INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
English is recognized as a global language, with over 1.1 million people speaking it as a second language and more than 2 billion learners worldwide It dominates the internet, with over three-quarters of online content in English, making it essential for globalization and advancements in science, technology, and business In Vietnam, English is a core subject across all educational levels, aiming to enhance communication skills However, despite seven years of study, many learners struggle with effective communication in English This issue arises primarily because, in many classes, teachers dominate the conversation, leaving students with limited opportunities to practice speaking.
Teachers often focus on explaining grammar rules and encouraging memorization, which can unintentionally limit students' opportunities for meaningful communication in English and reduce their engagement in oral interactions Oral interaction is essential for enhancing learners' speaking skills, allowing them to integrate target language structures into their speech (Chaudron, 1998) This form of interaction, which includes both teacher-learner and learner-learner exchanges, plays a crucial role in language acquisition and classroom dynamics Effective language learning occurs not just through comprehension but also through active participation, where learners apply their knowledge and express their ideas Thus, the active involvement of both teachers and students is vital for fostering productive interactions in the classroom.
Research on learners' participation in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes has gained traction both within and outside Vietnam, highlighting the importance of oral interaction in the classroom This study reveals that Vietnamese English teachers at NTTC understand the reasons for their students' limited oral engagement It emphasizes that English instruction should encompass not only reading and writing but also listening and speaking To enhance students' oral interaction, teachers are encouraged to implement more oral activities that can effectively motivate learners.
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
At NTTC, students have been engaged in an English for Communication program for four semesters, aiming to enhance their English communication skills Language classrooms function as sociolinguistic environments where interaction plays a crucial role in language development Students are encouraged to actively interact with peers to improve their speaking abilities Research indicates that second language interaction facilitates language growth by offering comprehensible input, feedback, and opportunities to modify language output Furthermore, effective classroom interactions, as highlighted by Hall and Verplaetse, involve collaboration between teachers and students to develop both language forms and individual learning outcomes Thus, it is essential for English teachers to promote oral participation, welcome student contributions, and motivate engagement through diverse practices.
Research indicates that students from various faculties at NTTC exhibit low levels of oral interaction in English classes Insights gathered from students reveal several factors contributing to this issue.
Student A expresses frustration about the lack of opportunities to speak English in the classroom, noting that most of the class time is dominated by teacher lectures This leaves little room for student interaction, resulting in a monotonous and unengaging learning experience.
Student B: “I am not confident in my pronunciation I’m afraid that my teacher and classmates won’t understand me.”
Student C: “I understood the teacher’s questions, though Er … er … However, I did not raise my responses since I did not know how to express them in English I had no enough vocabulary.”
Student D: “Why do we practice speaking? We have no oral tests.”
Student E: “I like speaking English with my teacher and friends But … but
… I am so bad or … or … Oral activities are too difficult for my English competence.”
Despite recognizing the significance of English for effective communication, many students remain silent or disengaged during oral activities This study aims to explore the underlying barriers contributing to their limited participation and will propose various oral activities to enhance student interaction.
AIMS OF THE STUDY
The study focuses on "Improving Learners’ Oral Interaction in EFL Classrooms at Nguyen Tat Thanh College in Ho Chi Minh City," driven by feedback from colleagues and students, as well as the researcher’s personal interest The primary objectives are to enhance students' speaking skills and foster effective communication in English language learning.
(1) to investigate the reasons why the students at NTTC have low oral interaction;
(2) to provide some oral activities to help the students improve their oral interaction; and
(3) to evaluate the students’ progress through suggested oral activities.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study was intended to address the following questions:
(1) Why do the learners in the EFL classrooms at NTTC in HoChiMinh City have low oral interaction?
(2) What oral activities help the learners improve their oral interaction?
DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY
This part will provide the definitions of terms in the thesis
Communicative competence encompasses the ability to not only construct grammatically correct sentences but also to understand the context in which they should be used, including the appropriate audience It involves a comprehensive knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, as well as the rules of conversation, such as how to initiate and conclude discussions, the suitability of topics for various speech events, and the correct forms of address for different individuals in diverse situations Additionally, it includes the skill to effectively use and respond to various speech acts, such as making requests, offering apologies, expressing gratitude, and extending invitations, ensuring that language is used appropriately in all interactions.
Drill is an effective language teaching technique that emphasizes guided repetition to practice sounds and sentence patterns Typically, a drill consists of two components: the teacher presents a word or sentence as a stimulus, and students respond through various methods such as repetition, substitution, or transformation.
