Master thesis English teaching methodology: Fostering classroom English to motivate the first year non major students in EFL classes at a college in Hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

-----------------------------



HOÀNG THANH THẢO

FOSTERING CLASSROOM ENGLISH TO MOTIVATE THE FIRST YEAR

NON-MAJOR STUDENTS IN EFL CLASSES AT A COLLEGE IN HANOI

(Tạo động lực học tiếng cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại một trường cao

đẳng ở Hà Nội thông qua tăng cường sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology

Code : 8140231.01

Hà Nội - 2020

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

-----------------------------



HOÀNG THANH THẢO

FOSTERING CLASSROOM ENGLISH TO MOTIVATE THE FIRST YEAR

NON-MAJOR STUDENTS IN EFL CLASSES AT A COLLEGE IN HANOI

(Tạo động lực học tiếng cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại một trường cao

đẳng ở Hà Nội thông qua tăng cường sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology

Code : 8140231.01

Supervisor : Professor Nguyen Hoa

Hà Nội - 2020

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Fostering classroom English to motivate the

first year non-major students in EFL classes at a college in Hanoi” is the result of

my own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at University of Languages and

International Studies, Vietnam National University, and that I accept the

requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s

Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

Hanoi, 2020

Hoàng Thanh Thảo

Appoved by

SUPERVIOR

(Signature and full name)

i

Datye: .................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Nguyen

Hoa for his helpful guidance, critical comments, valuable suggestions and

contributions in the preparation and completion of this minor M.A. thesis.

I hereby formally express my debt of gratitude to the lecturers and staff at the Post-

Graduate Department for their valuable lectures and tireless academic support and

encouragements, which laid the foundation of this thesis.

Furthermore, my thanks also go to the students who participated in my research.

Their willingness to support will be always remembered.

Last, I wish to acknowledge the support and invaluable help of my family while the

ii

work was in progress. They have been part of my interesting journey.

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to investigate the influence levels of classroom English

(CE) intensity over foreign language learning of non-English major freshmen at a

teacher training college in Vietnam. The topic germinated from my personal

experiences and observation as an EFL teacher.

I used a mixed methods design to achieve the research aims, involving the use of

questionnaires, tests and semi-structured interviews.

The main arguments were centered around several points: (a) non-English major

freshmen were motivated in their English studies brought from intensifying

classroom English; (b) the main factors influence on this motivation; (c) the

motivation keeps most of the time.

The study findings indicate that students’ motivation is enhanced as more CE is

used. The findings also offer some pedagogical recommendations for the teachers

iii

and make some suggestions for future research.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

classroom English CE

EFL English as foreign language

the second language L2

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CLT Communicative Language Teaching

RQ(s) research question(s)

T Teacher

iv

Ss Students

LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1: Main language functions related to classroom management ...................... 24

Table 2: Process of CE application in lessons .......................................................... 26

Table 3: Frequent channels of English communications to the students ..................36

Table 4: Students’ self-assessment to the CE and its correlation with the communicative skills .................................................................................................39

Table 5: Students’ frequency of conversations in English with the teacher .............42

Table 6: Comparison results of pre-test and post-test ...............................................46

v

Table 7: Student interviewees’ percentage of CE apprehension...............................50

CONTENTS

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. iv

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1

1. Rationale .................................................................................................................1

2. Aims and significance of the study .........................................................................2

3. Research questions ..................................................................................................2

4. Scope of the study ...................................................................................................2

5. Method and design of the study ..............................................................................3

6. Structure of the thesis ..............................................................................................3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................5

2.1. Classroom English ...............................................................................................5

2.1.1. Definitions of classroom English ....................................................................... 5

2.1.2. Roles of classroom English .................................................................................. 7

2.1.3. Second language acquisition theories................................................................ 9

2.1.4. Different situations in the classroom ............................................................... 10

2.1.5. Major factors affecting classroom English application .............................. 10

2.2. Motivation ..........................................................................................................13

2.2.1. Definitions of motivation .................................................................................... 13

2.2.2. The importance of motivation in English learning ...................................... 13

2.2.3. Major motivation orientations ........................................................................... 14

2.2.4. Devising motivational strategies ....................................................................... 15

2.2.5. Relationship between learning motivation and CE ................................ 16

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................19

vi

3.1. Methodological Approach ..................................................................................19

3.2. Context of the study ............................................................................................19

3.3. Participants .........................................................................................................20

3.4. Research questions .............................................................................................20

3.5. Instruments .........................................................................................................21

3.5.1. Survey questionnaires .......................................................................................... 21

3.5.2. Test of listening comprehension of classroom English .............................. 22

3.5.3. Interviews ................................................................................................................ 23

3.6. Planning the Intervention ...................................................................................23

3.6.1. Planning ................................................................................................................... 23

3.6.2. Action ....................................................................................................................... 25

3.6.3. Lesson Plan Illustration ....................................................................................... 27

3.6.4. Observing ................................................................................................................ 30

3.7. Data collection procedures .................................................................................30

3.8. Data analytic framework ....................................................................................31

3.9. Role of the researcher .........................................................................................32

3.10. Ethical consideration ........................................................................................32

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................................35

4.1. Findings ..............................................................................................................35

4.1.1 Findings from the pre- questionnaire ................................................................ 35

4.1.2. Findings from the post-questionnaire .............................................................. 41

4.1.3. Results of the tests ................................................................................................ 46

4.1.4. Findings from the interviews ............................................................................. 47

4.2. Discussion ..........................................................................................................50

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ..............................................................................55

5.1. Recap and conclusion ........................................................................................ 55

5.2. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies .......................... 56

5.3. Limitations of the study .................................................................................... 57

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................59

vii

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

Appendix 1: Pre-Questionnaire for Students Before CE Application ........................ I

Appendix 2: Post - Questionnaire .......................................................................... XIII

Appendix 3: Pre-Test of Classroom English ........................................................ XVII

Appendix 4: Post-Test of Classroom English ...................................................... XXII

Appendix 5: Interview Questions..................................................................... XXVIII

viii

Appendix 6: Materials for lesson plan illustration ............................................. XXIX

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

Since the introduction of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the

late 1970s, the use of target language in EFL classrooms (English as a Foreign

Language) has arisen as an essential trend to provide optimal learning opportunities

for foreign language learners. Among the pros for the teaching, the most utility is

frequently the society’s increasing demand for good English communication. In

addition, linguistic research has presented a range of advantages related to the CLT

approach, especially the two characteristics of “authentic” and “practical”.

However, traditional methods for a long time, especially the grammar translation

method die-hard, seem to be a barrier to the second language (L2) use - prone

classes in Vietnam. The thought of how to change the old mind and in what way has

reminded the author of classroom English. In many parts of the world, studies on L2

use in general and CE in particular in EFL classes have received a great deal of

attention from researchers. Salaberri (1995) and Gardner (2000) asserted that

teachers should strive to incorporate the L2 right from the beginning of a course.

However, the statement competed with numerous others. Nunan (1989) contended

that in an EFL environment a teacher faces a challenging task in obtaining

"authentic" materials. The question is whether authentic materials, once removed

from their natural environment, remain authentic.

In Vietnam, such researches were scant or mainly focused on studying the

relationship between teachers’ target language proficiency and the ways to use it in

the classroom to engage learners in the learning process (Nguyen, 2007; Pham,

2007; Ngo, 2009; Pham, 2014; Le, 2017). To my best knowledge, the issue of using

CE to motivate students has been under-researched. For that reason, I am convinced

that there exists a need for an exploration into this field.

In the specific context of the researched college in Hanoi, the improvement

1

of non- English major students’ target language proficiency and motivation receives

much attention of administrators as well as teachers. This study, which is titled

“Fostering classroom English to motivate the first year non-major students in EFL

classes at a college in Hanoi”, is expected to find out the impact of using CE on

improving students’ motivation.

2. Aims and significance of the study

My foremost interest is to study how teachers can make use of classroom

English as a tool to benefit non-major students’ foreign language acquisition as well

as motivate their learning process.

The present study, practically, aims to:

- examine the influence levels of CE intensity over foreign language

learning of non-English major freshmen.

- explore the main factors influence on this motivation.

- investigate students’ attitudes towards the CE frequency in English lessons.

At the theoretical level, the study complements existing literature of

classroom English and learning motivation as it addressed the gaps in this area. The

study would be a reference source for English language teachers to adjust not only

the target language proficiency but also their classroom management proficiency in

order for an improvement of teaching capacity.

3. Research questions

To achieve aforementioned aims, the study set out to seek answers to the

following research questions:

a. In what ways does fostering classroom English motivate non-English major

students?

b. What are their attitudes towards the increased use of CE in English lessons?

4. Scope of the study

The application of classroom English involves both students and English

language teachers. However, due to the limited time and difficulty in timetable

arrangement, the study only focused on the non-English major freshmen of a K39

2

Primary class in the college.

5. Method and design of the study

This study is an action research project, based on the theoretical framework of

Gerald Susman (1983) on Action Research and carried out by the writer herself as a

practitioner in EFL teaching and concurrent with the teaching and learning process.

It adopted a mixed method approach. Both quantitative and qualitative data

are collected in order to get a full view of the influence of CE intensity on students’

learning motivation.

For the quantitative data, the author used the two questionnaires – one at the

beginning to get a general view over the research subjects and another at the end to

measure the results gained after the intervention process. To support the phase, the

two tests were also conducted in the same way.

In order to dig deeper into the answers to the RQs, the qualitative phrase was

conducted. A total of 11 face-to-face individual interviews with the participants

were employed in order to improve the validity of research results as well as

identify possible solutions that teachers can do to make the method more effective.

6. Structure of the thesis

The study consists of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter covers the rationale for the study, aims, significance, research

questions, scope, methods, and structure of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter synthesizes the theoretical framework of the studies related

to classroom English, foreign language learning motivation and previous studies

of the theme.

Chapter 3: Methodology Research

This chapter presents the context, the methodology used in this study

including the participants, data gathering instruments, data gathering procedures and

3

data analysis procedures.

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion

This chapter consists of the action plan and procedures, a comprehensive

analysis of the data from questionnaires, tests and interviews and discussion on the

findings.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This chapter gives the conclusion from the results of the findings,

4

implications, limitation of the study and some suggestions for further study.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, I will present and discuss aspects of theories of CE and

motivation underpinning the study. For both these sections, I follow a motif of

firstly reviewing the general theories and secondly selecting and discussing the

theories of those relevant to this research. The chapter’s overview scaffolds the

presentation of the research questions of the study.

2.1. Classroom English

2.1.1. Definitions of classroom English

As a result of the fact that English is naturally a language, the prime term

needed to be clarified in the study is classroom language. Bern Voss (1984) defined

classroom language as real communicative acts between teacher and pupil, pupil

and teacher, or amongst the pupils themselves, within the classroom setting. He

specified classroom business, “e.g. to set up groups for group work, to distribute

material, to organize activities, to tell a pupil off, to focus attention onto a particular

teaching point, to ask for further clarification or for a repetition, to bid for the floor,

to express joy or regret over something that has just happened in the classroom etc.”

(Voss, 1984, p.3).

Heath (1978) also found that a special feature of classroom language “is

the connected units that make up the “discourse” or flow of speech in interaction

between teacher and students.” Teacher or student comments cannot be analyzed

in isolation; they must be examined within the context of their occurrence with

other stretches of speech. Heath further contends that classroom language can be

described in terms of the special provinces of control to which many of the

“'directives,” or requests for action, refer: i.e., time and space usage, and respect

for others”.

Hughes (1981) indicated that the classroom procedures derived from a

particular method almost invariably have to be verbalized. In other words,

5

instructions have to be given, groups formed, time limits set, questions asked,

answers confirmed, discipline maintained, and so on. According to Hughes, the role

of this linguistic interaction is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of

teaching, but it is clearly crucial to the success of the teaching/learning event.

In short, the classroom language can be understood as the routine language

that is used on a regular basis in classroom.

Relating to the field, another term to consider is “teacher talk”. This phrase is

generally used in the field of pedagogy to refer to the form of language used by

teachers with their younger and less-skilled learners (Chaudron, 1988). Several

characteristics of teacher talk include providing context through restricting the

topics to the "here and now," modifying and simplifying the language to meet the

level of the students and others such as explaining, questioning, and commanding.

This description includes the length and frequency of silence, repetitions and

restatements, shortening the utterances, and the speed and clarity of speech.

Based on these mentioned – above definitions, classroom English should be

offered as a modification of classroom language and teacher talk that has been

imported to a L2 classroom (where students are learning a second or foreign

language).

According to B. Gardner and F. Gardner (2000), CE is a term that refers to

the ways teachers of English use the target language in the EFL classroom to

establish routines, give instructions and evaluate performance.

Dickey and Sang (1999) suggested the following definition: “classroom

English is the English used in the classroom, in context, in a planned and

appropriate level of language, together with extra-linguistic clues, for any purpose

other than the teaching of that language.”

Basically, the CE use by teachers of language means that they are using the

target language. In other words, the CE use is merely a subfield of the L2 use,

however, in the narrower scope: the classroom.

It is undeniable that Vietnamese non-English major students are constrained

6

by the social urge of communicative English improvement on one side and their low

language competence as well as different external causes on the other. As such,

there exists a need to conduct empirical research on these learners’ attitudes to

communicative English learning and which factors are able to sort out the gap.

Therefore, this study will provide an insight into making use of the CE as a starter

to help freshmen be closer to the L2-prone learning environment.

