INTRODUCTION
Background and rationale for the study
English is widely recognized worldwide as a "link language" that facilitates communication between people who do not share the same native language (Harmer, 2007b) Its critical role in international exchanges has been acknowledged internationally (Graddol, 2006), making it the most commonly used language for cross-cultural and global interactions (Tiwari, 2008, p 1).
Vietnam has experienced a significant rise in English language teaching and learning both within formal education and outside of it over the past decades (Hoang, 2021) This trend is driven by increased Foreign Direct Investment (Nguyen, 2019) and a growing number of international visitors to Vietnam, supported by the country's participation in various global organizations (Phan, 2017; Hoang, 2021) In the formal education sector, English has been integrated into curricula at all levels from primary to tertiary institutions, reflecting the nationwide emphasis on English language proficiency (Hoang, 2021; Nguyen, 2012; Nguyen & Phung, 2015) Outside the school system, the rise of private language centers and schools catering to the demand for English learning has led to high enrollment rates, especially in major cities, offering diverse courses at various proficiency levels (Hoang, 2021).
The large and diverse population of English language learners varies significantly in terms of motivation, age, and proficiency levels (Ur, 1996) Recognizing these differences is essential for teachers when designing effective teaching strategies, organizing lessons, and providing appropriate supplemental materials (Brown, 2000; Jafar & Meenakshi, 2012) Among these factors, student proficiency levels have garnered considerable attention, as proficiency directly impacts language learning outcomes and instructional approaches (Brown, 2000).
English language teachers frequently discuss students' proficiency levels, which are typically categorized into beginners, intermediate, and advanced stages (Harmer, 2007a) Teaching beginners is often viewed as less demanding and more motivating for teachers because learners tend to show noticeable improvement early on (Harmer, 1998; Brown, 2000; Pachina).
Teaching beginners is widely regarded as one of the most challenging levels of language instruction, as many educators and practitioners emphasize (Brown, 2000; McIver, 2020; Pachina, 2020; Sigworth, 2016; Turner, 2019) Learners at this stage often lack prior knowledge of English or have only minimal exposure, which can increase their stress levels and hinder their confidence (Harmer, 1998; Sigworth, 2016) The difficulties faced by beginners, including feelings of inadequacy and anxiety, can lead to higher dropout rates and pose significant challenges for educators in designing effective instruction.
At the Australia International English School (AIES), beginner students often repeat words or dialogue lines after teachers or audio recordings, illustrating the use of oral drills (ODs) Oral drills are a core component of the Audio-lingual Method (ALM), which emphasizes repetitive practice to develop language fluency and accuracy (Nunan, 2003, p 5; Nunan, 2015) This method leverages structured repetition to reinforce language patterns, making oral drills a fundamental strategy in early English language learning Incorporating oral drills into teaching practices can significantly enhance learners' pronunciation, listening, and speaking skills.
The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) is historically recognized as one of the most influential language teaching methods (Aprianto, Ritonga, Marlius, & Nusyur, 2020; Qin, 2019) It has enjoyed long-lasting popularity and continues to influence current language instruction through its variants (Nunan, 2003; Brown, 2001, 2007) At its core, ALM is grounded in structural linguistics and behaviorism, which are fundamental to its approach.
Researchers exploring online resources and seeking effective teaching strategies for beginner learners often find that incorporating proven techniques is essential According to experts like Brand (2017), Buckley (2019), Raap (2020), and York (2020), one commonly recommended approach is integrating engaging and beginner-friendly activities to facilitate language acquisition This evidence-based method supports novice learners by building their confidence and reinforcing foundational skills, making it a popular choice among educators aiming to optimize early language instruction.
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 when teaching a language, as highlighted by Tiwari and Reid (2016), who emphasized the usefulness of oral drills (ODs), especially for beginners Many language educators, including Harmer (1998, 2007a) and Brown (2000), favor the use of ODs in beginner-level classes due to their effectiveness Despite criticism from scholars like Wong and VanPatten (2003), traditional techniques such as ODs continue to be widely employed, even by those who do not follow the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM), illustrating their enduring relevance in language teaching.
Although using Online Dictionaries (ODs) is a common practice in beginner English classes, there is limited research on teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of this technique, particularly within the Vietnamese context This gap in the literature motivated the researcher to conduct a systematic study to explore how both educators and students perceive the use of ODs in early language learning Understanding these perceptions can help improve instructional strategies and promote more effective vocabulary acquisition in beginner classrooms.