Negotiation is essential for effective communication, enabling speakers to convey their understanding and intentions clearly To foster a natural flow in conversation, participants must signal their comprehension, express a desire to continue the dialogue, assist one another in articulating ideas, and make necessary corrections to ensure clarity in both content and delivery.
Discourse is a general term for examples of language use, i.e language which has been produced as the result of an act of communication
Elicitation is a teaching technique that encourages learners to actively generate speech or writing, fostering a learner-centered environment This approach allows teachers to obtain information from students rather than simply providing it, enhancing retention by connecting new knowledge with existing understanding Ultimately, elicitation creates a dynamic and stimulating learning atmosphere that promotes engagement and memorability.
Interlanguage refers to the language produced by learners of a second or foreign language during their learning process This phenomenon can arise from the influence of the learner's native language, the application of familiar patterns from the target language, or the use of paraphrasing, gestures, and mime due to limited grammar and vocabulary knowledge.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Research on classroom interaction in language teaching in Vietnam, particularly at NTTC, is limited This study aims to provide valuable insights into the significance of oral interaction in English teaching at the tertiary level, encouraging Vietnamese English teachers to adopt effective methods that boost students' oral participation.
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS
This study utilizes a case study research design, highlighting both its strengths and limitations While it explores the issue of low oral interaction among students across various majors, the experimental phase is limited to just two classes Consequently, the small sample size restricts the applicability of the findings, making them relevant only to similar contexts rather than allowing for broader generalizations within the English teaching community in Vietnam.
Data for this study was gathered through questionnaires and classroom observations to explore the reasons behind low oral interaction among learners in EFL classrooms at NTTC in Ho Chi Minh City Initially, questionnaires were distributed to both teachers and students Subsequently, ten classroom observations were conducted to assess the impact of proposed activities on oral interaction Future research should incorporate interviews to obtain more comprehensive data.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study is composed of five parts
Chapter 1 introduces some background as well as rationale of the study Aims of the study, research questions, definition of terminology, significance of the study, and limitations and delimitations are also mentioned in this part
Chapter 2 is the literature review, presenting an overview of the theoretical perspectives which underlie this study and the relevant research
Chapter 3 deals with the research methodology employed in the current study and the rationale for using it Additionally, it provides a detailed description of the participants, instruments and data collection process
Chapter 4 deals with a detailed analysis of the data collected and discussions of the research findings
Chapter 5 sets out the synthesis of the research results and then offers some tentative recommendations regarding the application of oral activities to improve students’ oral interaction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
WHAT IS ORAL INTERACTION?
The primary objective of language learning is effective communication, whether spoken or written Engaging in classroom interaction plays a crucial role in achieving this goal, as it fosters a collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, and ideas among individuals, resulting in a reciprocal influence on each participant, as noted by Rivers.
Engaging in interactive activities allows students to enhance their language skills by exposing them to authentic linguistic materials and their peers' contributions during discussions, skits, and collaborative tasks Through these interactions, students can utilize their entire language repertoire—knowledge gained through formal learning or informal exposure—during real-life exchanges.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2004, p 4) describes interaction as follows:
Interaction involves at least two individuals engaging in an oral or written exchange, where the roles of speaking and listening can overlap, particularly in oral communication Participants may speak and listen simultaneously, and even when turn-taking is followed, listeners often anticipate the speaker's message and prepare their responses Therefore, effective interaction requires skills beyond simply listening and producing utterances.
In addition, theories of communicative competence emphasize the importance of interaction as human beings use language in various contexts to
“negotiate” meaning, or to get one idea out of your head and into the head of another person and vice versa (Brown, 1994, p 159)
According to Ellis (1990), interaction in the classroom is centered around meaning and aims to facilitate information exchange while minimizing communication breakdowns It encompasses all communicative activities that occur within the classroom setting Ellis provides a broad definition of classroom interaction, highlighting its importance in the learning process.
“ … not only to those exchanges involving authentic communication but to every oral exchange that occurs in the classroom … ” (Ellis, 1990, p 12)
Classroom interaction can be categorized into two main types: non-verbal and verbal interaction Non-verbal interaction encompasses behavioral responses from students, such as head nodding, hand raising, body gestures, and eye contact In contrast, verbal interaction includes both written and oral forms Written interaction involves students expressing their ideas through written words or documents, while oral interaction refers to students engaging in spoken communication, including asking and answering questions, making comments, and participating in discussions According to Robinson (1994), these two types of interaction play a crucial role in the learning process.