2.1.2. Roles of classroom English

The focus in EFL contexts had been on grammar translation for a long time

until the modern communicative approaches claiming good communication skills

stepped in. The new approach results in significant changes in EFL classes,

typically more L2 use or much more speaking and listening skills. Nevertheless, it

almost immediately runs into a series of barricades, namely teacher’s language

proficiency, level of students, cultural differences which all bring in reluctance in

EFL oral communication classes.

In fact, a number of students who have been learning English for a long time

still have difficulty understanding CE however simple it is.

Rising amongst the ideas to deal with the situation, classroom English is

favored for several concepts of which the most important perhaps is that students

want to learn "authentic English" (or "real-life English").

Nunan (1989, p.54) suggests "[a] rule-of-thumb definition for 'authentic' here

is any material which has not been specifically produced for the purpose of

language teaching." Under Nunan's definition, in an EFL environment a teacher

faces a challenging task in obtaining "authentic" materials.

Widdowson (1979), quoted by Adams (1995), defined that “authenticity is

realized by appropriate response and the language teacher is responsible for

designing a methodology which will establish the conditions whereby this

authenticity can be realized.” In short, authenticity is generated within the

classroom itself and the language in such case produced not for the purpose of

7

language teaching, but for authentic communication.

The classroom situation is a genuine social environment which allows ‘the

meaningful situation use of the language’ and its communicative potential is closer

to real interaction than is often assumed (Hughes, 1981, p.6). Furthermore, Gardner

(2000) also express classroom language has the advantage of being a highly

authentic use of language: there is a real communicative need for it.

Admittedly, by managing the class deliberately and flexibly in the L2, the

teacher is taking an important step towards removing the barriers between controlled,

often meaningless, practice and more genuine interactional language use.

In other words, classroom English makes use of the spontaneous and

unconscious acquisition processes that take place when learners are placed in an

immersion context rather than in a teaching or learning context. Classroom

language helps promote acquisition in a variety of ways - the language is highly

contextualized with many extra-linguistic clues to help comprehension and it

appeals to the young learners' previous experience. (Salaberri, 1995, p.3)

The present study, thus, will focus on exploring the expedient points as

mentioned in the above theories. Not to minimize the contributions of a

bilingual classroom but when the teacher is not speaking in English, they are

not modeling English.

The advantages of using classroom English may be basically stated as follows:

• maintain a good “English-speaking atmosphere”, which makes the English

lesson very different from any other lessons in the school day and helps the

learners focus on learning and using the language

• keep the learners thinking in English

• create active learning where the used words and phrases are linked to actions,

objects, ideas and people in a strong and positive way

• improve learners’ confidence when the language gradually becomes

absorbed unconsciously by the students and also increase teachers’ own

confidence

8

(B. Gardner & F. Gardner, 2000)

2.1.3. Second language acquisition theories

As Sallaberi pointed out the key role of classroom English in promoting

second language acquisition, it is necessary to recognize the distinction of the two

options “acquisition” and “learning”. Krashen (1985) asserts that language

acquisition is a subconscious process where language acquirers are not aware of the

fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are

using the language for communication. Unlike language learning which refers to

conscious knowledge of a second language, the acquisition interrelates “a feel for

correctness”. According to Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis, we acquire

by “going for meaning” first, and as a result, we acquire structure.

We acquire only when we understand language that contains structure that is

“a little beyond” where we are now. How can we understand language that contains

structures that we have not yet acquired? The answer to the paradox is that we use

more than our linguistic competence to help us understand. We also use context, our

knowledge of the world, our extra-linguistic information to help us understand

language directed at us.

It seems that classroom English is suitable to the L2 acquisition’s first stage,

called Preproduction, for which “teachers might use visual aids, body language and

constant repetition in order to help the students understand” (Krashen, 2003).

In the same vein, Long (1983) showed that modified interaction is the

necessary mechanism for making language comprehensible. Modified interaction

does not always involve linguistic simplification. It may also include elaboration,

slower speech rate, gesture or the provision of additional contextual cues.

According to Long, almost beginner-level learners acquiring a L2 from native-

speaker have modified their talk in some way. Others researchers (Salaberri, 1995;

Gardner, 2000) posed that teachers should incorporate the L2 needed for

instruction-giving right from the beginning of the course.

Besides, that teachers use classroom English and repeat it time by time is the

9

so-called usage-based learning. Cognitive psychologists showed less agreement to

the kind of declarative knowledge that characterizes skill learning and traditional

structure-based approaches to L2 acquisition. Ellis (2000) explains the emphasis is

on the frequency with which learners encounter specific linguistic features in the

input and the frequency with which language features occur together.

2.1.4. Different situations in the classroom

In order for the deeper understanding of CE, the following table built by Hughes

(1981) shows the various language functions related to classroom management.

❖ Organization

- Giving instructions

- Sequencing

- Supervision

❖ Interrogation

- Asking questions

- Replying to questions

❖ Explanation

- Metalanguage

- Reference

❖ Interaction

- Affective attitudes

- Social ritual

(see A Handbook of Classroom English, Glynn S. Hughes, 1981, p.8-11 for more

reference)

2.1.5. Major factors affecting classroom English application

2.1.5.1. Teachers’ target language proficiency

Despite the controversial training programs to raise teachers’ target language

proficiency or the constant conflicts in which language should be used in the L2

classes, language proficiency has been recognized as an important aspect of teacher

expertise, an essential factor affecting student learning (e.g. Andrews, 2007; Chen

& Wang, 2004; Butler, 2004; Richards, 2015).

10

Le and Renandya (2017) analyzes that “the challenge in researching

teachers’ target language proficiency lies in how the construct of language

proficiency is defined.” He quotes Richards, Conway, Roskvist, and Harvey (2013)

“define teachers’ language proficiency as one component of teachers’ subject

knowledge in addition to knowledge of second language acquisition theory,

pedagogical knowledge, curricular and syllabus knowledge and cultural

knowledge.”

Richards (2015, p.113) further specifies teachers’ target language proficiency

into competences in:

• providing good language models

• maintaining use of English in the classroom

• giving explanations and instructions in English

• providing examples of words and grammatical structures

• giving accurate explanations of meanings of English words and grammatical items

• using and adapting authentic English-language resources in teaching

• monitoring one’s own speech and writing for accuracy

• giving correct feedback on learner language use

• providing input at an appropriate level of difficulty

• engaging in improvisational teaching

Recognizing “it is not clear what minimal level of language proficiency

teachers need to acquire in order to teach effectively”, Le (2017) essentially found

out that while teachers’ general proficiency significantly affects the way they use

language in the classroom to promote learning, their classroom proficiency is at

least as important as their general proficiency.

Within the framework of this study, I want to focus on how effectively the

teacher’s use of classroom language stimulates students’ learning. Therefore, the

aspect of teacher target language proficiency will not be dug more deeply.

Moreover, a pre-survey on the input facts of the participants conducted at the

beginning of the course is expected to evidently show that the teacher L2

11

proficiency plays less key role in the research.

2.1.5.2. Learners’ L2 competence

L2 learners’ unequal levels of competence as well as the inconsistency of

their performance in target language is not new to teachers. These variables are

considered to affect language learning and teaching remarkably.

In regard to competence, Chomsky (1965) claimed that it included the

constitutive components of grammatical competence, discourse competence and

sociolinguistic competence. The first involves computational aspect of language, the

rules or formulations or constraints that allow us to pair sound with meaning, the rules

that form syntactic constructions or phonological or semantic patterns of varied sorts.

The second deals with the knowledge of the structure of text, both oral and written. It is

the ability to use (produce and recognize) coherent and cohesive text, oral or written.

Meanwhile, sociolinguistic competence has to do with the ability to produce, recognize

socially appropriate language in context (Jacquelyn, 1990).

Many researches shows that second language learners vary in their levels of

competence with many failing to reach target - language competence. William

(1984) found out the link of both social and cognitive factors to the varied

competence, which provides some ideas on why learners differ in the rate of second

language learning.

Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985) also names the social factor

among the four interrelated aspects of L2 learning. He expresses that the social and

cultural milieu determines beliefs about language usage and culture. The others are

individual learner differences (this relates to motivation and language aptitude), the

setting (formal and, or informal learning context) and learning outcomes.

Specially, Myles (2004) specifies the following social factors which can

affect learner’s level of communicative competence in second language:

(i) negative attitude towards the target language;

(ii) continued lack of progress in L2;

(iii) wide social and psychological distance between the learners and target culture; and

12

(iv) lack of integrative and instrumental motivation for learning.

2.2. Motivation

2.2.1. Definitions of motivation

Because motivation is difficult to observe (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), the

definition of motivation often becomes confusing because researchers do not provide a

uniform definition of motivation (Dörnyei, 2001). In general, motivation is defined as

the will and skills to learn (Paris & Oka, 1986), goal-directed behavior (Heckhausen,

1991), or learners’ purposeful endeavors toward a goal (Snow & Farr, 1983).

Michell (1982) believes that motivation is not action itself, but “a

psychological process that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary

actions that are goal-related”. It, thus, cannot be directly observed, but can be

inferred from learners’ classroom behaviors and choices they made to complete the

goal (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

In the second language learning field, motivation relates motivational factors

to linguistic aptitudes (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Gardner explains L2 motivation

in terms of three psychological concepts: the learner’s attitude towards the target

language, the desire to learn the language and the intensity of the engagement.

2.2.2. The importance of motivation in English learning

In the process of L2 motivation research, scholars (Gardner, 1985; Gardner

& Clement, 1990; Dörnyei, 2003) have recognized the importance of motivation for

successful second language learning. Dörnyei expressed that by restating that

learning an L2 is different in many ways from learning other school subjects.

Besides discrete elements of the communication code (e.g. grammatical rules and

lexical items) that can be taught explicitly, an L2 is also socially and culturally

bound. As a result, language learning is like a deeply social event that requires the

incorporation of a wide range of elements of the L2 culture (cf. Gardner, 1979;

Williams, 1994).

L2 motivation, thus, is an essential, if not sufficient, condition for learning

process. In the other words, ordinary learners of English need to be put in a practical

13

learning environment where this language can be used in accordance with its social

and cultural functions rather than academic aspects. If not, the school subject is just

similar to Math or Physics.

2.2.3. Major motivation orientations

There have so far existed the two basic theoretical approaches of motivation.

Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) identified two classes of orientations: integrative

and instrumental motivation. According to the researchers, the former refers to a

desire to learn the L2 in order to have a contact with members from the L2

community while the latter contrastingly refers to language learning for immediate

or practical goals such as job advancement or course credit.

However, some early studies found that the desire for personal growth and

cultural enrichment through contact with L2 speakers is not fundamental to the

motivational process, but has relevance only in specific sociocultural contexts

(Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 1990). Dörnyei (1990, p. 69) also posed the

hypothesis concerning the role of the social context in language learning as stating

that “foreign language learners often have not had enough contact with the target

language community to form attitudes about them”.

Because of the weakness of the first approach, Deci and Ryan (1985, 1995),

in their self-determination theory later, named two general types of motivation:

extrinsic and intrinsic. In terms of extrinsic motivation, Deci and Ryan stated “are

those actions carried out to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward

or avoiding punishment.”

In contrast to extrinsically motivated behaviors, intrinsic motivation (IM)

was defined as “innate needs for competence and self-determination that meant are

engaged in an activity because it is enjoyable and satisfying to do.” For the latter,

the two researchers theorized that one has to go through an internalization process

to take external values in and incorporate these into one’s internal structure, to more

successfully cope with the environment and achieve a higher level of

autonomy/choice. When people are free to choose to perform an activity, they will

14

seek interesting situations where they can rise to the challenges that the activity

presents. By striving to meet these challenges, they develop a sense of competence

in their abilities (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 130).

Vallerand et al. (1992, 1993) was the first to apply successfully self-

determination theory in educational contexts. Based on the tenets proposed by the

predecessors, Vallerand and his colleagues extended the research on perceptions of

intrinsic motivation, and conducted practical studies with students to test the

existence and relationships among self-determined motivational types with other

related factors in students’ learning processes. Accordingly, they categorized

intrinsic motivation into three subtypes: knowledge or IM-to know, accomplishment

or IM-to accomplish things, and stimulation or IM-to experience stimulation.

+) IM-to know emphasizes the satisfaction and pleasure attained from doing

an activity to explore new ideas and enrich knowledge.

+) IM-to accomplish refers to the good feelings associated with mastering or

achieving a goal, or creating something new.

+) IM-to experience stimulation refers to good feelings, such as fun or

enjoyment, simply brought by performing an activity.

Reeve (1996), however, emphasized that self-determined motivations,

internalized or intrinsic, can only be nurtured in environments with appropriate

amounts of social support of autonomy, competence, and relatedness from

important others. Furthermore, intrinsic motivation has been positively and

significantly correlated with the quality of teachers’ instruction and transparency of

requirements (Gottfried, 1985, 1990)

2.2.4. Devising motivational strategies

For many language instructors, they are more interested in how they can

motivate their students than what motivation is. Lightbown and Spada (2006)

noticed to the role of pedagogy interactions with motivation in L2 classrooms.

Teachers can make a positive contribution to students’ motivation to learn if

classrooms are places that students enjoy coming to because the content is

15

interesting and relevant.

Dörnyei (2001a) also developed a process-oriented model of motivation that

covers a wide range of areas from “making the teaching materials relevant to the

learners’ through “setting specific learner goals” to “increasing learner satisfaction”.

