Luận văn factors affecting motivation for students’ participation in english speaking lessons

SECOR IGOR A NORIO KH ĐK CEO PHAM THI HONG VAN FACTORS AFFECTING MOTIVATION FOR STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION LN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS: A SURVEY AT HUNG VUONG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE CÁC YẾU

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, ILA NOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES,

Se IU Adon tobi a a tobi

NÓI CỦA SINH VIÊN HỌC NGHÉ: NGHIÊN CỨI: KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

CĐN HÙNG VƯƠNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS

Field: English teaching methodulogy Code: 60.14.01.11

Hanoi— 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATLONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

SECOR IGOR A NORIO KH ĐK CEO

PHAM THI HONG VAN

FACTORS AFFECTING MOTIVATION FOR STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION LN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS: A SURVEY

AT HUNG VUONG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

CÁC YẾU TỔ ANH HUONG DEN DONG LUC THAM GIA TRONG GIO HOC

NÓI CỦA SINH VIÊN HỌC NGHỆ: NGHIÊN CỨU KHẢO SÁT TẠI TRƯỜNG

CDN HÙNG VƯƠNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English teaching methodology

Code: 60.14.0111

Supervisor: Nguyén Thi Ngoc Quynh, Ph.D

Hanoi — 2015

research for the Degree of Master of Arts, and thal this thesis has nol been

submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution

Hanoi, 2015

Phạm Thị Hỏng Vân

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, T wish to send my sincere thanks lo my supervisor, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh, PhD for her valuable guidance, helpful suggestions and critical feedback throughout the research

Also, T would like to acknowledge my gratitude to all the lecturers in the

Department of Postgraduate Studies, College of Foreign languages, VNU for their usefull lessons from which I have benefited a lot for the accomplishment of this

study

Tam greatly mdebled to my first year students of business accounting from

Hung Vuong Vocational Colloge for their participation and assistance without

which this study could not have been successful

Last but not least, T would like to express my special thanks to my loving

parents, my husband, who offered me their love, care, support and encouragement

so that I could accomplish my study.

ABSTRACT

This study aims lo inveshgale factors alfecting motivation and dilTerences between high achievers and low achievers in speaking lessons of the first -year

students of business accounting at Hung Vuong Vocational College Using

correlalion and Man-Whitney U test to analyse the data, the result: shows thal

leamers are highly motivated by their job orientation, teacher's good pronunciation, group ochesion and task difficulty They are also demotivated by extra homework,

ineffective L1 & L2 use, L2 use outside the class, their lack of self-contidenee The

study also finds out some differences between two groups in terms of instrumental

orientation, self-confidence, affiliative motive, teacher's L2 use, desire to speak as

well as teacher, classroom goal structures, task difficulty and classroom atmosphere

ii

ABSTRACT¡

PART A INTRODUCTION - - - - 1

1 Ralioralc 1

2, Aims of the StUdY useienmenmmnneteeinentnnnns 1

4, Methods of the study scisenmesmuneneininanenuns 2

5 Design of the study cscisenmenmmneneeinannnnes 2

PART B DEVELOPMENT 3 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

1.L Theoretical background of motivation in L2 leatning 3 1.1.1: Terminological issus à cài non neo 3

1.1.3: Major approaches and (heories on language learning motivation 4

1.1.3.1 Behavioral approach sjcseossesstnenes sense 4 1.1.3.2 Psychological- cognitive approach - - 4

1.1.3.2.1 Achievement motivation theory 1.1,3.2.2 Attribution theory

1.4.3.2.3 Self-efficacy theory

1.1.3.24, Self-delermination theory

1.1.3.3 Socio-cultural and contextual approaches

4.1.3.3.L Linguistic self-confidence

1.1,3.3.2, A situated concept of L2 motivation

1.1.3.3.3 A process-oriented approach to 1.2 motivation research

1.1.4: Factors affecting motivation in L? leaming

1.1.4.1 ; Domyei (1994a)'s framework

1.1.4.2: New factors added to Dornyels rarneWotk eo TT

1.2 Theoretical background of speaking in L2 loarning

1.2.1 Commtunicative competenee « eo co „12

1.2.3 Guidelines for implementing communicative tasks 14

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 15

2.2, Research setting and participahifs ào „l5

2.3.1: Quantitative research : questionnaire

2.3.2 Qualitatwe research- interview

CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALVSIS

3.1, Personal information of the students taking part in the survey 7 3.2 Factors affect stuđents" participation in speaking lessons 7

PARTC- CONCLUBION

4.1, A summary of findings and implications

4.11, Faclors Inghly motivate leamers

4.1.2 Factors demotivate learners

4.1.3, Factors give learners a moderate level of motivation

4.1.4 Diffcronces between two groups in terms of language level

4.1.5 Differences between two groups in terms of leamer level

4.1.6 Differences between two groups in terms of teacher-related factors

1.7, Differences between two groups in terms of group-related factors 4.1.8 Differences between two groups in terms of course-related factors

4.1.9 Differences between twa groups s in terms of environment-related

factors

4.2 Recommendations to motivate students to speak English in class

43 Linmilalions of the study

4.4, Suggestions for further studics

REFERENCES

appendix 1 Questionaire for students ( Vietnamese)

appendix 2 Questionnaire for students (translated into English)

appendix 3 Guiding interview questions for students

appendix 4, Test of normality

PART A INTRODUCTION 1.Rationale of the study

Tn recent decades, Enghsh has been more and more important in Vietnam TLis now widely known as the major language of intercommunication, international commerce and business, science and technology and so on Thus, people with good English proficioncy will have a brighler [uture Thoy will have a great deal off chances to apply for a good job with high salary