Interaction involves direct, "face-to-face" communication, which can be verbal, using spoken or written language, or non-verbal, expressed through touch, proximity, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures.
FORMS OF ORAL INTERACTION
In the communicative approach to language teaching, classroom interaction plays a crucial role in second language pedagogy, occurring between teachers and learners or among learners themselves Angelo (1993) highlights that effective teaching principles, such as creating an active learning environment and encouraging interaction, enhance student engagement and knowledge acquisition Active participation in learning fosters deeper understanding; however, Van Lier (1996) emphasizes that teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions offer distinct opportunities for negotiation and should be assessed in their specific contexts.
In the classroom, teacher-learner interaction occurs when the teacher poses questions to students, who then respond, fostering a dynamic exchange This interaction can happen with the entire class, in small groups, or on an individual basis, enhancing oral activities and promoting engagement.
A study by Musumeci (1996) reveals that in many English classes, teachers predominantly lecture, leaving students in passive roles of listening and note-taking Teachers begin lessons by reviewing prior content, introducing new material, and clarifying complex concepts, while concluding with a summary and feedback This dynamic positions teachers as the central figures in the classroom, controlling the discussion and determining the flow of communication Students participate minimally, often only responding to questions without the opportunity to ask their own, highlighting the imbalance in teacher-student interaction (Cazden, 1988; Tsui).
Teacher talk constitutes a significant portion of classroom discourse, accounting for approximately two-thirds of communication in language classrooms (Chaudron, 1988; Musumeci, 1996) Nunan (1991) emphasizes the importance of teachers evaluating both the quantity and quality of their talk in relation to pedagogical goals, highlighting its crucial role in classroom organization and language acquisition Effective teacher talk not only facilitates successful implementation of teaching plans but also serves as a primary source of comprehensible input for students Consequently, the amount and type of teacher talk can be a decisive factor in teaching success or failure (Lynch, 1996).
In many classrooms, teachers dominate the conversation, leaving little opportunity for students to express themselves, except during occasional questions When students do respond, the pressure to answer in complete sentences and the fear of penalties for mistakes often put them on the defensive.
Edwards and Westgate (1994) highlight that students have limited opportunities to engage with classroom language, emphasizing the collaborative nature of teaching To enhance student participation, Brown (2001) suggests that teacher talk should not dominate class time, as this restricts student speaking opportunities Additionally, Harmer (1991) advocates for the inclusion of communicative activities, which encourage students to produce meaningful outputs in their language learning.
It means the teacher’s intervention should be avoided
2.2.1.1 Initiation - Response - Feedback (IRF) pattern
Thornbury (1996) identified that teacher-dominated language classrooms typically follow the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) interaction pattern, where the teacher initiates and concludes exchanges, thereby limiting student responses to only the second turn (Cazden, 1988; Seedhouse, 2001) In this structure, the teacher maintains control over the topic and discourse by directing turn-taking through questioning.
Here is a typical example of such pattern in a language class
Teacher initiates the first turn
“I” - T: What do you do when you’re under stress?
Student responds in the second turn
Teacher follows up at the third turn
In language classes, the typical interaction pattern involves the teacher posing a question, a student responding, and the teacher giving feedback, which Van Lier (1996) describes as a "closed discourse format" that can hinder communication However, Wells (1993) highlights that the feedback given by teachers can foster further interaction by encouraging students to elaborate on their thoughts, justify their answers, clarify their ideas, or connect them to personal experiences To enhance communicative effectiveness, teachers should aim to promote deeper engagement through these strategies.
Here is a typical example of the pattern for further interaction
Teacher initiates the first turn
“I” - T: What do you do when you’re under stress?
Student responds in the second turn
Teacher follows up at the third turn
The teacher's third turn in the IRF sequence not only evaluates the student's response but also poses an additional question, fostering more opportunities for language practice and conversation This structure consists of the teacher initiating a question, the student providing an answer, and the teacher offering feedback while prompting further discussion The teacher's initiation acts as input for the target language, while students' responses represent the output, with feedback enhancing their language acquisition Consequently, effective questioning significantly boosts oral interaction, encouraging longer and higher-quality student responses By using the third turn to promote interaction instead of merely giving evaluative comments, the IRF pattern becomes less restrictive and facilitates more effective communication in the classroom.
