assigned a newly-formed class of beginners, despite their usual focus on more advanced language learning techniques Teachers are expected to adapt and continue their instruction as learners progress to higher levels.
Considering the available time for thorough discussions and the accessibility of necessary data, the researcher selected five teachers, aiming to enhance the richness of the data collected.
Table 3.2 presents a summary of the teacher participants’ background information
Table 3.2 Summary of the teachers’ background information
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 Teacher 5
Gender Male Female Female Female Female
Year(s) of experience in total 8 8 8 11 6
Class in charge FC 1A FC 1A FC 1A FC 1B FC 1A
The study involved 92 learners enrolled in a Conversational English course, taught by five different teachers Conducted in an English language school, the participant population varied significantly in age and prior knowledge of the target language The ages of the learners ranged from 17 to 47, with a mode age of 19 and a median age of approximately 24.
To enroll in Conversational English classes, learners undergo an oral proficiency test to assess their speaking skills, using questions aligned with the course material According to AIES criteria, beginners typically manage basic inquiries about greetings and personal information but struggle with more complex subjects like free time and sports Some learners, despite having limited English knowledge, chose to start from the beginning Notably, a 47-year-old female learner, who had dropped out of school early and lacked awareness of fundamental questions, exemplifies the challenges faced by absolute beginners Her motivation to complete the course stemmed from her desire to immigrate to the U.S.A and reunite with her children.
The main features of the group of the learner respondents are summarized in Table 3.3
Table 3.3 Summary of the learners’ demographic information
Research tools
To address the research questions, the researcher utilized two primary tools: questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, which will be elaborated on in the following sections.
Questionnaires are a widely used method for data collection, particularly in attitudinal and opinion studies, as noted by Mackey and Gass (2005) To explore teachers' and learners' perspectives on the use of ODs, the researcher opted for this method, considering the study's objectives and participant numbers According to Robson and McCartan (2016), effective questionnaire formulation requires more than just generating interesting questions; it should focus on achieving the study's goals The researcher constructed the questionnaires based on a thorough review of relevant literature, which highlighted various classifications of ODs Ultimately, the teacher and learner questionnaires were designed following the typology by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), recognized for its extensive citation and comprehensive coverage of language learning aspects.
The typology proposed by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) presents a challenge due to the potential length of questionnaires resulting from the 11-drill typology Additionally, the frequent use of a specific drill by one teacher may not be mirrored by another, highlighting that the application of oral drills (ODs) is primarily a matter of personal choice (Hubbard et al., 1983, p 24) These factors prompted the researcher to reconsider the approach.
A teacher questionnaire was developed to assess the frequency of the use of ODs, aiming to identify the most commonly utilized ODs This initial survey is referred to as the Frequency Questionnaire (FQ).
The FQ consisted of three key components: (A) background information about teachers, (B) the frequency of each OD's usage, and (C) an appendix that included names, descriptions, and examples of each OD for reference.
FQ, the teacher respondents were asked to estimate the frequency of the use of each
The study utilized a scale from one to five to assess the frequency of Organizational Development (OD) usage in classrooms, with one indicating "Never" and five indicating "Very Often." Specifically, "Never" signifies no use of OD throughout the course, while "Seldom" indicates usage once or twice during the entire course "Sometimes" refers to usage once or twice every six units, "Often" means usage once or twice in each unit, and "Very Often" denotes usage in nearly every lesson This interpretation aligns with the structure of the Four Corners course book, as detailed in Section 3.3, and is based on the researcher’s observations and experiences The Four Corners questionnaire was designed in English, allowing respondents to indicate their answers by ticking the corresponding boxes.
After the collection of the data 3 about the frequency, the researcher selected four ODs that were used with the highest frequency; they are (1) Repetition Drill, (2) Dialogue
Memorization, (3) Single-slot Substitution, and (4) Question-and-answer Drill
The researcher developed a questionnaire to gather teacher respondents' opinions on their use of the four ODs This questionnaire consisted of four sections: Part A focused on collecting background information about the teachers, Part B aimed to explore their general opinions regarding the use of the four ODs, and Part C investigated their specific views on the matter.