At Img Vuong Vocational College, English is a compulsory subject with 120

periods Teachers must teach four skills of which listening and speaking skills must

be paid more attention ‘I'hat is one of the main tasks of the college that must train

students to be communicatively competent After the course, students have to be

able to commumicale successfully in social situations TL is a big challenge [or teachers because at secondary and high schools, listening skill and speaking skill

have been paid little attention As a result, fram my observation and my teaching

experient

, Trealized (hat only some learners get involved in the spoaking activities while others keep silence or do other things

Motivating sindents in Fnglish speaking lessons is every teacher's challenge,

especially in vocational college They are unwilling to take part in speaking

activities in class ‘This may be caused by many factors ‘herefore, this study will invesligale factors alfocting the sludents’ participation in English spoaking lessons The researcher hopes that this study will help teachers at the vocational college to

find suitable methods to motivate leamers

2 Aims of the study

‘This study aims at investigating factors affecting leamers’ motivation to speak

English among students of business accounting, field at Ilung Vuong Vocational

College Three main purposes are summarized below

1 to investigate factors affecting leamers’ motivation to speak linglish

2 to investigate differences in factors between high achievers and low achievers

3 lo give molivalional strategies Lo molivale leamers.

3 Scope of the study

‘The study was conducted with the sample selected from one hundred and eighty- nine first year students of business accounting at Hung Vuong Vocalional Collage

to explore factors affecting leamers’ motivation in English speaking lessons and compare differences between high achievers and low achievers in terms of factors

4 Methods of the study

‘To achieve the aims of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are used The data was collected from leamers’ questionnaire papers and interviews After the

data was collected, analyzed and discussed, some conclusions will be drawn, and

some suggestions will be made in the thesis

5 Design of the study

The first part, introduction, includes the rationale, the aims, the scope, the method

and the design of the study

The second part, development, includes three chapters Chapter one, literature

review, provides a theoretical background of motivation, factors affecting language learning This chapter also summaries the theoretical background of speaking in L2

learning This is viewed as the theorelival framework for the mvestigalion im the

next chapter Chapter 2, methodology gaves the context of the study, the research

questions, the participants and data analysis procedure Chapter 3, data analysis, gives a delailed presentation of data

The final part is conclusion ‘This part provides the summary of the findings and some implications for teachers of English as a foreign language In addition, this

part gives some limitations of the study and some possible suggestions for further

research

mcorstant

Among many of definitions of motivation, Dornyei (2001; 7) gave a comprehensive one which concerned “ the choice of a particular action, the persistence with it and the effort expended on it” It shows how behaviour starts, is directed and mamtained

‘Therefore, motivation is a study of process that give behaviour energy and direction

“ the dynamically changing cumulative aronsal in a person that imitates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalised and

acted out” ( Dorney, 2001: 9)

In the 1990s, many works cxamined the relaionship between leamers and

classroom environment, (e.g Brown, 1990, 1994; Clement, Darnyei & Noels, 1994; Crookes & Schmitdi, 1991; Domyei, 19944, 1994ly, Tulkunen, 1989, 1993; Oxford

& Shearin, 1994, Skehan, 1989, 1991, Ushioda, 1994, 1996a; William, 1994} (cited in Dornyei, 2001: 11)

Lastly, in Domyei and Otlo (1998), Domyei (2000, 2001), motivation began lo be

seen as dynamic and temporal They defined motivation as “ a dynamic view”, or

“ changes of motivation over time” Motivation can not be viewed as a stable altribute of learnmg that remains constant for several months or years Instead, students’ motivation fluctuates, going through “ ebbs and flows” ( Dornyei, 2001:

19)

1.1.2 Importance af motivation in 1.2

Motivation is considered as a crucial factor in achieving a second language Gardner

and Tamberl (1972) emphasized that motivation can influence what, when and how

leamers learn ‘hat is, motivation determines strategies to achieve the goals, the

effort and persistence Littlewood (1998: 53) indicated that “ motivation is the

ercial foree which determines whether a learner embarks on a ask al all, how

much energy he devotes to it, and how long he preserves"

1.1.3 Major approaches and theories on language learning motivation

1.1.3.1 Behavioral approach

According to the behaviourists, all learning takes place through the process of habit formation Learners receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment and

posilive reinforcement for their correct repetitions and inulalions As a result, habils

are formed { cited in Lightbown & Spada,1993: 23) In other words, behaviorists

explain motivation in terms of external stimuli and reinforcement In the classroom,

teachers olien offer strmuli or remforcement afler a student performs tm the foreign:

language ‘This view is equivalent to Domyei’s (1994) reward system, feedback

1.1.3.2.Psychological- cognitive approach

Cogmitive psychologists search for motives for human behaviowr in the individual

rather than in the social being, focusing primarily on psychological or internal

factors, placing much more emphasis on individual’s choice ( Keller, 1983, p.389) 1.1.3.2.1 Achievement motivation theory

Atkinson (1966) viewed achievement behaviour as the result of emotional conflict

between hopes for success and fears of faikwe He proposed that students’

motivation is a stable trait across different contexts, which arises largely from two personality orientations: the achievement-oriented personality and the failure-

threatened personality Thus, his theory placed a greal imporlance on need for

achievement and self-confidence which are mentioned in Domyei’s (1994)

framework,

1.1.3.2.2, Attribution theory

Beside achievement theory, Weiner’s (1992) attribution theory is concemed with

the way in which an individual’s explanations of success and failure influence that

individual’s subsequence motivation and behavior, Students may attribute success

or failure to different causes, depending on their beliefs about who or what controls their success or failure These umporlanl causes are ability, effort, Tuck, task

difficulty, amount of effort, content, degree of difficulty, time and stability, aptitude

or mood This theory is important for teachers to motivate learners in second

language acquisition and this theory is equivalent lo Dornyei’s cansal atinbulion

