The effects of meaning activities on young learners speaking activities and attitudes at Ho Van Hue primary school

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

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

THE EFFECTS OF MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES

ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING

ACTIVITIES AND ATTITUDES

AT HO VAN HUE PRIMARY SCHOOL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

SUBMITTED BY: NGUYEN HUYNH DOAN THY

SUPERVISOR: ASSOC. PROF. DR. NGUYEN THANH TUNG

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2016

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “The effects of meaning-focused activities on

young learners’ speaking skill at Ho Van Hue Primary School” is my own

work.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains

no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis

by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the

main text of the thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in

any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 15th

, 2016

Signature

Nguyen Huynh Doan Thy

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Nguyen Thanh Tung, my supervisor, for his encouragement and kind support for

my thesis. I highly appreciate his valuable insights in his feedback to me and I am

so grateful for all his guidance and confidence in my ability to accomplish the

thesis.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all students at Ho Van Hue

Primary School who have been active participants in both Control Group (CG) and

Experimental Group (EG).

I am especially grateful to all lecturers as well as my classmates at Ho Chi Minh

City Open University.

Also, I am so happy and proud of my beloved family including my mother, Mrs.

Huynh Thi My Le, and my husband, Mr. Nguyen Quang Khanh, for their kind

support given to me during the time I did the thesis.

iii

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the effects of meaning-focused activities on young learners’

speaking performance in English teaching and learning at Ho Van Hue Primary School.

Adopting Flavel’s (1963) theory of Piaget’s cognitive development as a basic

theoretical framework, young learners aged 7-11 belong to the third stage of development

in which they can operate concrete objects. Due to limited knowledge and experience,

children only have enough ability to focus on meaning when they learn English speaking

while adolescents in the fourth stage seem to be fully developed for formal operations.

Data on speaking lessons from a set of eight units in Fun for Movers (Robinson &

Saxby, 2015) were selected carefully by the researcher to form the basis for a teaching

program in which meaning-focused activities were employed to teach English speaking to

the 4th graders of age 10. An experimental study was carried out with three main

instruments of tests, questionnaires and interviews. As for the analytical framework,

independent samples t-tests for the pretest and posttest were run on SPSS of version 22.0

and descriptive statictics were employed for questionnaires and interviews.

The outcomes of the research show that meaning-focused activities have positive

effects on young learners’ speaking performance. Additionally, from participating in the

propgram, the students express their enthusiasm, engagement and motivation when they

learn speaking English with this intervention.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP.................................................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................II

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................III

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ VI

LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... IX

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

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY...................................................................................1

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................4

1.3. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..............................................................................5

1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................5

1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................7

2.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE MEANING-FOCUSED APPROACH .........................7

2.2. A DESCRIPTION OF MEANING-FOCUSED AND FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH TEACHING 9

2.3. THEORY OF ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT ...................................................11

2.4. POSITIONING MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES IN META-COGNITION........................15

2.5. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES ON YOUNG

LEARNERS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCES..............................................................................22

2.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY...............................................................................................29

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................30

3.1. RESEARCH SITE..........................................................................................................30

3.2. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................31

3.2.1. Population ..........................................................................................................31

3.2.2. Sample ................................................................................................................32

3.2.3. Experimental group............................................................................................33

3.2.4. Control group .....................................................................................................35

3.3. METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION......................................................................38

3.3.1. Overall approach................................................................................................38

3.3.2. Data collection process......................................................................................47

3.4. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................49

3.4.1. Tests....................................................................................................................49

3.4.2. Questionnaires....................................................................................................51

3.4.3. Interviews ...........................................................................................................51

3.5. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENTS ....................................................52

3.5.1. Reliability and validity of tests...........................................................................52

3.5.2. Reliability and validity of questionnaires...........................................................53

3.5.3. Reliability and validity of interviews..................................................................54

3.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY...................................................................................................56

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ............57

4.1. DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................57

v

4.1.1. Reliability and validity of tests...........................................................................57

4.1.2. Data analysis of tests..........................................................................................60

4.1.3. Data analysis of the questionnaires and interviews...........................................64

4.2. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................................77

4.2.1. Discussion of the findings of the first research question “To what extend do

meaning-focused activities affect young learners’ speaking ability?” ........................77

4.2.2. Discussion of the findings of the second research question “What are young

learners’ attitudes towards meaning-focused activities in learning speaking?”.........79

4.3. CHAPTER SUMMARY...............................................................................................81

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .........................................................................................82

5.1. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................82

5.2. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF METHODOLOGY ................................................83

5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................84

5.4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................................................................85

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................86

APPENDICES....................................................................................................................94

APPENDIX 1......................................................................................................................94

APPENDIX 2......................................................................................................................96

APPENDIX 3......................................................................................................................98

APPENDIX 4....................................................................................................................100

APPENDIX 5....................................................................................................................102