2 For the detailed FQ, please see Appendix 1
3 For the detailed data, please refer to Section 4.1
48 about each of the four ODs, and (4) Part D, welcoming any other ideas about the topic in question
The questionnaire consisted of three parts, starting with Part A, which gathered basic information about the teacher respondents, including their age, gender, and the class they taught This section utilized gap-filling and multiple-choice questions to establish the teachers' backgrounds Parts B and C formed the core of the questionnaire, addressing the first research question through a five-point Likert scale, where responses ranged from "Completely Disagree" to "Completely Agree." Specifically, Part B included four items that sought the teachers' overall opinions on the use of ODs, focusing on their suitability for beginners, their importance in the early stages of second language development, the frequency of their use, and the learners' general feelings about ODs from the teachers' perspective.
Part C had four sub-sections, each of which dealt with one kind of OD About
The Repetition Drill consisted of 14 items categorized into two themes: teachers' beliefs regarding its functions (C.1.1 – C.1.5) and their opinions on implementation strategies (C.1.6 – C.1.14) In the case of Dialogue Memorization, items C.2.1 – C.2.3 focused on teachers' beliefs about its functions, while items C.2.4 – C.2.11 aimed to gather their insights on effective methods for conducting this technique.
OD The next sub-section was Single-slot Substitution consisting of Items C.3.1 –
C.3.4 for the functions and Items C.3.5 – C.3.11 for the implementation of this OD
Question-and-answer Drill is the last sub-section of Part C, also coping with the functions (Items C.4.1 – C.4.3) and the implementation (Items C.4.4 – C.4.7)
Part D of the questionnaire allowed respondents to elaborate on specific issues, and it was crafted in English, assuming a high level of English proficiency among the participants.
To enhance the readability of the teacher questionnaire, the researcher collaborated with a male colleague teaching an IELTS class at AIES A meeting was arranged immediately after the school reopened post-COVID-19, where the researcher thoroughly explained the study's objectives and the specific role of the teacher in the pilot testing The colleague agreed to assist in identifying redundant items in the questionnaire and committed to proofreading and finalizing the draft.
After receiving feedback from the piloting teacher, the researcher made several adjustments to the draft questionnaire, addressing formatting issues and correcting typos The revised questionnaire incorporated the teacher's suggestions and aligned with the study's objectives Notably, descriptions and examples of each of the ODs were added to Part B for the convenience of teacher respondents Additionally, redundant items were removed, such as two similar statements in Sub-section 1 (Repetition Drill), which were combined into a single, clearer statement: “The teacher should let the learners change the dialogue to make it fit their real-life language use.”
The revised questionnaires were thoroughly reviewed before distribution to the teacher respondents To facilitate critical reflection, respondents were encouraged to take the questionnaires home and submit them at their convenience This approach was supported by the researcher’s daily meetings with the teachers, resulting in all respondents completing and returning the questionnaires within the week.
Table 3.4 provides a summary of the items used in the teacher questionnaire
Table 3.4 Item distribution in the teacher questionnaire
Demographic information Age, Gender, Book(s) the teacher is teaching A.1 – A.3
General opinions about the use of ODs in beginner
The suitability for beginners B.1 The importance for beginners’ language development B.2
The frequency of the use of the
The learners’ feeling evoked by the use of the ODs B.4
Opinions about the use of each OD
What functions this OD serves C.1.1 – C.1.5 How this OD should be conducted C.1.6 – C.1.14
What functions this OD serves C.2.1 – C.2.3 How this OD should be conducted C.2.4 – C.2.11
What functions this OD serves C.3.1 – C.3.4 How this OD should be conducted C.3.5 – C.3.11
What functions this OD serves C.4.1 – C.4.3 How this OD should be conducted C.4.4 – C.4.7
Open-ended question Other ideas D.1
The learners’ opinions about the application of ODs were one of the central foci of this study The learners, as those who directly experienced the application, were
The researcher developed a second set of questionnaires for learners to address the second research question These learner questionnaires were derived from the same reviewed literature as the teacher questionnaires, reflecting the researcher's observations and experiences.