(Zoltán Dörnyei, 2003, p. 24)

2.2.5. Relationship between learning motivation and CE

Gardner (2000, p.8) implied the relationship between the classroom English

16

use and the intrinsic motivations possibly arising among students. He detailed that

when the teacher gives “an instruction or ask a question in English and the learners

do or say something in reply, they quickly realize that they can understand

something in English. This gives them a feeling of success and will help improve

their confidence….. Feelings of success and confidence will help learners overcome

the difficulties in learning a foreign language.”

With its already-listed strong points, including the authenticity, the real

interaction and uncomplicated speech, CE may be a good catalytic agent that

teachers combine in their lessons for motivational teaching. It has already been

shown (Section 2.1.1) that the CE use is a subfield of the L2 use in the narrow scope

of classroom. It, therefore, ensures to provide learners with a L2 related learning

environment that is not too difficult to follow. The application of CE in lessons can

bring opportunities for students to join in real conversations instead of the

monotonous model of question and answer. As an effect, their initial success in

communication in English, even though little, will contribute to create intrinsic

motivations which stimulate their learning as well as expectancy of bigger success.

Moreover, the ways teachers make use of CE methodically as suggested by

linguists (Hugges, 1981; Gardner, 2000) can create a pleasant and supportive

classroom atmosphere and make the teaching materials relevant for the learners.

Also, teachers’ manner and encouragement while applying CE can well change

learners’ personal thinking about their English learning and ability, contributing to

raise motivational responses among them.

For all these reasons, this study will draw on CE and L2 acquisition theories

to investigate its possible applicability in Vietnamese non-English majors’ learning

motivations. Specifically, I carry out a small-scale action research intervention

among non-English major freshmen in order to see the different motivations that are

17

possibly arisen from fostering the CE in lessons.

Chapter summary

In sum, this chapter states the theoretical background of the overview of CE.

Especially, Krashen’s (1985) theory of language acquisition, including her

comprehensible input hypothesis, is found out to be closely interrelate to the

features of CE. In addition, the theories of motivation are covered with the

definition of motivation, types of motivation and its role in L2 learning. The

relevant aspects to the research subject - CE are particularly put in discussion. I also

present the goal the current study aims to frame the theories within Vietnamese

18

cultural values.

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter aims to clarify the methodology applied to conduct the research.

The important information about the course in which the study was carried out, the

participants, data collection and data analysis instruments are thus presented.

3.1. Methodological Approach

The study was organized as an action research on a class of primary major at

Ha Tay teacher training college. As defined by Kember (2000), action research is a

process in which a specific problem is identified and an experimental “intervention”

designed and tested with a view to gaining insight into the problem and ultimately

solving it. I hope that exploiting “the cycle of plan, act, observe and reflect”

(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) enhances the authenticity of the research’s purpose.

The research design for this study was adapted from the design by Susman (1983)

in which distinguishes five phases to be conducted within each research cycle as

following:

(Susman, 1983, p. 12)

3.2. Context of the study

For the non-English major students of the researched college, they had two

basic English courses with 15 weeks each. The main textbook used is New Headway

Pre-Intermediate (John and Liz Soar, 3th edition, 2007). In total of 12 units of the

book, the first five ones is for the first semester (equally two periods a week) and the

19

remaining for the second semester (equally three periods a week). The students were

required to reach at A2 of the Vietnamese six-level framework of reference for

foreign languages. The level of Vietnamese A2 is described as high-primary and

equivalent to A2 the frame of European reference (CEFR). Examinations for the non-

English students are designed in multiple-choice and writing forms.

At the time of conducting the research, the students had just finished the first

semester. Based on experiences in teaching the school’s non-English major students

in general as well as the past period’s observation in particular, I recognized that the

students had few opportunities to get access to communicative English. Current

lessons are mainly focusing on teaching or training grammar and vocabulary. The

limited duration at class does not allow teachers to spend more time on practicing the

skills of listening and speaking which are then instructed to be self-study at home

instead. In addition to the fact that English is not their specialty, the students’

progress in English skills is still unsatisfactory. As a result, they are learning English

passively and lacking motivation to learn English communicatively.

3.3. Participants

This study was conducted from December 2018 to June 2019 in a randomly-

selected class of primary major at a college in Hanoi. Thirty-five participants with

only three male students, aged from 20-26, had studied English as a school subject for

12 years in average.

After a semester studying at this college, their grammar and vocabulary had

been improved gradually. However, their communicative competence in L2 kept

unprogressive. Most of them laughed off or showed their bewildered state when

hearing the teacher speaking in English even though the used speech was short and

simply.

In this study, I also took an “intervening” posture. I am qualified at B2 of the

CEFR and has seven - year experience in English language teaching.

3.4. Research questions

In order to investigate whether motivation brought by performing CE over

non-English major freshmen’s L2 learning exists and their attitudes towards the CE

20

frequency in English lessons, this study addresses the following research questions:

a. How does fostering classroom English motivate non-English major students?

b. What are their attitudes towards the increased use of CE in English lessons?

3.5. Instruments

To achieve research objectives, two main data collection instruments are

used, consisting of survey questionnaires and interview.

Besides, in order to make it more convenient for the research process, I also

conducted a test on the listening comprehension of classroom English. The test

listed nearly 170 CE items, built on “A Handbook of Classroom English” by

Hughes (1981), with the aim of both checking the participants’ knowledge of CE

and letting them get access to the research option. It, therefore, was introduced and

made right before the pre-questionnaire.

Because the participants were non-English major freshmen, all the

questionnaires, interviews and tests were conducted in Vietnamese in order to

ensure the collected data was exact.

3.5.1. Survey questionnaires

According to Dörnyei (2003), questionnaires is straightforward to process

and analyze the data and appropriate for providing a general understanding of the

subject matter. The method, hence, would be very useful for me to get a general

overview of the study situation before starting my intervention.

There were two questionnaires for students conducted before and after the

intervention process.

• The pre-survey questionnaire used a mixed design format of three parts.

The first part consisted of 9 questions and aimed at exploring:

1. students’ purpose and interests in learning English

2. students’ competence for communicative English

3. students’ attitude to the classroom English use

The 11 items in the second part is a five-point Likert type scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree with the aim of measuring students’ attitude and

awareness to the more use of classroom English. The scale allows the researcher to

21

see either positive or negative response to a statement as well as make sure of an

equidistant presentation. The last part was in order for measuring students’ self-

perceived communicative competence adapted from the CEFR.

The pre- questionnaires mainly got general information about the

participants’ background of English competence as well as their understanding,

opinion around two key notions – importance of communicative English and

attitude to CE use. Built on those, appropriate adjustment may be made to plan a

suitable intervention for non-English major freshmen.

• The post-survey questionnaires consisted of 12 questions and focused on

examining:

1. Students’ attitude to English lessons.

2. Students’ self-confidence in communicative English.

3. Students’ support of fostering classroom English.

The post- questionnaire, delivered to the students nearly at the end of the

intervention process, aimed at investigating whether or not there are positive

changes in their attitude to English lessons and communicative English thanks to

classroom English. The analyzed data was expected to provide useful information

for answering the research questions.

Taking into account that the questionnaire was written in English and after

presuming that the misunderstanding of the items could pose to serious problems to

obtain reliable and valid result, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese.

Moreover, in order to see how these questionnaires worked in the process of data

collection, the study needed to pilot the questionnaire. I, hence, asked the supervisor

to check carefully before delivering to the participants.

3.5.2. Test of listening comprehension of classroom English

The test, adapted from Hughes (1981), mainly played a role of a stepping

stone to make up the students’ mind and assisted me to choose suitable CE items

which would be used in my lesson plans. I would read aloud the items with my

expressive accent at reasonable pace. The participants marked into the ones they

understood, not the ones they heard but did not understood. Before starting the test,

22

I explained very carefully the ways in which they did the tasks, so no students

misunderstood. Based on the results, I then filtered the suitable items to use during

the intervention.

3.5.3. Interviews

Interviews were chosen as a follow-up step after questionnaires to collect in-

depth information on the participants’ opinion of the effectiveness of classroom

English which could be missed from questionnaires. The qualitative data was then

transcribed, translated into English and analyzed so that I could make clear whether

or not the effective use of classroom English could really refresh the L2 learning

environment and motivate learners. Additionally, the one-to-one talks assisted me to

consider the confidence of the on-paper answers, from those assessing what my

intervention achieved.

The 11 interviewees included the students with the differences of

proficiency, awareness, attitude and those who had several choices in the

questionnaire different from the others.

The following section will discuss detailed procedures for collecting data

from questionnaires, tests and interviews.

3.6. Planning the Intervention

3.6.1. Planning

I kept following Hughes’ groupings of various language functions related to

classroom management (1981, p. 9-11) to arrange my lesson plans during the

process. Nevertheless, the arrangement which was based on the pre-test result and

the pre questionnaire was logically simplified in order to suit the research’s purpose,

the course curriculum and the students’ ability. Accordingly, I abridged the items to

focus on useful languages as Table 1: Main language functions related to classroom

23

management as below:

Table 1: Main language functions related to classroom management

Objectives

Sample phrases *

Who is your partner? Do it by yourself. Work in pairs, please. Open your book at page 5

The teacher gives appropriate instructions related to recurrent classroom activities, e.g. using textbooks, blackboard work, group work. The teacher can control the pupils’ behavior by means of commands, requests and suggestions.

A2. Sequencing

A3. Supervision

The teacher can check what stage the students have reached, whose turn it is and so on. The teacher can introduce the class to a new activity and new stage of the lesson. The teacher can set time-limits related to various activities. The teacher can check that all students are equally capable of starting the next stage of the lesson. The teacher can direct students’ attention to the lesson content.

B. INTERROGATION B1. Asking questions

The teacher can ask questions fluently and flexibly The teacher can ask questions related to specific communicative tasks.

B2. Replying to questions

Keep silent. Stop talking and listen. Stand up, please What about you, Hoai? Whose turn is it? Next one, please Who hasn’t got a book? Our lesson today is…… Let me introduce the next ... Five minutes to do this Your time is up Can you see the picture clearly? Are you ready? Stop talking Listen to her, please. Hoai, what is Thu saying? Where’s the monitor? Where’s your book? What do you think about this? What can you see in the picture? Where is the man? Yes, that’s right. Almost. Try it again. What about his wife?

The teacher can give verbal confirmation of students’ replies and/or guide them to the correct reply. The teacher can give encouraging feedback both in controlled drill- type exercises and free

Very good. It’s better. Could you explain what

24

Language Functions Related to: A. Organization A1. Giving instructions

C. EXPLANATION C1. Metalanguage

you mean? Can you spell the name? What’s the word “it” here?

C2. Reference

D. INTERACTION D1. Affective Attitudes

The couple is in a restaurant, and they are ………… This is a picture of a famous floating market in Vietnam. That’s interesting! Don’t worry. That is really very kind of you.

D2. Social Ritual

Good morning. Bless you. Have a nice weekend. Thanks for your help.

conversation. The teacher can produce and also get the students to produce a translation, a summary, a definition, a correct spelling, a correct pronunciation and grammatical corrections. The teacher can give appropriate background factual information related to people, places and events. The teacher can give a verbal commentary to accompany pictures, slides and clips. The teacher can express anger, interest, surprise, friendship, appreciation, pity, disappointment, etc., as needed in the classroom situation. The teacher can use everyday phrases related to recurrent social situations, e.g. greeting, apologizing, thanking, congratulating and others.

* See Appendix 3 for more items

The second semester’s English program consists of the last seven units in

New Headway Pre-intermediate (John and Liz Soar, 3th edition). For each unit, the

author previewed the content, gathered possible classroom English as well as

imagined the situations to present at class. The presentation, of course, was flexible

and could be adjusted to suit the classroom contexts then. She also decided not to

use classroom English while teaching grammar, difficult structures, abstract words

or giving complex instructions.

3.6.2. Action

The action was obeyed the following principles:

Firstly, I applied classroom English according to the ascending level. This

25

meant that I would use English right at the beginning of the first lesson, but with

simple and short words like “Good morning!” and “Sit down, please”. I also chose

to teach the classroom language at the time when I used it first because the new

language, in such case, was appropriate – it was in context.

Moreover, the amount of new classroom English in each lesson was

considered not to be beyond the students’ acquisition and the teacher also paid

attention to the logical order to present them. For example, the phrase “write on the

board” would come after “go to the board”.

Secondly, the usage of classroom English was aimed to take full advantage

of frequent situations at class in order for bolding the memory line between the last

times and the current one. Thus, I kept repeating the used items constantly.

Thirdly, I obeyed the principle not to translate the classroom English I used.

Instead, I followed the steps and ways as indicated in Table 2: Process of CE

application in lessons below:

Table 2: Process of CE application in lessons

Steps

Ways

Description

Samples

1

Context

The teacher exploits the

- Start every lesson with a greeting

contexts at class to start

in English, “Good morning” or

classroom English.

“Good afternoon”, and teach the

learners to return the greeting.

- To call student Ngan to answer

any questions, the teacher says

“Ngan” and ask “Ngan, where are

you?” with a gesture of looking for.

2

Body language Many instructions can

When student Ngan finishes her

be made clear by the

answer, the teacher says “Ngan, sit

use of body language.

down, please” while putting her

hand in front of her and move them

down a few inches to show that she

wants the student to sit.

3

TPR

Classroom English

is The teacher says “Take out your

26

(Total

demonstrated by doing

book” in parallel with taking her

Physical

that action at the same

own book out of her bag.

Response)

time.

4

Development

When the learners are ready and familiar with the method of

classroom English, the teacher will use the expression without

making the body language or demonstrating.

For the individuals who have problems, the teacher will have

to return to the first step.