Aims of the study
This study investigates teachers' perceptions of using Online Devices (ODs) in beginner EFL classrooms at AIES, highlighting how educators incorporate technology to enhance language learning Additionally, it explores beginner learners’ opinions on the application of ODs in early-stage English classes, providing insights into student experiences and attitudes The research aims to understand the effectiveness and acceptance of online devices as valuable tools in foundational English education at AIES.
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 fill a significant gap in the literature by exploring teachers' and learners' perceptions of implementing Online Devices (ODs) in teaching English at the beginner level Unlike previous research that primarily focused on the effectiveness of ODs in enhancing language performance, this study provides a systematic investigation into how teachers currently utilize ODs and their perceptions of their effectiveness in beginner classes Additionally, insights from learners’ opinions are highlighted, offering valuable information for teachers to reflect on and potentially improve their instructional practices.
Scope of the study
This study was conducted at AIES Long Thanh Branch in Dong Nai Province to examine teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on the use of Oral Drills (ODs) in beginner EFL classrooms It involved 92 novice learners enrolled in a Conversational English course and five teachers responsible for their respective classes Among various types of ODs, the study focused on the four most frequently used methods: Repetition Drill, Dialogue Memorization, Single-slot Substitution Drill, and Question-and-answer Drill, with detailed justifications provided in Sections 3.5.1.1 and 4.1.
Outline of the thesis
This study is structured into five chapters, beginning with Chapter 1, which introduces the research background, aims, research questions, scope, and study outline Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive theoretical background through a literature review, discussing key concepts related to beginner English learners, the Audiolingual Method, and other relevant issues, including working definitions, typologies, characteristics, and previous research findings Chapter 3 details the research methodology, covering the design, study site, tools, participants, data collection procedures, and analysis methods In Chapter 4, the main results from interviews and questionnaires are presented and discussed, offering insights into the study’s findings The final chapter, Chapter 5, concludes the research with a summary of key conclusions, implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Beginner learners of English and teaching beginner learners of English
Learners are typically categorized into beginners, intermediate, and advanced levels based on their language proficiency (Harmer, 2007b; Ur, 1996) However, educators often face challenges reaching a consensus on the precise meaning of these terms, as perceptions of what constitutes a "beginner" can vary among individuals (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2007b) This disagreement stems from the fact that "what is beginning for some may not be for others" (Brown, 2001, p 96), highlighting the need for clear and standardized definitions of these proficiency levels to ensure conceptual clarity in language instruction.
According to Brown (2001), beginners are individuals with little or no prior knowledge of the target language, often knowing only a few hundred words and simple survival phrases Brown differentiates between "true beginners," who have no prior experience with the language, and "false beginners," who may have some limited familiarity Understanding these distinctions is essential for designing effective language learning programs tailored to beginners' specific needs.
Harmer (1998, 2007a) defines beginners as individuals who “do not know any English,” while introducing the concept of “false beginners” as those who “cannot really use any English but know quite a lot,” highlighting different levels of language knowledge among learners It is important to note that Harmer’s “beginners” are considered “true beginners” in Brown (2001), emphasizing variations in terminology and understanding of initial language proficiency Both definitions highlight the significance of the amount of language learners have already acquired, as discussed by Ur, which impacts the approach to language teaching and curriculum design for beginner learners.
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
This typology can be complex, with some categories overlapping, such as "beginners with or without second language learning experience," which are often considered synonymous with "absolute beginners" and "false beginners." Notably, the category of "absolute beginners" aligns with Brown's (2000) concept of "true beginners," highlighting the nuanced distinctions within language learning levels.
In recent years, there has been significant global effort to establish standardized methods for assessing language learner competence (Harmer, 2007b) The most widely recognized framework is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), published by the Council of Europe in 2001, which provides a universal scale from A1 (beginner) to C2 (proficient) This framework includes detailed descriptors known as Can Do statements, which describe learners' language abilities at each level (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
With the rise of English as a global language (Graddol, 2006), it is widely recognized that "there is no such thing as an absolute beginner of English," as people worldwide can identify common phrases like "made in Vietnam." This reflects the pervasive exposure to English in various contexts, making language acquisition a gradual and ongoing process Understanding the role of formulaic expressions and familiar words is essential for effective language learning and communication in today's interconnected world.
“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
Beginner English learners can be categorized as "true" or "absolute beginners" and "false beginners." True beginners have little to no prior knowledge of English, while false beginners may have some previous exposure to the language Despite being a rare group, true or absolute beginners are still included within the broader definition of beginner learners.