APPENDIX 6....................................................................................................................104

APPENDIX 7....................................................................................................................107

APPENDIX 8....................................................................................................................111

APPENDIX 9....................................................................................................................112

APPENDIX 10..................................................................................................................113

APPENDIX 11..................................................................................................................117

APPENDIX 12..................................................................................................................120

APPENDIX 13..................................................................................................................121

APPENDIX 14..................................................................................................................124

APPENDIX 15..................................................................................................................128

APPENDIX 16..................................................................................................................130

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Summary of the schedule of real observations from the textbook of Fun

for Movers

Table 2.4: Previous studies on meaning-focused activities on young learners’

speaking ability

Table 3.3.1a: Components of a Cambridge Test for Young Learners (YLs)

Table 3.3.1b: Three-point Likert scale of the questionnaire

Table 3.3.1c: Schedule of the focus group interview in week 7 on April 15th, 2016

Table 3.3.2: The process of collecting questionnaire, interview and tests

Table 4.1.1.1a: Reliability of pretest for the CG and EG

Table 4.1.1.1b: Reliability of posttest for CG and EG

Table 4.1.1.2a: Inter-reliability of pretest for CG and EG

Table 4.1.1.2b: Mean and SD of pretest for CG and EG

Table 4.1.1.2c.: Inter-reliability of the posttest for the CG and EG

Table 4.1.1.2d.: Mean and SD of the posttest for CG and EG

Table 4.1.2.1a. Comparison of mean and Std. Deviation of the CG and EG in the

pretest

Table 4.1.2.1b. Independent-Samples Test of levels between the CG and EG in the

pretest

Table 4.1.2.2a: Comparison of mean and std. deviation of the CG and EG in the

posttest

Table 4.1.2.2b. Independent Samples Test of levels between the CG and EG in the

posttest

Table 4.1.2.2c. Report on the difference of levels between the CG and EG in the

posttest

Table 4.1.3.1a. Frequency and percentage of students’ general attitudes towards

learning English speaking

Table 4.1.3.1b: Students’ perceptions on the benefits of meaning-focused activities

vii

Table 4.1.3.2b: Students’ feelings towards meaning-focused activities in learning

English speaking

Table 4.1.3.1c: Desire to learn speaking with meaning-focused activities

Table 4.1.3.2: Three-point Likert scale of the questionnaire

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2: A model of the Zone of Proximal Development.

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CG Control group

EG Experimental group

ELLiE Early Language Learning in Europe

HVH PS Ho Van Hue Primary School

MOET Ministry of Education and Training

PSs Primary Students

YLs Young Learners

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

Within the constraints of the form-focused instruction, the teaching and

learning of English speaking has faced some problems refraining fluent speech. One

of the most common challenges is that a majority of English teachers tend to use the

traditional method in speaking lessons. Based on real observations in some primary

classes at Ho Van Hue Primary School, the author of this study could identify some

common activities in a speaking period: using Vietnamese to explain the new

lessons, writing sample structures on the board, asking students to copy sentences in

their notebooks, and forcing students to learn model utterances by heart. As a

consequence, students become passive learners when they learn English speaking

with this instruction because they do not have many opportunities to express their

ideas freely and share their feelings in pair or group work. They tend to be like

parrots listening to the teacher’s explanation and repeating after him/her the

utterances as required. Not only does the teacher talk more than students, but he/she

also often interrupts them to correct grammatical mistakes when they practice

speaking English. A speaking period turns out to be a reading and writing lesson

including formal operations in terms of accuracy.

The author of this study spent time observing some classes in various levels

from grade three to grade five at Ho Van Hue Primary School to draw out the

instruction which teachers often used in teaching English speaking. The popular

approach is summarized in the table on the next page.

As can be seen from this table, most of teachers use form-focused instruction

to guide their students to learn English speaking in terms of speaking part one about

find the differences, speaking part two about a picture story, speaking part three

about odd one out, and speaking part four about personal information. Instead of

adopting a learner-centred approach and taking their role as coordinators or

facilitators, a majority of the teachers at this primary school still use a traditional

approach in speaking lessons. For example, first, instead of giving time for students

to work in groups to brainstorm what they could see in the pictures, these teachers

wrote the sample structures on the board: “In picture A, there is …, but in picture B,

2

there are…”, or “Here, the boy is laughing, but there, the girl is crying…” Second,

the

Table 1.1: Summary of the schedule of real observations from the textbook Fun for

Movers

Teacher Session Methodology Date Time Place

1

st

teacher

1) Unit 41:

Saying yes or no

(Speaking Part 1)

Form-focused

instruction

March

4

th, 2016

7:30 a.m.

–

8:05 a.m.

Class

3/1

2) Unit 34:

What’s in

Mary’s kitchen?

(Speaking Part 2)

Form-focused

instruction

March

11th

,

2016

15:00

p.m. –

15:35

p.m.