Questioning is an essential technique in English language teaching, aimed at assessing student comprehension, enhancing engagement, and fostering creative thinking during classroom interactions It constitutes a significant portion of teacher talk and facilitates a mutual exchange of ideas between teachers and students By employing questions, teachers can gauge students' knowledge and understanding while stimulating their interest and encouraging active participation According to Wood (1988), the primary goal of pedagogical questions is to motivate and guide students' thought processes Ur (2000) highlights that teacher questioning allows students to express their ideas, test their knowledge, and review previous lessons, ultimately promoting interaction and deeper learning This process is crucial for facilitating language acquisition, as noted by Corey (1940), who described questioning as a teacher's initiating activity Ascher (1961) and Gall (1970) refer to teachers as "professional question markers," emphasizing the importance of questioning in effective teaching.
Questioning is a fundamental method for teachers to enhance student thinking and learning, making it essential for English teachers to develop effective questioning techniques Learning is driven by questions, and effective questions align with curriculum objectives, highlighting that proficient teachers are also skilled questioners (Morgan and Saxton, 1991).
Questioning plays a crucial role in enhancing teacher-learner interaction and promoting active participation in the learning process, as noted by Long and Sato (1983) There are two main types of questions: "display" questions, which assess learners' knowledge, and "referential" questions, which encourage deeper engagement and critical thinking.
"Display" questions are those posed by teachers who already know the answers, aimed at prompting students to demonstrate their understanding These questions serve purposes such as checking comprehension, confirming information, or seeking clarification.
Here are some examples about display questions:
1 What is the opposite of “near”?
2 What does this paragraph say?
3 What’s the meaning of “current”?
Display questions are an effective tool in EFL classrooms, as they not only demonstrate the teacher's knowledge of the material but also encourage students to engage and participate actively By utilizing these questions, teachers can foster practice in the target language, enhancing the overall learning experience for their students.
Referential questions are those whose answers are unknown to the teacher, making them effective in fostering social discourse in the classroom Unlike questions aimed at testing knowledge, referential questions promote communication and enhance learners' speaking skills by encouraging more meaningful, subjective, and often longer responses (Brock, 1986; Gebhard, 1996; Tsui, 1995) These questions serve a genuine communicative purpose, as they require students to provide interpretations and judgments in their answers There are two sub-types of referential questions: closed referential and open referential questions (Long and Sato).
FACTORS INFLUENCING ORAL INTERACTION
Classroom interaction is influenced by various factors categorized into three main groups: student factors, social factors, and educational factors Student factors encompass perceptions, attitudes, learning styles, backgrounds, and personal affective elements Social factors involve the gender dynamics among students and the sense of community within the group Educational factors are linked to the lecturer, course content, and the topics being taught.
In Tatar's 2005 study, it was found that classroom interaction is significantly affected by students' factors, including insufficient language skills and limited content knowledge Students often refrain from participating to avoid making mistakes in front of peers and teachers, as well as to escape potentially embarrassing situations that could damage their self-esteem Consequently, their silence emerges as a strategic approach to maintain their dignity in the classroom.
Fassinger's research (1995) identifies three key factors influencing oral interaction: class traits, student traits, and teacher traits Class traits encompass peer pressures, including discouragement, attention, and supportiveness from fellow students Student traits refer to individual characteristics such as confidence levels, preparedness, organizational skills, communication apprehension, and fear of offending others Lastly, teacher traits involve the teacher's supportiveness, attentiveness, and evaluative feedback, all of which play a crucial role in facilitating effective oral communication in the classroom.
Liu's (2001) study identifies five key categories that influence oral interactions in the classroom: cognitive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and linguistic The cognitive category encompasses students' learning experiences, styles, preparation, subject knowledge, and topic interest The pedagogical category highlights the importance of teacher encouragement, class size, peer support, and lesson delivery, indicating that students prefer pair or group discussions over whole-class participation A student-centered classroom fosters greater engagement compared to a teacher-centered approach (Barry, King & Burke, 2000) Affective factors include students' personality traits, motivation, attitudes, anxiety levels, and willingness to take risks, with Morrison and Thomas (1975) emphasizing the role of personality in learning dynamics.
Self-esteem significantly influences students' language use and classroom participation Teachers often express concern over students' language abilities, which can lead to low self-esteem Students with low self-esteem tend to provide limited responses, while those with high self-esteem exhibit strong communication skills and engage more actively According to McCroskey (1991), communication apprehension can further hinder participation, as excessive anxiety may result in low self-esteem and poor academic performance Additionally, shyness affects oral interaction, with introverted students being more reserved and less likely to engage compared to their extroverted peers Socio-cultural factors, including beliefs and values shaped by cultural backgrounds, also play a role in students' interactions Finally, linguistic abilities impact students' willingness to participate, as those with strong speaking skills are more eager to engage in classroom discussions.