2.1.2 Teaching beginner learners of English
Teaching beginners is often considered motivating for both teachers and learners because their progress is easily observable, as highlighted by Brown (2000) and Harmer (1998, 2007a) However, Brown (2000) also asserts that teaching beginners can present unique challenges, requiring specific strategies to effectively support early language development.
Brown (2000) describes the highest level of language instruction as the most challenging, citing the limited amount of the target language learners have acquired at this stage While he emphasizes the difficulties faced at advanced levels, Harmer acknowledges that teaching beginners can also present significant challenges, though he does not specifically categorize it as the most difficult phase.
Research by 1998 and 2007a highlights the high risk of failure in teaching beginners due to learning-related stress that exceeds learners’ expectations (Harmer, 1998, 2007a) Beginner learners often face difficulties with language comprehension and production, which can discourage them from progressing in their language proficiency (Harmer, 2007b) As a result, many beginners tend to refrain from language learning altogether (Harmer, 2007a, 2007b) To reduce the relatively high dropout rate among beginner language learners (Harmer, 2007b), it is essential to consider specific teaching strategies tailored to beginners’ needs.
Beginner language learners have limited abilities to acquire and retain lexical items, structural patterns, and conceptual ideas, necessitating tailored teaching approaches (Brown, 2000) Since traditional methods used for advanced learners may not suit beginners, educators must develop specific strategies that avoid overwhelming students with abstract discussions or excessive linguistic knowledge in their native language (Harmer, 1997, 2007; Brown, 2000) Instead, focus should be on teaching uncomplicated vocabulary and providing enjoyable, stress-free practice opportunities to enhance learning effectiveness (Harmer, 1998, 2007) Utilizing Oral Drilling (ODs) is widely recommended for beginner classes, aligning with the principles of the Audiolingual Method, to reinforce language patterns through repetitive and engaging exercises (Brown, 2000; Harmer, 2007; 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 training program to enhance military personnel’s conversational fluency in languages used by Allied forces and adversaries, following government requests (Brown, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) The program emphasizes oral activities such as pronunciation and pattern drills, along with role-playing dialogues to improve spoken language skills (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)
ALM emerged in the 1950s, grounded in the principles of structural linguistics and behaviorism According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), the rise of structural linguistics was a response to the nineteenth-century view that language study was linked to philosophy and a mentalist approach to grammar, considering grammar as a branch of logic From this perspective, language is viewed as “a system of structurally related elements for the encoding of meaning,” emphasizing systematic and structural understanding of language.
Language elements are regarded as the fundamental building blocks, ranging from phonemes and morphemes to words, phrases, and sentences (Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) Structural linguists emphasize that mastering a language involves understanding and integrating these core components This hierarchical structure highlights the importance of foundational elements in effective language learning (Celce-Murcia, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and “applying the accumulations and experiences into generating language” (Lin & Chen, 2010, p 22)
Structural linguistics emphasizes the dominance of spoken over written language, highlighting that spoken language is primary in communication (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodger, 2001) As Brook (1964) noted, "primarily what is spoken and only secondarily what is written" (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p 55), reinforcing the priority of oral skills Language learning instruction typically follows a progression: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with careful grading of difficulty to support learners at different levels—beginners with simple speech, intermediates with more complex language, and advanced learners with intricate structures (Harmer, 2007a; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
ALM (Audio-Lingual Method) integrates principles from structural linguistics and emphasizes the behavioral theory of learning, which is grounded in American behavioral psychology According to this approach, humans are capable of a wide range of behaviors, including language acquisition, through conditioning and habit formation Behavioral psychologists posit that learning occurs as a result of repeated practice and reinforcement, making this framework central to ALM's instructional strategies.
Learning, including language acquisition, is fundamentally a process of habit formation, where learners develop skills through repeated behaviors until they become automatic Successful language learning relies on three key factors: a stimulus that initiates behaviors, a response triggered by the stimulus, and reinforcement that rewards or corrects the response, encouraging the recurrence of proper behaviors This process emphasizes the importance of repetition and reinforcement in establishing lasting language habits.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) emphasized the crucial role of reinforcement in increasing the likelihood of a behavior repeating and becoming a habit, which is central to the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) This approach views language learning as a sequence of proper stimulus-response activities, where the stimulus is the teaching input, the response is the learner's reaction, and reinforcement involves positive feedback from teachers, peers, or self-satisfaction In language teaching, effective reinforcement—such as praise or positive remarks—plays a vital role in encouraging students to repeat correct language behaviors and solidify their learning habits.