1.1.3.2.3 Self-efficacy theory

Bandura’s ( 1997) self-efficacy theory refers ta people's judgment of their

capabilities Lo carry oul verlain specific lasks and accordingly, their sense of

efficacy will determine their choice of activities attempted, the amount of effort

exerted and persistence displayed The theory is equivalent to Domyei's (1994)

perceived L2 competenee and sell-elTieacy

1.1.3.2.4, Self-determination theory

Another theory that is closely related to Domyei’s (1994) framework is Delei-

Ryan’s self-determination theory (1985), In their works, they stated that “ when self

determined, people experience a sense of freedom to do what is interesting,

personally important and vilalizing” Sel(-delerminalion consists ol three needs

competence, autonomy and relatedness, An important aspect of self-determination

theory to be emphasized is autonomy in L2 classroom Dickinson (1995) stated that

L2 motivation and learner autonomy go hand in hand, that is, their leaning success

and failures are to be atwibuted to their own efforts and strategies rather than to

factors outside their control (Dickinson, 1995: 173-4) Ushioda (1996: 2) also

states, “Autonomous language learners are by definition motivated learners” or

Noels, Clement and Pelletier found that “ a democratic teaching style fosters intrinsic motivation” ( cited in Domyei, 1998: 124) The theory is really related to

some subcomponents ¡n Dornyci(1994}s Eamework such as self-confidence, authority type and group cohesion,

Th ean be scorn thal the above-mentioned theories tend to emphasize a particular dimension of motivation, focusing on personal traits, beliefs, thoughts, feelings or attitudes and there is a direct relationship with some components or subcomponents

in Domyei’s motivational framework

1.1.3.3 Soe ultural and contextual approaches

For socio-cultural and contextual approaches, researchers see that we acquire

language when we engage it meaningful interaction in second language Tn other

words, motivation can be seen as result of the interpersonal interaction in a specific

environment’ situation

1.1.3.3.1 Linguistic self-confidence

Linguistic self-confidence proposed by Clement is a socially defined construct- a

powerful mediating process in multi ethnic settings that affects a person's

molivalion to learn and use the language of anolher speech commumity This

concept is extended by showing that there is a “ considerable indirect contact with

the 1.2 culture through the media” ( ciled in Dormyei (1998: 123) The concept is

related te integrative motivation m Domyci’s framework

1.13.3.2 A situated concept of L2 motivation

Motivation researchers i the 1990s started to examine various aspecls of Ihe

learning context in which a) the target language is not used as LI in the commuuity and b) it is used as L1 Most of learners can not speak well in the first environment

Only in the classroom, they lack time or opportunity to practise L2, which results

into embarrassment or stress when they are exposed to the foreign language outside the class Krashen (1985: 46) states, for such leamers, “ the only input is teachers”

or classmates’ talk-both do nol speak 1.2 well” Therefore, Lo mbibi the negative

influences in the classroom, three recent research directions that have adopted this

situated approach include a) the study of willingness to communicate (WTC), (b)

task motivation and c) the relationship between motivation and the use of language

leaming strategies

« WIC is the “ readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a

specific person or persons, using a L2”, MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei and Noels (1998: 547)

* Task molivalion: The components of task motivation are task execution,

appraisal and action control ‘'ask-based research and the study of task motivation is

“one of the most fruitful directions for future research” in that these concepts are

also “useful in pulling together diverse approaches within the L? motivation field”

(Domnyei, 2003: 16)

* Molivation and learning stralegy use

Learning swategies are techniques that students apply to enhance effectiveness of

ther leaming The sludy of the inlerrelalionship between motivation and leanmng

strategies was initiated in the mid 1990s by Richard Schmidt, Peter MacIntyre and

their colleagues ( i.e Macintyre & Noels, 1996, Schmidt, Boraie & Kassabgy, 1996)

To sum up, the view is closcly related to te

(1994) framework

ching method in Dory ‘s

1.13.3.3 A process-oriented approach to L2 motivation rescarch

The situated approach to motivation research soon drew attention to another aspect

of motivation: its dynamic character and temporal variation A process-oriented approach can explain “ the ups and downs” of motivation In this process, three

stages cant be discerned: (1) Preaclional stage: Molivalim is generated and initialed,

(2) Actional stage: executive motivation ; ongoing appraisal of the student's progress and action control ( self-regulation), (3) Postactional stage: Motivational

rolrospeetion: encouraging seH-evalualion and evan seli-reflection ( ciled in

Dornyei, 2003: 19)

1.1.4: Factors affecting motivation in L2 learning

1.1.4 Dornyei (1994a)’s framewark

Tn the literalure on motivation, researchers focused on what specific [actors work

together to create motivation and they built a lot of models focusing on components

of L2 motivation Typical examples are Wlliams and Burdens’s (1997) extended

framework, Tremblay and Gardner's (1995), Schumann’s neurobiological model, or

descriptive studies of motivation in particular sociocultural contexts However, in this part, L only mention a framework proposed by Domyei (1994), which is suitable

to my research Indeed, his framework was ralher detailed im factors affecting

motivation to learn Linglish and its structure was clear, easy to understand Lle attempted to offer an extensive list of motivational components categorized into

three main dimensions: (he Language Level, the Teamer Level, and the Toarning

Situation Level

The first level in Domyei’s model is the language level, which mentioned

inlegralive and instrumental motivational subsysloms The first describes learners

who learn a language in order to integrate themselves into the culture of a second

language group and become invelver m social imerchange in that group The taller refors to acquiring a language as a means for attaimg imstrumental goals such as

acquiring a degree or certificate, getting a better job Gardner and Lambert (1972) and Spolsky (1969) found that integrativeness accompanied higher scores on

proficiency tests in a foreign language ( cited in Brown, 2003: 171}

The second level is the learner level which involves individual characteristics that

learners have in their learning process The learner level “ involves a complex of

affects and cognitions that form fairly stable personality traits” { Dornyei, 1994,

p.279) The learner level includes a need for achievement and self-confidence

Need for achievernent is concemed wilh a desire lo achieve, to become perfect This factor is similar to Atkinson's achicvement motivation construct He also stated

that learners with a high need for achievement are more likely to get better grades ( Đemyei, 1990: 54-60)