According to Wilson (1996), high achieving students engage in more student-initiated interactions compared to their low achieving peers, often raising their hands to answer questions Factors such as uncertainty about their answers, reluctance to participate, and fear of being the only one to initiate interactions can hinder their oral engagement In contrast, low achieving students remain hesitant to interact, even when encouraged by teachers, and tend to use both verbal and non-verbal strategies to communicate Their reluctance is influenced by factors such as fear of teasing, embarrassment, concerns about making mistakes, lack of enjoyment and knowledge in certain subjects, and a general disinterest in learning and socializing with classmates.
Teachers play a pivotal role in enhancing student participation during face-to-face exchanges by carefully choosing their language and managing its use Effective strategies include applying open and direct error correction, using conversational language for feedback, allowing ample wait time for responses, and providing necessary language support to prevent communication breakdowns Additionally, demonstrating equal interest and patience towards all students, particularly those who struggle, encourages eagerness to participate The effectiveness of teacher-student interactions hinges on the teaching style, where teachers must guide, inspire, and create engaging learning situations that promote listening, reading, writing, and problem-solving By fostering warm relationships and encouraging cooperative communication, teachers can significantly increase opportunities for students to express their ideas and actively engage in classroom activities.
CLASSROOM INTERACTION AND SECOND LANGUAGE
There are two concepts in second language acquisition: “nature” and
Language acquisition can be understood through two primary theories: the innate knowledge theory, which posits that students learn a language based on their inherent understanding, and the environmental interaction theory, which emphasizes that language development is driven by engagement with the surrounding environment (Doughty & Long, 2003).
Interaction is essential for second language acquisition, serving as a central feature of the learning process It encompasses the interpersonal activities that occur during face-to-face communication (Vygotsky, 1978) As noted by Ellis (1985), interaction involves discourse co-constructed by students and their interlocutors, with output being a key outcome of this interaction This process not only facilitates language learning but also actively engages students in language activities, resulting in increased language output In the context of second language learning, teachers play a pivotal role by initiating various strategies such as questioning, instructions, and activities designed to enhance students' language acquisition.
According to Krashen (1981), language acquisition encompasses both explicit and implicit processes, where students consciously engage with language to understand and memorize its rules while also using it for communication This acquisition primarily occurs when students concentrate on conveying meaning, leading to the development of both linguistic and communicative competence.
(1990) asserts that language acquisition is the result of an interaction between students’ mental abilities and the linguistic environment Therefore, interaction is necessary for second language acquisition
According to Krashen (1985), interaction is essential for providing comprehensible input, which is critical for language learning, as learning cannot occur without it The language used by teachers significantly influences the language produced by students, making comprehensible input a key factor in second language acquisition Krashen (1981) emphasizes that effective learning happens when students are exposed to language that is slightly beyond their current level, described by the "i+1" structure, where "i" represents the student's existing linguistic competence and "1" denotes new items to be learned Additionally, output in a second language often reflects the practical application of the language that students have already acquired.
The Input Theory also has two corollaries (Krashen, 1985, p 2):
Corollary 1: Speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause It emerges as result of building competence via comprehensible input
Practical application of the existing language INPUT: stage i to stage i+1 OUTPUT
Corollary 2: If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided Language teachers need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order - it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviews if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input
Interactional features consist of three key components: input, output, and feedback Input refers to the language that students receive, while output is the language produced by the students themselves Feedback encompasses the responses from conversational partners regarding the students' language use Therefore, effective interaction enhances both the quantity and quality of input, output, and feedback.
Below is the model of second language acquisition: input output
The language acquisition process begins with input being captured and stored as short-term memory, known as intake This intake is then transformed into long-term memory, forming the foundation of second language knowledge Students utilize this knowledge to generate both spoken and written output As students engage with their interlocutors, the processed intake serves as a basis for producing output, which in turn becomes new input for their conversation partners, who provide valuable feedback This cyclical process of interaction fosters continuous improvement and enhances second language learning.
According to Ellis (1985), input refers to the language data that students hear, while intake is the portion of the second language that is absorbed and integrated into their inter-language system To facilitate language acquisition, it is essential for input to transform into intake As students receive ample input, they will merge this exposure with their practical use of the second language, thereby enhancing their language development.
