Improving Students’ Oral Interaction in the EFL Classrooms at Ton Duc Thang University in Vietnam
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposesof this research weretoinvestigatethereasonsof students’ low
oral interaction at Ton Duc Thang University (TDTU) and then offer some activities to
maximizetheiroral participation. Inthefirst stage, the questionnaires were dispatched
96 students. The findings revealed the backgrounds and significant factors leading to
their low oral interaction. From these causes, some oral activities were proposed to
enhance the students’ oral participation. In the next stage, the researcher selected
twoclass samplingsof similar levelof speaking and listening forobservations. The 10
observations were conducted in the two classes. The suggested oral activities were
applied to the experimental class. The students in this class were taught with a
purposivesamplingmethod in whichoralactivities wereadopted toimprovetheiroral
interaction. Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) was used to secure quantity
oforal interaction in the classroom. Time sampling for each observed classroom was
for 35 minutes in a 45-minute period. The data revealed evident discrepancies of
students’oral participation betweenthetwoclasses.Thenumberoforal interactions
in the experimental class increased considerably.
Article Details
- ต้นฉบับที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารวิชาการ มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏบุรีรัมย์ สาขามนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์ ถือเป็นกรรมสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏบุรีรัมย์ ห้ามนำข้อความทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนไปพิมพ์ซ้ำเว้นเสียแต่ว่าจะได้รับอนุญาตจากมหาวิทยาลัยฯ เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร
- เนื้อหาต้นฉบับที่ปรากฏในวารสารเป็นความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียน ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาด อันเกิดจากเทคนิคการพิมพ์
References
Solutions. In Brown, J. D. and Yamashita, S. O. (eds.), JALT Allied Materials
LanguageTestinginJapan.Tokyo:TheJapan AssociationforLangugeTeaching,
57-65.
Casteel, J. D & Stahl,R. J. (1973).Thesocialscienceobservationrecord (ssor) :Theoretical
construct and pilot studies. Gainesville, FL: P. K. Yonge Laboratory School.
Ed. 101 002.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second languageclassrooms:Researchonteaching and learning.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Cook,V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rded.). OUP Inc.
NewYork.
Davies,P. & E.Pearse. (2000).Success inEnglishteaching.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Fawzia, A. (2002). Factors affecting students’ oral participation in University level
academic classes within the Omani context. Paper presented at Second
Annual National ELT Conference. March, 27-28, 2002. Sultan Qaboos
University, Oman.
Gorbert, F. (1979). To Err is Human: Errors Analysis and Child Language Acquisition.
English Language Teaching Journal, 34.
Harmer, J. (2000).How to teach English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978).Errorcorrectioninforeignlanguageteaching :Recent theory,
research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center hppt://www.essex.ac.uk/
linguistics/pgr/egcl/gspd5/Abstracts/AlSeyabi.shtm
Long, M. H. & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreign talk discourse: Forms and functions
of teacher’s questions, in H. W. Seliger& M. H. (eds.). Classroom oriented
research in language learning, 268-285. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mendelson, D. (1990). How to correct errors in the communicative language talking
class.Prospect, 5 (2), 24-31.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designingtasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T., & Long, M. H. (1986).The linguistic and conversational performance of
experienced and inexperienced teachers. In Day, R. R. (ed.), Talking tolearn :
Conversationinsecond languageacquisition,85-98.Rowley, Mass. : Newbury
House.
Rivers, W. M. (ed.). (1987). Interactive language teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rowe, M. B. (1972). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence
in language, logic, and fate control. Paper presented at the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL. ED 061 103.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence
on language logic and fate control: Part II wait-time. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 11, 263-79.
Stahl, R J. (1990) Using “think-time” behaviors to promote students’ information
processing, learning, and on-task participation. An instructional module.
Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Tatar, S. (2005). Why keep silent? The classroom participation experiences among
non-native English speaking students. Language and intercultural
communication, 5, No. 3 & 4, 284-293.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review
of educational research 57, 69-95. EJ 371 356.