The teacher will observe when they are confident about the

expression and will also see how soon it becomes part of their

store of language.

3.6.3. Lesson Plan Illustration

Because of the above-mentioned features of CE, including the repetitive and

contextual, the application stretched through all the 15-week semester’s units (45

teaching periods). For the simple items, the teacher kept following the planned

steps. In terms of the more complicated ones, I selected and had specific lesson

plans for each.

Beneath are the lesson episodes that were cited as the samples for CE

presentation in lessons. The materials come from Reading and Speaking – Jobs for

the boys ……and girls (page 66-67), Unit 8: Do’s and Don’ts of New Headway

Pre-intermediate (the 3rd edition). (See Appendix 6)

Episode I

In this episode, the teacher was organizing a game as warm-up activity at the

beginning of the lesson. I wrote the words of jobs in exercise 1 page 66 on board,

then divided the class into two teams. I had prepared an adequate number of cards

with the gender symbols of male (♂) and female (♀) for the game. Each team’s

members would stick the suitable cards next to the words which were traditionally

done by men/women.

The description below illustrates my CE use. The students were expected to

firstly understand the teacher’s suggestions and moreover be able to respond to the

27

CE. The game rules, however, were explained in Vietnamese.

Materials

Useful CE

Teacher’s

Students’ possible

performance

responses

- Look,

this word,

- T asked and pointed at

- Ss say “giáo viên”

- the cards

what does it mean?

a word on the board

(T

repeated

this

(e.g. teacher).

- the blackboard

question

for

some

other words)

- the words of

- Ok, so, all these

- T says with a move of

- Ss continue T’s

career from

words are about……

her hand covering over

sentence with “jobs”

exercise 1 p. 66

all the words on the

board and then stopped

to wait.

- Are you ready?

- Ss say “yes”

- Ok, let’s start

- You first.

- T pointed at

the

- The ss takes a card

- The next one.

student for first turn.

and

runs

to

the

board.

- Come on.

- T makes a gesture of

encouragement.

- Congratulations!

- T says and clap her

- Ss clap their hands

to congratulate the

hands.

winner.

Episode II

In this episode, the teacher was giving instructions to lead the students to the

reading parts. The description below illustrates my CE use. The objective was to

help the students remember of job vocabulary and say short sentences through the

28

picture observation activity.

Materials

Useful CE

Teacher’s

Students’ possible

performance

responses

- Everyone, open page

- T says and opens

- Ss open page 67

67.

her book to page 67

- The two pictures

at

the same

time,

on p. 67

then hold up

the

page number.

- Look! We have two

-

T

uses

her

- Ss

look at

the

pictures.

forefinger to point at

pictures

each picture and say

“one, two”

- Look at

the first

- T points to the first

- Ss look at the first

picture, please.

picture.

picture.

- Now,

the second

- T points to the

- Ss

look at

the

picture.

second picture.

second picture.

- What do you see?

- T looks the picture

- *a girl/a woman

with a gesture of

(for the 1st picture)

seeking something.

- a man/a boy/ a

child (for

the 2nd

picture)

- ohhh, a woman/a

- T

speaks with

- *plumber/fix/

man. What is she/he

intonation.

fixing

doing?

- play/ playing/he is

playing with a

child/nanny

- Ah, this woman is a

- T says with a

- Ss are expected to

plumber, this man is a

surprise in her voice.

find out something

nanny.

strange and unusual

here.

* Note: Students can give different answers, maybe a whole sentence, a phrase or a

29

word. The teacher, however, must receive all of them with a pleasant attitude. Then,

I will naturally say the correct answer.

3.6.4. Observing

I observed the class and noted down my remarks of the atmosphere, the

students’ attitudes and involvement as well as their progress after each lesson.

The class atmosphere: For about the first three weeks, the atmosphere was quite

nervous almost every time the teacher used classroom English. The students kept silent

or showed no response to the teacher’s presentation in English. It seemed not to exist

connection between the teacher and her students in the second language. As a result,

the class during the first days was a bit noisy. However, the situation changed actively

later when I was persevering in following my method. About the students, they were

more responsive to the teacher’s English. More students understood and followed the

teacher’s instructions so they also felt more comfortable. For some contexts, the

students showed their interest and talked together about those (sometimes in

Vietnamese, sometimes in English words they knew).

For a number of the students who were ashamed or did not understand what

the teacher said, I only used simple phrases in combination with hand movements or

TPR illustrations. For the others who were more confident the teacher fostered

making conversations. I also used English much more when giving the instructions

with the individuals.

A number of students showed quite good presentation then. For instance,

when the teacher said “Look at the picture page 56” they responded nearly right

away “a man….er…. he is playing with boy”, or when the lesson finished many of

them could said “good bye teacher” – completely active.

3.7. Data collection procedures

As I taught three classes of primary major in the second semester of school

year 2018-2019, I conducted the pilot version for each data gathering instrument

before starting the official one. After the pilot, I modified some of the questions so

that they would be more intelligible.

30

The first questionnaire was given to the participants at the second week of

the second semester to collect the background information. Before, in the first week

the participants were informed of the study and that their participation would not

affect their achievement as well as grades. In parallel, I also checked the

participants’ knowledge of classroom English by giving them the pre-test (see

Appendix 3). Built on the collected results, I planned for an intervention of 11

weeks, including designing lesson plans, taking action, observing the procedure and

taking notes. A number of changes were made during the process in order for the

adaption of the class’s real situation.

The post questionnaire was delivered to the students at the 14th week to find

out their views towards effectiveness of classroom English in motivating their

foreign language learning.

The next step of data collection involved face-to-face interviews with the 11

student participants. The stage aimed to help me get assured of the results gained in

the questionnaires as well as seek further information she wanted to make clear.

Each interview was started with a briefing, in which I reviewed the purpose of my

study and reminded the participants that their conversations would be recorded. I

also asked whether they had any questions before the interview started. All of them

seemed to be comfortable. In order to obtain reliable and valid result, the interviews

were conducted in Vietnamese. I then recorded the interviews by mobile phone and

then transcribed.

3.8. Data analytic procedure

The quantitative data was analyzed by calculating the average percentage of

the tests and the questionnaires’ answers from which I could know how the results

changed after my treatment.

For the qualitative data, I summarized, interpreted the findings after the

interviews and checked them against each interviewee’ questionnaire results and my

notes. Finally, I presented quotations from interviews in my findings and

31

discussion.

3.9. Role of the researcher

In this study, I simultaneously undertook both the roles of researcher and

participant. In other words, I took an “indwelling” posture as suggested by Maykut

and Morehouse (1994). Indwelling is defined as “being at one with the persons

under investigation, walking a mile in the other person’s shoes, or understanding the

person’s point of view from an empathic rather than a sympathetic position” (p. 23)

As an observer and implementer of the research, I attempted to gain an

empirical view based on my seven-year experiences as a teacher of English. On the

other hand, I considered myself as an active partaker in the course. I learnt to

construct my understanding of the participants’ world via my research questions,

interaction with the participants, their contexts, and my subjectivity.

I also worked toward cobuidling realities with the participants by making use

of my personal experienes, knowledge and skills (Rossman & Rallis, 2003).

Besides, I must attempt to be “sensitive” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to my

subjectivity not to let it influence my research. For example, I tried not to interpret

the participants’ English learning experiences at schools in the light of my personal

experiences.

Generally, during the course of my study, I went through the feelings of

reflecting, contemplating, reasoning, appreciating, honoring (Rossman & Rallis,

2003) in addition to learning how to conduct data analysis.

3.10. Ethical consideration

Before rolling out the research, I had informed of my study and explained to

participants its purpose, their required tasks during the course, protection of their

personal information, and their benefits from participation as well as any potential

trade-offs associated with participating in the study. The negotiation specified what

the participants had to do and reiterated the information regarding the protection of

their personal information.

One week before the questionnaires or the tests were conducted, I usually

32

informed the student participants for well-preparation.

Along with the general ethical consideration, for the research’s qualitative

stage, care was always taken to protect the rights and confidentiality of all of the

interviewees. Specifically, before the interviews were conducted, I directly talked to

each participant to get their permission. I also told them that they would have the

right to withdraw from the study at any time. Fortunately, to the last all my 11

interview subjects agreed to take part in. Because the interviewees were non-

English major freshmen, I chose semi-interview structure in order to be able to pay

special attention to their feeling and release potential hesitance. To maintain

anonymity, defined as the subjects being nameless (Berg, 2004), and confidentiality

of my student participants, I used a pseudonym for each participant when

33

transcribing, analyzing, and reporting the interviews.

Chapter summary

In summary, this chapter has discussed methodologies used for the study. It

has stated the methodological approach, context of study, the participants, data

gathering instruments and procedure as well as data analytic framework. Also, it

presented the teacher’s intervention plan. The next chapter will specify the data

34

analysis based on which I managed to come up with major findings and discussion.

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Findings

4.1.1. Findings from the pre- questionnaire

4.1.1.1. The students’ general awareness of English language and their learning

motivation

In the pre-questionnaire, I focused on primary information in order to assess

the general situation of the participants before starting my intervention. Among the

interesting facts, the most prominent ones can be described as follows:

In terms of awareness, the majority of the students (97%), except one,

emphasized that English was important to them. Such perception can be an

advantage to the teaching and learning process as learners tend to try harder when

they are well aware of the subject’s importance. However, only more than a half of

the participants (53%) showed their interest in learning English meanwhile up to

41.2% said they felt normal and 5.8% did not like the subject.

Chart 1: Students’ interest in English learning

It was also shown in chart 2 the approximately equal percentage between the

objective of successful communication in English and that of passing this

compulsory subject at school (62% - 65%). That reflected the students’ positive

attitude as well as desire to the subject, which would be very important to motivate

35

their learning.

Chart 2: Students’ priorities in English learning

Obviously, a major number of the students perceived due importance of

English and presented their expectation to learning the foreign language but there

was an amount of others not being attracted by the subject. The application of

classroom English, thus, would play role as a method to double supporting the

interested learners and changing the uninterested.

4.1.1.2. The students’ current situation of communicative English

When being asked about their self-perceived communicative capacity, which

was described in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR), 27 in 32 students stated at A1 level. The remaining (accounting for 15.6%)

marked their level at A2.

The use of L2 in general and of classroom English in particular is directly

related to the two skills of listening and speaking. Accordingly, the students’

approach to communicative English is very necessary. The table 3 listed statistically

the communicative channels in English which were frequent to the students.

Table 3: Frequent channels of English communications to the students

Channels

Numbers of students

Percent

English lessons at school

18

54.5%

Films/music in English

19

57.5%

Communicating with English speakers

2

6%

Others (games, so on)

2

6%

36

Accordingly, communicative English was ingrained in their minds in two

main ways, first via films and music in English, and, second not less important via

their learning at school.

Chart 3, however, presented the priority for listening skill at school

accounting for only 30.3% and the speaking skill was 42.4%. The rates for grammar

and reading were 69.7% and 60.6% in turn.

Chart 3. Skills Portion in English Lessons

As a result, for the investigation of the skills which the students needed to

improve, speaking accounted for 97% and listening for 64.7%. Also, only five out

of 34 non- English major freshmen were confident of communicative capacity at A2

as reference to CEFR while up to 85% self-perceived at A1. The data showed the

participants’ weakness, but has demonstrated that they acknowledged the role of

enhancing the two skills for good English communication.

4.1.1.3. The students’ knowledge of and attitude to classroom English

About their background in classroom English, over three fourths of all

participants said they did not know much. Only 11.7% showed their confidence in

37

this field. The chart below will illustrate that fact in details:

Chart 4: Students’ knowledge of CE

Despite the very little amount of their classroom English, almost of the

students voted the teacher to foster using it in English lessons, giving some main

reasons such as to train pronunciation and the skills of speaking and listening, to get

acquainted with the English speaking environment, and to learn more words or

structures through hearing them in suitable contexts. As Chart 5 reveals, there were

five negative votes, accounting for 15%, who adduced that they did not understand

38

what the teacher said.

Chart 5: Students’ support to fostering CE

It is noticeable that 100% of the advocates supposed the teacher should

combine flexibly both English and Vietnamese in class, totally agreeing that the

practice would scaffold to improve their communicative English. The gap in

vocabulary and the teacher’s speaking speed could be two main factors affecting

students’ proposal.

As seen in Table 4, which is excerpted from the pre-questionnaire, over three

fourths of the informants were concerned their weakness of vocabulary blocking

English communicative capacity. The similar concern was in accordance with the

teacher’s speaking pace – 24 out of 34 affirmative votes.

Table 4: Students’ self-assessment to the CE and its correlation with the

communicative skills

Statements

SD

A

SA

D

N

1. Teacher should use mostly Vietnamese in

3

17

2

8

3

English lessons

2. Teacher should combine both Vietnamese

0

14

20

0

0

and English at class.

3. Applying CE helps improve students’ English

1

16

12

4

0

communicative skills.

39

4. I often read by rote the answers in coursebook

1

18

2

10

2

or are prompted by my classmates when

being asked in English.

5. I always get nervous when listening and

1

18

4

9

1

speaking in English.

6. I feel comfortable when

listening and

2

8

3

19

1

answering the teacher’s questions in English.

7. I don’t feel tense with probably making

3

10

0

16

4

mistakes in English.

8. I don’t understand what the teacher is saying

0

8

2

19

5

because she speaks too fast.

9. I feel my vocabulary is not enough to

1

5

2

20

6

understand what the teacher is saying.

10. I am afraid that the other students will laugh

11

14

0

8

0

at me if I don’t understand what the teacher

says and don’t answer the questions in

English.