Pica and Doughty (1985) highlight the crucial role of teachers in generating input for second language learning, noting that teacher talk is the primary source of language input To enhance comprehension, it is essential for teachers to provide input that is both clear and appropriately paced Teacher questions serve as vital language input, while students' responses, including their answers and inquiries, represent language output In classrooms, teacher questioning can promote student output in the target language; however, Pica and Doughty found that interactions between teachers and students often yield less output compared to peer interactions, as students typically engage less and produce fewer language turns during teacher-student exchanges.
The Interaction Hypothesis highlights the significance of comprehensible input in language development, asserting that conversational exchanges are crucial to avoid communicative breakdowns Skehan and Foster (2001) emphasize that meaning negotiation is vital for interaction, making it a key condition for second language acquisition Gass and Torrens (2005) note that negotiation serves as the initial step in learning, as it initiates interactional adjustments that enhance language acquisition by linking input, internal student capacities, and output Long (1983) argues that students must have ample opportunities to negotiate meaning to facilitate language acquisition effectively Through negotiation, students receive feedback from their interlocutors, which prompts them to modify their language output This feedback is essential for second language development and particularly beneficial for mastering specific structures, as highlighted by Gass & Varonis (1994) in their exploration of the role of negotiated interaction in promoting second language acquisition.
The process of focusing a learner's attention on problematic aspects of discourse is essential for both productive and receptive language skills This heightened awareness enables learners to identify discrepancies between their language use and that of fluent speakers Recognizing these gaps can ultimately facilitate necessary grammar restructuring.
Interaction plays a vital role in second language acquisition by facilitating feedback on misunderstandings and correcting speakers' output According to Gass (1997), feedback in communicative contexts aligns with learners' goals, making it more applicable This process allows students to recognize the gap between their output and the target language, prompting them to reformulate their speech and enhance their awareness of language forms (Schmidt, 1990) Ultimately, comprehensible input is achieved through interactional modifications during meaning negotiations, which not only raise students' consciousness of the target language but also provide valuable feedback and improve speaking skills Long (1981, 1983, 1996) underscores the significance of negotiation in learning, as it enhances understanding and increases the amount of comprehensible input students receive.
Long (1985, 1996) concludes that “second language interaction can facilitate development by providing opportunities for students to receive comprehensible input and feedback, as well as modify their own output” Swain
According to Swain (1985), language acquisition is significantly enhanced when students actively use and improve their target language through output He argues that students often lack nativelike productive competence not due to insufficient comprehensible input but rather limited comprehensible output Therefore, language teachers must provide adequate input that encourages students to produce the target language The process of negotiating precise and coherent meanings through output not only aids in developing essential grammatical resources but also shifts students from semantic to syntactic processing Additionally, Swain's Output Hypothesis highlights the critical role of feedback, suggesting that receiving constructive feedback from teachers can enhance the accuracy of students' output.
Effective second language learning hinges on both input and output Cook (2000) emphasizes that students must absorb relevant input to enhance their proficiency Swain (1985) argues that meaningful use of linguistic resources is essential for achieving grammatical competence, requiring attention to both form and meaning Krashen (1981, 1985, 1989) suggests that learners progress by engaging with input that exceeds their current knowledge level, but comprehensible input alone is insufficient for acquisition (Gass, 1997) True acquisition occurs when input transforms into intake, highlighting that language learning involves using the language for communication.
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research aims to explore the factors contributing to low oral interaction among learners at Nguyen Tat Thanh College (NTTC) in Ho Chi Minh City within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms To achieve this objective, the study will also propose various oral activities designed to enhance student engagement in speaking Two key research questions have been developed to guide the investigation.
(1) Why do the learners in the EFL classrooms at NTTC in HoChiMinh City have low oral interaction?
(2) What oral activities help the learners improve their oral interaction?
RESEARCH DESIGN
To address the research questions, both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized, with data collected through questionnaires and observations Questionnaires offer several advantages, including convenience and cost-effectiveness, as noted by Kumar (1996), while also alleviating the anxiety that students may feel during face-to-face interviews This method allows researchers to gather reliable data from a larger population and encourages participants to provide thoughtful responses Nunan (1989) emphasizes that observation is an effective way to study interactions in language classrooms, as it involves careful watching and listening without the observer becoming a participant This approach enables researchers to focus on specific situations or groups, capturing changes over time and providing in-depth insights that surveys may lack The strengths of classroom observation include the ability to study educational processes in natural settings and to offer detailed evidence Nisbet and Walt (1984) assert that direct observation yields reliable information by revealing actual behaviors and interactions In this study, direct observation was employed to assess classroom behaviors, specifically the frequency of oral interactions among teachers and students.