Scli-confidencs is a complex factor, so he defines it wath four subooinponents

a language use anxiety: Anxiety is a feeling of tension and nervousness relating to

second language learning It is a nogalive factor in SLA IL influcn

s the quality of

oral production and makes learners speak less fluently than they are really ( cited in

Lillis, 1998: 121) There are some reasons for this issue Fear of mistake is one of

the main factors that hinder learners Lo speak in the classroom (Robby, 2010) Altat

(2008) stated that learners feel worried when they receive correction and negative evaluation In addition, leamers are afraid of being laughed or mocked by other

students and teachers ( Kutus, 2011)

b Perceived target language competence ( PC) is the leamers’ belief that they can complete the tasks because of their past proficiency level Clement , Baker and

MacIntyre (2003) claimed that Ingher porovived 7.2 competence ard low anxicly

increase willingness to communicate

¢ attribution theory: past failures and successes affect the future goal and

expectanay of language learning

d self-efficacy refers to individual’s judgement of his/ her ability to perform a

specific action, which can develop not only from past accomplishments, but also

from observation of peers, persuasion, reinforcement and cyaluation, affect the

outcome of language learning, ‘To enhance the sense of self-efficacy, teacher

should provide meaninglul, aghevable tasks

The third level is the learning situation level, which takes into account specific motivational factors connected with the teacher, the course and the group of

language learners

Course-spevific component:

The component includes factors such as syllabus, teaching materials, learning tasks

aud leaching methods Domyei specifies four factors as follows

‘The first category, interest is related to intrmsic motivation and is centered around

the individual’s inherent curiosity and desire to know more about the language or language task, Relevance is measured by the extort lo which a student fecls the

Imstruetion is comnected to porsonal needs or goals Expectancy refers to the perceived likelihood of success It concerns the task difficulty, the amount effort required, the (cacher’s guide and assistance ele Salis(aclion coneems the oulcome

of an activity, which includes both extrinsic rewards ( good grade or praise) or intrinsic rewards, such as enjoyment or pride

‘Teacher-specific component is another important one Affiliative drive is an

extrinsic motive, which refers to students’ need to do well in order to please the

teacher Another factor is teacher’s authorily type Students will react differently if

teacher is either autonomy supporting or controlling One other factor of the

teacher is his/her role in direct socialization of students’ motivation One teacher

can model behavior for students, or a leacher ean pres mi atask itr such as way thal

attract leamers’ attention to do the tasks, or a teacher can give feedback

Group-specific component refers to the classroom learning which takes places in the group as an organizational unit, Domyei (19944) anes this kind of group as

“ group dynamics” which influence students’ cognitions Four aspects of group

dynamics mentioned in Domyei (1994a)'s research are “ Eoal-onienledness”,

“norm and reward systems”, “ group echesion” and classroom goal structure”, The

first factor is group goal which is considered as “ a composite of individual goals”

Tn other words, students’ goal is pursuing 12 learning The noxt factor is norms and

reward system, which concems extrinsic motives that specify appropriate behaviors for efficient leaming Finally, classroom goal structures can either be competitive,

cooperative or individualistic

‘To sum up, his framework appears to be a comprehensive coustruct and it synthesizes various lines of research It shows nearly all important factors affecting

motivation in language leamming TL car be seen that three levels in his framework

manifest three approaches: behavioral, cognitive and psychological, social- contextual approaches Lastly, compared to his framework (2001), emphasizing on

language learning and teaching strategics, leaming process, time, only his framework (1994)- simple, focusing on factors, is suitable to my research

However, Domyei’s (1994) framework lacks some crucial subcomponents For instance, he did not mention individual leaming techniques as well as the total teaching periods and environment specific motivational component under the component of Iearner level and Iearning situation level respectively Tu ay minor thesis, 1 only add the environment-related factors to this framework

Below is Dornyei's (199) extended framework of L2 motivation in my research

Table 1: Dornyei’s (1994) framework of 1.2 motivation (cited in Domnysi, 2001)

Instrumental motivational subsystem

Tearing situation level

Course specific _ motivational Interest (in the course)

Lxpectancy (of success)

Satisfaction (one has in the outcame)

Peacher specific” “motivational

Group specifi motivational Croal-orientedness

Group cohesion

‘oom goal structure

Environment-specific motivational Physical condition

Language environment

* new motivation component added to Dornyet’s framework

11

1.1.4.2 New factors added to Dornyei’s framework

a Physical conditions

Physical conditions m the classroom such as cla SFOOML si chairs, lables, boards

affect learners’ participation positively or negatively

Ilarmer (2001) emphasized that physical conditions had great impact on students’ learning, as well as their altitude lowards SLA, allceting learners’ motivation Large class size and poor facilities demotivate learners dramatically

b, Classroom atmosphere

Tn order for students to be motivated, the leaming environment needs to be free

from anxiety, the students should not feel threatened or intumidated Learners need

to feel they will be heard and that what they are saying is worth hearing The

abnosphere must be relaxed and com{ortahle

c Language emwonment

As for speaking skill, leamers often seek out situations in which they can

communieate wilh nalive speakers, or make use of the tadio or cinema lo get

maximum exposure to the L2 ( cited in Ellis, 1998; 103-104)

1.2 Theoretical background of speaking in L2 learning

1.2.1, Communi live competence

Canale and Swain (1980) gave four areas of communicative competence which are

brielly oullmed below:

Grammatical competenee: The knowledge of the English linguistic code, including lexical items, rules of morphology, syntax sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology Often FSI students may thoroughly understand all of the rules of the English language but may be unable to apply them to oral communication

