Master minor programme thesis English linguistics: Dealing with reticence in English speaking activities of non English majored students at university of Science, Vietnam national university Hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

-----------o0o------------

NGUY N VŨ XUÂN LAN

DEALING WITH RETICENCE IN ENGLISH SPEAKING

ACTIVITIES OF NON-ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS

AT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE,

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI

KH C PH C TÌNH TR NG KHÔNG NHI T TÌNH THAM GIA CÁC

HO T Đ NG NÓI MÔN TI NG ANH C A SINH VIÊN KHÔNG

CHUYÊN TRƯ NG Đ I H C T NHIÊN,

Đ I H C QU C GIA HÀ N I

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code : 60140111

Hanoi, 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

-----------o0o------------

NGUY N VŨ XUÂN LAN

DEALING WITH RETICENCE IN ENGLISH SPEAKING

ACTIVITIES OF NON-ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS

AT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE,

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI

KH C PH C TÌNH TR NG KHÔNG NHI T TÌNH THAM GIA CÁC

HO T Đ NG NÓI MÔN TI NG ANH C A SINH VIÊN KHÔNG

CHUYÊN TRƯ NG Đ I H C T NHIÊN,

Đ I H C QU C GIA HÀ N I

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code : 60140111

upervisor r Ho ng Th Xu n Ho

Hanoi, 2016

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this research entitled “Dealing with reticence in English

speaking activities of non-English-majored students at University of Science,

Vietnam National University, Hanoi” was conducted and then submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (M.A). This paper

was original and has not been submitted for any degrees at any other universities or

institutions.

Hanoi , 2016

i

Ngu n V Xu n L n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Hoang Thi

Xuan Hoa for her expert guidance, encouragement and patience during my

completion of this MA thesis. Her important suggestions greatly contributed to the

final improvements of this paper.

Special thanks should also be sent to colleagues and my students at Hanoi

University of Science, without whom the data procedures could not have ever been

completed.

Finally, I take this opportunity to record my sincere gratitude to my family,

for their incessant support, without which I would not be able to overcome personal

ii

difficulties to complete this paper on schedule.

ABSTRACT

Reticence has been a common problem in EFL classrooms, which seriously

damages students’ studying process as well as restricts academic improvement of

the whole class. This paper reports an action research undertaken in an English

course for 24 second-year non-English majors in a university in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Employing such research instruments as questionnaires, researcher’s

classroom observation and students’ reflection, the study reveals that these students

had low current level of reticence which was presumably caused by some certain

factors. With the aim of decreasing students’ reticence in speaking activities,

various measurements including brainstorming strategies training, communication

strategies training and motivational feedback were applied. Data collected after the

research project proved the positive influence of these measurements on students’

iii

willingness to participate in speaking activities in class.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration .............................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................. iii

Table of contents .......................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vi

List of tables and figures ...................................................................................... viii

PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Problem statement and rationale of the study ....................................................... 1

2. Aims and objectives of the study ....................................................................... 3

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

4. Scope of the study ............................................................................................... 3

5. Methods of the study .......................................................................................... 4

6. Design of the study .............................................................................................. 4

PART B. DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Speaking skills .................................................................................................... 5

2. Reticence ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1. Definitions of reticence ................................................................................... 6

2.2. Reticence in classroom .................................................................................... 7

2.3. Causes of reticence in EFL classroom ............................................................... 8

2.4. Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) ........................................... 19

2.5. Possible solutions for reticence in EFL class .................................................. 19

3. Related studies................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

1. Background of the study .................................................................................... 17

1.1 Description of the English course and textbook .............................................. 17

1.2. Participants .................................................................................................... 17

iv

2. Action research ................................................................................................. 18

2.1. Rationale for action research .......................................................................... 18

2.2. Action research model ................................................................................... 20

3. Research instruments ........................................................................................ 21

3.1. Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 21

3.2. Classroom observation ................................................................................... 22

3.3. Reflective report ............................................................................................ 22

4. Research procedure ........................................................................................... 23

4.1. Research steps ............................................................................................... 23

4.2. Data analysis ................................................................................................. 24

4.3. Procedure of the intervention ......................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Research question 1 ........................................................................................... 29

2. Research question 2 .......................................................................................... 35

PART C. CONCLUSIONS

1. Summary of the major findings of the research ................................................. 43

2. Teaching implication ........................................................................................ 45

3. Limitations of the study .................................................................................... 46

4. Suggestion for the next cycle ............................................................................ 47

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 48

v

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

ABBREVIATIONS

List of abbreviations

EFL: English as a foreign language

vi

FLCAS: Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

List of tables

Table 1. Comparison between traditional research and action research ................. 19

Table 2. Timeline of intervention phase ................................................................ 25

Table 3. Excerpt from table of score for students’ activeness in pair work and group

work ...................................................................................................................... 38

List of figures

Figure 1. Waters-Adams’s action research model (2006) ...................................... 20

Figure 2. Average score of each categories of FLCAS .......................................... 35

Figure 3. Class’s average score of activeness in group and pair speaking activities in

vii

each period ........................................................................................................... 38

PART A. INTRODUCTION

This part, which is an introduction to the thesis, helps to provide the

background as well as the context for the present study. The section includes the

statement of the problem and rationale for the study, research questions, aims and

objectives, significance, scope of the study and an overview of the rest of the paper.

1. Problem statement and rationale of the study

According to researchers in foreign language teaching, speaking skill is

believed to be a significant component of any language teaching curriculum. The

ability to speak/ communicate in English is one of the initial aims of learning and

using a foreign language (Tsui, 1992; Ellis, 1988).

The importance of speaking skill can be seen in two aspects: in social and in

academic context. Firstly, being able to communicate, which also reflexes the

speaker’s self-expression, personality, reasons and thoughts in a variety of social

and working situations, is surely the goal of almost every L2 learners (Luoma,

2004). Secondly, there is an undeniable connection between students' classroom

participation and their academic achievement. Students who participate actively in

class, in other words, more willing to speak out in class, are proved to have higher

academic achievement than that of those who are passive in class. Krupa-

Kwiatkowski (1998), in her study, claims that "interaction involves participation,

personal engagement, and the taking of initiative in some way, activities that in turn

are hypothesized to trigger cognitive processes conducive to language learning" (p.

133). This also implies that whether students can perform well in foreign language

partly relies on their behavior and activeness in class. The more they are

enthusiastic in speaking lessons, the more likely that they will learn effectively.

Consequently, the role of the ability to speak, as well as the perception of ability to

speak, should not be underestimated by either teacher or pupil.

In real teaching situation, however, a great number of students show low

level of in-class participation. They are normally not willing to speak English or to

1

join in speaking activities with classmates; even when they know the answers, they

hesitate to speak up. It is assumed that when people speak in a second or foreign

language, they become more apprehensive and tense and thus more unwilling to

participate in conversation (Horwitz et al., 1986). Researches carried out with

interviews, observations, journals and survey revealed that a large proportion of L2

learners have the tendency to stay passive and reticent in foreign language

classrooms, which hinders their academic achievement. Encouraging students to

talk in a language classroom, therefore, is a problem that most language teachers

face (Tsui, 1996). With the importance of speaking as mentioned above, there is a

pressing need for English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers to help reticent

students develop the skills and confidence needed to take an active role in oral

classroom lessons. Thus, researchers have been paying increasing attention to the

growing importance of oral proficiency in L2 learning situations (Chen, 2003;

Flowerdew et al., 2000; Jackson, 2002, 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2001; Tong, 2010).

Most of these studies focus on the factors accounting for this phenomenon.

As an EFL teacher in Vietnam, the researcher has experienced many difficult

groups of students who have low proficiency in speaking but refuse to collaborate in

class. In Asian culture context, this has been shown more clearly than ever. The

majority of Vietnamese students have 3 to 12 years studying English from primary

school to high school; nevertheless, English subject is usually test-oriented, hence

focuses mainly on grammar and reading while speaking is generally neglected.

Students have very few chances for oral practice, which lead to the deficiency on

speaking skill and also the habit of speaking in foreign language. As a consequence,

students bring that passive habit along when entering university, creating highly

inactive atmosphere when it comes to speaking activities. It has become common

that a student graduating from university with 2 years of learning English cannot

hold a simple conversation with foreigners. In the advent of globalization, an

increasing number of companies require certain English level or certification from

their employees; meanwhile, the number of university and college graduates who

2

are incapable of using English has always been alarming. This prevents them from

pursuing their desired career or looking for opportunities to work or study abroad.

Accordingly, the researcher feels the urge to find out the reasons for the silence of

students in speaking class and experiment various solutions to help them gain

confidence as well as take their chances to learn and practice English.

Another reason for carrying out this study is the fact that willingness to participate

in class has been found to vary according to the context (Liu & Jackson, 2009). Since not

so many studies have previously dealt with confidence in a Vietnam L2 context, this paper

is an attempt to contribute to knowledge in the field of L2 teaching, taking the issue of

reticence into account in a Vietnamese EFL classroom.

2. Aims and objectives of the study

This action research project was conducted to aim at solving the problem of

reticence in speaking activities which possibly caused students’ low achievement in

English subject at university.

The specific objectives which guide the study as outlined as follows:

1) To identify the given class’s current level of reticence and possible causes;

2) To evaluate the impact of the intervention on the students’ reticence level.

3. Research questions

This paper is expected to answer these following questions:

1) What was the level of reticence in English speaking activities of students before

the research project?

2) To what extent was reticence changed after the intervention as perceived by

teacher and by students?

4. Scope of the study

This research was carried out in the school year 2016 – 2017, in a class of 24

students at University of Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi during a

course of 6 weeks (from August to October), which is equal to half of a semester.

These students were at pre-intermediate level, and had studied English for two

semesters before that. The course book employed was New English Files

3

Intermediate (Oxeden, 2007). Since the teacher/ researcher’s major concern is

reticence in speaking activities, this study concentrates on activities that involve/

require speaking skills only. Among many research approaches, this study employs

action research as the main approach to collect and analyze data.

5. Methods of the study

As mentioned in the previous part, the researcher chose action research for

this study for several reasons. Unlike other types, action research is considered

"practical research" since the matter of the research is rooted from real situations,

real problems identified by researchers, and it proposes measurements to solve

those problems or improve the situations. Brown (2005, as cited in Songsiri, 2007,

p.50) agreed that action research does not only benefit learners but also aids

teachers in enhancing their teaching effectiveness. This study employed such tools

as questionnaire, observation and reflective report for each stage of the study.

6. Organization of the study

The study is divided into five chapters:

Part A: Introduction

Part B: Development

Chapter 1: Literature Review

This chapter reviews the current theories on reticence. To be specific, definition,

possible causes and solutions proposed by previous studies will be mentioned.

Chapter 2: Methodology

The Methodology chapter explains why action research was chosen as the research

method, shows the steps of how the research was conducted, and justifies data

collection instruments and data analysis methods.

Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion

In chapter 3, the actions, findings and analysis of the findings of the research are

provided in response to the research questions.

Part C. Conclusion

This part summarizes the findings of the action research, acknowledges the

4

limitations and offers suggestions for further research.