ALM dominated language teaching in the United States throughout much of the 20th century, supported by strong theoretical foundations, well-designed coursebooks, and observable student progress through intensive conversation practice (Celce-Murcia, 2014; Nunan, 2003; Brown, 2001, 2007) Its prominence was primarily due to its effective teaching methods and tangible classroom achievements, which gained widespread acceptance (Brown, 2007) However, by the 1970s, ALM faced serious criticism due to shifts in linguistic theory; the rise of Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar challenged the behavioral and structural linguistics underpinning ALM (Nunan, 2003; Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) Theoretical critiques argued that ALM's foundations were inadequate for understanding the true nature of language and language acquisition (Brown, 2001; Nunan, 2003, 2015) Additionally, ALM's focus on rote conversation practice failed to equip learners for authentic communicative situations, ultimately impeding their long-term communicative proficiency (Liu & Shi, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 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 Extensive Reading Method remains highly popular today, supported by research (Nusyur, 2020; Lui & Shin, 2007; Qin, 2019; Nunan, 2003; Mei, 2018) A key feature of this approach is the use of a variety of Original Documents (ODs), which continue to be widely employed in language learning (Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007b; Nunan, 2003; Nunan, 2015; Wong & VanPatten, 2003) The use of ODs is particularly effective for beginners learning English, making it an ideal method to enhance early language acquisition (Harmer, 2007a; Nunan, 2015; Mei, 2018).
Oral drills (ODs) in English language teaching
Overt Dysfluencies (ODs) are a distinctive feature of the Audiolingual Method (ALM), which, according to Nunan (2000), "has probably had a greater impact on second and foreign language teaching than any other method" (as cited in Mei, 2013, p 229) Many scholars, including Brown (2001, 2007), Harmer (2007a, 2007b), and Khetaguri & Albay (2016), agree that ODs are extensively employed within ALM Despite the method's popularity, there has been a lack of uniformity in terminology regarding its main influence—ODs—highlighting the need to develop a clear operational definition of ODs specific to 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, Pérez-Paredes emphasizes three key characteristics of a drill: the teacher’s highly controlled role, the oral practice channel, and the mechanism where students respond to specific cues However, this definition lacks clarity regarding how students respond to these cues, as it references a variety of responses that depend on the type of drill employed.
Tice (2012) defines "drilling" as students listening to a model provided by a teacher, tape, or peer and then repeating what they hear, emphasizing repetition as the main method Unlike Matthews, Spratt, and Dangerfield (1991), Tice's definition focuses on the procedural aspect of drills, highlighting repetition as the primary measure However, this emphasis on repetition can lead to limitations in students' ability to generalize language skills, as repetition is only one component of effective oral drills (ODs).
According to Brown (2001), a drill is defined as a technique that emphasizes practicing a limited number of language forms, such as grammatical or phonological structures, through repetitive exercises These drills are typically conducted either chorally, with the entire class repeating together, or individually Brown highlights repetition as a key method in drilling students, categorizing drills into choral and individual repetition Unlike other scholars who focus solely on repetition, Brown’s definition emphasizes the functions of oral drills (ODs) in practicing specific language forms, providing a clearer understanding of their purpose in language learning.
Harmer (1991) utilized the term “oral drills” and described them as “very controlled
Drills, often described as repetitive exercises, are fundamental language teaching techniques that involve students practicing language patterns through chorus or individual repetition, often including substitution of similar phrases under the teacher’s guidance Harmer (2007a) emphasized that effective drills require active student responses and a teacher’s role as a direction giver, ensuring controlled practice of target language forms Nonetheless, the term “direction” alone does not fully capture the highly controlled nature of drills, which are designed to facilitate precise and structured language use According to Richards and Schmidt (2010), “drill” is defined as a technique that emphasizes controlled practice through repetitive exercises to reinforce language patterns.
Drill is a fundamental technique in traditional language teaching, especially within the audiolingual method, used to reinforce sounds and sentence patterns through guided repetition This practice, often referred to as pattern practice, focuses on improving grammar and sentence formation skills By repeatedly practicing specific language structures, drills help learners solidify their understanding and fluency, making them an essential tool in methods that emphasize habit formation and oral proficiency.
Drill is a language teaching technique primarily used for grammatical and phonological practice, emphasizing repetition as a central method for student training Similar to Brown (2001), it involves controlled practice methods, with grammatical exercises often referred to as “pattern practice.” This approach highlights the importance of repetitive drills in reinforcing language patterns and aiding student mastery.
Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, and Wheeler (1983) used the term “oral drills” (p 24) or
Drilling in language teaching involves demonstrating the formation of new utterances based on original patterns through a structured stimulus-response-reinforcement cycle, starting with simple repetition and progressing to more complex drills This approach aligns with the principles of behaviorist learning theories, emphasizing repetitive practice to reinforce language patterns The stages of student response range from basic repetition to more intricate drills, with the ultimate goal of enabling students to produce new speech based on given cues and original patterns This methodology, as proposed by Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, and Wheeler (1983), can be seen as a generalization of Output Drills (ODs), highlighting their role in fostering active speech production.
Analysis reveals that Oral Drills (ODs) are primarily focused on providing students with grammatical or phonological practice, emphasizing repetition and various forms of practice such as substitution to enhance language learning Scholars differentiate the term “oral” from drills in other fields to highlight its specific application in language teaching, as seen in works by Harmer (1991) and Hubbard et al (1983) Many researchers, including Brown (2001) and Richards and Schmidt (2010), categorize ODs as effective language teaching techniques A key characteristic of ODs is their high degree of control, which ensures structured and focused practice for students Overall, ODs serve as controlled language exercises aimed at reinforcing grammatical and phonological skills through repetitive practice.
Thanks to the anatomy provided above, a definition of ODs employed in this study is proposed as follows:
Oral drills are highly controlled language teaching techniques that focus on improving students' speaking skills through structured practice These drills involve students responding to various cues by repeating or practicing specific aspects of the language, enhancing their pronunciation, fluency, and overall communication skills Incorporating oral drills into language instruction promotes active participation and helps learners internalize key language patterns effectively.
Oral Drills (ODs) are characterized by key features such as terminological transparency through oral drills, a highly controlled teacher’s role, and a mechanism where students respond to various cues by repeating or practicing specific language aspects This definition aims to encompass the core elements of ODs while acknowledging their typology, which is discussed in greater detail in the subsequent section.
There is a relatively wide diversity of opinion on the typology of ODs mainly because
Different scholars may use varying terminology for the same types of Obstetric Difficulties (ODs), leading to inconsistencies in classification Additionally, one author's categorization of ODs may exclude certain drills that another author includes, creating challenges for researchers in deciding which drills to incorporate or omit in 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 Description:
- 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 Description:
- 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 Description:
- 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 Description:
- 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 Description:
- 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 Descriptions:
- 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 Description:
- 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 Description:
- 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)
S : Night Nine k Grammar Game Description:
- 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 oral drills (ODs) that differs from Larsen-Freeman and Anderson’s (2011) classification According to Brooks, one key type of OD is repetition, which involves learners practicing the same language elements multiple times to reinforce learning For example, repeated pronunciation of vocabulary words or entire phrases helps solidify pronunciation and retention This approach emphasizes the importance of repetitive practice to achieve fluency and accuracy in language use.
- 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
Several scholars have contributed to the classification of language output difficulties (ODs), although their efforts were often limited to brief descriptions or simple lists Their typologies primarily incorporated the frameworks proposed by Brooks (1964) and Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), with additional ODs added over time Notably, the classification compiled by Fransiska and Jurianto (2016) merged these existing typologies, which potentially leads to an ever-expanding list of ODs, reflecting the complexity and diversity of this linguistic challenge.
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
Repetition or Repetition Drill is a common activity in both linguistic typologies, but Brooks (1964, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) emphasizes two specific requirements: students should not look at the text, and their utterances should be brief, which are not included in Larsen-Freeman and Anderson’s (2011) description of Repetition Drill Another shared oral drill across both typologies is the Transformation Drill, where students modify given patterns into the target structure, such as converting sentences from active to passive voice These drills are fundamental components in structured language teaching, promoting accuracy and fluency.
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 beginners The program is structured into four levels—A1, A2, B1, and B1+—with each level divided into two books to facilitate gradual learning To achieve the A1 level, learners need to complete two books, Four Corners 1A and 1B, each consisting of six units on familiar topics Each unit contains four lessons—Lesson A, B, C, and D—making a total of 12 units and 48 lessons for the entire beginner course The complete course duration is approximately 48 class sessions, plus two additional sessions dedicated to final assessments.
Each unit follows a consistent structure, beginning with warm-up activities using images of everyday objects or activities to introduce the main topic Next, Lesson A presents 8-10 vocabulary items with corresponding pictures, ensuring learners acquire essential words for the unit This is followed by exercises where learners respond to questions using the target vocabulary Lesson A also includes real-life dialogues that incorporate the grammatical points and vocabulary, serving as models for speaking practice The grammatical focus is implicitly taught through analyzing sample sentences and completing follow-up exercises like filling in gaps or transforming sentences The unit concludes with a speaking activity where learners practice integrating vocabulary and grammatical concepts to produce new utterances, reinforcing their understanding and communication skills.