Discourse competence: The ability to connect sentences in stretches of discourse

and to form a meaningful whole out of a scrics of utterances

Socio-linguistic competence: Sociolinguistic competence includes being culturally sensitive to social rules such as taboos and politeness Sociolinguistic competence is

culturally specific

Strategic competence: The verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may

be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient competence Some examples of

strategic competence are asking questions, taking turns, using gestures, role playing,

ete

1.2.2 Communicative language teaching (CLT)

CLT has been popular and widespread in L2 language teaching CLT reflects a

social relationship between the teacher and learner This learner-centered approach

gives students a sense of ownership of their learning and enhances their motivation

( Brown, 1994)

CLT emphasizes the process of communication Leamers are actively engaged in

negotiating meaning by trying to make themselves understood and in understanding others within the classroom and activities ( Richard and Rodger, 1986 ) Teachers also take some roles in CLT approach: teacher facilitates the communication

process between all participants in the classroom, teacher is a co-communicator who engages in communicative activities with the students in the classroom ( Larsen- Freeman, 2001); teacher acts as analysts, counselor and group process

manager ( Richards and Rodgers, 1986)

Brown ( 2007: 241) gave four interconnected characteristics as a definition of CLT

1, Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicative competence and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence

2 Language techniques are designed to engage leamers in the pragmatic,

authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes Organizational

language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enable

the learner to accomplish those purposes

13

3 Fluoncy and accuracy are scen as complementary principles underlying

communicative techniques At times fluency may have to take on more importance

than aceuracy in order to keep leamers meaningfully engaged in language use

4, ln the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use their target language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts under proper

guidance, bul not under the control of a teacher

Besides, Brown (1994b) lists six key words of CLI to better understand what it

aims at: leamed-centered, cooperative, interactive, integrated, content-centered and

lask-based Tn other words, language teaching should be conducted

communicatively

In conclusion, chapter 1 has presented some theoretical background knowledge related to the topic of the study It has discussed some concepis and ideas concerning to the issue of motwation in L2 study, and some major factors affecting

students’ motivation Besides, some different aspects related to speaking were also

discussed The following chapter will display the detailed description of the methodology, the provedures of the study under Dornyei ‘s{1994) framework

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research questions:

1 What factors affect students’ motivation in speaking lessons for [inst year

students of business accounting ?

2 What are the differences in factors affecting the in speaking lessons between

Ingh achievers and low achievers?

2.2 Research setting and participants

The study was conducted at Hung Vuong Vocational College, 101 Au Co Sreet-Ha

Noi where English is a compulsory subject with 120 periods, taught during the first term and the second term The course book chosen is New Ileadway Elementary by

Liz & John Soars which focuses on four skills and language use, grammar

The participants consisied of 189 first-year sindents of’ business accounting, This is

also the total number of first- year students They came from different provinces in

the country Enlering the college, the students’ levels are very different Some

Ieamers have a good command of English The rest have touble in listening and speaking, even some of them have a number of limited vocabulary The tests and

final tests are designed to test four skills and grammar Their average scores al Ihe

two semesters ranges from 3.0 to 9.5

2.3 Techniques of collecting data

2.3.1 Survey questionnaire

‘The questionnaire was written in Vietnamese to avoid language barrier and communication breakdown Learners may be comfortable to complete the items in the questionnaire A preliminary version of questionnaire items was initially formulated in Lnglish, based on Domeyi (1994)’s framework

All the questions in the questionnaire adopted a five-point rating scale 189 question

papers were distributed to the students lor collecling data, 142 of them were

completely filled

2.3.2 Interviews:

Scmi-structured interviews were conducted after statistical results were preminarily analysed to gain further information about factors affecting students’ participation

in speaking lessons as well as the solutions Lo overcome the faclors Twelve

students were chosen to take part in the interviews, namely 4 students of high achievers ( average mark >8), 4 of low achievers ( average mark < 6) and 4 of

medinm achievers

2.4 Procedure

The questionnaire written in Vietnamese was delivered to 189 students of business

accounting The participants firished the questionnaire under the researcher's guide

and monitoring Thirty minutes was given to fill in the questionnaire Data was analyzed by using SPSS Some techniques of quantitative data analysis used in this

study are as follows

Firstly, a reliability test on all the items was carried out through SPSS version 16

and the reliability coefficient was 0.819, which meant that the internal consistency

of the ilems in the questionnaire was relatively high

Secondly, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation ) and linear regression

were used to show to whal extent each factor affected the participation in English speaking lessons To clarify its correlation, item 33 ( opportunities to use L2 in the

classroom) was dependent variable, other items were independent variables

Thirdly, lo Lest normal distribution for cach group, Shapiro-Wilk was used for the

sample size smaller than 50 If sig.-value is larger than 0.05, the group is nommally

distributed

Finally, if both groups are normally distributed, the independent sample T-test is

used to show the mean difference between 2 groups, significant at 0.05 level whereas if both are not nonmally distributed, Mann-Whitney U test is used

Also, inlerviews were conducted with an allempt to understand students’ responses

better

CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS

3.2 Factors affecting students’ motivation in speaking lessons

3.2.1 Language level

In Domyei’s model, language level refers to instrumental motivation and integrative

motivation Tn terms of instrumental motivation, iors in the quesLonnaire are tem

21 may need it later for jobs), item 3 (I want to have good grades) Integrative

motivation includes item 4 (J want to understand English-speaking films, videos, TV

or radio), item § (7 want lo go abroad) end item 6 (1 want to know more the culture and the people of English speaking countries)

that instrumental motivation outweighed integrative motivation In the survey, the

students thought that English speaking skill was important for them because “they

want to have good grades” (item 3) M: 4.4, SD: 0.7) and because “they need it later for jobs” item 2) ( Mc 3.2, SD: 0.9) Tn other words, the studerits of business,

accounting at Hung Vuong college were more extrinsically than intrinsically

motivated

To test, Ge centelation of instrumental and inlegralive motivation to students’

participation in speaking lessons, regression analysis was employed Only item 2 (J may need tt for my fob) significantly influenced their motivation to speak English (r