PART B. DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Speaking skills

Among four skills in English learning, speaking and writing are categorized

into productive group. Speaking is the bridge to reach other skills, helps learners to

read better, to listen more effectively and to write more accurately. Speaking is

surely the most effective means of communication (Ur, 1996)

There are two important reasons why speaking should be taught in

classroom. First, speaking is considered “a survival skill in real life” (Ur, 1996,

p.134). In this era of globalization when English has been regarded as the

international language, it is essential for any individual who desires to interact with

the surrounding world to be able to speak this language. Speaking aids learners to

develop not only socially but also academically since it is an indispensable tool for

thinking and learning. Secondly, the ability to speak English is a good source of

motivation for learners. The mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for

many second or foreign language learners. Richards (2009) pointed out “learners

consequently often evaluate their success in language learning as well as the

effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how well they fell they have

improved in their spoken language proficiency” (p.21). Nunan (1991) agreed with

this point of view, claiming that success is measured in terms of the ability to carry

out a conversation in the target language. It can be concluded that a lot of language

learners correlate their proficiency in speaking with their overall ability in the target

language, which means that if they are able to speak well, they are more likely to be

confident and motivated in studying the language. These are the reasons for which

5

speaking skills are hardly neglected in language classroom.

Common problems in EFL speaking class:

There are several discussions about problems that come from body of the

students their self. The problems are commonly become obstacles in teaching

speaking. Some major problems, according to Brown (2000) and Harmer (2007),

are native language, age, exposure, motivation and concern for good speaking.

Other specific problems that are commonly observed in the language

classroom are related to individual learners’ personalities and attitudes to the

learning process and learning speaking in particular. They can be defined as follows

inhibition (fear of making mistakes, losing face, criticism; shyness), lack of things

to say (learners have problems with finding motives to speak, formulating opinions

or relevant comments), low or uneven participation (often caused by the tendency of

some learners to dominate in the group), mother-tongue use (learners find it easier

or more natural to express themselves in their native language) (Ur 1995, 121). As

many teachers’ observations indicate, the above situations occur in language

classrooms regardless of the level of proficiency or the number of students in the

group. It seems that all of these phenomena share a relation with reticence of

students in speaking activities. This is to say that reticence, with its expressions

such as inhibition, lack of things to say or low participation, is one of the problems

that need to be addressed since it impedes the process of teaching and learning in

speaking classroom.

2. Reticence:

2.1. Definitions of reticence:

The major characteristic of a reticent person is avoidance of social situations

in which they feel inept (Phillips, 1997). Phillips (1984) stated: “when people avoid

communication because they feel they would lose more by talking rather than by

remaining silent, we refer to it as reticence” (p.52).

Keaton and Kelly (1999) redefined reticence basing on Phillip’s theory as

follow: When people tend to avoid communication because they believe it is better

6

to remain silent than to risk appearing foolish, this behavior is referred to as

reticence. Reticent individuals are those who tend to avoid communication due to

the threat of negative evaluation. Keaton and Kelly (1999) also asserted that

reticence, as a behavioral response, is not always problematic in social

communication. However, it does become problematic when chronic silence

prevents an individual from obtaining his or her personal or professional goals.

2.2. Reticence in classroom

Student’s lack of activeness in class is a common problem that has been

experienced by a great number of language teachers, especially those who work

with Asian students. Some demonstrations of students’ reticence are their

withdrawal, or fear of interacting with teachers and peers, silence in group

discussion and hesitation/ refusal when answering direct questions.

Reticence, to some degree, is a strong indicator of academic performance.

Reticence has been proved to have a detrimental effect on students’ confidence,

self-esteem and level of participation. Reticent learners suffer from mental blocks

during spontaneous speaking activities, lack confidence, are less able to self-edit

and identify language errors and are more likely to employ strategies such as

skipping class (Liu, 2011). Anxious students are also more likely to forget

previously learned material, volunteer answers less frequently and have a greater

tendency to remain passive in classroom activities than their less reticent

counterparts.

Moreover, reticence is not just a problem for individuals themselves. By not

sharing what they know, those silent students deprive their classmates of

opportunities to benefit from their knowledge, insights, and thinking (Liu, 2011). In

a classroom environment, one’s contributions stimulate more and better thinking

from others; everyone in a classroom needs to participate – by discussing and by

listening to others. All students are benefit from idea and perception sharing.

Consequently, students’ reticence is destructive for teaching and learning process.

Therefore, the reticent problem deserves to be seriously studied and solutions are

7

expected by all who are concerned with teaching and learning.

2.3. Causes of reticence in EFL classroom:

Reticence in English classroom is often considered to correlate with foreign

language anxiety. The anxiety here stands for the feeling of uneasiness, worry,

nervousness and apprehension experienced by non-native speakers when learning or

using a second or foreign language. Nevertheless, anxiety is only one among many

other factors causing unwillingness to speak up of learners.

Different researchers have employed different ways of identifying students’

reasons of reticence. Using interviews, observations, and journals written by

second/foreign language learners, researchers have managed to discover why some

language learners choose to remain silent in language classrooms (Dwyer and

Heller-Murphy, 1996; Flowerdew and Miller, 2000; Liu, 2005; Donald, 2010;

Riasati, 2014). These causes can be summarized as follow:

(1) low self-esteem: students who think of themselves as unable to communicate

successfully, so they tend to remain silent out of shame;

(2) fear of negative evaluation when they give inaccurate response;

(3) fear of success: this seemingly strange phenomenon occurs when a student

interacts successfully; they consider their success as luck or coincidence and then is

afraid that others expecting them to continue excellent performance in the future,

which they cannot guarantee.

(4) communication apprehension – a fear of communicating with or in the presence

of others.

(5) low proficiency in the target language: students do not have enough vocabulary,

grammar structures and knowledge about rules and norms in English conversation

to produce their speech, and/ or they lack subject matter, which means students have

nothing to speak on a particular topic

(6) external factors: unfamiliar environment, teacher’ teaching style, and

8

incomprehensible input and lack of familiarity with the tasks.

2.4. Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

In attempt to establish a valid and reliable anxiety measure specific to

foreign language learning, Horwits (1986) and colleagues developed an instrument

called FLCAS to measure the level of learners’ anxiety. In their conception,

language learning anxiety, can be subcategorized into three distinct forms of

performance anxieties namely communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of

negative evaluation.

Anxiety has been shown to be one of the major causes for reticence in

language class in previous studies (Dwyer and Heller-Murphy, 1996; Liu, 2005;

Donald, 2010). High level of anxiety is equivalent to high level of reticence.

Consequently, the teacher/ researcher found FLCAS a reliable tool to identify

students’ reticence.

The original FLCAS questionnaire consists of 33 items which can be divided

into 3 categories (Communication Apprehension, Test Anxiety and Fear of

Negative Evaluation). Among items of each category, there are positively keyed and

negatively keyed ones. However, all of these items are presented randomly in the

survey without the three category names.

Basing on the causes of reticence in language class identified by previous

studies and on Liu (2009) adapted questionnaire, some items are precluded or

reworded and some others are added to better reflex the situation in the teacher/

researcher’s English classroom and the categories are rearranged. The complete

questionnaire used in this study can be seen in Appendix 1.

2.5. Possible solutions for reticence in EFL class:

2.5.1. Solutions for general reticence in EFL class:

There have been very few researches exploring the resolutions for the

problem of reticence in English class. Nguyen, H. (2010), Riasati (2014), Songsiri

(2007) have pointed out several techniques to encourage reticent students to speak

in classroom. Their proposed solutions have a lot in common and all agree on some

9

main points such as: the significant role of communicative language teaching (in

which communication strategies are emphasized), classroom atmosphere, group

work, students’ anxiety reduction and students’ attitude. Many of these techniques

are based on the Cognitive, Affective and Situational Framework put forth by

Nation (2007).

a. Reduce the level of task difficulty

From Nation (2007)’s point of view, if students do not know enough, they

will not be able to perform the task well, and this is one of the causes of students’

unwillingness to speak. Teachers can make tasks more accessible for students by (1)

giving students more time to do tasks, (2) bringing the tasks within students’

experience and (3)allowing students to collaboratively solve communicative tasks.

b. Promote positive attitudes among students

Students who have positive attitudes towards language learning are less

likely to suffer from language learning anxiety and more likely to participate

actively in learning tasks (Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2010). The following

techniques can help the teacher build up positive attitudes among students so that

they can feel free to speak in the language class. First, it is important to change

students’ negative beliefs and attitudes towards mistakes, let them know that

making errors is a part of learning; hence, meaning-focused oral activities should be

utilized. Secondly, students’ self-confidence can be boosted by creating various

opportunities for classroom success in using spoken English (Oxford, 1999). If easy

tasks, clear and simple goals are used in the first place and completed by students,

students can achieve sense of success and high self-perceived communication

competence more easily. Last, Young (1991) suggested that teacher can lower

students’ anxiety in the classroom by finding out what students are anxious about,

then helping them ease some of their fears and teach them strategies such as self-

talks and doing relaxation activities to deal with fears.

c. Build a supportive learning environment

If students can feel a sense of support from their teacher and classmates, it is

10

more likely that they will be willing to speak in the target language. The following

are some techniques that teachers can use to create a supportive atmosphere for

students. First, teacher may encourage peer support in the classroom to help

students feel secure about their answers or performance later. Also, teachers are

suggested to be sensitive when assigning students into groups since causes for

reticence varies from student to student. Next, it is common that students at low

level are not yet able to convey all of their ideas. Therefore, they should be allowed

to use L1 when appropriate. Last, it is important to make the classroom environment

a non-threatening place by avoiding the following actions: correcting mistakes on

the spot, calling on students at random, calling on students without allowing them to

prepare for the answers, and calling on a student simply because he/she is quiet or

not concentrating (Young, 1991).

2.5.2. Possible solutions for reticence in speaking activities in EFL class

a. Communication strategies training

Speaking competence is constructed from two basic parts which are

linguistic competence and communicative competence. The former includes the

ability to pronounce correctly, a sufficient amount of vocabulary and mastery of

syntax in another language (Nunan, 1999). The other element, communicative

competence involves a range of sociolinguistics and conversational skills which

help speakers to know how to converse appropriately.

Any language course is sure to include knowledge about pronunciation,

vocabulary and grammar, which ensure the practice for linguistic competence.

However, when a student has not yet mastered the language, they need

communicative competence to make up for breakdown in communication due to

insufficient competence. The more students have communicative competence, the

greater confidence they have. In other words, communicative competence plays an

important role in motivating students to speak. Therefore communication strategies

will be used as a tool to increase students’ competence and activities are needed to

11

enable this. Oxford (in Nunan and Carter, 2001, p. vi) believed that:

Strategies are an important factor to develop communicative competence. Learners

developing appropriate learning strategies have greater self-confidence and learn more

effectively.

According to Bygate (1987), communication strategies include achievement

strategies and reduction strategies. The former involves attempting to compensate

for speaker’s language by improvising a substitute, while the latter means reducing

the message so as either to bring it within the scope of speaker’s knowledge or else

to abandon the message and go on with something the speaker can manage. In this

study, the aim is to encourage students to speak up in class instead of avoiding

communication problem; consequently, achievement strategies are preferred to be

applied. There are various types of achievement strategies that students may use,

including:

a. Foreignizing a mother-tongue word: pronouncing it as though it belonged to

the target language. The teacher/ researcher finds this strategy impractical for

Vietnamese students as their mother-tongue share very few pronunciation rules in

common with English.

b. Borrowing a word from mother-tongue: when lack vocabulary in the target

language, speaker may use L1 occasionally with the hope that the interlocutor will

get the message. This strategy is feasible in a language class where all students have

the same mother-tongue.

c. Literally translating a mother-tongue word: for example, a Portuguese

speaker could try the word “feast” instead of “party” or “holiday”, based on “festa”.