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 warm-up questions to engage learners with the topic It features a simple dialogue containing functional expressions designed to promote native-like language proficiency After the dialogue, alternative phrases are provided to give learners more options for real-life communication The lesson concludes with a listening task to reinforce understanding and auditory skills.
This educational unit systematically develops learners' language skills through a variety of engaging activities It incorporates both top-down and bottom-up listening approaches, culminating in speaking tasks that apply functional language Lessons B and C reinforce vocabulary, dialogue use, grammar, and personalized language practice, with Lesson B focusing on applying learned expressions Lesson D employs authentic texts to enhance reading skills such as skimming, scanning, and contextual guessing, while also including writing tasks supported by sample models to encourage real-life text production The unit concludes with a review to consolidate learning Complementary audio files support vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading activities, and pronunciation drills are occasionally incorporated into Lessons A, B, or C to further reinforce pronunciation accuracy.
A quick review of Four Corners 1 reveals that it is the coursebook teachers are required to follow closely, which increases the likelihood of hiring ODs to teach students across Lessons A, B, and C Implementing this standardized curriculum ensures consistent teaching methods and content delivery, making it a vital resource for educators The reliance on Four Corners 1 promotes uniformity in language instruction and improves learner outcomes, thereby encouraging the employment of qualified ODs for these specific lessons Overall, adhering to this coursebook is essential for maintaining teaching quality and meeting curriculum standards.
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
This study involved two groups of participants: ninety-two beginner learners and five teachers, selected through convenience sampling The specific characteristics of both teachers and learners will be detailed in the following section.
The five teachers in this study shared several key characteristics, including possessing at least a bachelor’s degree in English linguistics, literature, or related fields, which was a mandatory qualification for employment at AIES One teacher was further pursuing a master’s degree in applied linguistics All participants successfully completed a rigorous hiring process involving application, interviews, class observations, and teaching demonstrations, culminating in job offers Additionally, each teacher had a minimum of six years of teaching experience, demonstrating their expertise and long-term dedication to the profession Notably, these teachers exhibited strong commitment and enthusiasm for their teaching roles, contributing to a positive learning environment.
The five teachers were selected as participants based on their close working relationships with the researcher, who shared the same shifts and had been colleagues for at least six years, except for one who had worked at AIES for four years Living in Ho Chi Minh City and commuting together by school bus to Long Thanh Town allowed ample time for discussion and clarification of emerging issues Additionally, the researcher maintained strong rapport with the teachers through daily conversations during break times, providing numerous opportunities to explore their perceptions deeply beyond traditional research methods.
The five teachers were selected because they managed beginner English classes, where the use of Oral Descriptions (ODs) was particularly prominent due to the limited target language acquisition at this stage Observations and discussions with the teachers indicated that ODs were more frequently used in early-stage language learning, while more advanced students saw a shift to other teaching techniques Typically, AIES teachers continue with their classes as students progress to higher levels; however, all classes were canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in each teacher being assigned a new beginner class afterward.
The researcher selected five teachers as participants, considering the available time for in-depth discussions and their accessibility to essential data This deliberate choice aimed to ensure the collection of rich, meaningful data that would contribute significantly to the study's insights.
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
This study involved 92 learners enrolled in a Conversational English course, taught by five different teachers at an English language school The learner population was diverse in age and language proficiency, reflecting a non-homogeneous group Participants' ages ranged from 17 to 47 years old, with the most common age being 19 and the median age approximately 24, highlighting the varied backgrounds of the learners.
To enroll in Conversational English classes, learners' oral proficiency was initially assessed through an oral test aligned with course topics, scored based on AIES criteria Beginners typically could respond to simple questions about greetings, names, and ages but struggled with more complex topics like free time or sports Some learners, despite some prior English experience, chose to start from scratch, including true beginners such as a 47-year-old woman who had dropped out of school early and was unfamiliar with basic questions Her participation was motivated by her desire to immigrate to the U.S and reunite with her children, highlighting the importance of personalized assessments in tailoring effective English language courses.
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
The researcher employed two primary research methods—questionnaires and semi-structured interviews—to effectively address the research questions These tools enabled comprehensive data collection, providing valuable insights that will be discussed in detail in the following sections.
Questionnaires are among the most widely used methods for data collection in attitudinal and opinion studies due to their ability to reach large respondent groups (Mackey & Gass, 2005) In this study, the researcher selected questionnaires to explore teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on the use of ODs, aligning with the study’s aims and participant size According to Robson and McCartan (2016), designing effective questionnaires requires careful planning, as they should serve the research objectives rather than be based solely on interesting questions The researcher developed the questionnaires by reviewing relevant literature, specifically adopting Larsen-Freeman and Anderson’s (2011) typology of ODs, which is widely recognized and covers multiple aspects of language learning.