By employing a research design that integrates both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researcher achieved a deeper understanding of the studied phenomenon while also enhancing the validity and reliability of the collected data.
The study conducted at NTTC in Ho Chi Minh City from mid-September to late December 2010 involved collecting data through questionnaires from 43 Vietnamese English teachers The research aimed to investigate the factors contributing to students' low interaction levels The background information gathered from the teacher questionnaires highlights the characteristics of the participating educators.
Bachelor Grad Dip Master Doctor Other qualifications
Teaching experience under 5 years from 5 years to 10 years over 10 years
11.6% 55.8% 32.6% Table 3.1 Summary of the teacher subjects’ characteristics
In a study involving 43 teachers, the gender distribution was 44.2% male and 55.8% female, with ages ranging from 23 to 42 and an average age of 31.93 A significant portion of the participants held advanced degrees, with 44.2% possessing a Master's degree, 37.2% having a Graduate Diploma, and only 18.6% holding a Bachelor's degree Additionally, the majority of the teachers had substantial teaching experience, with 55.8% having between 5 to 10 years and 32.6% exceeding 10 years in the profession.
Second-year students from six diverse faculties, including Tourism, Information Technology, Finance, Pharmacy, Accounting, and Business Administration at NTTC in HCMC, participated in a questionnaire survey The summary of the collected data offers a comprehensive overview of the students' background characteristics.
English under 3 years from 3 years to 7 years over 7 years
Places where students attended high school a city a town a countryside a mountainous or remote rural area
English speaking competence level very poor poor fair good very good
11.8% 68.8% 17.2% 2.2% 0.0% Table 3.2 Summary of the student subjects’ characteristics
Table 3.2 outlines the demographic profile of 279 student respondents, revealing a gender distribution of 43.4% male and 56.6% female The majority of these sophomores were 19 years old (80.3%) at the time of the study Notably, 83.5% of the respondents (233 students) had over seven years of English learning experience, indicating significant exposure to the language Furthermore, more than half (67.3% or 188 students) attended high schools in rural areas, while 32.6% (91 students) came from urban settings This distinction is crucial, as students from urban areas often have better access to resources and opportunities for practicing English, particularly in listening and speaking skills Consequently, a significant portion of the rural students (80.6% or 225 students) rated their English speaking competence as poor or very poor.
Two main instruments used for collecting data on students’ oral interaction in classroom, in both teacher-student and student-student forms, were questionnaires and observations
Questionnaires were utilized to gather data from teachers and students regarding the factors contributing to low oral interaction among students This method allowed respondents to provide answers independently, ensuring greater reliability of the data Additionally, the multiple-choice format of the questionnaires, presented in Vietnamese, facilitated easier expression of perceptions by enabling informants to select the most suitable answers.
The research utilized two tailored questionnaires: one for Vietnamese English teachers and another for sophomores in various majors at NTTC in HCMC Administered at the start of the first semester in 2010, each questionnaire featured two parts The teachers' version gathered data on gender, age, academic qualifications, and teaching experience, while the students' version focused on gender, age, duration of English study, high school English learning environment, and self-assessment of English speaking skills Both versions included 18 questions across eight dimensions.
- The importance of the parts of an English lesson (Question 1)
- Students’ motivation for and participation in oral interaction (Question 2 through Question 5)
- Forms of oral interaction (Question 6 through Question 9)
- Teacher’s talking time in the classroom (Question 10)
- Teacher’s and students’ questioning (Question 11 through Question 14)
- Wait-time (Question 15 and Question 16)
Observation is a highly effective method for collecting primary data, as it allows researchers to systematically and selectively examine phenomena in real-time In this study, classroom observation was utilized to assess the behaviors of both teachers and students, with observations conducted continuously during classroom visits The researcher filmed key moments during seatwork and collaborative activities, ensuring that the lessons were conducted under the teacher's supervision Over the course of a semester, two classes were observed, totaling 10 visits—five for each class—with each observation lasting 35 minutes The researcher maintained a low profile by positioning themselves at the back of the classroom, minimizing interactions with participants and only approaching them after class when necessary.