— 372, p<.05) The integrative motivation and item 3 were not statistically

significant at 0.05 level, which means there is no relationship with their motivation

to participate in speaking activities

3.2.2.Learning situation level

Mean Std Deviation r P lteacher-specific components | 3.6079 40908 Ads 000

related factors (M: 3.50) had high mean scores Otherwise, the mean score of

course-related factors ( M: 2.7) and that of environment-related factors ( M: 2.)

were relatively low However, only teacher-specific components had a significant

impact on their motivation to speak (r:.446) and the others affected less In the

following sections, each of these components is to be explored in detail in the hope that we can find the strengths o promote and the weaknesses Lo inhibit

3.2.2.1 ‘Leacher-specitic components

Affiliative motive, authority type, direct socialization of student motivation are

under teacher-specific motivational components

3.2.2.1.1 Authority type

‘the following table showed how the teachers behaved

18 How well de you speak when your leachel „vụ 94383 356.000, gives you extra homework of speaking topics?

20 How weil do you speak when your teacher) 4 yeoa S086 ara 33 revises tha iasson2

Table 5: Authority type

The lable 5 showed thal only lwo factors significantly affected the students’ motivation to speak Linglish: extra homework of speaking topics from teacher (item

19, r =, 356, p<.05)) and teachers’ carefuulness (item 376, r = 399, p<.05) Other

factors telaling to authorily type wore nol significant al 0.05 level ( p<.05), which

means there was no/little relationship with the students’ motivation

The first [i

ctor is Iba almost the students did rot hike doing homework (item 19-™M:

2.4), In the interview, some explained : ““ Zhe content of the course book is enough

for me to learn, so! don’t like doing extra speaking topic It takes me a lot of time to prepare”." What 7 learn in the class is too much to learn hy heart and practise I don’t like doing extra speaking topics because I don’t have a good

memory"( interview 1) In other words, most of the learners did not want to do

further exercises or similar Lopics which it Look a lol of time to prepare Because of

their lack of basic knowledge, the content in the course book is enough for them to

recall and practise again at home, but what the students’ achievement can be

cuhanced if the teachers give extra homework is nol conclusive However, in the

context of vocational college, this study found that students preferred Lnglish

teachers to give less homework

19

The sccond factor 1s the teachers’ varefulness The item 37b got the mean score of 4.2 which means that the students had a high level of motivation in terms of this faclor They were motivated by teachers’ conscientiousness This factor also significantly affected the students’ motivation to speak Hnglisht r = 399, p<, 05)

3.2.2.1.2 Direct socialization of student motivation

8 Do you want to speak as well as your teacher.?(M: 3.4, r:.169, p<.03)

36.Semantic scale: good prominciation / bad promunciation( M: 4.2, r= 352, ps

05)

The data analysis of ilem 8 , 36 showed thal teachers spoke Fnglish very well (M: 4.2), but a moderate number of the students (M: 3.4) wanted to speak as well as their teacher Looking at the items related to the modeling, it can be seen that the leathers’ proficiency level (y 352) affected their students’ motivation more significantly than their desire to speak like their teacher (r = 169) In the interviews, students said: “Before, J hated English Now I like it because I like my wacher’y voive T wish I could speak ay well as her one day" (extraci 1), “Anyone wants to speak as well as the teacher but it is very difficult for me to speak like my teacher, but I hope I can make myself understoad”( extract 8) Therefore, with leacher’s good model, learners will be more intrinsically motivated Tl is 2 goal for leamers to achieve, a dream they must pursue

Feedback & assessment

From the lable 6, it can be seen thal feedback and assessment is the second important factor that facilitates leamers’ participation to speak English, with a very

high mean score of 3.65 and a high correlation coefficient of 625 Two items in

inlerviews, one said thal “ I’m not satisfied with my English speaking mark My

teacher is too strict to give a good mark, Often, she gave us mark 5 or 6 The highest mark from my teacher is mark 8 very few marks although we iry our

hest."( extract 12) Therefore, in my opinion, learners cau speak as suuply as

possible, even wrong grammar, wrong use of word but they can express the ideas

they have in their minds In this case, teacher should give the learners the mark 9 or

10 Surely, they will be more highly molivated Tasily, item 30 does not have a

relationship with their motivation to speak Knglish (1: -0.147, p>-0.05)

To sum up, im terms of feedback, there are only one factor affecting learners?

motivation, that is, speaking mark,

Task presentation

Task presenlalion, with the meat score of 3.2 gives leamers a moderale level of

motivation, which should be examined ‘This component is very important because

how learners can learn effectively greatly depend on how teaching is presemed

[27 Give clear instructions about how fo cany out @ task 40282 | 70408 | -107 | 076

[28 The speed of teaching is fast 32324 | 87019 | -020 | 751

[28 The L† & TP use distribution is ineffeotive 24848 | 87867 | 682 | 000

Table 7: task presentation

The table 7 stated that only ineffective use distribution of L1 & L2 was significant

at 0.05 level The correlation coefficient was 692 which was relatively high, but the

mean score was rather low (M: 2.4, SD: 0.9) T rdcrvicwed some leamers and they

21

said : “My teacher tends to use more English than Vietnamese I can’t

understand” extracts from LA) “1 want my teacher to use bilingual language to

express new things or she should expres something in simple words.”, or“ T

totally like her method of teaching, She speaks English slowly, sometimes

Vietnamese ” ( extracts from ILA) From these comments, it is clear that the

elTeeliveness of T.I and T.2 distribution depends on the students’ proficiency level