Class

3/2

2

nd

teacher

3) Unit 33: On

your feet and on

your head

(Speaking Part 3)

Form-focused

instruction

March

18th

,

2016

9:00 a.m.

–

9:35 a.m.

Class

4/3

4) Unit 9: My

family

(Speaking Part 4)

Form-focused

instruction +

Meaning-focused

instruction

March

25th

,

2016

15:35

p.m. –

16:05

p.m.

Class

4/4

3

rd

teacher

5) Unit 13:

Different homes

(Speaking Part 1)

Form-focused

instruction

April 1

st

,

2016

9:35 a.m.

–

10:05

a.m.

Class

5/1

6) Unit 32: Why

is Sally crying?

(Speaking Part 2)

Form-focused

instruction

April 8

st

,

2016

13:45

p.m. –

14:20

p.m.

Class

5/2

4

th

teacher

7) Unit 25:

Which one is

different?

(Speaking Part 3)

Form-focused

instruction

April

15th

,

2016

10:05

a.m. –

10:35

a.m.

Class

5/3

8) Unit 11:

Things we eat

and drink

(Speaking Part 4)

Form-focused

instruction +

Meaning-focused

instruction

April

22nd

,

2016

15:35

p.m. –

16:05

p.m.

Class

5/4

3

teachers often ask their students to listen to their explanations and repeat these

structures after them and some representative students are called on to take turns to

say the structures aloud in front of the class. Third, teachers give them from five to

seven minutes to copy down the sample structures into their notebooks. The last

step is that the teachers let their students to work individually from four to six

minutes to practice speaking English and present in front of the class.

This way of teaching and learning English speaking leads to lots of problems

refraining students from fluent speech. Because a period at a primary school lasts

only 35 minutes, students are too young to copy the content on the board into their

notebooks quickly. Furthermore, as the class size in a public school is often over 40

students, they have few chances to focus on practicing speaking English. Therefore,

a period of learning English speaking tends to become a kind of doing grammar

exercises as required by the teacher.

Although current guidelines from such publishers as Cambridge, Oxford and

Macmillan encourage teachers to innovate their ways of teaching by applying the

new method of communicative language teaching in a speaking lesson, a minority

of Vietnamese teachers follow this recommendation because of the class facilities in

public schools. The class size is usually more than 40 students per class with

different levels from excellent to less able ones. This leads to the difficulty for the

teacher to divide the class into small groups for them to have more chances to

develop their speaking skill inside the classroom. Additionally, owing to a 35-

minute period at a primary school, the teacher has less time to help his/her students

to practice speaking as compared to a private class in an international school where

the class size is smaller with 15-20 students in each room.

Apart from her real observations of several English teachers at Ho Van Hue

Primary School, the author of this study identifies some more reasons why teachers

tend to use the conventional method to teach English speaking and limit group

work’s activities. In their answers, they pay attention to the safety in the classroom,

which means that it is hard for them to manage the class well when students are

asked to sit in groups of four or six in a speaking lesson. Children are active

learners, love talking to one another and are likely to chat irrelevant things, which

4

makes the class noisier and noisier. Another inconvenient thing is that a team leader

in every group prefers to talk the most while the rest seem to be quiet as they only

listen to his/her presentation. Despite the communicative method, the

encouragement of methodological innovations by the principals and the goal of

national foreign language project 2020, few teachers have enough confidence to

apply new approaches for the fear of classroom management and the burden of

completing the syllabus within the fixed amount of short time. Another

disadvantage of trying to implement creative ways of teaching and learning English

speaking in a public school is the anxiety of students’ getting lower scores and this

may influence the teacher’s performance at the end of the school year.

These challenges, regarding children’s sacrifice of meaning for form as usually

instructed by the teacher, the school facilities and the burden of achieving high

scores on the exams motivate the researcher to find out an alternative to the

currently used method of teaching and learning English speaking at a primary

school with the hope of increasing young learners’ speaking ability. Based on

Flavel’s (1963) theory of Piaget’s cognitive development, meaning-focused

activities are proposed as a better way to enhance young learners’ speaking skill.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Based on her real observations of different classes at Ho Van Hue Primary

School and in accordance with more than five years of teaching experience for

children from grade one to grade five, the researcher can draw out some main points

for the current instruction and learning of English speaking. Even though the aim of

the national foreign language project 2020 is to encourage teachers to motivate

students to develop their speaking skill via the application of the new method –

communicative language teaching – that focuses more on meaning than form, a

majority of English teachers tend to use a traditional approach owing to several

reasons: the difficulty in applying the new method at a primary school, big class

size of 40 students or more, classroom management, and the problem with equal

support.

Additionally, the intensive program is considered to be overloaded for both

teachers and students because they not only learn four periods of the textbook

Family and Friends but they also study extra books, such as Math, Science and Get