Flanders’ Interaction Analysis, developed by Flanders in 1970, was utilized in this study to observe and measure students’ progress through classroom interactions This method categorizes teacher talk into seven types: accepting feelings, praising or encouraging, accepting or using students' ideas, asking questions, lecturing, giving directions, and criticizing, while student talk is categorized into three types: student talk-response, student talk-initiation, and silence The analysis items were adapted into an observation sheet known as the coding chart, as described by Gay (2000), which encompasses ten categories noted during observations (refer to Appendix 5).
1 Accept feeling: Accepting and clarifying the feeling tone of students in a non-threatening manner Feeling may be positive or negative Predicting or recalling feeling is included
2 Praises or encourages: Praising or encouraging student actions or behaviors Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual, nodding head, saying “um, hm?” or “go on” are included
3 Accepts or uses ideas: Clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by students As more of the teacher’s own ideas come into play, shift to Category 5
4 Asks questions: Asking questions about content or procedure with the intent that students answer
5 Lectures: Giving facts or opinions about content or procedure, expressing the teacher’s own ideas, asking rhetorical questions
6 Gives directions: Giving directions, commands, or orders with which students are expected to comply
7 Criticizes or justifies authority: Making statements intended to change student behaviors from unacceptable to acceptable patterns, bawling out someone, etc
8 Responses: Talk by students in response to the teacher The teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement
9 Initiates: Talk by students which they initiate If a “calling on” students is only to indicate who may talk next, observer must decide whether the student wanted to talk If so, use this category
Silence 10 Silence: Pause, short periods of silence, in which the communication is not implemented
Teacher behaviors can be categorized into seven distinct types, with four falling under indirect influence, including accepting student feelings, praising or encouraging student actions, utilizing student ideas, and asking questions The three types of direct influence encompass lecturing, providing directions, and criticism Additionally, student talk is classified into three categories: responses to the teacher, student-initiated discussions, and silence The classification of student talk into these categories highlights the level of freedom afforded to students in the learning environment.
Initiatives and responses define the dynamics of interpersonal interactions To initiate is to take the first step, introducing new ideas and expressing one’s own intentions Conversely, to respond involves taking action based on previous initiations, whether by countering, amplifying, or conforming to the ideas presented by others.
The Verbal Interaction Category System, developed by Amidon and Hunter in 1967, serves as an effective tool for classroom observation, extending the Framework for Interactive Analysis (FIA) This system categorizes classroom verbal behaviors into five major categories, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of verbal interactions in educational settings.
6 Responds to teacher predictably or unpredictably
9 Initiated talks to other students
Medley and Mitzel (1963) developed another observational tool called Sign and Category System that facilitated observational study on classroom interaction Its items include:
12 Student talks to visitor, etc
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
In the initial interactions with participants, the researcher emphasized that participation in the study was voluntary and assured them of the confidentiality of their data Additionally, participants were informed that the study had received approval from the dean of the English Department at NTTC in Ho Chi Minh City.
To ensure the accuracy of the collected data, the study followed a structured procedure involving questionnaire distribution and classroom observations Initially, questionnaires were piloted in Vietnamese with 20 students and 10 teachers, leading to adjustments for clarity based on their feedback The finalized questionnaires were distributed to 291 students, achieving a 95.8% response rate after excluding 12 incomplete responses Additionally, 45 Vietnamese English teachers received the teacher version, resulting in a 95.5% response rate with 43 completed questionnaires returned The synthesized data aimed to identify factors contributing to students' low oral interaction and to propose effective activities to enhance their participation in classroom discussions.
With approval from the dean of the English Department, observations were conducted to compare two similar classes with low English speaking proficiency Class 09CDTC05, comprising 59 students, was designated as the experimental group, while Class 09CDKT07, with 56 students, served as the control group The researcher collaborated with the teacher of the experimental group to design and implement oral activities aimed at enhancing students' speaking interactions A total of five observation sessions, each lasting 35 minutes, were conducted for both classes, during which the participants' behaviors were recorded on film.
The researcher conducted observations at home by watching films and categorizing teacher and student behaviors every 3 seconds, maintaining a pace of 18 to 20 observations per minute The total instances of teacher talk and student talk were recorded on observational sheets, allowing for the calculation of their respective percentages This data collection took place during the first semester of the 2010 academic year, utilizing Flanders’ Interaction Analysis procedure to assess classroom interaction patterns in both the experimental and control groups.
- In the each observational session, 35 minutes (2100 seconds) were used for observation
- 35 minutes (2100 seconds) were divided into 700 observations
- Each observation period lasted for 3 seconds
- The behaviors of the teacher and students were filmed and coded in the observation sheet.