11. It frightens me that the teacher can give me

14

9

2

7

1

bad mark if I make mistakes while speaking

in English.

Surprisingly, the figures showed that only a minority of students were under

pressure in practicing the communicative skills. Approximately 62% of the

surveyed felt quite comfortable and no tense in talking in English with their teacher.

More than half of them also agreed that they were not worried about speaking

mistakes they could make. Additionally, 19 of the participants denied the statement

that they were always dependent on the textbook’s answers or their classmate’s

prompts when being asked in English.

Besides, it was obvious that a few students were influenced by their peers’

negative feedback or teacher’s bad assessment, accounting for only 23.5% and

20,5% in turn.

40

In conclusion, the participants’ background showed that both chances and

challenges concurrently existed when I started my intervention. It could be

advantageous when most of the participants had learned English for not a short

time. They were also thoroughly aware of the importance of this foreign language.

However, they seemed to be puzzled in determining their learning purpose as the

choices of “learn for marks” and “learn for good communication” held highly and

even equally. Basically, a majority of the students were in need of improving the

two skills of listening and speaking which were supposedly brought from their

limited vocabulary and the teacher’s speaking speed. In spite of their inadequate

fund of classroom English, the students did not turn their back on this method.

Importantly, they presented a quite optimistic attitude and willingness in welcoming

it. Hence, the teacher would be claimed to play an important role throughout the

process. The crux was ascertained to be narrowing the students’ knowledge gap and

reacting the available motivations by providing them with suitable learning

strategies and an as-much-as-possible English immersion environment.

4.1.2. Findings from the post-questionnaire

4.1.2.1. The effect of CE to students’ foreign language learning

As can be seen in Chart 6, more than 82% of the participants believed that

the application of CE was making their foreign language learning better. Although

no students felt obstructed due to this process, the remaining (17.6%) admitted it

made no remarkable impact on them.

Chart 6: The effect of CE to students’ foreign language learning

Following the intervention process’s steps, all of the students already took

part in English communication with the teacher at class for at least one time each

41

throughout the course. The frequency was detailed in the table below:

Table 5: Students’ frequency of conversations in English with the teacher

Times Students Percent

One time 7 20.6%

Two times 12 35.3%

Three times and more 15 44.1%

The teacher’s effort aimed to ensure that her intervention would not be

formalistic work, but cover all the study participants, thereby helping her know

more about language competence as well as real attention of each individual. More

importantly, she expected that the students felt intrinsically motivated when the

teacher was close to them and enthusiastic to make them engaged in provided

activities. Related to this, 97% of the students affirmed the teacher had exerted

herself to support them. Chart 7 gave the illustrated figures about the teacher’s in-

class teaching performances related to the CE use.

Chart 7: Students’ recognition to the teacher’s CE performances

In comparison to their confidence at the beginning of the term, the rate of the

participants who felt tense during communications in English with the teacher (see

Table 2) saw a light decrease to 32.4%. Besides, 47% remained normal feelings and

no one was completely self-confident. Seven other participants (20.6%) named their

specific moods such as being afraid of bad pronunciation and wrong answer, shy

due to lack of speaking fluency, puzzled because they did not understand what the

42

teacher said. Two of the seven ones stated that they felt frightened for the

conversations at first but better later and that more confident when the topics were

familiar to them.

However, the students demonstrated positive responses to their learning as

seen in Chart 8. Accordingly, a majority of them tended to ask the peers or the

teacher to clear up what was happening instead of leaving it at that. This progress

could be appreciated as an active learning which the participants were getting

implicitly. In addition, plus with the qualitative data from the interviews below, it

arouses thinking of a possible motivation as a result of the influence of the

classmates.

Chart 8: Students’ responses when not understanding the CE

The findings also showed that the students’ intrinsic motivation had been

activated by a feeling of enjoyment from comprehension listening of CE that meant

they developed a sense of competence in their abilities (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995).

Approximately 65% of the surveyed people felt enjoyable and about 6% were proud

of themselves when they could understand the teacher’s L2 contexts. For others,

accounting for 29%, they experienced normal feelings and did not attach much

importance to it.

As a result of these positive feelings, most of the participants recognized the

roles of CE to the development of listening – speaking skills. A large quantity of the

43

students confirmed accessing to the two skills naturally was one of the advantages

from increasing CE. According to chart 9, 35.3% felt motivated in practicing the

communicative skills brought by the CE application while 26.5% agreed that their

learning environment became more methodical.

Chart 9: Students’ assessment for the benefits of CE in developing listening –

speaking skills

4.1.2.2. Students’ difficulties in comprehending CE

The application of CE is a flexible process which depends on a variety of

factors. Many sudden troubles can arise throughout the 15-week term which

requires the teacher to adjust her design plans more suitable or even change it to

follow up each student individual.

44

Chart 10: Students’ difficulties in comprehending CE

The chart indicated that the weakness of vocabulary and grammar structures

was still the most difficult one obstucling the students, with 100% votes. The two

teacher-related reasons, the too fast speaking and unperfected pronunciation, held

8.8% and 2.9% in turn. The students also mentioned the classroom noise as an

extrinsic cause affecting the L2 acquisation. Such findings could be foundation and

suggestion for the author to make the next cycle better.

4.1.2.3. Students’ suggestions to make the CE application more effective

With the high rate of support, up to 91% by the end of the term, it is evident

that the CE increase received broad consensus of the study students. Many of them

also expressed their interest in the CE-based English studies by suggesting that the

teacher would foster much more English interaction with each student in order to

engage them in the learning pace. Below are the students’ responses to Question

number 12 “What suggestions do you offer to help the teacher’s CE use in lessons

get better?”:

“Giáo viên tích cực gợi ý, giúp đỡ sinh viên trong quá trình trao đổi bài, để

sinh viên có thể tự tin phát biểu ý kiến của mình hơn.” (Sinh viên 10)

The teacher can support the students by providing them with more

encouragement or suggestions, thereby making them interested and self-

confident. (Sample student 10)

“Giáo viên có thể sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học nhiều hơn, hỏi đáp cá nhân

nhiều hơn để sinh viên quen dần.” (Sinh viên 4)

The increase of interpersonal conversations in English will help the students

become less hesitate. (Sample student 4)

Others thought that the process of CE application would be more effective

for them if the teacher used more short and simple phrases.

“Giáo viên nên sử dụng nhiều các câu hỏi ngắn và đơn giản trong nội dung

bài học để khuyến khích sinh viên.” (Sinh viên 16)

The teacher should increase giving short and simple questions related to the

45

lesson contents. (Sample student 16)

Some showed themselves to be excited with the use of body language,

offering for more frequent performance. Additionally, the idea of using extra

pictures and videos to illustrate new words or relevant contents is quite popular.

“Giáo viên nên sử dụng tranh minh họa cho các từ mới và từ khó cho sinh

viên dễ hiểu, đan xen bài hát, trò chơi để giờ học thú vị hơn.” (Sinh viên 31)

The teacher should take use of supportive materials like photos, pictures,

videos of songs to attract the students’ attention and make her explanation

easier to understand. (Sample student 31)

4.1.3. Results of the tests

Each item which the students marked ˅ (that meant they understood it) is

equal to one score. The score of each student was counted individually, then

The total of the percentage

converted into percentage.

The number of the students

The average of the students’ test result =

Table 6: Comparison results of pre-test and post-test

No.

Score

%

Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

(per 117)

(per 168)

(per 117)

(per 168)

108

1

92.3

94.0

158

2

35

29.9

33.3

56

3

87

74.4

76.8

129

4

47

40.2

60.1

101

5

51

43.6

66.1

111

6

47

40.2

65.5

110

7

68

58.1

79.2

133

8

47

40.2

58.3

98

9

60

51.3

71.4

120

10

55

47.0

54.8

92

11

87

74.4

84.5

136

46

56.4

81.0

12

66

142

70.9

78.6

13

83

132

51.3

67.3

14

60

113

41.0

66.1

15

48

111

79.5

88.1

16

93

148

70.9

73.2

17

83

123

55.6

75.0

18

65

126

78.6

81.5

19

92

137

94.0

98.8

20

110

166

94.0

95.2

21

110

160

95.7

98.8

22

112

166

31.6

69.6

23

37

117

37.6

56.5

24

44

95

19.7

23.2

25

23

39

20.5

39.3

26

24

66

37.6

44.6

27

44

75

82.1

96.4

28

96

162

92.3

96.4

29

108

162

58.1

66.7

30

68

112

52.1

64.9

31

61

109

55.6

66.7

32

65

112

61.5

76.2

33

72

128

88.9

92.9

34

104

156

59.3

71.8

69

121

Average

4.1.4. Findings from the interviews

The interviews would provide me with more chances to directly discuss my

study theme and to verify the information which was possibly neglected during the

survey. The discussion, thus, focused on the students’ genuine feelings, their

motivation or demotivation and suggestions to the issues.

Regarding their impression on the CE frequency, all of the student

47

interviewees brought into comparison with the beginning period when they felt shy

and a bit tense. There were two main reasons underlying the actual situation. The

first was reportedly the psychological fear of knowledge gap and another was their

foreign language competence which was still limited. The following statements

reveal such responses:

“Thật ra là lúc đầu em hơi ngượng và sợ ý, vì vốn tiếng Anh mình không

đủ, sợ khi đứng dậy mất tự tin không biết cô hỏi cái gì có khó không và trả

lời có đúng hay không.” (For the first weeks, I myself experienced shy

feelings when the teacher called me. I was often afraid that I did not have

enough vocabulary to understand what she asked.)

Interviewee 2

“Căn bản là mới đầu em không thích tiếng Anh lắm, không học được nên

càng ngày càng sợ.” (Actually, I’m not into English, perhaps because I did

not pay attention to it at first, so I’ve gotten quite a large gap.)

Interviewee 10

“Mới đầu em hơi căng thẳng………hồi hộp khi cô gọi vì không biết có trả

lời được không.” (At first, I felt a bit nervous in English lessons since I was

not sure whether I could answer the teacher’s questions or not.)

Interviewee 4

“Lần đầu cô sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học, em không hiểu gì luôn. Các bạn

hầu như là không hiểu nên cũng không quan tâm lắm.” (The first lesson

when you spoke in English, I did not understand at all, indeed. I and my

classmates, our response at that time was just doing nothing but laughing.)

Interviewee 3

However, all the interviewees but one agreed that their feelings changed

positively by the end of the course, stating that they felt more comfortable and

self-confident.

“…. em hiểu tầm 80%...... vì các câu lệnh của cô trên lớp khá liên quan đến

bài học…………. nó giúp bọn em phát triển rất là nhiều, vì khi cô nói tiếng Việt thì

chúng em không chú ý lắm nhưng khi cô nói tiếng Anh thì em phải chú ý nghe xem

48

cô ra lệnh là gì và thực hiện,….. dần dần bọn em quen với cái đấy rồi thì việc giao

tiếp với cô trên lớp bằng tiếng Anh nó cũng dễ hơn ạ.” (The English lessons later

seem lighter to me that is directly proportional to my understanding of CE.)

Interviewee 5

“…. em hiểu tầm 80%, rất là tự hào về bản thân mình.” (I think I can

understand about 80% of CE the teacher has used. For these times I feel

quite proud of myself.)

Interviewee 3

“…. cô sẽ diễn tả bằng ngôn ngữ hình thể hoặc nhắc lại câu hỏi, làm cho

mình chú ý đến cô hơn, có thể không hiểu thì cũng tò mò và hỏi lại …... khi

trả lời được cũng có gì đấy vui vui. Em nghĩ tiếng Anh lớp học có chiều

hướng tích cực.” (The teacher frequently used body language to illustrate

her English. This attracted our attention and we were curious to know what

was happening… what she was talking about. I think it is good.)

Interviewee 2

“Về sau cô đưa nhiều khẩu lệnh nên biết nhiều hơn, cảm thấy mình hiểu

tăng lên so với kỳ trước……. tích cực hơn, tìm hiểu từ vốn từ tăng lên, dần

không sợ nữa……… thích tiếng Anh.” (There are phrases the teacher

repeats for many times, then gradually I know what it means. Now I’m not

reluctant to learn English. I’m also motivated to look up the words I heard

at class. My vocabulary is improved a bit.)

Interviewee 10

“Cô dùng tiếng Anh lớp học khá là đơn giản, cô nói chậm với dễ hiểu cho

học sinh….. rất là hiệu quả cho việc nghe, phát âm của em, làm cho em

không cảm giác sợ tiếng Anh nữa. ……. tiếng Anh lớp học hiệu quả hơn thì

phải theo hai chiều…….. về phía giáo viên em nghĩ là được rồi ah, đối với

học sinh chắc chắn là phải tích cực hơn.” (You used mainly short and

simple structures, I think. I don’t feel any inconvenience from your

performance.)

49

Interviewee 6

Table 7 below reflects the student interviewees’ percentage of CE

apprehension throughout the course:

Table 7: Student interviewees’ percentage of CE apprehension

Student S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10 S11

Percent 70% >80% 80% 60%-

80% 75%-

50% 50% 30% 50% 50%

70%

80%

Although she still voiced to support the CE application like the remaining

ones, student interviewee 9 (lower proficiency) shared that she had a broad gap of

English, so this experience was really a difficulty to her.

“không làm việc học bị trở ngại, nhưng mà có nhiều từ không hiểu quá nên

nhiều lúc em ….. kiểu chán….. Em hiểu tầm 30%, còn lại em hỏi bạn bên

cạnh, nhưng cũng có lúc im lặng.” (I did not understand most of the CE the

teacher used, so I felt depressed. I often must ask my peers what the teacher

was saying, but sometimes I kept silent.)