The selection of the Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) typology presented a challenge, as their 11-drill classification risked making questionnaires overly lengthy Additionally, since the application of teaching drills (ODs) varies widely among teachers due to personal choice (Hubbard et al., 1983), some drills may be frequently used by one teacher but entirely absent from another’s practice To address these issues, the researcher developed a teacher questionnaire focused on the frequency of OD usage, aiming to identify the most commonly employed drills This led to the creation of the first teacher questionnaire, called the Frequency Questionnaire (FQ 2), designed to gather data on how often different ODs are used in teaching.
The FQ consisted of three key components: (A) teachers’ background information, (B) the frequency of each observation decision (OD) used, and (C) an appendix featuring the names, descriptions, and examples of each OD for reference.
FQ, the teacher respondents were asked to estimate the frequency of the use of each
This study examines how frequently teachers implement Observed Pedagogical (OD) strategies in their classrooms, using a five-point scale ranging from Never to Very Often Teachers indicated the frequency by selecting options from “Never,” meaning no use throughout the course, to “Very Often,” indicating use in almost every lesson The scale details that “Seldom” refers to usage once or twice during the entire course, “Sometimes” signifies usage once or twice every six units, “Often” indicates use once or twice per unit, and “Very Often” corresponds to nearly every lesson This measurement aligns with the organization of the Four Corners course book, as described in Section 3.3, and was primarily based on the researcher’s observations and experience The Feedback Questionnaire (FQ), developed in English, allows teachers to easily record their responses by ticking boxes corresponding to the scale’s numbers, facilitating efficient data collection on teaching practices.
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 comprehensive questionnaire to gather teachers’ opinions on their use of the four Open Distance Learning (ODL) methods The questionnaire consisted of four parts: Part A collected teachers’ background information, Part B explored their overall perceptions of using the four ODL strategies, Part C investigated their detailed opinions on each method, and the final section aimed to analyze attitudes toward implementing these educational approaches This structured approach ensures a thorough understanding of teachers' perspectives and experiences with ODL, providing valuable insights for improving online education effectiveness.
2 For the detailed FQ, please see Appendix 1
3 For the detailed data, please refer to Section 4.1 about each of the four ODs, and (4) Part D, welcoming any other ideas about the topic in question
Part A of the survey collected teachers’ basic demographic information, including age, gender, and the classes they teach (A.1–A.3), using gap-fill and multiple-choice questions to understand their backgrounds Parts B and C, the core sections of the questionnaire, focused on addressing the first research question by assessing teachers’ perceptions of Online Devices (ODs) through five-point Likert scale items Part B specifically included four statements evaluating teachers’ overall opinions about ODs, such as their suitability for beginners (B.1), their importance in early language development (B.2), the frequency of use (B.3), and teachers’ perceptions of students’ experiences with ODs (B.4) Respondents indicated their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree).
Part C had four sub-sections, each of which dealt with one kind of OD About
This study explores teachers’ beliefs and opinions regarding Repetition Drill and Dialogue Memorization techniques A total of 14 items were used, divided into two main themes: teachers’ beliefs about the functions of Repetition Drill (C.1.1 – C.1.5) and their opinions on implementing this method (C.1.6 – C.1.14) Similarly, for Dialogue Memorization, items C.2.1 – C.2.3 assess teachers’ beliefs about its functions, while items C.2.4 – C.2.11 focus on their perspectives on how to effectively conduct 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)
The questionnaire concluded with Part D, allowing respondents to elaborate on specific issues It was designed in English, assuming that participants possess a high proficiency in the language.
To ensure the readability of the teacher questionnaire, the researcher collaborated with a male IELTS instructor at AIES A meeting was scheduled immediately after school resumed post-COVID-19 to discuss the study's objectives and clarify the teacher's role in pilot testing The teacher agreed to assist in identifying redundant items, proofreading, and refining the draft questionnaire, contributing to the instrument's overall quality and validity.
After several days, the piloting teacher provided feedback on the questionnaire, highlighting the need for format adjustments and typo corrections The researcher revised the questionnaire accordingly, incorporating the teacher’s suggestions and aligning it with the study’s objectives To enhance clarity for teacher respondents, descriptions and examples of each Objective Delivery (OD) were added to the relevant sub-sections in Part B Redundant items were removed, such as two similar statements in Sub-section 1 (Repetition Drill), which were consolidated from “I should let learners personalize the dialogue” and “The learners should change the dialogue according to their likings” into a single, clearer statement: “The teacher should let the learners change the dialogue to make it fit their real-life language use,” improving the questionnaire’s coherence and effectiveness for SEO purposes.