However, this strategy also requires a certain vocabulary and similarity between

mother-tongue and target language.

d. Coining a word: the speaker can invent a target-language word creatively on

the basis of his or her knowledge of the language. For example, “airball” can be

12

used instead of “balloon”.

e. Paraphrasing: searching the speaker’s knowledge of the target-language

vocabulary to find an alternative to the expression that they need. The speaker can

look for a synonym or a more general word.

f. Using body language: physically indicating the object or miming. The

drawback of this strategy is that it can only be applied for available objects, and

required the “acting” ability of the speaker.

From the experience of the teacher/ researcher, strategies (a) and (c) are

hardly used by Vietnamese students due to aforementioned reasons, strategy (f) is

sometimes employed. The rest of the strategies (b, d, e) are most feasible for level

of her students.

b. Brain-storming strategies training:

Brainstorming is an activity used to generate ideas in small groups. The

purpose is to generate as many ideas as possible within a specified time-period.

These ideas are not evaluated until the end and a wide range of ideas is often

produced. Each idea produced does not need to be usable. Instead, initial ideas can

be viewed as a starting point for more workable ideas. The principle of

brainstorming is that you need lots of ideas to get good ideas.

In diagnosing phase, the teacher/ researcher has identified one of the key

factor preventing students from speaking up in class is their lack of ideas. She is

convinced that brainstorming is an effective strategy to help students cope with idea

shortage.

In order to find out why some learners are more successful than others,

Rubin (1975) studied the characteristics of good learners and explained why

brainstorming is a useful tool in classroom.

(1) Brainstorming invites the learners to organize existing knowledge in their own

minds. It works to activate the resources of the student by creating a series of

connecting ideas. This leads to an organization of language.

(2) Brainstorming can help learners to take charge of their own learning. Learners

13

begin examining their existing resources and identifying gaps in their knowledge.

This allows learners to become involved in the selection of language used in the

speaking task.

(3) Brainstorming can help students to learn to take risks. There are no 'right' or

'wrong' answers in brainstorming and no danger of teacher correction. By carrying

out a simple brainstorming warm-up, students can obtain a sense of competence and

feel more confident in raising their ideas.

As discussed in this section, brainstorming can help our students to become

better learners. Moreover, they will learn language from each other and by

interacting together they will become better communicators.

Brainstorming has a wide range of application. In EFL class, it can be

employed in different stages of a lesson; therefore, it is believed to be an effective

strategy that aid speaking activities. Basic brainstorming training for speaking

activities in class includes four following steps: (1) Identifying the topic/ question/

argument, (2) Contributing ideas, (3) Categorizing ideas into groups and (4)

Selecting most suitable ideas.

c. Motivational feedback:

Edge (1993) asserted that the key to learning is motivation. When teaching a

particular group, there are a lot of factors which may make students fail to achieve

the lesson objectives, among which poor motivation is a common cause. Tucker et

al. (2002) suggested that motivation directly affects academic achievement, whereas

the other factors only have indirect influence on learners through motivation.

Dörnyei (1994) asserted that teacher’s feedback plays a significant role in

forming learners’ motivation. Research on reticence has also pointed out that many

students refuse to speak in class due to their fear of negative evaluation from

teachers. This means the teacher needs to be sensitive in giving feedback if she

desires to motivate reticent students. Tosti (2006, p. 6) defined two types of

feedback: motivational feedback and formative or corrective feedback. In this study,

the teacher/ researcher focused more on using of motivational feedback since she

14

desired to boost the motivation of students.

Regarding F. Hyland and K. Hyland’s (2001) study, praise can be considered

in terms of its functions as feedback. Praise is performed in different ways and for

different purposes. Mueller and Dweck (1998) stated that feedback for effort can

affect students’ goals and attributions. First, effort-related feedback could “lead

students to focus on the process of their work and the possibilities for learning and

improvement that hard work may offer” (p. 34). Since it places emphasis on efforts,

students may focus on the development of their skills through the mastery of new

material, and then they continue displays of persistence, enjoyment, and good

performance. Second, students who are praised for their hard work may learn to

improve their performance to achieve their goals regardless of their poor

performance which is considered as a temporary “lapse in effort rather than as a

deficit in intelligence” (Mueller & Dweck, 1998, p. 34).

In terms of corrective feedback, researchers have agreed that it is associated

with L2 learning, because it leads learners to notice L2 forms (Bitchener & Knoch,

2010). However, there is no uniformly agreed conclusion that feedback has a direct

impact on learners’ oral performance. Truscott (1999) claimed orally direct

correction has no impact on learners’ grammatical accuracy in speech.

Feedback is employed in this project with the purpose of encouraging

students, lessening their fear of negative evaluations in the hope that students will

be more active in speaking activities. Accordingly, in the intervention phase of this

project, the teacher/ researcher utilized more motivational feedback, especially

effort feedback than other types of feedback.

3. Related studies:

Students’ reticence in EFL class is an issue that has been exploited in various

aspects. Beside a large number of studies carried out investigate factors underlying

students’ reticence and its effects on studying process, there are other research

attempting to promote their confidence in foreign language classroom by employing

different measurements. Meihua Liu (2011) explored correlation between Foreign

15

language anxiety and English learning motivation and found out that these two

factor significantly negatively related with each other. Donald (2010) employed

error correction and extended wait-time to promote learners’ participation in

language classroom. Songsiri (2007) carried out a research improve Thai students’

motivation to speak English through a range of self-design materials and activities

used for promoting students’ confidence in speaking English.

One common point shared by these studies is the employment of Foreign

Language Class Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) developed by Horwits (1986). Meihua Liu

(2009), in his investigation into Reticence and Anxiety in Oral English Lessons,

made use of an adapted version of FLCAS to calculate reticence level of students.

This current study is inspired by Liu’s research and also applies his version of

questionnaire as a research instrument.

SUMMARY:

In this chapter, key concepts related to the study have been defined,

including speaking skills, reticence and Foreign Language Class Anxiety Scale.

Previous studies relating to reticence in language classroom are also reviewed,

which provided a list of possible causes and solutions for reticence in English

classroom. The suggested solutions for reticence in speaking activities include three

measurements: brainstorming strategies, communication strategies and motivational

16

feedback.

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

1. Background of the study

1.1. Description of the English course and textbook

For English subject in Hanoi University of Science, the course book

employed is New English File Intermediate (Student book) by Clive Oxenden &

Christina Latham-Koenig (2007). Supplementary materials include New English

File Intermediate (Work book) and English Pronunciation in Use – Elementary by

Johnathan Marks (2007). Besides, students are provided with an exercising book

prepared by teacher staff basing on the main course book.

English subject is taught in the first 3 semesters of college years, with

different syllabuses and studying materials for different levels from A1 to B1

(according to CEFR). Achieving B1 level is the prerequisite for students in order to

graduate. There are 6 English sessions per week, divided into 2 periods (2 days in a

week) with 3 sessions for each day. One class will work with one or two teachers

during their course.

Students are supposed to finish this language requirement after 3 semesters.

In fact, this is challenging for many students as they have to retake the standardized

test several times, or to delay this subject and come back when they have done all

other subjects. This, together with the nature of credit learning, results in mixed-

level classes.

1.2. Participants

The researcher was in charge of a class of 24 second year students majoring

in different natural sciences including Math, Biology, Physic and Environmental

Science. There are 18 females and 7 males, ranging from 18 – 21 years old. In terms

of language level, these students have already passed the English A2 course and

received equal learning opportunities as well as learning materials such as course

books or supplementary materials from the teacher.

It is the fact that high school students in Vietnam have the tendency to

17

prioritize certain subjects that help them to pass university entrance exams and

choose to neglect the others. Consequently, the majority of students in this study,

who majors relate to science, did not take English lessons seriously in high school

since their majors are sciences. The research was carried out in semester 1 of their

second academic year. At this point of time, students were supposed to have

completed level A2 of CEFR and be ready to study to achieve the next level (B1).

However, a number of students did not pass the A2 exam, still they are allowed to

take B1 course in order to keep up with their graduation plan. Accordingly, a high

percentage of these participants have rather low English proficiency.

Additionally, it is a common situation in Vietnam that English subject is

mainly taught with grammar-translation approach, which leads to the neglect of

necessary language skills, one of which is speaking. Students rarely have chances to

practice speaking and dealing with communicative situation. Hence, a great number

of university students cannot even produce simple sentences or hold a basic

conversation in English after several years of learning English in high school.

What is more, language proficiency seems to vary among students from

different regions. In general, students from big cities are more likely to be familiar

with English thanks to their easier access to learning materials, studying facilities as

well as qualified teachers. On the other hand, those for students in provinces and

villages are limited.

2. Action research

2.1. Rationale for action research

Action research is the process of systematic collection and analysis of data in

order to make changes and improvement or solve problems (Wallace, 1998, p.1).

Nunan (1992, p. 17) saw action research as, “A form of research which is becoming

increasingly significant in language education.” People who want to bring about

change must learn about the situation that they wish to influence and then consult

closely with the people most likely to be affected by the project. Research matters

18

originate from teachers’ own problems and concerns in their own class, and action

research is carried out by practitioners/teachers to find out the solutions to their

current classroom problems.

Action research can help a researcher fill the gap from theory to practice.

Most other classroom research which is implemented by outside-class researchers

for the purposes of “theory construction and testing”; in many such cases, there are

hardly any attention paid to the voices of teachers. On the other hand, action

research can improve the current teaching situation in terms of boosting teachers’

professional development, teacher training and presenting to an institution evidence

of the need for change Elyildirim and Ashton (2006, p. 4).

When compared to traditional research, action research proves to be more suitable

for the aim of this study for several reasons summarized in the following table:

Table 1. Comparison between traditional research and action research

Before planning actions, action researchers have to carefully investigate and

collect sufficient evidences to identify students’ problems. In the next step, the

researcher is able to improve the situation after thoroughly understanding what they

were facing. Hence, the very nature of what the teacher or the research was trying to

do is problem-solving, not only problem-identifying. Indeed, Dick and Swepson

19

(2013) emphasize that one type of research method cannot serve every purpose of

researchers. According to Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2009), while other

traditional research methods tend to take developing new knowledge as the final

purpose, action research has the purpose of solving practical problem and improving

practice. Although action research is not the key to solve every issue, it is precious way

for practitioners who desire to improve their practice (Dick and Swepson, 2013). For

the stated reasons, the researcher of this study considered action research a practical

solution to her classroom problem, rather than the generalization of the results found by

someone else from their own teaching context.

2.2. Action research model

identifying problems or concerns within a classroom

conducting a preliminary investigation (data- gathering)

forming assumptions or hypotheses

devising and implementing some form of intervention or treatment to address the problem

evaluating the effects of this practice

Waters-Adams (2006) described the process of action research in five main stages.

Figure 1. Waters-Adams’s action research model (2006)

Step1: Problem Identification. Problems that occur in the classrooms from

previous experience are identified. This is when the teacher notices a problem in

his/her classroom.

Step 2: Preliminary Investigation. Further investigations about the problem are

conducted in order to help researchers to have more insight of the situation. In this

step, the teacher spends time observing the class and taking notes of their behavior.

Step 3: Hypothesis. After observation, the teacher forms a question or hypothesis as

20

to the cause of the problem.

Step 4: Intervention. After observing the class and forming the hypothesis, the

teacher plans the lessons and tries out strategies which may solve problems defined

by the hypothesis.

Step 5: Evaluation. After a certain period of time, the teacher consciously observes

or measures the class again to see if there has been any improvement.