Interviewee 9

She, however, thought the CE application was good, adding that if we only learned

the Vietnamese meaning of words, it would be rather difficult to remember than

hearing it in the context.

One student revealed that the teacher sometimes talked too fast while another

stated she sometimes spoke in a low voice. They also complained about the

classroom noise that obstructed their hearing. All the rest were generally satisfied to

the teacher’s performance.

4.2. Discussion

This study aims to investigate the possibility of the CE intensity to motivate

the non - English major freshmen in their foreign language studies. The research

questions as presented in Chapter 3 are as follows:

a. How does fostering classroom English motivate non-English major students?

b. What are their attitudes towards the increased use of CE in English lessons?

50

As such, the above findings contribute to deal with these two questions.

Research question 1

A main objective of the study was to explore the CE’s level of influence in the

students’ English studies, and further the motivation degree affecting them. In order to

answer the research question “In what ways does fostering classroom English motivate

non-English major students?”, the findings can be drawn out as follows:

Firstly, it is proved that the CE helps motivate the students during their

foreign language learning, but is impossible to cover all the objects as expected.

However, the majority of beneficiaries recognized the effectiveness of the method.

Specifically, they started getting acquaint with the teacher’s use of CE after some

weeks, which makes them less nervous and more attentive to the lessons instead.

According to a number of students, the positive moods also contribute to stir up

their interest in English – a so-called minor subject at the college.

Skehan (1989) and R. Ellis (1994) postulated that some learners will expend

more effort and persistence on learning after gaining successes, naming this type of

motivation “resultative motivation”. In this study, a large amount of students shared

that they enjoyed English and became more active in learning at the movements

when they were able to understand and respond to the teacher’s English. In simpler

terms, the students were motivated built on their enjoyment and achievement

brought from gaining the CE.

Regarding to the rest group, although the impact of CE on their learning is

not distinct, it is observed that they are step by step shaping a good learning habit

without intention. When a student with low proficiency was surrounded by some

capable peers, he/she would be further motivated by their serious attitude.

Obviously, the group of active students who make up more being put next to the

passive group in the same classroom environment implicitly creates a noticeable

change. Of course, whether the sign can grow better depends upon many different

factors including learning contexts, learning materials or the teacher’s flexibility.

However, we possibly consider it as a kind of introjected motivation.

Secondly, the findings demonstrated that the students maintained a good

51

attitude to English learning. It was illustrated with a high number of the students

supporting communicative-oriented English studies. The rate of choices “asking the

peers and the teacher” was over 90%, much higher than the remaining one “keeping

silent”. This might mean that their attitude to learning was improved remarkably.

As mentioned earlier in 2.2.1, the L2 motivation is in a correlation of the three

psychological concepts, comprising of the learner’s attitude towards the target

language, the desire to learn the language and the intensity of the engagement

(Gardner, 1998). In this study, the three factors were presented quite clearly.

Another motivation as can be seen from the findings originated from the

teacher side. According to the “internalized motivation” theory of Reeve (1996),

when a teacher provides students with encouragement, or help, and makes them feel

comfortable and close in class, those students will internalize the values brought by

that teacher. Dörnyei (2001a, p.29) also described the teacher’s creating “a pleasant

and supportive classroom atmosphere” as one of the “basic motivational

conditions”. In this study, the qualitative data from the interviews and post-

questionnaire showed that most of the students appreciated the teacher’s enthusiasm

and behavior in class. In fact, because there still had causes by the teacher making

the students’ CE acquisition process unsmooth, it is not possible to conclude that

the participants’ internalization process flourished. However, the straight talks with

the student interviewees and the genuine suggestions demonstrated that the

participants put their belief in the teacher and expected her support to release the

problems encountering them. Consequently, it is possible to say that the

internalization motivation was existent, but situational.

Research question 2

The next objective was to seek the students’ support to the method which is

different from their current English learning situation towards a more positive

change, more motivated studies. Thus, the second research question is “What are

their attitudes towards the increased use of CE in English lessons?”

The briefed findings revealed that the CE application received the high

52

consensus from most of the students, despite the fact that there still existed senses of

nervousness and inferiority complex or about one sixths of the students have not

seen benefits yet. Moreover, 100% of the students admitted their weakness of

vocabulary and structures was a big barrier to the CE experience. Explaining the

contradiction, based on quantitative data, it was clearly thanks to that the

participants perceived the important role of English to their life as well as the utility

of CE application to the communicative skills. In other words, the support resulted

from their unconscious acquisition throughout the intervention process although

53

their foreign language competence is yet inadequate to get at.

Chapter summary

This chapter has presented the results collected from questionnaires, tests and

interviews. Based on the findings, the author has had discussion to answer the two

research questions. The next part will summarize the findings and focus on some

54

implications as well as limitation of the study.

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

This chapter begins with a summary of the key findings to the two questions

and the main chapter summary for my study. Then it presents a number of

theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study. The last two sections will

outline the limitations of the study and recommendations for further research.

5.1. Recap and conclusion

The main focus of this study was on understanding the influence of CE

intensity on the students’ in-class learning and how it motivates the process. Based

on the theory of the relationship between motivation and L2 use, I would like to

create such correlation which I observed not to be held in my English class. I,

however, foresaw the difficulty that the L2 use itself is existing as a demotivation

among the students. For this reason, the object of the current study was narrowed to

CE, a subfield of L2 use.

The study suggested that the non - English major freshmen were intrinsically

motivated by the CE application as a result of influence of their enjoyment and

pride. In the educational context, the feeling of achievement when they could

understand and join in English conversations with the teacher nurtured their

learning motivation.

It was evident that the source of internalized motivation came from the

teacher’s CE performance. It must be said that the teachers of English either

motivated or demotivated students in their English studies depending on their

effectiveness in teaching performance, knowledge, support and especially

interpersonal relationships students. In this study, the teacher-related factors were

appreciated to lay the nurturing foundation for the students’ motivation.

The study also revealed that the group of students at low competence got

good effects from the motivated peers. This kind of motivation is not completely

common and most of the time, but it is situational and needs to be considered.

55

Besides, the study found out that a large number of the students experienced

the feeling of short-term demotivation at the beginning of the intervention process.

It is not difficult to explain that they were demotivated by the adaptation shock.

Most of them, later, were able to adjust to the new learning environment.

One interesting point to note is although not all of the participants were

satisfied with the process, the rate of advocates of CE intensity was nearly absolute.

The data analysis showed that instead of opting for avoidance, these students

expressed their desire in English studies improvement by offering the suggestions to

make good their shortcomings. Hence, among all of the above mentioned

motivation types, the teacher should be judged as the priority factor.

One aspect of the current study which differs from most of those previously

undertaken is that it identifies motivation factors which originate from the CE

intensity based on the points of view of learners and the teacher’s observation rather

than merely revealing the antecedents via self-report survey. This approach, plus

with its advantage of action research, will be useful to plan the next cycles as well

as give pedagogical suggestions.

5.2. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies

The findings of this study suggest some pedagogical implications for the

teachers of non – English majors.

First, the teacher’s performance in class has been proved to play an important

role to the success of the CE method. The freshmen experienced a variety of

motivations in their English studies, but the teacher-related factors showed the

significant role in connecting students to learning materials and stimulating

motivations surrounding them. Therefore, it exists a need for the teachers of English

to create conditions that make students’ motivations “flourished”. For example, the

teachers need to constantly sharpen their proficiency, not only foreign language

capacity but also classroom management ability. They also should provide

interesting materials and activities which are selected based on individual students’

needs, interests or background knowledge.

56

Second, both teachers and students should be aware that not all lessons, most of the

time, are possible to apply the CE successfully. The method’s level of effectiveness

depends on the teacher’s flexibility in designing the lesson plans to maximally make

use of the materials and students’ efforts to create a constructive learning

environment. The well-prepared psychology is important to decrease

disappointment in their failures, and in contrast to stimulate their intrinsic

motivation from the least attainment.

Last, it is easy to acknowledge that the CE intensity claims a long-term

application to possibly bring in the utility. Most importantly, the teacher must

follow the steps of CE use as already presented in Chapter 3. Furthermore, the

current study suggests that the teachers of English should make themselves

acquainted with inspirational teaching. It means that simply applying the theories of

CE use without taking into account the contextual factors would most likely lead to

an inappropriate application, consequently annulling students’ motivations in

English studies. In short, the application needs to consider the levels of each class,

even each individual in a class.

The focus of the current study was confined to fostering the CE for the non –

English major freshmen at one class in the college. Because the application can

show dissimilar results with different subjects, there are some directions for further

research in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of CE intensity. First,

further research may extend to the sophomores who are certainly more capable in

both knowledge and experience. Second, further research may carry out the

comparative investigation on more than one class, maybe in the same faculty or the

different faculties.

5.3. Limitations of the study

Although I tried my best, several limitations to the current study are

noteworthy. One drawback is related to the instruments of data collection as the

study only uses the questionnaire, the test and interview as main sources. In fact,

57

these measures provided the adequate data, however, the research results could be

more reliable if the author used the record on video and made notes of the progress

of each student.

In addition, the study would be more diversified if I investigated from

58

colleague teachers’ views to have opinions from both sides.

REFERENCES

1. Adams T. (1995), What Makes Materials Authentic, (ERIC Document

Reproduction. Service No. ED 391389).

2. Andrews S. (2007), Teacher Language Awareness, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

3. Berg B. L. (2004), Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th

ed.), Boston: Pearson.

4. Butler Y. G. (2004), “What level of English proficiency do elementary

school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea,

Taiwan, and Japan”, TESOL Quarterly 38(2), pp. 245-278.

5. Chen L., Wang H. (2004), “Understanding professional challenges faced by

Chinese teachers of English”, TESL-EJ 7(4), pp. 1-14.

6. Chomsky N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass: MIT

Press.

7. Corbin J., Strauss A. (2008), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

8. Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination

in Human Behavior, New York: Plenum.

9. Dickey Robert J., Sang – Ho Han (1999), “Classroom English for Enhanced

Student Learning”, The Korean TESOL Journal 2(1), pp. 43 – 51.

10. Dörnyei Z., Murphey T. (2003), Group Dynamics in The Language

Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Dörnyei Z. (1990), Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning,

Language Learning, 40(1), pp.45-78.

12. Dörnyei Z. (2001a), Motivational Strategies in The Foreign Language

Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59

13. Dörnyei Z. (2003), Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language

Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications, MA:

Blackwell Publishing, 3-32.

14. Dörnyei Z. (2007), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

15. Ellis R. (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford.

16. Gardner B., Gardner F. (2000), Classroom English, OUP Oxford.

17. Gardner R. C. (1985a), Social Psychology and Second Language Learning:

The Role of Attitudes and Motivation, London: Edward Arnold.

18. Gardner R. C., Lambert W. E. (1959), Motivational variables in second-

language acquisition, Canadian Journal of Psychology 13(4), pp. 266-

272.

19. Gardner R. C., Lambert W. E. (1972), Attitudes and motivation in second-

language learning, Rowley: Newbury House.

20. Gottfried A. E. (1985), Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and

junior high school students, Journal of Educational Psychology 77(6),

pp. 631-645.

21. Gottfried A. E. (1990), Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary

school children, Journal of Educational Psychology 82(3), pp. 525-538

22. Health S. B. (1978), Teacher Talk: Language in the Classroom, ERIC

Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC.

23. Hughes G. S. (1981), Handbook of Classroom English, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

24. Kemmis S., McTaggart R., eds. (1988), The Action Research Planner (3rd

ed.), Victoria: Deakin University.

25. Krashen S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, London:

Longman.

26. Krashen S. (1982), Principles and practice in second language acquisition,

Oxford: Pergamon.

27. Krashen S. (2003), Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use, Pearson

60

Education Canada.

28. Le V. C., Renandya W. A. (2017), “Teachers’ English Proficiency and

Classroom Language Use: A Conversation Analysis Study”, RELC

Journal 48(1), pp. 67-81.

29. Lightbrown P. M., Spada N. (2006), How Languages Are Learned, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

30. Long M., Sato C. (1983), “Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and

functions of teachers’ questions’ in H. W. Seliger and M.H. Long

(eds.): Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition,

Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 268-286.

31. Maykut P., Morehouse R. (1994), Beginning qualitative research: A

philosophic and practical guide, London: Routledge Falmer.

32. Mitchell R., Myles F. (2004), Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed.),

London: Edward Arnold.

33. Nunan D. (1989), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34. Reeve J. (1996), Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources,

Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

35. Richards J.C. (2015), Key Issues in Language Teaching, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

36. Richards H., Conway C., Roskvist A., and Harvey S. (2013), Foreign

language teachers’ language proficiency and their language teaching

practice, The Language Learning Journal 41(2): 231–46.

37. Rossman G. B., Rallis S. F. (2003), Learning in the field: An introduction to

qualitative research (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage.

38. Salaberri S. (1995), Classroom Language, Macmillan Education Australia.

39. Skehan P. (1989), Individual Differences in Second Language Learning,

Great Britain: Edward Arnold.

40. Susman G. (1983), Action Research: A Sociotechnical systems perspective.

In Morgan, G. 1983, Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Science

61

Research, London: SAGE Publications.

41. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C. S.,

Vallieres, E. F. (1992), The academic motivation scale: a measure of

intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education, Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 52, pp. 1003-1017.

