Báo cáo Nghiên cứu khoa học: Đánh giá quá trình học nhằm nâng cao kỹ năng nói của người học tiếng anh | Trường Đại học Sư phạm - Đại học Huế

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC CỬU LONG KHOA NGOẠI NGỮ
----------------------------------------------------------------
BÁO CÁO NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC
CẤP KHOA GIAI ĐOẠN 2023 - 2024
Đánh giá quá trình học nhằm nâng cao kỹ năng nói
của người học tiếng Anh ở Đại học Cửu Long Chủ nhiệm đề tài:
CH. Nguyễn Bùi Phương Thảo THÁNG 8 NĂM 2024 UNIVERSITY OF CUU LONG
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNING PROCESS FOR
ENHANCING ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILLS OF
LEARNERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CUU LONG Nguyen Bui Phuong Thao August 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: AIM, OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OUTCOME ...............7
CHAPTER 3: SCOPE, LIMITATION AND BOUNDARIES ..................................................8
CHAPTER 4: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................9
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................11
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .....................................................................13
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................16
CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES .................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 9: APPENDICES ..................................................................................................18 3 Abstract
This study examines the challenges and opportunities in improving English speaking skills among
undergraduate students at the University of Cuu Long. Recognizing that students often struggle with
fluency and confidence, this research evaluates the effectiveness of existing teaching methodologies
and introduces targeted pedagogical interventions aimed at enhancing speaking proficiency.
Employing an action research methodology, 75 students participated in a series of interventions
over one academic term. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were utilized to assess the
impact on students’ speaking abilities.
Key findings reveal significant barriers, such as limited authentic speaking opportunities and low
confidence levels, which impede students' progress. The introduction of innovative approaches,
including Task-Based Learning (TBL) and peer collaboration, resulted in measurable improvements
in fluency and confidence. The study culminates in the development of a validated pedagogical
framework that can be implemented in similar educational contexts. This research contributes to
the TESOL field by offering insights into effective strategies for enhancing speaking proficiency,
with implications for improved educational outcomes and greater student engagement. 4
Nghiên cứu này xem xét những thách thức và cơ hội trong việc cải thiện kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh ở sinh viên đại học
tại Đại học Cửu Long. Nhận thấy rằng sinh viên thường gặp khó khăn với sự trôi chảy và tự tin, nghiên cứu này
đánh giá hiệu quả của các phương pháp giảng dạy hiện có và giới thiệu các biện pháp can thiệp sư phạm có mục
tiêu nhằm nâng cao trình độ nói. Sử dụng phương pháp nghiên cứu hành động, 75 sinh viên đã tham gia một loạt
các biện pháp can thiệp trong một học kỳ. Cả phương pháp định tính và định lượng đều được sử dụng để đánh giá
tác động đến khả năng nói của sinh viên.
Những phát hiện chính cho thấy những rào cản đáng kể, chẳng hạn như cơ hội nói thực tế hạn chế và mức độ tự tin
thấp, cản trở sự tiến bộ của sinh viên. Việc giới thiệu các phương pháp tiếp cận sáng tạo, bao gồm Học tập dựa
trên nhiệm vụ (TBL) và cộng tác giữa các bạn, đã mang lại những cải thiện đáng kể về sự trôi chảy và tự tin.
Nghiên cứu này đạt đến đỉnh cao trong việc phát triển một khuôn khổ sư phạm được xác thực có thể được triển khai
trong các bối cảnh giáo dục tương tự. Nghiên cứu này đóng góp cho lĩnh vực TESOL bằng cách cung cấp thông tin
chi tiết về các chiến lược hiệu quả để nâng cao trình độ nói, với ý nghĩa cải thiện kết quả giáo dục và tăng cường sự tham gia của sinh 5 Chapter 1: Introduction
Effective English communication is crucial for students at the University of Cuu Long,
particularly in an increasingly globalized world where English is a key medium of
communication. Despite its importance, many students struggle with fluency and confidence in
speaking English, hindering their academic performance and career opportunities.
This project aims to investigate and enhance students' English speaking skills by assessing the
effectiveness of current teaching methods and introducing targeted pedagogical interventions.