3. Research instruments

Action research is employed by the teacher/ researcher to bring about

improvement in her classroom. This study made use of questionnaire, classroom

observation and reflective report as tools to collect data.

3.1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is employed at the beginning phase of the study to diagnose

the level of students’ reticence before intervention as well as the major reasons for

reticence of student; questionnaire is used once more after intervention to

investigate the effectiveness of speaking activities applied by teacher in the

perception of students.

Dörnyei (2003) suggested that questionnaire has always been used as one of

the most common methods of data collection in both quantitative and qualitative

studies. A well-designed questionnaire is capable of obtaining a great deal of

needed information “in a systematic manner” (pp.9-10), and helps the researcher to

save a lot of time and effort. However, not everyone could design a good

questionnaire to elicit the needed information. A poorly designed questionnaire may

make a topic-interesting research terribly fail (Dörnyei, 2003). For these reasons,

the researcher decided not to design a questionnaire by herself, but adapting existing

ones whose validity and reliability have been already proved over time.

The questionnaire used in this study utilizes the 33-item Foreign Language

Class Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz et al. 1986). To fit the present research,

some modifications were made to the original questionnaire. In addition, some more

items were added to the questionnaire to better reflex the situation in the teacher/

21

researcher’s English classroom (See appendix 1). Also, the research rearranged the

categories of items in the original questionnaire so that they match with possible

causes of reticence which have been found out by previous research. The

components of the questionnaire used in this study can be seen in appendix 2.

Designed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly

Agree”. Since students’ proficiency was not enough to ensure their understanding

when reading the items in English, all of the items were translated into Vietnamese

before being implemented to make sure that students did not misunderstand any

point.

This questionnaire was administered to students twice, at the beginning of

the study and after intervention to measure students’ anxiety levels at those two

points of time. This way, the researcher was able to see the change in students’ level

of reticence after implementing her solutions.

Regardless of its design and efficiency in collecting data, questionnaire can

be misinterpreted by the respondents and truthfulness of respondents cannot be

ensured. Consequently, information from questionnaire is verified with classroom

observation and students’ reflective reports.

3.2. Classroom observation.

Classroom observation offers a numerous of advantages for teachers/

researchers at individual level: (1) permit researchers to study the processes of

education in naturalistic settings; (2) provide more detailed and precise evidence

than other data sources; and (3) stimulate change and verify that the change

occurred. The teacher observed the lessons to measure how student’s reticence

changes during the intervention process. To be specific, teacher of the class and a

guest teacher kept a weekly record of students’ behavior in the classroom during the

whole term. In particular, she was asked to note down whether the students were

reticent, active, anxious, or confident in different classroom activities: presentation,

pair work, group work, and teacher-student activity. The expression of activeness in

these speaking activities was agreed upon in advance by the two observers. They

22

based on certain expressions of students when participating gin these activities to

decide their level of activeness: frequency of contributing ideas to the group/ pair,

withdrawal from group/ pair discussions, doing their own things when other

members are working or simply not paying attention to the discussion.

3.3. Reflective report

Pennington (1992, cited in Varasarin, 2007, p.82) mentioned two useful roles

of reflective reports. Firstly, it can be a tool for students to be aware of their own

feelings and level of reticence in speaking activities, which allows them to

recognize their own improvement after the project is done. Secondly, through the

report, perception of the learners as well as their recognition of what of the course is

the most valuable to them. In this study, reflective reports were used by students to

self-evaluate their improvement and record their attitude towards the training

course. Besides, based on these reflections, the researcher was able to identify

limitations of the training course and most valuable things that students had gained

from it. Similar to questionnaires, the guidance of the reflective report was given in

Vietnamese so that students could have full understanding of what the researcher

wanted to convey (See appendix 4).

4. Research procedure

In data collection and analysis, students’ names are coded according to their

number of order in the class’ checklist. To be specific, with the purpose of making it

more convenient for observers to keep track on each individual, students have a

small badge with number stick onto their shirts’ front. This way, instead of trying to

recall name of each students, observers can simply refer to their number on the

checklist and quickly note down their behavior in speaking activities. Also, in data

analysis, students’ names are coded as S1 to S24 in order to avoid confusion for the

researcher, as well as ensure anonymity for participants.

4.1. Research steps:

This study follows Water-Adams’ five-step action research model (2006). In

step 1 (problem identification) of this action research, at the beginning of the

23

semester, the teacher noticed that most students in class were unwilling to speak.

Therefore, she spent two weeks on step 2 (preliminary investigation), the

questionnaire which measures level of reticence was administered to the

participants and then collected. Next, for step 3, basing on the gathered data from

the questionnaires, the teacher/ researcher formed a hypothesis of possible reasons

leading to reticence in speaking activities and then devised solutions to improve the

situation. Step four – intervention – is when the teacher makes change to her

lessons plan and implemented measurements that are supposed to reduce students’

reticence in speaking activities, including brainstorming strategies communication,

communication strategies training and motivational feedbacks. In the last step –

evaluation, the teacher utilized different research instruments to check if there is

any decrease in students’ reticence or not. The instruments employed in this step are

the second questionnaire, classroom observation and students’ reflective reports.

4.2. Data analysis

After gathered, the questionnaire will be assessed and analyzed to identify

the recent level of reticence in English class and the major reasons causing students’

reticence.. Each items in the questionnaire has a numerical value ranging from 1 to

5. Positively keyed items have ascending value from “strongly disagree” (1 point) to

“strongly agree” (5) while negatively keyed ones have descending value from

“strongly disagree” (5) to “strongly agree” (1). The maximum mark a respondent

can gain is 210 when he/she chooses all strongly agrees for positively keyed items

and all strongly disagrees for negatively keyed ones. One the other hand, the

minimum mark is 42, which means choosing all 1-point-value alternatives. The

mark can be interpreted as: the more points a person gets in this survey, the less

reticent he/she is.

Classroom observation checklist also follows a 5-point Likert Scale, which

indicates students’ activeness with five levels from “Inactive” (1 point) to “Active”

(5 points). Along with questionnaires’ result, statistics from observation checklists

provide information about changes in level of reticent of each student throughout 6

24

weeks of intervention.

Information from students’ reflective reports are analyzed and quoted as the

evidence in the study.

All the collected data cooperated to help the researcher gain a thorough

overview on the problems and seek out the best solutions.

4.3. Procedure of the intervention

Teacher’s self-observation and reflection helped record what happened in the

classroom. The intervention was a week-by-week action project which lasted for six

weeks. According to the syllabus, the English B1 course started at the beginning of

September and lasted for fifteen weeks. The researcher project tried to cover half of

the semester (before mid-term test). Week 1 and week 2 in the syllabus were pre-

process stages in which problem was identified with the first surveys. The

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Pre-

intervention was adapted starting from week 3 to week 8 of the syllabus.

intervention

Brainstorming

x x

training

Communication

x x x x x x

strategies

training

Motivational

x x x x x

feedback

application

x x x x x x

Table 2. Timeline of intervention phase

Week 1 and Week 2: pre-intervention

Week 3: Start of brainstorming training

From this week on, the teacher/ researcher invited a colleague teacher to observe

students behavior in speaking activities, using the observation checklist.

25

Period 1:

In order to help students generate ideas for group discussion and form an

outline for presentation on certain topics, teacher introduced students to group

brainstorming strategies, following four basic steps: (1) Identifying the topic, (2)

Contributing ideas in group, (3) Categorizing ideas into groups, and (4) Selecting

the most suitable ideas.

The sample topic for brainstorming was “What can you do to keep

healthy?” This is a familiar topic to every student and does not require any

argument. First, the teacher organize a game in which students are divided into two

groups; members of each group, in turn, had to read out loud every words that come

to their mind when thinking of “keeping healthy” and try to outnumber the other

group. The purpose of this competitive game is to force students to think fast

without feeling stressful. All relevant words are written down onto the board.

In the next step, teacher asked students whether they see connection

between these words, and how they would arrange words into different group.

Students were given some minutes to discuss in group of 4 or 5. After that, teacher

and students group the written words together into categories such as “sport”,

“diet”, or “bad habits”. At this point, teacher introduced students to mind-mapping

strategies, thanks to which they can arrange ideas into groups systematically.

Subsequently, basing on the generated words and groups, students are asked

to think of an outline for a short speech about ways to keep healthy. Teachers

suggested that it would be difficult to include every detail into the speech, so

students should choose only the ideas they want to discuss.

Last, teacher delivered an informal sample speech about keeping healthy,

using words and ideas from the brainstorming session. Homework for students is

writing a short paragraph about keeping fit, using generated words and ideas.

At the end of the period, teacher provided students with handouts of reading

materials relating to the theme of family and guiding questions. The reading articles

were collected from online magazines and simplified. Also, new or relevant

26

vocabulary of the theme was underlined. Students were expected to read the

handout at home to prepare for the next lesson by translating underlined vocabulary

into Vietnamese and give answers to the guiding questions.

Period 2:

As students had been provided with reading materials about the topic of the

lesson, the questions for discussing/ brainstorming in this period was “Do you

prefer living in a nuclear or extended family?” Students were divided into 6 groups

of 4. Three groups were in charge of brainstorming supporting ideas for the

advantages of living in a nuclear family and the other three groups thought about

those of living in an extended family. Teacher and colleague observed the

discussion and note down students’ behavior.

After students had finished generating supporting ideas, the teacher helped

them to form an outline to compare the advantages of living in two kinds of family

by arranging ideas on the board. Then, students were given some minutes to look at

the ideas, make preparation before required to individually give one reason for their

preference of type of family. Students were allowed to use dictionary if necessary.

Brainstorming activities took place every period, either for group discussion,

pair discussion or for preparation of individual presentation.

Week 4 and Week 5: Communication strategies training

Communication strategies were taught in 2 weeks, 4 periods. Four

achievement strategies were introduced to students including (1) Using body

language (miming), (2) Asking for help, (3) Coining words, (4) Paraphrasing

respectively. The training started from the strategy that the teacher assumed to be

easiest and most helpful for students.

In her book “Teaching communication strategies”, Ogane (1998) offered a

series of activities together with thorough instructions and handouts that help

teachers to get students practice these strategies effectively. An illustration of this is

“Guess the words” game in which students are required to explain an assigned word

for their partners to guess. This game is one of several activities to practice

27

paraphrasing. Handout for “Guess the word” game can be found in Appendix 8.

The handouts provided by Ogane (1998) are originally designed for Japanese

students; hence, the teacher/researcher applied adaption to make them usable in her

Vietnamese classroom.

In each period in week 4 and 5, students learned how to apply each strategy

in conversations with teacher and peers. Class observers took notice of how much

students were able to utilize communication strategies in speaking activities and

whether these strategies assisted students to become more active and less anxious.

Week 6 – Week 8

In the rest of time, class activities kept on involving brainstorming activities

and communication strategies. Reading materials relevant to lessons’ themes were

always issued to students in advance so that they have more time and resource to

prepare for in-class activities.

Week 9 and Week 10: evaluating the effect of the intervention

In week 9, teacher administered the questionnaire for students the second

time to investigate their level of reticence after the intervention. In week 10,

interviews were carried out with three students that showed most improvement and

three students without any noticeable change in reticence level.

Throughout this procedure, motivational feedback was adopted by teacher

when giving comments on students’ performance. The teacher followed these

criteria when giving motivational feedbacks to students:

(1) Not all mistakes need correcting as long as students can deliver the message.