42. Vallerand R. J., Pelletier L. G., Blais M. R., Briere N. M., Senecal C. S., &

Vallieres E. F. (1993), On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and

amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and construct

validity of the academic motivation scale, Educational and

Psychological Measurement 53, pp. 159-172.

43. Voss B. (1984), “Classroom Language – A Neglected Area in Foreign

Language Teaching and Testing”, Papers from the International

62

Symposium on Language Testing 7th, England, pp. 67-79.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Pre-Questionnaire for Students Before CE Application

English version

QUESTIONAIRE FOR STUDENTS BEFORE FOSTERING CLASSROOM

ENGLISH

This questionnaire is designed to find out attitudes of freshmen of English

non-majored class in Ha Tay Teacher Training College on using classroom English.

Please answer the following questions carefully based on your own experience in

learning English. Some questions possibly have more than one answer. You could

be confident that you will not be identified in any discussion of this data.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Survey conductor: Hoàng Thanh Thảo

A. Personal information

Name: ………………………………………………….

Ages: …………………………………………………..

Your year(s) of learning English: ………………..years.

B. Questionnaire

Part 1: English learning of students

1. Do you like learning English?

A. So much

B. Much

C. Normal

D. Not at all

2. In your opinion, English is

A. very important.

B. important.

C. not very important.

I

D. not important at all.

Reason (s):

…………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

3. What is/are your main objective(s) in learning English?

A. to be able to communicate with English speakers

B. to be able to write documents in English

C. to be able to read documents in English

D. to pass English exams at school

4. Order five language options based on their importance to you- from the most

important (1) to the least important (5)

………….... listening

…………… speaking

…………… reading

…………… writing

…………… grammar exercises

5. What English skill(s) do you think you must improve?

A. listening

B. speaking

C. reading

D. writing

E. none of them

6. Which channel (s) do you learn speaking and listening skills through?

A. English class at school

B. Films/music

C. Communicate with English speakers

D. Others

(…………………………………………………………………………)

7. Which content (s) did your English classes mainly focus on?

II

A. listening

B. speaking

C. reading

D. writing

E. grammar exercises

8. How much do you know about classroom English?

A. Very well

B. Well

C. Not much

D. Mostly none

9. Would you like your teacher to use more English in lessons?

A. Yes.

B. No.

Give reason (s) for your choice: …………………………………………………

III

……………………………………………………………………………………

Part 2: Students’ attitudes and perception to classroom English

Please read each item carefully and circle the appropriate number to show the

degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

No. Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree agree

2 1 3 4 5

1. Teacher should use

2 mostly Vietnamese in 1 3 4 5

English lessons

2. Teacher should

2 combine both 1 3 4 5

Vietnamese and

English at class.

3. Applying CE helps

2 improve students’ 1 3 4 5

English

communicative

skills.

4. When being asked in

2 English, I often copy 1 3 4 5

out the answers from

coursebook or follow

classmates’ prompts.

5. I always get nervous

2 when listening and 1 3 4 5

speaking in English.

6. I feel comfortable

2 when listening and 1 3 4 5

IV

answering the

teacher’s questions in

English.

7. I don’t feel worried

3 4 5 about probably 2 1

making mistakes in

English.

8. I don’t understand 1 3 4 5 2

what the teacher is

saying because she

speaks too fast.

9. I feel my vocabulary

3 4 5 is not enough to 2 1

understand what the

teacher is saying.

10. I am afraid that the

3 4 5 other students will 2 1

laugh at me if I don’t

understand what the

teacher says or can’t

answer the questions

in English.

11. It frightens me that

3 4 5 the teacher can give 2 1

me bad mark if I

make mistakes while

V

speaking in English.

Part 3: Self-perceived communicative competence

This self-assessment grid illustrates the levels of communicative proficiency as

reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR). Circle the appropriate number which describes your level from the level

A1, A2, or B1.

Description Level

- I can interact in a simple way at a low pace of speech.

- I can ask and answer simple questions in areas of immediate

need or on very familiar topics. A1 1

- But, I often must ask the other person to repeat or rephrase

things.

- I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a

simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics

and activities. A2 2

- I can handle very short social exchanges.

- However, I am not able to keep the conversation going myself.

- I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in

English-speaking areas.

- I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are B1 3

familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g.

VI

family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).

Vietnamese version

PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT VỀ TĂNG CƯỜNG SỬ DỤNG TIẾNG ANH LỚP HỌC

Cảm ơn bạn đã đồng ý tham gia trả lời các câu hỏi điều tra của chúng tôi. Phiếu

điều tra này nhằm mục đích tìm hiểu về nhận thức và thái độ của sinh viên về việc

giáo viên tăng cường sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học* trong các tiết tiếng Anh.Tất cả các

thông tin cá nhân như tên, lớp, hay trường của bạn sẽ được bảo mật trong phần trình

* tiếng Anh lớp học: ngôn ngữ lớp học (hướng dẫn, đặt câu hỏi, đưa ra nhận xét,

bày kết quả của nghiên cứu.

đánh giá, động viên….) được giáo viên nói bằng tiếng Anh

Tên: ……………………………………………………………………….

Tuổi: ……………………………………………………………………….

Tính đến thời điểm hiện tại bạn đã học Tiếng Anh được……………. năm.

Hãy trả lời các câu hỏi dưới đây bằng cách khoanh tròn vào đáp án tương ứng. Một

số câu hỏi có thể chọn nhiều hơn một câu trả lời

Cám ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!

Phần 1: Thông tin chung

2. Bạn có thích học tiếng Anh không?

A. Rất thích.

B. Thích.

C. Bình thường

D. Không thích.

2. Theo ý kiến của bạn, tiếng Anh

A. rất quan trọng.

B. quan trọng.

C. không quan trọng lắm.

VII

D. hoàn toàn không quan trọng.

Lý do: ………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

3. Mục tiêu chính khi học tiếng Anh của bạn là gì?

A. Có khả năng giao tiếp với người nói tiếng Anh

B. Có khả năng viết các văn bản bằng tiếng Anh

C. Có khả năng đọc được tài liệu bằng tiếng Anh

D. Vượt qua các kì thi tiếng Anh ở trường

4. Đánh số các kĩ năng ngôn ngữ sau dựa trên mức độ quan trọng của chúng đối

với bạn – từ quan trọng nhất (1) tới ít quan trọng nhất (5)

………….... nghe

…………… nói

…………… đọc

…………… viết

…………… ngữ pháp

5. Bạn cần cải thiện kĩ năng nào?

A. nghe

B. nói

C. đọc

D. viết

E. không kĩ năng nào

6. Bạn thường học kĩ năng nghe, nói thông qua kênh nào?

A. các tiết học tiếng Anh ở trường

B. Phim ảnh/âm nhạc

C. Giao tiếp với người nói tiếng Anh

D. Kênh khác

(…………………………………………………………………..)

7. Các tiết tiếng Anh ở trường chủ yếu tập trung vào kĩ năng nào?

A. nghe

VIII

B. nói

C. đọc

D. viết

E. ngữ pháp

8. Bạn hiểu tiếng Anh lớp học ở mức độ nào?

A. Rất tốt

B. Tốt

C. Không nhiều

D. Hầu như không

9. Bạn có muốn giáo viên sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học trong các tiết tiếng Anh

không?

A. Có

B. Không

Đưa ra (các) lý do cho lựa chọn của bạn:

……………………………………………...……………………………………

…………………………………………………….………………………………

Part 2: Thái độ và nhận thức của sinh viên đối với việc sử dụng tiếng Anh

lớp học

Những câu dưới đây mô tả nhận thức và thái độ của bạn đối với việc sử dụng

Tiếng Anh lớp học trong giờ học Tiếng Anh. Bạn hãy đọc các câu sau đây và

cho biết mức độ bạn đồng ý hay không đồng ý với các câu này bằng cách

khoanh tròn vào các số tương ứng.

STT Nội dung Hoàn Không Phân Đồng Hoàn

toàn đồng ý vân ý toàn

đồng ý không

2 3 4 5 đồng ý

1

1. Giáo viên nên dùng

IX

tiếng Việt trong các tiết 2 3 4 5 1

tiếng Anh

2 Giáo viên nên dùng cả

2 3 4 5 tiếng Việt và tiếng Anh 1

trong lớp một cách hợp

lý

3 Việc nghe hiểu tiếng

2 3 4 5 Anh lớp học giúp cải 1

thiện kĩ năng giao tiếp

tiếng Anh

4 Khi bị hỏi bằng tiếng

2 3 4 5 Anh, em thường xuyên 1

đọc câu trả lời trong

sách hoặc lặp lại lời

bạn bè nhắc

5 Em cảm thấy căng

thẳng và áp lực khi 2 3 4 5 1 nghe, nói bằng tiếng

Anh

6 Em cảm thấy thoải mái

2 3 4 5 khi nghe và trả lời giáo 1

viên bằng tiếng Anh

7 Em không thấy lo lắng

2 3 4 5 về việc mình có thể 1

mắc lỗi khi nói tiếng

Anh

8 Em không hiểu khi 1 2 3 4 5

nghe giáo viên nói

tiếng Anh vì thầy/cô

X

nói quá nhanh

9 Em không đủ vốn từ

vựng để hiểu giáo viên 1 2 3 4 5

đang nói gì

10 Em sợ bị các bạn cười

nhạo nếu không hiểu và 1 2 3 4 5

không trả lời được câu

hỏi tiếng Anh của giáo

viên

11 Em lo sợ giáo viên sẽ

trừ điểm nếu em mắc 1 2 3 4 5

lỗi khi nói bằng tiếng

Anh

Phần 3: Tự đánh giá kỹ năng giao tiếp của bản thân

Bảng dưới đây mô tả năng lực giao tiếp Tiếng Anh ở các trình độ khác nhau từ A1

đến B1. Bạn hãy lựa chọn trình độ tương ứng của bản thân bằng cách khoanh tròn

con số tương ứng 1-3.

Mô tả Trình

độ

- Tôi có thể giao tiếp ở mức độ đơn giản với tốc độ nói

chậm.

- Tôi có thể hỏi và trả lời các câu đơn giản thuộc những lĩnh A1 1 vực yêu thích hoặc các chủ đề quen thuộc.

- Tuy nhiên, tôi thường xuyên phải yêu cầu người đối thoại

với mình nhắc lại hay diễn đạt lại.

XI

- Tôi có thể trao đổi thông tin về những vấn đề đơn giản, A2 2 quen thuộc liên quan tới công việc và cuộc sống hằng

ngày.

- Tôi có thể tham gia các hội thoại ngắn, những tình huống

giao tiếp xác định mà không cần nỗ lực quá mức.

- Tuy nhiên, tôi chưa thể duy trì hội thoại theo cách riêng

của mình.

- Tôi có thể sử dụng ngôn ngữ đơn giản để giải quyết hầu

hết các tình huống có thể phát sinh trong khi đi du lịch.

- Tôi có thể bắt đầu một cuộc hội thoại về những chủ để

quen thuộc mà không cần chuẩn bị trước. B1 3 - Tôi có thể thể hiện những quan điểm cá nhân và trao đổi

thông tin về những chủ đề quen thuộc về cuộc sống

thường ngày (ví dụ: chủ đề gia đình, sở thích, công việc,

du lịch và tin tức thời sự).

XII

Trân trọng cảm ơn!

Appendix 2: Post - Questionnaire

Vietnamese version

PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT VỀ HIỆU QUẢ SỬ DỤNG TIẾNG ANH LỚP HỌC

Cảm ơn bạn đã đồng ý tham gia trả lời các câu hỏi điều tra của chúng tôi. Phiếu

điều tra này nhằm mục đích tìm hiểu về hiệu quả của việc giáo viên tăng cường sử

dụng tiếng Anh lớp học* trong các tiết tiếng Anh và thái độ của sinh viên đối với

phương pháp này. Tất cả các thông tin cá nhân như tên, lớp, hay trường của bạn sẽ

* tiếng Anh lớp học: là ngôn ngữ dùng trên lớp học (ví dụ: cách hướng dẫn làm bài,

được bảo mật trong phần trình bày kết quả của nghiên cứu.

đặt câu hỏi, phản hồi, đưa ra nhận xét, đánh giá, động viên….) được giáo viên hoặc

sinh viên nói bằng tiếng Anh

Tên:……………………………………………………………………………

Tuổi: ……………………………………………………………………………

Tính đến thời điểm hiện tại bạn đã học Tiếng Anh được……………….. năm.

Hãy trả lời các câu hỏi dưới đây bằng cách khoanh tròn vào đáp án tương ứng. Một

số câu hỏi bạn có thể chọn nhiều hơn một câu trả lời.

XIII

Cám ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!

1. Kết thúc khóa học bạn cảm thấy việc giáo viên sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học

khiến việc học ngoại ngữ của bạn:

a. gặp trở ngại.

b. bình thường.

c. tốt hơn/hiệu quả hơn

2. Bạn có ủng hộ việc sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học không?

a. có

b. không

Ý kiến khác:…………………………………………………………………………..

3. Bạn nhận thấy giáo viên có nỗ lực để giúp người học hiểu được tiếng Anh lớp

học không?

a. có

b. không

Ý kiến khác:…………………………………………………………………………..