However, in this study, with a large number of medium and low achievers, the teachers should use bilingual, sometimes more Vietnamese, to express his/her ideas

3.2.2.1.3, Affilialive mative

‘The last component which obtained a modest average mean score was affiliative

motive ( M: 3.0, r= 256, p< 05), having a moderate impact on learners’ intrinsic

molivalion The component led 19 a moderate level of motivation to speak Frglish

The question for this component is “ Do you want to please your teacher?” ( item 9)

Further interviews were conducted to explore in further details of psychological

impact (cachors brought learners Interview responses showed thal the praises or

good marks from the teachers helped them gain positive impression not only from

the teachers but also the classmates, especially the opposite sex The following are the representative extracts from students : “4ƒ she praises me in front of the class,

my friends will have a betier impression of me.I like a girl studving in IT class She

ix good al Faglish If I get bad mark, Vl be ashamed”, “Teachers’ praises are

important to me Through her praise, I feel that 1 have my teacher’s attention” Therefore, in terms of affilaitive motive, teacher should give praises or positive

comments if possible to motivate this kind of students

3.2.2.2 Group-specilic motivational component

This component got the mean score of 3.98, the highest value of all components

relating to the learning situation Isvel Tis standard deviation was relatively low (SD:

0.24) ‘The group-specific motivational component included goal-orientedness, norm and reward system, group cohesion and classroom goal structure which would be explored in the following section

1 | want to complete the goal of the lesson (M: 2.7, r: 497, p<.08)

35, Don't make fun af aach other's mistakes { r ~ 127, p> 05)

34.1 am satisfied with my group { M: 4.4, SD: 0.56, r: .227, ps.05)

How well do you speak when you

24 work in pair { M: 3.1, SD: 0.6, p> 05)

22 work in groups { M: 4.4, SD: 0.45, p> 05)

23 jain game-like competition ( M: 4.5, SD: 0.49, r: 198, p< 05)

24 work individually ( M: 3.0, SD 0.75, p> 05)

From the table, it can be scen that ouly goal-oriontedness, group cohesion and item

23 should be given attention ( p<.05) ‘Ihe first factor- goal-oriemtedness got the

low mean score, its valne 2.7 TLhas a significant impact on the students’ motivation

to speak English, its correlational coeffiecient 497, Obviously, almost the learners did not want to complete the goal of the lesson In the interviews, leamers

answered that | “Ady teacher gives us a lot of speaking topic After reading or listening skill, 1 will have I or two speaking topics She encourages us to discuss

and give ideas, then she writes them on blackboard Lowever, the content in the

course book is enough for me to learn” ( extract 4}

‘The second factor “J am satisfied with my group” from group cohesion obtained the high mean care, its mean above 1.4 This implies that the students are really highly motrvaled by activilies relaling lo the groups Indeed, with the help of classmates, they were easy to express their ideas because the classmates would help

them with the vocabulary when they needed A feeling of anxiety would be

decreased “ When I don't know what is the meaning of vocaindary, they can tell me” (extract 1) ‘Ihhis factor had a moderate impact on the students( r: 277, p: 01)

The next factor which was significant al 05 level was that the students hiked taking

part in competition-like game (M: 4.5,1: 199), They mostly enjoyed fun activities

23

and they would work harder to become winners Games helped learners to have

comfortable atmosphere ‘Ihis factor had a moderate impact on their motivation to speak (1: 199)

3.2.2.3 Course-specific motivational component

Among the components of leaming situation level, course-specific motivational

component received a relatively low mean score (M: 2.8, SD: 0.5), which should

be examined and improved ‘he questions are

39.Inierest : Aitractive / unativactive (M: 2.3, SD: 0.69, p>.05)

40 Expectancy of success Rasy! difficult (M: 3.4, SD: 0.9, r: 608, p<.05)

41 Relevance/ usefulness: Useless / useful (M: 3.2, SD: 0.5, p>.05)

As mentioned above, only item 40-the task difficulty had a significant impact on the

students (r: 0.6) The tcan score of the Lask difficulty was 3.4 which was measured

on the easy-difficult semantic scale This meant that almost the students felt the task

was neither too easy nor too difficult In other words, the speaking task helped

learners to improve the skill because the lesson was suitable to most of them The

interest of the course and relevance had no relationship with then motivation

17 insufficient teaching and learning facilities (M:1.5423,8D.0.55, p>.05)

31.comfortable classroom environment (Md: 2.26, SD: 0.78, p>.05)

32.Opportupitles to use L2 outside the classroom(M: 1.7, S1D:0.64, r:.342, p< 05)

As mentioned above, only the factor namely opportunities to use English ontside the

class had the significant influence on their students’ resulis (r — 342, p= 05) The

factor had a very low mean score, its value 1.7 ‘his means that they had a low level

of motivation to use 12 outside the classroom whereas class size, facilities,

comfortable classroom environment had no relationship with their motivation to speak Linglish ( p>.05)

3.2.3, Learner level

According to Domyei’s famework, leamer level includes two different motivational sub-components namely need for achievement and self-confidence Need for achievernent concern the students’ desire to comntmunicale with Coreigners ( item 7), Based primarily on his framework, self-confidence is divided into four suibcomponents: Language use anxiety ( item 13, 13, 14), perceived L2 competence

(ilem 21, 22), causal attributions ( tem 10, 11) and self-efficacy ( item 15)

‘Lable 9: learner level

need for achievement

causal attributions

10 How uncanfidert are you when you leave behind

11 How uncontident ara you when you get low marks

despite having stutfied seriously 27808 846546 | 332 ago

Language use anxiety

12 when you are called in your English class 26752 1.00115 | 258 000

13 olfer students laugh at you when you make mistakes 222 60017 | 204 | 023

14, when teacher gives immediate feedback 26031 76603 | 170 | 032

As mentioned above, there are some factors refering to self-confidence atfecting the students’ motivation to speak Linglish