(2) Effort feedback is delivered right after students’ performance. Teacher focuses

on positive traits that students displayed in their performance, corrects only a few

mistakes on form if necessary.

(3) Detailed corrective feedback is noted down by teacher during students’

performance, then teacher either handed the written feedback to students

individually or had a short and informal oral feedback session with each student at

28

break time or at the end of the class.

A sample of lesson plan for speaking session throughout 6 weeks can be

found in appendix 5.

SUMMARY:

In this chapter, explanation of the research design and research methods used

in this research has been provided. Action research was employ together with such

instruments as the adapted version of Foreign Language class Anxiety Scale

questionnaire, classroom observation and students’ reflective report. Measurements

utilized in the intervention phase are brainstorming training strategies,

communication training strategies and motivational feedbacks.

CHAPTER 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the research findings which are organized according to

the research questions of the study. Numbers and figures collected from

questionnaires and observations are visually illustrated in diagrams together with

data analysis in written form. Reflective reports are quoted as detailed explanations

for these data. The chapter consists of result section, which provides full

descriptions of the collected data, and discussion section, which is more interpretive

and explanatory in light of research questions. These two sections may not always

be clearly separated but intertwined in data analysis.

1. Research question 1: What is the recent level of reticence in English

speaking activities of students?

The purpose of this part is not only to measure how reticent students are

before the intervention, but also to find out major reasons for the problem, which

aid teacher/ researcher in adjusting her lessons for intervention.

First questionnaire’s result:

The overall pattern of questionnaire result is that the number of items with

score 1 or 2 is dominant, while those with score 3 occur not as frequent, and those

29

with score 4 and 5 rarely appear. This means a majority of students choose Agree

and Strongly Agree for Negatively keyed item, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree

for Positively keyed ones. In particular, the total scores of each respondent range

from 40 – 70, among which 70.8% have score under 60, which is lower than 50% of

the maximum score. Only 7 students scored higher than 50% of the maximum score

(from 61 – 70). This pattern implies relatively high level of students’ reticence.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly

Disagree

3. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in English.

0

3 (12.5%)

5 (12.5%)

8 (41.67%)

8 (33.3%)

8. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting.

0

5 (8.3 %)

6 (16.67%)

12 (62.5%)

1 (12.5%)

10. I feel confident when I speak English in class.

6 (25 %)

10 (50%)

6 (16. 7%)

2 (8.33%)

0

15. I feel very anxious about talking in English with other students.

0

5 (8. 3%)

4 (16.7%)

10 (41.7%)

5 (33.3%)

1.1. Communication apprehension

It can be seen that the majority students feel uncomfortable when they have

difficulty interacting with teacher in class. 16 out of 24 students get frightened when

not being able to understand teacher’s instruction, and roughly the same percentage

are distressed when teacher’s feedback is comprehensible to them. The situation is

quite the same for their anxiety in talking with peers as 62.5% choose Agree and

Strongly Agree options. Only two respondents show their disagreement with item

(8) and (15), which means a minority of students feel calm and relax when

communicating in class. As for the only positively keyed item (item 10), 75% of

students reject this statement, confirming their lack of confidence when speaking in

English class in general. All in all, students are quite apprehensive about interacting

with teacher and classmates in English class.

Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

30

1.2. Test Anxiety

Disagree

2. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English class.

3 (12.5%)

4 (16.7%)

10 (41.7%)

7 (29.1%)

0

5. I am usually at ease during English tests in my class.

10 (41.7%)

12 (50%)

2 (8. 3%)

0

0

12. The more I study for English test, the more confused I get.

4 (16.7%)

5 (20.8%)

12 (50%)

3 (12.5%)

0

24. The English classes move so fast that I’m afraid of being left behind

6 (25%)

13 (54.2%)

4 (16.7%)

1 (4.1%)

0

Regarding test anxiety, no students agreed that they are relaxed in English

tests. Only two of them feel neutral, the rest rejected the statement in item (5). It

seems common that students get anxious about being called on in English class

since 70.8% chose to endorse statement (2). Item (12) shares the same pattern as 15

students admitted their confusion being increased when they try to prepare for English

tests. S11 explained the origin of this confusion: “There is simply too much thing to

remember. The more I revise, the more pieces of knowledge I do not understand shows

up”. Regarding teaching and studying pace in class, surprisingly, only 5 students

thought it is too fast for them, the rest feel ok or disagree with item (24). Students’

reflective reports reveals that although some students found it hard to keep up with in-

class studying speed, they believed “that is how it is supposed to be” [S3] and that

students “should not complain about teacher’s teaching speed” [S15].

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly

Disagree

4. During my English class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the

course.

7 (29.2%)

9 (37.5%)

8 (33.3%)

0

0

6. I worry about the consequences of failing my English class.

0

4 (16.7%)

14 (58.3%)

6 (25%)

0

9. I often feel like not going to my English class.

8 (33.4%)

11 (45.8%)

5 (20.8%)

0

0

31

1.3. Attitude towards English class and English subject

16. I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other classes.

0

3 (12.5%)

13 (54.16%)

6 (25%)

2 (8.33%)

A large percentage of students (83.3%) worry about not performing well

enough in English class. This figure may show high level of anxiety, but does not

necessary indicate negative attitude, since the other items demonstrate quite neutral

feelings. Comparing English class to other classes, more than half of respondents

neither agree nor disagree that they feel more tense and nervous, while 33.3%

approve this statement (item 16). Similarly, eight students admit their lack of

concentration in English class, five often do not feel like going to English class,

while the rest tick Neutral or Disagree options. It is worth noticing that the

percentage of students who disagree with item (4) and (9) are 29.2% and 33.4%

respectively, which is rather higher than that of other items. This can be interpreted

as despite their worry in English class, the majority of students do not bear negative

thoughts about this subject.

Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

1. I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class.

10 (41.6%)

11 (45.9%)

3 (12.5%)

0

0

7. It embarrasses me to volunteer to answer in English classes.

2 (8.3%)

6 (25%)

11 (45.9%)

5 (20.8%)

0

11. I’m afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.

3 (12.5%)

5 (20.8%)

12 (50%)

4(16.7%)

0

14. I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do.

3 (12.5%)

8 (33.3%)

13 (54.2%)

0

0

1.4. Fear of Negative Evaluation

It is obvious that a large number of students in English class are concerned

about their own mistakes as 87.5% of them agree or strongly agree with statement

(1), and only 12.5% feel neutral. This fact is rather worrying to the teacher/

researcher since their fear of mistakes may heavily hinder their willing to speak in

32

English.

Investigating respondents’ feelings about peers’ evaluation, item (14)’s result

shows students’ insecurity when comparing themselves with classmates. More than

half of them agreed with this statement , which mean they are considerably

concerned about their classmates’ proficiency. Therefore, it is understandable that

nearly a half of students would suffer from embarrassment which prevents them

from volunteer to answer in English classes (item 7). S22 expressed his thought on

I am very uncomfortable when I have to speak in class because I know I don’t speak well. I

think other students know better than me and will spot my mistakes. […] no one wants to

appear a fool in others’ eyes. That’s why I try to avoid speaking as much as possible.

this as follow:

Two thirds of respondents agreed/ strongly agreed that they are afraid of

teacher correcting every of their mistake, while seven felt neutral and three

disagreed. S13 admitted that she appreciated teacher’s corrective feedbacks and that

it is necessary to realize her own mistakes; nonetheless, she would feel intimidated

when teacher pointed out too many mistakes since “that makes me feel like I am

stupid or careless in studying”. Teacher’s feedbacks prove to have serious counter-

effect on speaking performance of students since it is more challenging for them to

control their grammar and vocabulary choice while speaking.

Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

13. I am often ready to contribute ideas in a group discussion on a given topic.

7 (29.16%)

12 (50%)

5 (20.83%)

0

0

19. I get tense and nervous when I have to discuss things that are unfamiliar to me in English.

3 (12.5%)

13 (54.2%)

8 (33.3%)

0

0

21. I usually don’t know what to talk about when the class is discussing a topic.

2 (8.3%)

9 (37.5%)

10 (41.7%)

3 (12.5%)

0

18. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions that I haven’t prepared in advance.

2 (8.3%)

16 (66.7%)

6 (25%)

0

0

1.5. Lack of idea

Both item (19) and item (21) are negatively keyed ones that explore the level

33

of difficulty that students encounter if they have to work with topics on which they

have little background. 87.5% of them agree and strongly agree that unfamiliar

topics drive them nervous in discussions. Regarding a random given topic, 54,2% of

students still find it problematic to participate in discussions, while the rest choose

neutral or disagree. No students claimed their readiness to discuss any given topic

(item 13). Also, almost all students affirmed their worry when being required to

I cannot contribute any idea in discussions if I don’t anything about the topic. Some of

the topics in class are not too strange but it is still difficult for me to generate ideas

because normally I don’t pay attention to those issues. I have nothing to speak then.

give answer without preparation (item 18). S14 said:

This statistics reveals that topic familiarity is one of deciding factors in

students’ willingness to speak. The farther the topic from students’ background, the

less they are likely to raise their voice.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly

Disagree

17. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn in order to speak English.

0

2 (8.3%)

4 (16.7%)

12 (50%)

6 (25%)

20. I feel overwhelmed by the number of words I have to learn in English.

0

3 (12.5%)

11 (45.8%)

10 (41.7%)

0

22. There are times I wanted to contribute my answers but I did not know how to express my ideas.

0

0

13 (54.2%)

11 (45.8%)

0

23. I am afraid that I will pronounce incorrectly when speaking English.

0

4 (16.7%)

5 (20.8%)

15 (62.5%)

0

1.6. Low Language Proficiency

When mentioning number of rules and words required in order to use

English, a great number of students in class show their feelings of puzzled. 75% and

87.5% of students ticked Agree and Strongly Agree for number of rules and number

of words respectively. It looks like general rules are not as stressful to students are

new vocabulary since there are a quarter of them feel neutral and disapproval to

item (17), compared to 12,5% for item (20). Fewer respondents are worried about

34

their English pronunciation, shown through 16.7% for Disagree, 20.8% for Neutral

and 62.5% for Agree. The most outstanding item in this part is number (22), which

connects to students’ difficulty in finding ways of orally expressing their ideas. All

students demonstrated their obstacles in speaking caused by lack of verbal

expressions.

To sum up, low English proficiency severely obstructs students’ oral’s

performance. In the teacher/ researcher’s class, the number of vocabulary and the

lack of expressions are the two more noticeable problems.

Basing on the average score of each student in each category, teacher was

able to make assumption about prominent causes leading to her students’ reticence.

Those categories with lowest average score, which is equivalent to the fact that they

causes highest level of reticence, are low language proficiency (7.5 points), lack of

idea (7.6 points) and fear of negative evaluation (8.8 points).

2. Research question 2: To what extent was reticence reduced after the

intervention as perceived by teacher and by students?

2 1 econd questionn ire’s result (effectiveness s perceived b students)

In week 9, the questionnaire was administered to students one more time to

calculate their reticence level after the period of intervention. By computing the gap

of score before and after the project, the research is able to come to conclusion

about the effectiveness of her action plan. The total score for reticence level of the

whole class increases by 284 points after the intervention, and the average score of

the class goes up by 11.8 points. At the beginning of the semester, there were only 7

students scoring over 60; now after 6 weeks of the project, this number raises to 17

students. It can be asserted that the intervention did make positive impact on

35

students’ activeness in speaking activities.