4. Trong số những cách giáo viên đã sử dụng để giúp sinh viên hiểu tiếng Anh

lớp học, bạn nhận ra những cách nào sau đây:

a. dùng ngôn ngữ cơ thể để minh họa

b. lặp đi lặp lại nhiều lần

c. cung cấp nghĩa tiếng Việt

d. dùng lời nói và có hành động minh họa cùng một lúc (ví dụ giáo viên nói close

your book cùng lúc cô gấp sách lại)

5. Bạn đã từng tham gia hỏi đáp với giáo viên bằng tiếng Anh trên lớp chưa?

a. có

b. chưa

Nếu có, hãy chọn số lần tương ứng:

a. 01 lần

b. 02 lần

c. trên 03 lần

XIV

6. Bạn cảm thấy thế nào trong những lần giao tiếp bằng tiếng Anh với giáo

viên?

a. căng thẳng

b. bình thường

c. tự tin

Ý kiến khác:…………………………………………………………………………..

7. Bạn đã phản ứng thế nào khi không hiểu tiếng Anh lớp học mà giáo viên

dùng?

a. Hỏi lại giáo viên

b. Hỏi bạn

c. Giữ im lặng

8. Với những lần nghe hiểu được tiếng Anh lớp học mà giáo viên sử dụng, bạn

cảm thấy thế nào?

a. bình thường

b. tự hào

c. vui vẻ

9. Bạn cảm thấy việc sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học có ảnh hưởng thế nào đối với

phát triển kỹ năng nghe - nói tiếng Anh?

a. giúp người học tiếp cận kỹ năng nghe-nói tiếng Anh một cách tự nhiên

b. tạo môi trường học tập chuyên nghiệp hơn

c. tạo động lực cho người học rèn luyện kỹ năng nghe – nói tiếng Anh

d. không có ảnh hưởng gì nhiều

Ý kiến khác: …………………………………………………………………………

.……………………………………………………………………………………….

10. Theo bạn, vấn đề nào sau đây gây trở ngại cho việc hiểu tiếng Anh lớp học

của bạn

a. từ vựng và ngữ pháp của bạn còn hạn chế

b. giáo viên nói quá nhanh

c. giáo viên phát âm chưa thật sự chuẩn

XV

(Các) vấn đề khác: …………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Nếu tiếp tục học tiếng Anh, bạn có mong muốn giáo viên sẽ tăng cường sử

dụng tiếng Anh lớp học khi có thể không?

a. có

b. không

Ý kiến khác:…………………………………………………………………………..

….…………………………………………………………………………………….

….…………………………………………………………………………………….

12. Bạn có gợi ý gì để giúp việc sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học của giáo viên trở nên

hiệu quả hơn không?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

XVI

Trân trọng cảm ơn!

Appendix 3: Pre-Test of Classroom English

Khảo sát về việc nghe hiểu

TIẾNG ANH LỚP HỌC (CLASSROOM ENGLISH)

Sử dụng ngôn ngữ lớp học bằng tiếng Anh là một bước quan trọng để giúp người

học tiếp cận ngôn ngữ đích (tiếng Anh) một cách tự nhiên và hiệu quả. Khảo sát

dưới đây nhằm phục vụ cho một nghiên cứu về việc “Tăng cường sử dụng tiếng

Anh lớp học giúp tạo động lực học ngoại ngữ cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ như

thế nào”.

Chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!

Thông tin cá nhân

Tên: ………………………………………………….

Tuổi: …………………………………………………

Tính đến thời điểm hiện tại bạn đã học tiếng Anh được …………………….. năm.

Bây giờ bạn hãy nghe giáo viên nói các câu tiếng Anh sau đây và đánh dấu () vào

câu bạn HIỂU, dấu (x) vào câu bạn KHÔNG HIỂU.

XVII

Vui lòng mở sang trang sau →

1. Bắt đầu bài học (4)

 Good morning.

 (Do you have) any homework?

 Sit down, please.

 Help me, please.

2. Nói/Phát âm (4)

 Listen to me.

 Repeat after me.

 Speak louder, please.

 Say the whole sentence,

please.

3. Hoạt động cặp/nhóm (16)

 Who is your partner?

 You are group one.

 Move here

 Work individually.

 Stay in your seat.

 Do it by yourself.

 Turn back.

 Work on you own.

 Work in pairs/in groups, please.

 Have you finished?

 Hurry up.

 Work together.

 Do it quickly, please.

 Discuss together.

 Share your answers with your

 Three minutes left.

partner.

4. Hoạt động với bảng đen (8)

 Go to the board.

 Put your picture on the board,

please.

 Write on the board.

 Who’s volunteer?

 Thank you. Go back to your seat,

please.

 Raise your hand.

 Write in your notebook.

 Ok. Look at the board and

XVIII

check

5. Làm việc với sách (16)

 Open your book at page 5, please.

 On the left.

 Where’s your book?

 On the right.

 Who hasn’t got a book?

 In the middle.

 Have you all got a book?

 The tenth line down/up

 Share your book with her/him.

 The third row down/up

 Look at exercise 3.

 Ask me if you have any new

words.

 Have you found it?

 Turn to page 5, please.

 Read the text.

 Can you see the picture

clearly?

6. Hoạt động nghe và xem video (4)

 Can you hear?

 Wait some minutes

 Listen again

 No, that was my fault.

7. Trò chơi và Bài hát (19)

 Five minutes for you

 Guess what it is.

 Sorry. Say it again.

 Whose turn is it?

 Come on.

 It’s your turn now.

 You can do it.

 The next one.

 Take it easy.

 The first one

 It’s simple.

 The last one

 Now we’ll play a game.

 One point for team one.

 Team one/Team two

 Who is the winner?

XIX

 Are you ready?

 Congratulations!

 Now, let’s start.

8. Kiểm tra độ hiểu của người học (15)

 Do you understand?

 Can you answer?

 Do you understand what to do?

 Answer me, please

 You know what I mean.

 What do you think?

 Are you clear?/ Is it clear?

 Any idea?

 Put up your hand if you don’t

 What else?

understand.

 Anything else?

 What does it mean?

 Anybody else?

 What do you mean?

 Tell me in Vietnamese.

9. Quản lý lớp học (16)

 That’s enough, thank you.

 Stand up.

 Stop there, please

 What are you doing?

 Come here.

 What are you talking about?

 Keep silent.

 Don’t worry.

 Quiet, please.

 No problem.

 Stop talking and listen.

 It doesn’t matter.

 Stop chattering, please.

 That’s all right.

 Excuse me.

 Have a short break

10. Nhận xét của giáo viên (11)

 Well done!

 Is that right?

 Good job!

 That’s right – good.

XX

 Great!

 That’s better.

 Excellent!

 Nearly right – try again.

 In English, please.

 No. That’s not right – try

again.

 Sorry. Can you repeat?

11. Kết thúc bài học (4)

 This is your homework.

 Read the text in advance.

 At home, please. Do exercise nine,

 Look up new words.

XXI

page

Appendix 4: Post-Test of Classroom English

Khảo sát về việc nghe hiểu

TIẾNG ANH LỚP HỌC (CLASSROOM ENGLISH)

Sử dụng ngôn ngữ lớp học bằng tiếng Anh là một bước quan trọng để giúp

người học tiếp cận ngôn ngữ đích (tiếng Anh) một cách tự nhiên và hiệu quả. Khảo

sát dưới đây nhằm phục vụ cho một nghiên cứu về việc “Tăng cường sử dụng tiếng

Anh lớp học giúp tạo động lực học ngoại ngữ cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ như

thế nào”. Tất cả các thông tin cá nhân như tên, lớp, hay trường của bạn sẽ được bảo

mật trong phần trình bày kết quả của nghiên cứu.

Chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!

Thông tin cá nhân

Tên: ………………………………………………….

Tuổi: …………………………………………………

Tính đến thời điểm hiện tại bạn đã học tiếng Anh được …………………….. năm.

Bây giờ bạn hãy NGHE giáo viên nói các câu tiếng Anh sau đây và đánh dấu ()

vào câu bạn HIỂU, dấu (x) vào câu bạn KHÔNG HIỂU.

XXII

Vui lòng mở sang trang sau →

Bắt đầu bài học

 Good morning/Good afternoon.

 May I go out?

 Come in and close the door.

 Are you ready to start lesson now?

 Take out your book and  open it,

 Hurry up

please.

 Sit down, please.

 Put that book away.

 How are you?

 Where’s the duster?

 Where were you last time, [name]?

 Where’s chalk?

 How many students are absent

today?

 Help me, please.

 Let me introduce myself.

 (Do you have) any homework?

 May I come in?

Nói/Phát âm

 Listen to me.

 Sorry. Say it again.

 Speak louder, please.

 Repeat after me.

 Say the whole sentence, please.

Hoạt động cặp/nhóm

 Work in pairs.

 Do it by yourself.

 Work in groups of five, please.

 Work on you own.

 Work together.

 Turn back.

 Discuss together.

 Share your answers with your

partner.

 Who is your partner?

 You are group one.

 Move here

 Hurry up.

 Stay in your seat.

XXIII

 Work individually.

 Do it quickly, please.

 Three minutes left.

 Have you finished?

Hoạt động với bảng đen

 Go to the board.

 Put your picture on the

board, please.

 Come on.

 Write on the board.

 You can do it.

 Ok. Look at the board and

 Take it easy.

check

 It’s simple.

 Write in your notebook.

 Who’s volunteer?

 Thank you. Go back to your

 Raise your hand.

seat, please.

 Rub this off.

 Clean the board, please.

Làm việc với sách

 Who hasn’t got a book?

 Read the text, please.

 Have you all got a book?

 Five minutes for you.

 Where’s your book?

 Ask me if you have any new

words.

 Bring it next time.

 The tenth line down/up

 Don’t anybody forget book next time.

 The third row down/up

 Share your book with her/him.

 Can you see the picture

 Turn to page 5, please.

clearly?

 Turn back to page 5.

 It’s in the middle of the

 Have a look at Grammar Reference on page

XXIV

128 book.

 Look at exercise 3.

 It’s near the back of the

book.

 Have you found it?

 It’s near the front of the

book

 On the right-hand side

 On the left-hand side

 Paragraph 3, line 2

Hoạt động nghe và xem video

 Now listen to the conversation.

 Listen and repeat.

 You’ll hear twice.

 As you listen, fill in the

missing words.

 Is the sound clear enough?

 As you listen, answer

 Girls at the back, can you hear?

question 2.

 Is that better?

 Sorry about the delay.

 Before listening, read through the questions.

 Wait some minutes.

 Can you hear?

 No, that was my fault.

 Just listen, don’t write.

 Listen again.

 Now, watch the video.

 Once more time

Trò chơi và Bài hát

 Now we’ll sing a song

 Now, let’s start.

 Now we’ll play a game.

 Whose turn is it?

 Do you like to play a game now

 The next one.

XXV

 Team one/Team two

 The first one

 Guess what it is.

 The last one

 Ready? Go!

 One point for team one.

 It’s your turn now.

 Who is the winner?

 Are you ready?

 Congratulations!

Kiểm tra độ hiểu của người học

 What do you think?

 Answer me, please

 Any idea?

 Do you know the answer?

 What else?

 Do you understand what to

do?

 Anything else?

 You know what I mean.

 Anybody else?

 What is the right answer?

 Do you understand?

 What don’t you understand?

 Put up your hand if you don’t understand.

 Tell me in Vietnamese.

 What does it mean?

 Can you answer?

 What do you mean?

 Are you clear?/Is it clear?

Quản lý lớp học

 Excuse me.

 What’s the matter?

 Stand up.

 What’s the problem?

 What are you doing?

 Don’t worry.

 What are you talking about?

 No problem.

 Come here.

 It doesn’t matter.

XXVI

 Keep silent.

 That’s all right.

 Quiet, please.

 That’s enough, thank you.

 Stop talking and listen.

 Stop there, please

 Stop chattering, please.

 Have a short break.

Nhận xét của giáo viên

 Well done!

 Is that right?

 Good job!

 That’s right – good.

 Great!

 That’s better.

 Excellent!

 Nearly right – try again.

 In English, please.

 No. That’s not right – try

again.

 Sorry. Can you repeat?

Kết thúc bài học

 Ok, we’ll finish for today.

 See you next time.

 I don’t think we have enough time.

 Remember your homework.

 I don’t think we’ve got time to finish this

 This is your homework.

now.

 At home, please. Do exercise

9, page 5.

 You can go now.

 All right! That’s all for today, thank you.

 Read the text at home.

 Look up new words.

 Good bye, everyone.

XXVII

Appendix 5: Interview Questions

1. What do you think the term “classroom English” is?

Theo em hiểu, thế nào là “tiếng Anh lớp học”?

2. Have you ever taken part in English communications with the teacher in class? If

yes, how many times?

Em từng tham gia giao tiếp tiếng Anh với giáo viên trên lớp chưa? Khoảng bao

nhiêu lần?

3. What were your feelings at that time?

Cảm giác của em trong những lần giao tiếp tiếng Anh đó như thế nào?

4. What do you think of the teacher’s CE performance?

Em đánh giá thế nào về phương pháp của giáo viên khi sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp

học?

5. Did the CE application obstacle your in-class English learning process?

Việc áp dụng tiếng Anh lớp học có gây trở ngại gì cho quá trình học tiếng của em

không?

6. What is the most difficulty in listening comprehension of CE?

Theo em, đâu là khó khăn nhất trong việc nghe hiểu tiếng Anh lớp học?

7. How did you deal with the times of not understanding what the teacher was

saying?

Những lần không hiểu, em đã xử lý như nào?

8. How much CE did you think you could understand?

Em đánh giá mức độ hiểu tiếng Anh lớp học tầm bao nhiêu phần trăm?

9. What do you think about increasing CE use to motivate non-major English

learners?

XXVIII

Em nghĩ thế nào về phương pháp này?

XXIX

Appendix 6: Materials for lesson plan illustration

XXX