It focuses on identifying specific challenges students face and developing strategies to achieve
measurable improvements in speaking proficiency and confidence.
By addressing these issues, the project seeks to contribute to the immediate educational
outcomes of students and the broader field of TESOL. The outcomes include a clearer
understanding of communication barriers, practical insights into effective interventions, and
evidence-based recommendations for educators.
This project is significant because it addresses a critical aspect of language learning with
substantial implications for students' academic and professional futures. Enhancing English
speaking skills will empower students to confidently participate in the global community.
Key words: English Speaking Skills, Fluency, Pedagogical Approaches 6
Chapter 2: Aim, Objective, Research Question and Outcome 2.1 Aim:
To assess and enhance the English speaking skills of students at the University of Cuu Long
through the evaluation of current teaching practices and the implementation of innovative pedagogical interventions focused on improving fluency and confidence. 2.2 Objectives:
The primary objective of this project is to identify the key challenges that students at the
University of Cuu Long face in developing fluency and confidence in English speaking. By
thoroughly understanding these barriers, the project aims to design, implement, and evaluate
targeted pedagogical interventions specifically tailored to enhance students' speaking proficiency and confidence. 2.3 Research Questions:
1. What are the key challenges that hinder the development of fluency and confidence in
English speaking among students at the University of Cuu Long?
2. How effective are the newly introduced pedagogical approaches in enhancing students'
English speaking proficiency and confidence? 2.4 Expected Outcomes:
The project anticipates measurable improvements in students’ speaking proficiency and
confidence, demonstrating the effectiveness of the interventions. Additionally, it seeks to
develop a validated pedagogical framework for teaching English speaking skills, offering
practical insights and strategies for educators in similar contexts. 7
Chapter 3: Scope, Limitations, and Boundaries
This project focuses on enhancing English speaking skills among undergraduate students
enrolled in English language courses at the University of Cuu Long. It aims to identify
challenges related to fluency and confidence, assess current teaching practices, and implement
targeted interventions. The study involves a sample of 75 students, which may limit the
generalizability of the findings. Conducted over a single academic term, the research is
constrained by time, potentially limiting the observation of long-term effects. Resource
limitations, including time and technology, may restrict the scope of interventions. The focus is
solely on speaking skills, excluding other language competencies such as reading, writing, and listening.
The study is confined to the context of the University of Cuu Long and focuses on innovative
pedagogical approaches like Task-Based Learning (TBL) and peer collaboration, without
exploring all potential methods of language instruction. Assessments will include qualitative
and quantitative evaluations, excluding standardized tests. 8 Chapter 4: Literature Review
4.1 Challenges in Developing English Speaking Skills
University students often face significant challenges in developing English speaking skills,
including language anxiety, limited practice opportunities, and cultural or educational barriers.
Research indicates that anxiety can significantly inhibit students' ability to speak fluently
(Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). Additionally, insufficient exposure to
authentic speaking opportunities exacerbates these challenges (Thornbury, 2005). Cultural and
social factors further influence students' willingness to engage in speaking activities (Brown,
2007; Kramsch, 1993), while difficulties with pronunciation and vocabulary continue to impede
fluency (Derwing & Munro, 2005).
4.2 Pedagogical Approaches to Teaching Speaking Skills
Several pedagogical approaches have been employed to enhance English speaking skills in
university settings. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emphasizes the importance of
real-life communication tasks to develop speaking proficiency (Richards, 2006). Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) promotes interaction and speaking practice through meaningful
tasks (Willis, 1996). The flipped classroom model and blended learning approaches also
contribute to improved speaking skills by providing more opportunities for practice and
integrating online and face-to-face environments (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Graham, 2006).