Average score before intervention

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Average score after intervention

Figure 2. Average score of each categories of FLCAS

All respondents had their total score increased in the second questionnaire,

that is, despite the differences in score gap, each student has more or less made

improvement after 6 weeks of the research project. The minimum score of students

climbs from 40 to 52 points while the maximum score reaches 76. Each student’s

score of level of reticence before and after the intervention can be seen in appendix

9. It is obvious from the bar chart above that the most outstanding changes in score

belong to the last 3 categories.

First of all, in terms of reticence caused by lack of ideas, the total score for

items of this part goes up from 191 to 132 points. The percentage of students who

are intimidated by unfamiliar topic noticeably decreases from 87.5% to 54.16%.

The rest 11 students feel more relaxed, proven by their choice of Neutral and

Disagree. Only 5 students still find it hard to generate ideas for general topic. In her

Brainstorming in group helps me a lot in generating ideas. I was forced to think fast and

hard. Thanks to that, I could recall something I know about the given topic. Even when I

could not think of any ideas, seeing my group mates contributing their ideas make me feel

more relaxed.

36

reflective report, S2 attributed her progress to brainstorming strategies training:

A number of students also expressed appreciation towards the reading

materials provided by the teacher before each class, claiming that these handouts are

“not as complicated to read as passages in textbook” [S19], and give them more

relevant ideas for discussion and individual speaking performance.

Secondly, respecting fear of negative evaluation, an important remark is the

change in students’ perception towards making mistakes. If almost all students were

agitated about mistakes that they make in class before the intervention, this number

falls to only a half of students in week 9. S14 compared her anxiety before and after

At first I was so scared when speaking, but you (the teacher) were quite gentle to us. In one

of my individual speaking performance, although I made quite a lot of mistakes, you still

gave me some compliments which made me feel much better.

the intervention:

Unsurprisingly, the change in students’ perception of errors in performing

results in amelioration in student – teacher relation. The proportion of students who

are afraid of teacher’s corrective feedback decreases by one third.

Last, the tension correlating with the amount of language knowledge that

students have to master is also released as students are less menaced by errors when

studying. 15 out of 24 reflective reports from students mention input of vocabulary

and expressions from supplementary handouts provided by teacher as a benefit for

them. Thanks to these materials, they “know what knowledge they need to focus on

in order to perform a short speech or discuss in class” (S18), so many of them are

liberated from the burden of learning by heart every new words and grammar

structures in the course book. Amazingly, the score for item (22), indicating level of

reticence originated from lack of expressions, is boosted extensively. Before the

intervention, 100% of students encounter this problem; this percentage is lowered

by a half at the end of the research project.

Overall, improvement in score is shown in every categories of the

questionnaire. This finding is conclusive evidence that the instruments utilized in

intervention process have achieved certain success.

37

2.2. Observation results (effectiveness as perceived by teacher):

Since the data from questionnaires can be subjective or misinterpreted, class

observation was employed as the second tool to keep track of students’ improvement

and to verify the questionnaire’s data from the teacher’s perspective.

The figures from observation served as specific illustration for the trend of

students’ level of reticence during 6 weeks of intervention. In the observation checklist

(See Appendix 3), students’ activeness is measured by a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from Inactive, Moderately Inactive, Neutral, Moderately Active to Active.

Speaking skill training in class includes four main activities: Pair work and

group work are carried out every period, while response with teacher and presentation

occur not as frequently for each student. Consequently, activeness score in these

activities are counted separately. The following table indicates each student’s score for

activeness in pair work and group work only, throughout 6 weeks. There are two

periods in one week, which are marked as *.1 and *.2. For example, 3.1 means week3,

period 1. The maximum total score a student can get for one period is 10 (active in both

group work and pair work), and the minimum is 2 (inactive in both group work and

pair work). Periods in which a student is absent is marked 0.

3.1

3.2

4.2

4.2

5.1

5.2

6.1

6.2

7.1

7.2

8.1

8.2

3

2

3

4

4

3

5

5

4

5

6

7

S1

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

5

6

7

6

S2

4

4

5

6

0

4

7

6

0

5

6

8

S3

3

0

2

3

3

4

5

0

4

5

6

6

S4

…

Table 3. Excerpt from table of score for students’ activeness in pair work and group work.

At the end of intervention process, all students have achieved more or less

improvement. The highest score for activeness gained by a student is 8 out of 10,

and the lowest is 5. The overall trend for every student’ level of activeness is

upwards. No one got lower score at the end than at the starting point. Moreover,

most students went through a logical progress, with their score increases gradually

38

week by week.

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3,1

3,2

4,1

4,2

5,1

5,2

6,1

6,2

7,1

7,2

8,1

8,2

Figure 3. Class’s average score of activeness in group and pair speaking activities

in each period.

The average score for activeness in speaking activities of the whole class at

the beginning of the semester was 2.875; this rose to 5.4 at the end of the research

project. It is notable that students’ participation in speaking tasks made impressive

improvement in week 7, period 1. The researcher assumed that this level of

activeness resulted from the lesson’s theme in this period: “Back to school”. In this

lesson, students were supposed to discuss such topics as School rules, school

subjects, uniform and student life. In the reflective reports, many respondents also

confirmed that “back to school” is one of topics that are most familiar and

interesting to them.

When comparing figures in this table of observation result with those from

questionnaire, the teacher/ researcher found no conflicting data, which demonstrates

that students’ opinion of their own changes in reticence level and observers’

perception of their activeness in class during the project are compatible. That is to

say, both the observation and questionnaire’s results are reliable.

Students’ reflective reports:

Figures and notes from observation checklist and reflective reports also

39

reveal further information about students’ performance in speaking activities.

First, the dominant reason for improvement in students’ activeness is their

increased familiarity with classmates and teacher, as S16 said: “I got familiar with

my classmates, so I find it easier and more enjoyable working with them”. Some

answers attribute the improvement to strategies training and activities carried out by

teacher. Also, motivational feedbacks from teacher seem to be well-approved by

The teacher taught us some useful strategies in order to study better. I think brainstorming

helps me a lot in preparing to speak or discuss (S2)

I like some activities and games by the teacher. They don’t put too much pressure on me

like other kinds of exercises and tests (S14)

I can keep up with the lesson thanks to reading the handouts provided before each lesson

(S24)

The teacher checked my mistakes carefully and helped me to correct them but NOT in front

of the class, so I feel secure (S13)

students.

Secondly, a majority of students seem a bit more active in pair work (most

score 3 or 4 for activeness in pair work activity) than in group discussion.

Interestingly, in interviews and reflective reports, students claim to prefer group

work. This contrary can be explained by the fact that when students work in a pair,

they take turn to speak and each of the partner is assigned a certain amount of

speaking time that they have to fulfill in order to keep the conversation going.

Meanwhile, working in a group of 4 to 5 members, some students rarely feel the

urge to raise their voice since other members have “already contributed enough

ideas” (S22). Regarding group work, more than one third of students show

Sometimes the teacher made brainstorming a competitive game, which drove the class

atmosphere more dynamic, we feel more comfortable and excited (S1)

A group with many students think better and faster than just me (S3)

particular interest in brainstorming session.

Third, the frequency of using communication strategies is low (only 5 or 6

students could make use of these strategies once in a while). Very few students can

40

apply communication strategies that they have learned into conversations with

teacher or peer. Some can use one strategy right after the introduction of such

It takes me a long time to produce a full sentence, so I cannot remember to apply these

strategies (S17)

I think they are helpful. But I cannot remember them for long enough to apply to my speech (S4)

strategy in class but they do not repeat them in later classes.

Finally, some students who were exceptionally inactive did not even

participate in pair work and let their partners work on their own. Most of these

students score lowly in the last weeks. When justifying this behavior in interview,

I have tried English classes and failed several times, which wore me out. I go to class only

because it is compulsory in order to graduate, but I do not enjoy studying English at all.

S22 explained:

This situation is quite common at semester 3, in B1 level class. Also, a

quarter of students confessed that English is not really useful for their studying,

future career and daily life. Their only motivation to study is to pass the final exam.

Regarding activeness in response with teacher and individual presentations,

observer pay attention to how hesitate students are when being called on and their

frequency of volunteering to give answers in class. For some students, their

hesitation is shown obviously as they tried to stay at their seat for as long as

possible to buy some more time, or when kept silent for a while, looking confused

before giving their answers. Generally, most of the class were pretty inactive in

these two activities (approximately 50% usually score 1 and 2 when they are

involved in these speaking activities at the beginning of intervention procedure).

This statistics supports information about level of reticence withdrawn from item

(13) in the questionnaire: “It embarrasses me to volunteer to answer in English

classes”. After the intervention, almost all students answered to the questionnaire

that they were no longer concerned about peer evaluation when volunteering in

class, but the observers did not find real evidence of them being more active in

volunteering. S11 believed that although she was not scared when coming forward

41

to response to teacher’s question, she barely found motivation to do so.

Research question 2 – Result summary:

In conclusion, both the questionnaire and observation’s results demonstrate

improvement in students’ activeness in speaking activities, especially in pair work

and group work. Level of reticence caused by lack of idea, fear of negative

evaluation, lack of vocabulary and expressions decreased noticeably. Most students

appeared to have their activeness boosted gradually through 6 weeks. Nevertheless,

observation result acknowledges some phenomena that are unseen through

questionnaire, including the difference between activeness in group work and in

pair work, frequency of using communication strategies and exceptional

inactiveness of several individuals. Information collected from reflective reports

match well with data from questionnaires and observation.

SUMMARY:

This chapter has presented the results of the research and discussed the issues

that were closely related to the results. Some important findings which have been

disclosed include reticence level of students before and after the intervention and

their own perception of their feelings and participation in class. It was shown that

the intervention from the researcher had positive effects on the students’ overall

willingness to participate in speaking activities, which is proven by both teacher’s

42

measurement and students’ reflective reports.

PART C. CONCLUSION

The final part was supposed to summarize the major findings which had been

discovered by the research and explained in the previous chapter (results and

discussion). Moreover, the researcher also suggested some pedagogical implications

for teachers who desire to diminish students’ reticence. In addition, the limitations

and suggestions for future studies were acknowledged for further studies in the

same field.

1. Summary of major findings of the research

As the objectives of the research, this action study was supposed to examine

the students’ level of reticence and current activeness levels. Due to the results of

low reticence levels, the teacher/researcher decided to undertake this action research

project in hope to solve the problem in her class. Based on the existing research on

reticence and anxiety in language learning, the researcher came up with different

instruments for the intervention/ solution. The results of the questionnaire which

was delivered before and after the intervention have proved the effectiveness of the

utilized instruments.

The results of the study showed that:

First of all, when the research project started, the level of reticence in class

was high as the majority of students tend to agree with negatively worded

statements in questionnaire. The assumed main factors leading to their

unwillingness to speak include pressure in English class, fear of negative

evaluation, lack of idea and low language proficiency. Basing on questionnaire’s

result, teacher made assumption about possible causes and equivalent solutions.

Instruments employ for action are: brainstorming strategies training, communication

strategies training, supplementary reading materials and motivational feedback.

Secondly, after 6 weeks of intervention phase, students did show positive

change. Progress in students’ activeness in speaking activities, especially in pair

work and group work, are demonstrated through results from both the questionnaire

43

and observation. These two instruments offer highly compatible data, without any

noticeable contradicting figures. There has been apparent reduce in level of

reticence caused by lack of idea, fear of negative evaluation, lack of vocabulary and

expressions, and gradual augmentation in student’s activeness through 6 weeks.