The learner questionnaire was comprised of four parts: Part A, which gathered the learners’ profiles including names (optional), ages, genders, and classes (books), Part
B, which was intended for examining the learners’ opinions about each kind of OD, Part C, aiming at exploring the learners’ general opinions about the use of ODs in their classes, and Part D, providing a white space for any further elaborations In comparison, this way of organization distinguished the learner questionnaire from the teacher questionnaire since the section about the overall opinions came after in the learner questionnaire This was due to the fact that the learners would have experienced the four ODs, but they may nonetheless be unfamiliar with the terminologies regarding these teaching techniques That being so, Part B, in which each of the four ODs was presented with the descriptions and simple examples, was expected to help the learners get acclimated to the terminologies
In more detail, Part B was formed from four sub-sections The first sub-section
Data collection procedure
The data collection commenced right after the school had resumed its classes (February 14 th , 2022)
Phase 1 (February 14 th – February 20 th )
The researcher secured permission from the branch manager to conduct the study, recognizing its potential to enhance English teaching and learning at the school After arranging a meeting to discuss the study's aims, the manager expressed support However, the COVID-19 pandemic led to multiple school shutdowns, resulting in significant fluctuations in attendance and enrollment upon reopening During this time, the researcher focused on preparing the teacher questionnaire and interviews.
Phase 2 (February 21 st – March 31 st )
On February 21st, the researcher collaborated with a colleague to proofread and finalize the draft teacher questionnaire After receiving the feedback three days later, the researcher dedicated another three days to revise the document and prepare printouts By February 27th, the teacher questionnaire was ready for distribution.
On February 28 th , four copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the four teacher participants, one being absent from work and receiving the copy on March 1 st All the
A total of 58 completed questionnaires were gathered by March 6th Subsequently, four one-time teacher interviews and one two-time interview were conducted by March 31st In parallel, the learner questionnaire was proofread and revised with assistance from a colleague.
Phase 3 (April 1 st – April 27 th )
On April 1st, the researcher received the learner questionnaire and spent two days finalizing it, with printouts ready by April 4th for distribution to 21 learners in the pilot study All questionnaires were submitted by April 6th for reliability testing, which was confirmed before producing 100 copies The researcher then coordinated with teachers to distribute the questionnaires at the end of lessons, where he introduced himself, explained the study's aims, and demonstrated how to complete the questionnaires From April 18th to April 24th, 102 copies were distributed across five classes, and by April 25th, 92 completed questionnaires were collected, with a loss of 10 due to incomplete or lost forms.
The last step in the data collection was the learner interview that took place on April
Table 3.9 (on Page 59) summarizes the data collection that was presented
Table 3.9 Timeline for data collection procedure
Phase Descriptions Time of administration
1 Obtaining research permission February 14 th – February 20 th
Piloting, revising, and making copies of the teacher questionnaires February 21 st – February 27 th Distributing and collecting the teacher questionnaires February 28 th – March 6 th
Conducting the teacher interviews March 7 th – March 31 st
Revising and making copies of the learner questionnaires for the pilot test April 1 st – April 3 rd
Distributing and collecting the piloting questionnaires April 4 th – April 6 th
Confirming the reliability and making copies of the final draft of the learner questionnaires
Distributing and collecting the learner questionnaires April 18 th – April 25 th
Conducting the learner interviews April 27 th
Data analysis procedure
The raw information collected from the questionnaires and interviews constituted two sets of data that needed analyzing
The quantitative data collected from the five-point Likert scale in teacher and learner questionnaires was processed using SPSS, with the results displayed in tables and pie charts This analysis, detailed in Chapter 4, aims to partially address the two research questions.
The second set of data was obtained from interviews and open-ended questionnaire responses The researcher transcribed the recorded interviews and integrated the qualitative data from the questionnaires Thematic analysis was employed to identify emerging topics for clarification.
The study analyzed 60 questionnaire responses, incorporating direct and indirect quotations to enhance the findings Teacher participants were identified as T1, T2, T3, etc., while learner participants were labeled L1, L2, L3, etc The data collected is believed to comprehensively address the two research questions posed.
The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative data to highlight the contrasting perceptions of teachers and learners regarding the use of ODs in classroom settings, with detailed findings to be discussed in Section 4.4.