I

Among four components relating lo sell-conlidenes, cansal attribution received the

lowest mean score of 2.3 The leamers of Hung Vuong Vocational college were greatly de-motivated by their failure in the past, that is, they got marks despite

having sludied seriously ( M: 2.78, 1 .332, p< .05).The [actor had a moderate

impact on the students’ motivation

The second factor relating to their lack of confidence was language use anxiety with

the mean score of 2.5 Almost the leamers [elt anxious and confused when they were called in the class ( M: 2.67, r: 258, p< 05), when they were laughed (M: 2.2,

+: 204, p< 05) and when their teacher gave immediate feedback ( M: 2.68, r: 170,

p<.05) Langunge use anxiely, in general, moderately alfvcted their participation ts

speak English in the class

The third factor is perceived L2 competence with the low mean score of 2.85

Almost of them had trouble in pronunciation and lacked vocabulary lo express their

ideas ‘he correlation coefficient was above 0.3, which means that this factor

significantly affected their molivation

On the other hand, the students’ belief on their speaking English better was a

motivator for them ‘This factor got the mean score of 3.52 with correlation

cocfficienl of 299 T asked sume learners and they answered : “ Every ave units, 7

have a paper test and every three units, a speaking test 1 feel that my ability of speaking English is considerably improved” ( extract 5)

Need for achievement ( item 7) had no relationship with students’ motivation to

speak English (p> 05)

|2 / may need if ater for jobs ILA 2.8857, |1.05081 000

Table 10: Differences in factors in terms of language level

Based on an analysis of group comparison ( Mann-Whitney U test), the result

stated that the high achievers had the higher mean score ( M: 4.2) than the low

achievers (M: 2.8) in terms of item 2 (7 may need it for my job, p< 05) The mean difference was significant ( z= -4.2, p< 05) Ilowever, item 3 (I want to have good

grades) aml integrative motivation were uot significant al p— 942, 840,

respectively

3.3.2 Learner level

Learner level consists of need for achievement and scll-confidence Took at the

table as follows, it is clear that with the significance of 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test

showed that there was no mean difference from item 7, item 15 ( p> 05)

7 Da you want to cammunicate with foraigners? aa lat | 837 | 346

10: How uncanfident are you when you leave bahind|y,

1 How unconfident are you when you gat tow marks|LA eure

despite having studied seriously lHA 5000 [°S0 |#99

12 when you are called in your English class HA ;yạ„ [S271 [800

13 other students laugh at you when you make mistakes — LA P14 | 286 | 59,

14 when teacher gives immediate feedback La 1.9420 [3.898 [000

Table 11: Differences im factors m terms of learner level

However, the table 11 showed that there was a significant mean difference between two groups the mean scores of low achievers were much lower than those of high achievers in terms of casual attributions, language use anxiety and L2 perceived

competence

Low achievers were de-motivated by some factors ‘Ihe first factor is language use

anxiety Speaking in the class (M: 1.5, = -6.2), being langhed in the class (M: 2.1,

4 ~3.2) and their teacher giving immediate (eedback (M2 1.9 % -3.6) made them

anxious [he second factor is L2 perceived competence They had trouble in

pronunciation (ME 2.1) and especially lack of vocabulary ( M: 1.5), so they couldn't

express their ideas they have in mind Lasily, their failure in the past mad them

hate this subject

Similarly, tigh achievers fell anxious when they were laughed in the class or when

teacher gave immediate feedback Also, lacking vocabulary in expressing ideas and their failure in the past were demotivators which moderately affected their

motivation to speak in the class

However, high achievers did not feel confused when they were called in the class

(M: 3.7, p<.05)

3.3.3 Learning situation level

‘Table 12: Differenves in factors in terms of affiliative motive

The analysis of Mann-Whitney showed that there was a significant difference

between high achievers and low achievers ( +

high achievers (M: 4.0) was significantly higher than that of low achievers (M 2.3) Low achievers were not interested in creating a good impression on their

teachers but high achievers were motivated by this factor (M: 4.0)

3.3.3.1.2 Authority type:

The analysis ( Mann- Whitney test) stated that only four items ( 19 37b, 38a, 38b)

had a sigrificanl difference belween two groups, p< 05

- 4.7, p< 05) The mean seore of

Graup |Mean |std Deviation |z Pp

Look at the table, it can be scon that only extra homework of speaking topics is a demotivator for both groups Low achievers( M: 1.4) got the lower mean score than high achievers ( M: 2.7) Gonorally they did nol like bemg assigned with the

homework,

In terms of teacher’s carefulness, the mean score of low achievers was lower than

that of high achievers Wilh the mean score of 3.4, the low achievers showed that

their teacher was not careful ‘They presented their lesson fast whereas high achievers thought that their teacher was fairly conscientious (M: 4.3)

Tn tens of teachers altitudes to leamers, the mean scores of low achievers were much higher than that of high achievers: sympathetic ( LA: 4.4, LIA: 3.8, z -3.1);

fair ( LA: 4.1 HA: 3.7, 2 - 2.2, p<05), enthusiasm ( LA: 4.2, HA: 4.0, 2= -1.2,

p< 05)) Tn other words, low achievers more highly appreciated their teacher's

attitudes than high achievers Ilowever, with the mean scores of above 3.7 for both

groups, the study indicated that both were motivated by their teacher's attitudes to

learners

3.3.3.1.3 feedback

Table 14: Differences between 2 groups in terms of feedback

Mann-Whitney U test indicated that satisfaction of speaking mark had a significant difference between high achievers and low achievers ( 2=- 2.2, p< 0S, respectively) The low achievers got significantly lower mean scores of 2.0 than high achievers In other words, the low achievers were more demotivated by speaking, mark than high achievers

Similarly, as for high achievers, il ix clear that they did not agree with their

teacher’s speaking mark ( M: 2.4)