Moreover, some other phenomena observed and revealed are the difference between

activeness in group work and in pair work, frequency of using communication

strategies and exceptional inactiveness of several individuals.

Finally, regarding students’ perspective about their own feelings and

reticence in class, their reflective reports indicate that level of anxiety has been

lessened. Students attributed their improvement to some certain causes including

increased familiarity with English subject, classmates and teacher, and improvement

in knowledge and skill. Still, change in activeness to participate in speaking

activities was not observed at every student. In terms of teacher’s methods of

teaching, students expressed their appreciation towards group brainstorming

activity, stating that it is dynamic and helpful. They also admitted enjoyment for

communication strategies training activities. However, communication strategies

training did not really prove their effect on motivating students to speak more.

Overall, the intervention did take effect to some extent, which is

demonstrated consistently through data from all research instruments. Reduce in

students’ reticence was shown most obviously in such aspects as anxiety caused by

fear of negative evaluation, by lack of idea and by low language proficiency.

Among the measurements employed by the teacher in the intervention, the most

successful one as perceived by both teacher and students was brainstorming

strategies training; language input from supplementary reading materials proved to

be highly advantageous for students in preparing for a topic and boost their

confidence in class after that; motivational feedback also took effect on making

classroom a non-threatening environment for students; on the other hand,

communication strategies were not remarkably helpful since both the training time

44

and students’ proficiency was insufficient.

2. Teaching implication

Foreign language class anxiety contributes greatly to students’ reticence, and

this negative feeling is rooted from various causes such as fear of communication,

fear of negative evaluation, and tension in studying and testing. If the teacher

desires to ameliorate student’s willingness to talk in class, he/ she needs to be

sensitive to these causing factors in order to identify relevant solutions.

First, this research’s result proves that comfort in interacting with teacher

and with classmates is one of the deciding factors to enhance students’ confidence.

This factor will be enhanced gradually when students get to know one another better

and get accustomed to English class and activities. At this point, most of them will

prefer to cooperate with their peers rather than working individually. Therefore, one

effective way to boost class atmosphere and make it less stressful is organizing

group work and pair work. When sharing the task with others, students also share

the pressure; accordingly, they work more efficiently and comfortably. Moreover,

group dynamics encourage members to fight against their worriness and join the

discussions. Beside group/ pair discussions and practising activities, it is

recommend that teachers carry out team games that are relevant to the lesson’s

theme and skills. Students in this study showed great interest in vocabulary games

in communication strategies training sessions, which they also attributed to their

active participation in speaking activities.

The second implication withdrawn from this study’s result is the significance

of students’ belief on making errors. At the beginning of the semester, fear of

negative evaluation severely hindered students’ courage to express themselves in

front of both teacher and classmates. Thanks to the implementation of motivational

feedback, many of them reported decrease in anxiety when receiving feedback from

teacher. Therefore, to tackle problems correlating with fear of making mistakes,

teachers are suggested to help students to aware that making mistakes is

unavoidable in studying process, and that it is acceptable. Once students alter their

45

notion on making errors, their determination is surely boosted.

The next decisive factor for advancing students’ readiness to speak is

sufficient preparation. There are two main components of readiness which are

preparation time and language input in advance. Information from students’

reflective report in this study demonstrates that most students apprehend when they

are called on suddenly because they barely have time to arrange their existing

knowledge or accumulating necessary information to respond to the question. When

being able to prepare properly, students can also prepare mentally and gain

confidence to deliver their oral performance. This is to say, it is essential that

teacher gives students a certain amount of time, either in class or at home, as well as

suitable input beforehand for preparation. After all, it is believed that the ultimate

objective of a lesson is to provide knowledge, skill and offer convenience for

students to take in these best rather than checking how quick-witted they are.

Last but not least, students’ attitude towards English subject should not be

neglected. Those students who consider English no more than a compulsory subject

usually have less willingness to make attempt to study or participate in class

activities. They can even develop frustration and rejection towards this subject

when their proficiency in English is low. Although such attitude is not dominant in

the researcher’s classroom, it is not a rare circumstance that non- English-major

students have to struggle to pass this subject and perform defectively in class. This

does not only damage their own studying process but also casts negative impact on

class spirit. As a result, changing students’ attitude towards English subject is

important in the process of enhancing their activeness.

3. Limitations of the study

The first limitation is the nature of action research, which is lack of

generalizability. Although the findings of this study quite promisingly proved the

effectiveness of the measurements in the intervention phase, they are only relevent

to the specific classroom in this current study with its students and its own

46

characteristics.

The second shortcoming lies in the design and data from reflective reports.

Although it was a useful and time-saving tool in investigating students’ belief, some

questions in reflection reports seem overlapped. Besides, students’ written answers

for reflection were not as detailed as expected. Not all respondents spent time

clarifying their answers in detail, so the information extracted from these reports

was less valuable than expected. Similarly, while the questionnaire is based on

established models by experts, it may not cover all causes of reticence since there is

no open-ended question to leave space for students to give their own opinions.

Next, despite the fact that the instruments employed by teacher did take

effect, the researcher has not found out direct solutions for communication

apprehension and test anxiety. The improvement of students in these two aspects

after intervention appeared to be the indirect influence of advance in other aspects.

Last, the length of the research was quite short – only six weeks (half of the

semester). Therefore, the results may be superficial and shallow. Covering as much

of the syllabus as possible would be better, but the researcher suffered from the time

constraint.

4. Suggestions for the next cycle

If the teacher continues this project in the rest of the semester, it is

recommended that she make some changes to the implementation. The most

essential adjustment is revising communication strategies training in order to make

them more useful for students in boosting their oral performance. Otherwise, the

teacher should come up with another more practical tool.

Brainstorming activities should be maintained and advanced. If students have

been able to brainstorm smoothly in group, it is reasonable to start individual

brainstorming. This enables students to train their independence and autonomy,

47

which can possible boost their confidence as well as gradually eliminate reticence.

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. (1983). Classroom-centered research on language teaching and

learning: A brief historical overview. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 191- 204.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback

to language development: A ten monthinvestigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2),

193-214.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning & teaching. (4th ed.). New

York: Longman

Block, D. 1997. Learning by listening to language learners. System, 25, 347- 360.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, T. (2003). Reticence in class and on-line: two ESL students’ experiences with

communicative language teaching. System, 31, 259-281.

Dick, B. & Swepson, P. (2013) Action Research FAQ: "Frequently Asked

Questions" File [On Line]. Available at

http://www.aral.com.au/resources/arfaq.html

Donald, S. (2010). Learning how to speak: Reticence in the ESL classroom.

ARECLS, 7, 41-58.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994), Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.

The Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), pp. 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dwyer, E., & Heller-Murphy, A. (1996). Japanese learners in speaking classes.

Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 7, 46- 55

Edge, J. (1993). Essentials of English language teaching. Singapore: Longman.

Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom second language development. New York: Prentice

Hall.

Elyildirim, S.,& Ashton, S. (2006). Creatingpositive attitudes towards English as a

48

foreign language, English teaching Forum. 44(4), 2-11

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2000). Chinese lecturers’ perceptions, problems and

strategies in lecturing in English to Chinese-speaking students. RELC, 31, 116-138.

Harmer , J. (2007). How to teach English. Essex: Pearson Longman

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M.B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2): 125-132.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written

feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.

Jackson, J. (2002a). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and

aspirations. System, 30/1, 65-84.

Jackson, J. (2003). Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context:

perceptions of business students in Hong Kong. System, 31, 457- 469

Keaten, J. A., Kelly, L., & Finch, C. (1999). Effects of the Penn State reticence

program on beliefs about communication and fear of negative evaluation. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association,

Chicago, IL.

Keaten, J.A., & Kelly, L. (2000). Reticence: an affirmation and revision.

Communication Education, 49, 165-177.

Krupa-Kwiatkowski, M. (1998). Interaction strategies in a silent period of an inner-

direct second language learner. Research on Language and Social Interaction,

31 (2), 133 – 175.

Liu, M. H. (2005). Reticence in oral English language classrooms: A case study in

China. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 1-16.

Liu, M. H. (2009). Reticence and Anxiety in Oral English Lessons. Bern: Peter

Lang.

Liu, M. and Jackson, J. (2008), An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’

unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern

49

Language Journal, 92 (1), 71–86.

Liu, M. (2011). An Exploration of Foreign Language Anxiety and English

LearningMotivation. Education Research International. Volume 2011, Article

ID 493167

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macintyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of

multiple models of motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich,

Kuhl, and McCroskey. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and

second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 461-492). Honolulu:

University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

McCoy, R.I. (1976). Means to Overcome the Anxieties of Second Language

Learners. Foreign Language Annals, 185-9.

Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and

performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.

Nation, P. (2007). Frameworks for problem solving. Wellington: Victoria

University of Wellington.

Nguyen, H. (2010).Encouraging Reluctant ESL/EFL Learners to Speak in the

Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 3. Retrieved on 8th March

2015 from http://iteslj.org/

Nunan, D. (1991).Language Teaching Methodology Series: A Textbook for

Teachers. New York: Prentice Hall

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, Mass.: Heinle &

Heinle Publishers.

Nunan, D. and Carter, R. ( 2001). The Cambridge Guide to teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ogane, M. (1998). Teaching Communication Strategies. ERIC document (ED

50

419384)

Oxford, R.L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In J. Arnold

(Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58-67). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Phillips, G.M. (1984). Reticence: A perspective on social withdrawal. In J. A. Daly

& J. C. McCroskey (Eds), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence and

communication apprehension (pp. 51- 66). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

Phillips, G.M. (1997). Reticence: A perspective on social withdrawal (pp.129-150).

In J.A. Daly, J.C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, &D.M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding

communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.).

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Varasarin, P. (2007). An Action Research Study of Pronunciation Training,

Language Learning Strategies and Speaking Confidence. Victoria University.

Riasati, M, J. (2014). Causes of reticence: Engendering willingness to speak in

language classrooms. International Journal of Research Studies in Language

Learning. 3 (1), 115-122

Richards, J.C., Farell, T.S.C. (2011). Practice Teaching: A Reflective Approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL

Quarterly, 9 (1).

Songsiri, M. (2007). An Action Research Study of Promoting Students’ Confidence

in Speaking English. Doctoral dissertation. Victoria University.

Tong, J. (2010). Some observations of students’ reticent and participatory behavior

in Hong Kong English classrooms. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language

Teaching, 7(2), 239-254.

Tosti, D.T. (2006). What ever happened to feedback technology? Performance

Improvement. 45(2), 5-7.

Tsiplakides, I. and Keramida, A. (2010). Promoting positive attitudes in ESL/EFL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, XVI(1). Retrieved on 15th June 2016

51

from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tsiplakides-PositiveAttitudes.html

Tsui, B. M. (1992). Classroom Discourse Analysis in ESL Teacher Education.

Hong Kong: Education Department.

Tsui, B.M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning, Voices

From the Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press

Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with grammar correction. Canadian Modern

language Review, 55, 437-456.

Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., & Herman, K. C. (2002), Teacher and child variables

as predictors of academic engagement among low-income African American

children. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), pp. 477-488.

Ur, P. (1995). A Course in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge

[England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Waters-Adams, S. (2006), Action Research in Education. Retrieved on November

10th 2012 from

http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm

Young, D.J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does

language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(iv), 426-

52

439.