The revised questionnaire was carefully reviewed before distribution to teacher respondents, ensuring clarity and accuracy for reliable data collection Teachers were provided with sufficient time for critical reflection by allowing them to take the questionnaires home and submit their completed responses at their convenience This flexible approach was facilitated through daily meetings with the researcher, enabling ongoing support and engagement Ultimately, all teacher respondents submitted their complete questionnaires within the same week, demonstrating prompt participation and commitment to the study.
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 EFL classrooms
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
This study focused on learners’ opinions regarding the application of ODs, as their firsthand experiences provide valuable insights into the phenomenon To address the second research question, a second set of questionnaires was distributed to learners, crafted based on literature review, researcher observations, and experience The learner questionnaire items were closely aligned with those from the teacher questionnaire, ensuring consistency and relevance in capturing perceptions of ODs.
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
The Repetition Drill comprised 14 items exploring learners' perceptions of its effectiveness, encompassing Items B.1.1 to B.1.5 Additionally, the questionnaire assessed students’ preferences and expectations regarding the implementation of this OD, covered by Items B.1.6 to B.1.14 Results indicate that learners generally found the technique beneficial for language acquisition while expressing specific preferences for its application methods, highlighting the importance of tailoring repetition drills to meet learners’ expectations for optimal language learning outcomes.
Dialogue Memorization, Items B.2.1 – B.2.3 concentrated on the effectiveness and
Items B.2.4 – B.2.11 on the learners’ preferences and expectations, bringing a total of
11 items As for Single-slot Substitution, a sum of 11 items was used, with Items
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 obtained approval from the branch manager to conduct the study and coordinated a meeting to discuss its aims and implementation, gaining her support due to its potential to enhance English teaching and learning at the school However, COVID-19 pandemic-related school shutdowns and subsequent fluctuating attendance and enrollment posed challenges During the school's reopening phases, the researcher utilized the time to prepare and conduct teacher questionnaires and interviews to gather valuable insights.
Phase 2 (February 21 st – March 31 st )
On February 21st, the researcher collaborated with a colleague to proofread and complete the draft teacher questionnaire Within three days, the colleague returned the reviewed questionnaire with comments, prompting the researcher to spend another three days revising and preparing printouts By February 27th, the teacher questionnaire was finalized and ready for distribution, ensuring a smooth and timely survey process.
On February 28th, four copies of the questionnaire were distributed to teacher participants, with one participant receiving their copy on March 1st due to absence All completed questionnaires were collected before March 6th Subsequently, four one-on-one teacher interviews and one two-person interview were conducted from March 1st to March 31st Concurrently, the learner questionnaire was proofread and revised with the assistance of a colleague to ensure accuracy and clarity.
Phase 3 (April 1 st – April 27 th )
The researcher received and revised the learner questionnaire on April 1st, finalizing and printing the versions by April 4th for distribution to 21 pilot study learners, with all questionnaires submitted by April 6th for reliability testing After confirming reliability, 100 copies were produced The researcher coordinated with teachers to distribute the questionnaires at the end of class, with teachers announcing his presence and assisting in their distribution The researcher introduced himself, explained the study's purpose, and demonstrated how to complete the questionnaires, which learners took home to return the following day Between April 18th and 24th, 102 questionnaires were distributed across five classes, and by April 25th, the researcher collected 92 completed questionnaires, noting a loss of 10 due to incompletion or misplacement.
The last step in the data collection was the learner interview that took place on April
27 th 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 first set of data consisted of quantitative responses collected through a five-point Likert scale in teacher and learner questionnaires This raw data was entered into SPSS for analysis, and the results were displayed using tables and pie charts These findings are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and are expected to address the two research questions partially.
The second data set was collected through interviews and open-ended questionnaire responses, which were transcribed and synthesized for analysis The researcher employed thematic analysis to identify emerging topics, providing deeper insights into the questionnaire results To enhance credibility, direct and indirect quotations were incorporated Participants were anonymized with labels such as T1, T2, T3 for teachers and L1, L2, L3 for learners This qualitative data was integral in thoroughly addressing the research questions.
This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative data to compare teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of using ODs in the classroom The findings highlighting these differences will be presented in Section 4.4, offering valuable insights into the effectiveness and acceptance of ODs from both perspectives.