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEVEL OF RETICENCE

(Adapted from Language Class Sociability Scale and Foreign

Language Class Anxiety Scale)

Please put a tick ( ) on one alternative for each statement according to the

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly agree

Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree)

1. I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class.

2. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English class.

3. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in English.

4. During my English class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course.

5. I am usually at ease during English tests in my class.

6. I worry about the consequences of failing my English class.

7. It embarrasses me to volunteer to answer in English classes.

8. I get upset when I

I

amount of your agreement or disagreement with that item.

don’t understand what the teacher is correcting.

9. I often feel like not going to my English class.

10. I feel confident when I speak English in class.

11. I’m afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.

12. The more I study for English test, the more confused I get.

13. I am often ready to contribute ideas in a group discussion on a given topic.

14. I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do.

15. I feel very anxious about talking in English with other students..

16. I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other classes.

17. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn in order to speak English.

18. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions that I haven’t prepared in advance.

19. I get tense and nervous when I have to discuss things that

II

are unfamiliar to me in English.

20. I feel overwhelmed by the number of words I have to learn in English.

21. I usually don’t know what to talk about when the class is discussing a topic.

22. There are times I wanted to contribute my answers but I did not know how to express my ideas.

23. I am afraid that I will pronounce incorrectly when speaking English.

24. The English classes move so fast that I’m afraid of being left behind

III

APPENDIX 2

COMPONENTS OF FLCAS IN THE CURRENT STUDY

As an attempt to organize and describe the collected data in a way that

facilitates the understanding and interpretation of the students’ responses, this

3. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in

current research used FLCAS with the following construction of components.

English.

Communication

8. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting.

10. I feel confident when I speak English in class.

15. I feel very anxious about talking in English with other students.

2. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in English class.

Apprehension

5. I am usually at ease during English tests in my class.

12. The more I study for English test, the more confused I get.

24. The English classes move so fast that I’m afraid of being left behind

4. During my English class, I find myself thinking about things that have

Test Anxiety

nothing to do with the course.

Attitude

6. I worry about the consequences of failing my English class.

towards

9. I often feel like not going to my English class.

English class

and English

16. I feel more tense and nervous in my English class than in my other

classes.

1. I don’t worry about making mistakes in English class.

subject

Fear of

7. It embarrasses me to volunteer to answer in English classes.

Negative

11. I’m afraid that my English teacher is ready to correct every mistake I

make.

14. I always feel that the other students speak English better than I do.

13. I am often ready to contribute ideas in a group discussion on a given

Evaluation

topic.

IV

Lack of idea

19. I get tense and nervous when I have to discuss things that are

unfamiliar to me in English.

21. I usually don’t know what to talk about when the class is discussing a

topic.

18. I get nervous when the English teacher asks questions that I haven’t

prepared in advance.

17. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules I have to learn in order to

speak English.

Low Language

20. I feel overwhelmed by the number of words I have to learn in English.

22. There are times I wanted to contribute my answers but I did not know

how to express my ideas.

23. I am afraid that I will pronounce incorrectly when speaking English.

V

Proficiency

APPENDIX 3

OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Instruction:

Observers note down students’ behaviour and expression during speaking

activities, using the following numbers/ letters to indicate level of activeness,

anxiety and confidence

5 = Active

4 = Moderately active

3 = Neutral

2 = Moderately inactive

1 = Inactive

In section “Note”, if necessary, the observers note down other remarkable

behavior/ expressions of each student. For example, observers may want to

note that a student makes use of communicative strategies in his/ her speech or

how often student switches to mother tongue.

Students who are absent in speaking activities will be marked 0, which means

VI

not available.

Week… Date:…………….

Observer’s name:……………………………………………..

Lesson’s topic:………………………………………..

Lesson’s objectives: ………………………………………….

tudents’

Pair

Group

Response

Presentation

Note

number

work

work

with

teacher

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

VII

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

VIII

APPENDIX 4

GUIDELINE FOR REFLECTIVE REPORT

The following questions are the guidelines to reflect your feelings about

speaking activities in class. Please provide detailed explanation/ reasons for

your answers. This report would help the teacher to have a more insightful

understanding about your difficulties as well as desire in order to adjust her

lessons.

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

tudents’ perception of their own feelings nd reticence in cl ss

Q1: Generally, do you feel comfortable in speaking activities? Why/ why not?

Q2: What prevents you from speaking up in class activities?

Q3: After 8 weeks, do you find yourself more confident/ less anxious in

English class?

Q4: After 8 weeks, do you find yourself participate more actively in speaking

activities?

Q5: What brought about the changes in your confidence and activeness?

tudents’ perspective of te cher’s te ching methodolog

Q6: What do you think of your teacher and her teaching methods?

Q7: Which speaking activities do you like most/ least? What are the reasons?

Q8: What do you think about brainstorming strategies? How are they helpful to

you in speaking? Which topic of discussion did you like best/ least?

Q9: What do you think about communication strategies? How much do you

apply learned strategies into conversations?

Q10: Do you wish to make any change in speaking activities?

IX

Thank you for your cooperation!

APPENDIX 5

SAMPLE LESSON PLAN

Week 4 - Lesson 2 - File 2C : RACE TO THE SUN – Speaking session

A. Objectives: By the end of the lesson, Ss will be able to:

- get familiar with words and phrases related transport and travel

- being able to talk about topics relating to traffic and means of transportation

- Get familiar with paraphrasing strategy while speaking

B. Teaching aids: Textbook, handouts.

C. Teaching methods: CLT

D. Procedure

Time Activity

Te cher’s ctivities

tudents’ ctivities

3’

Warm-up

- Ss who are called on describe the given words using only body language.

- Other Ss guess the means of transport.

Aim: to activate Ss’ prior knowledge and to engage them with the unit topic

- T has a list of means of transport (bicycle, car, train, motorbike, boat, foot, subway, airplane, bus) - For each word, T invites a S to the board to describe that word using only body language (mime) - After class members have guessed the miming, T writes down each word on the board.

10’

Vocabulary introducing

- Assigned S translate highlighted words in homework reading text

- T asks Ss to translate the highlighted words and phrases in supplementary reading handout (which is previous lesson’s homework)

- Ss note down exact meanings of new words and phrases.

- T provides Ss with exact meanings of each word and how to use them in sentence (if necessary).

Aim: to introduce Ss to a range of vocabulary relating to traffic and means of transport.

Activity 1:

15’ Communication strategies training

- Ss do the matching exercise in handout (1).

- T administer handout (2) to Ss and asks them to match the words with their synonyms or definitions.

Aim: to introduce

- T calls some Ss on to give their

X

students to paraphrasing

answers and encourage other Ss to comment on these answers.

- Ss ask T for clarification if necessary.

- T provide Ss with the correct answers

* T introduces paraphrasing skill to Ss and explains this strategy’s effect in speaking.

Activity 2:

- Ss work in pair, using handout (3) and explain words to each other, using synonyms and paraphrasing.

- T administer handout (3) to Ss, asks them to work in pair and explain words to each other to guess, using synonyms and paraphrasing.

- T goes around to check if Ss need help.

- Ss ask T for clarification if necessary.

- T asks some Ss for the word/ expressions they use to explain the given words.

- T provides Ss with sample answers.

- T divides Ss into groups of 4 or 5.

5’

Group discussion

- Ss work in group of 4 or 5, brainstorming ideas for the given question.

- T asks groups to brainstorm ideas for this question:” Should students travel to school by bus or by their own bicycles?”

- One S acts as the secretary who notes down other members’ ideas.

Aim: to get students to generate ideas and discuss on the lesson’s theme.

- One S presents group’s ideas to T.

- T assigns the “secretary” of each group and goes around to make sure each group is working properly.

- T calls on one member of each group to contribute their arguments and writes the ideas onto the board.

10’

Speaking

- T gives Ss 3 minutes to prepare a short speech on the given question.

- Ss spend 3 minutes to prepare

- T invites 2 or 3 students to deliver their speech in front of class.

Aim: to get Ss to practice using new words and generated ideas.

XI

2’

- Take note.

Assigning homework

- T hands out reading material for the next lesson and asks Ss to complete them at home.

Aim: to help Ss revise the lesson and get ready for the next one.

XII

APPENDIX 6

HANDOUT (1). SUPPLEMENTARY READING - SAMPLE

Week4. Unit 2. Reading homework

Read the following passage and translate all underlined words and phrases into Vietnamese.

MY FAVOURITE MEANS OF TRANSPORT

Hello, I am Nada. I want to tell you about my best means of transport: cars.

I prefer cars to other vehicles because it provides freedom. In fact, you can travel

by car anywhere and at any time. Meanwhile, if you travel by train or bus, for

example, you will have to wait for some minutes to hours. Besides, cars go faster

than many other means of transport like bicycle. It is also more comfortable than

bus, motorbike or bicycle and far safer. In addition, you can listen to music or to

the radio while driving. This is mainly why I enjoy using car.

However, it's true that cars cause pollution and damages the environment

since they consume a large amount of fossil fuel worldwide. It also kills thousands

of people every year in terrible accidents. Moreover, millions of people spend

hours waiting in traffic jams daily. Indeed, sometimes the traffic is so bad at rush

hours that it is quicker to walk than to go by car or bus.

In conclusion, car has both advantages and disadvantages to offer. All

things considered, it is the most suitable vehicle for me.

Questions:

1. According to this passage, what are the advantages and disadvantages of cars?

2. How do you travel to school every day? Is it convenient?

2. Which means of transport do you usually use when you go to your holiday destinations?

3. If you can choose, which means of transport will you use? Why?

XIII

4. Which means of transport do you like least? Why?

APPENDIX 7

HANDOUT (2). PARAPHRASING EXERCISE

Match these words (a – h) with their synonyms or definitions (1 - 8):

a. means of transport

1. like

b. comfortable

2. causes harm to

3. vehicle

c. enjoy

4. use

d. rush hours

5. a kind of energy that helps

e. damages

vehicles like car or motorbike to

f. advantage

run

g. consume

6. convenient

h. fossil fuel

7. the time of the day when roads

are very crowded with people and

vehicles

8. benefit

XIV

APPENDIX 8

HAN OUT (3) “GUE THE WOR ” GAME

Adapted from Ogane (1998)

HANDOUT A

Explain these words (1 - 5) in English. Your partner listens to you and tries to guess what they are.

Example: This is something on the road, usually at crossroad. It can turns red, green or yellow. People stop when it is red, and go when it is green.

( traffic lights)

1. train

2. passenger

3. ticket

4. airport

5. bicycle

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

HANDOUT B

Explain these words (1 - 5) in English. Your partner listens to you and tries to guess what they are.

Example: This is something on the road, usually at crossroad. It can turns red, green or yellow. People stop when it is red, and go when it is green.

( traffic lights)

1. subway

2. train station

3. petrol

4. map

XV

5. rush hour

APPENDIX 9

E ch student’s score of level of reticence before nd fter the intervention

Score before intervention

Score after intervention

Score gap

Student number

S1

46

59

13

S2

52

67

15

S3

51

67

16

S4

65

76

11

S5

41

55

14

S6

55

64

9

S7

48

59

11

S8

63

75

12

S9

61

71

10

S10

50

64

14

S11

44

52

8

S12

47

60

13

S13

62

74

12

S14

57

69

12

S15

54

67

13

S16

70

76

6

S17

54

70

16

S18

67

75

8

S19

43

54

11

S20

53

63

10

S21

49

64

15

S22

50

57

7

S23

61

72

11

S24

40

57

17

1283

1567

284

Total

53.54

65.5

11.8

Average score

XVI