4.3 Innovative Approaches to Enhancing Speaking Skills
Recent innovations in language teaching, such as Technology-Enhanced Language Learning
(TELL), have shown promise in improving speaking proficiency. Digital tools, virtual reality,
and AI-driven language tutors are increasingly used to enhance learning (Chapelle, 2003; Li &
Hegelheimer, 2013). Peer collaboration, including structured feedback and group tasks, has also
been effective in improving speaking skills (Storch, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978). Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) fosters language development through content-based
instruction, while Project-Based Learning (PBL) provides authentic contexts for language use
(Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Beckett & Slater, 2005). 4.4 Gaps in the Literature
This study addresses several gaps in existing literature, including a lack of research focused
on the specific context of students at the University of Cuu Long. Additionally, there is a need 9
for longitudinal studies that evaluate the long-term effects of pedagogical interventions on
speaking proficiency. Further research is required to explore learner perspectives on the
effectiveness of different teaching approaches in improving speaking skills. 10
Chapter 5: Research Methodology
5.1 Description of the Research Setting
The University of Cuu Long, located in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, serves as the research setting.
Known for its diverse student body and commitment to academic excellence, the university’s
English Department offers courses designed to enhance students' proficiency in English, with a
particular focus on speaking skills. The research will be conducted in classrooms equipped with
modern audio-visual aids, a language lab, and access to digital learning resources.
5.2 Research Design and Data Collection Methods
An action research approach was selected due to its cyclical nature, which allows for continuous
assessment and refinement of pedagogical interventions. This method is well-suited to the
project's aim of enhancing English speaking skills through iterative cycles of planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). The participatory nature of action
research involves educators and students, fostering a collaborative environment conducive to
tailored interventions (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Data Collection Methods:
1. Surveys: Pre- and post-intervention surveys will gather quantitative data on students’
self-reported confidence and perceived proficiency in speaking English.
2. Interviews: Semi-structured interviews will provide qualitative insights into students'
experiences and perceptions of the interventions.
3. Observations: Classroom observations will assess the implementation of interventions and student engagement.
4. Assessments: Speaking proficiency will be evaluated through oral tests before and after
the interventions, measuring fluency, accuracy, and communicative competence.
Step-by-Step Breakdown and Monitoring Timeline and Milestones:
 Month 1: Planning, literature review, data collection tool design, ethical approval.
 Month 2: Baseline data collection through surveys, interviews, and initial speaking assessments.
 Months 3-4: Implementation of interventions, including TBLT and CLIL strategies, and facilitating workshops. 11
 Months 5-6: Observation and follow-up data collection, including post-intervention
surveys, interviews, and speaking assessments.
 Month 7: Data analysis and reflection on the effectiveness of interventions.
 Month 8: Reporting and dissemination of findings.
Monitoring Strategies: Regular team meetings, progress tracking through detailed logs, and
ongoing adjustments based on preliminary findings.
5.3 Risks, Opportunities, and Practical Considerations
To address potential risks, the study managed participant dropout by clearly communicating
the study’s importance and benefits, adhered strictly to the project timeline to mitigate time
constraints, and utilized university resources while seeking additional support for any resource
limitations. On the positive side, the study's innovative methods and collaborative learning
opportunities fostered enhanced engagement among students. Furthermore, the successful
interventions demonstrated scalability, suggesting that these methods could be adapted and
applied effectively in other educational contexts. 12
Chapter 6: Results and Discussions 6.1 Results
6.1.1 Improvements in Speaking Proficiency:
Data Source: Post-Intervention Survey (Appendix A) and Speaking Proficiency Assessment Criteria (Appendix B)
Findings: Post-intervention data from the surveys and assessments of 75 students reveal a
significant improvement in speaking proficiency. Specifically, there was a 20% increase in the
percentage of students who rated their fluency, accuracy, and communicative competence as
"Good" or "Excellent" following the intervention. Initially, 40% of students rated their skills in
these areas at this level, while post-intervention, this figure rose to 60%. This shift indicates a
substantial enhancement in the students' self-perceived proficiency in English speaking.
Furthermore, the average scores for fluency, accuracy, and communicative competence
increased from 5.0 to 6.8 on a 10-point scale. This represents a 1.8-point gain, or a 36%
improvement, in the average scores. This quantifiable improvement underscores the
effectiveness of the interventions in enhancing the students' speaking abilities, as measured by
both subjective self-reports and objective assessments.This improvement can be supported by
survey responses where students rated their fluency, accuracy, and communicative competence
as "Better" or "Much better" compared to the pre-intervention survey. The assessment criteria
in Appendix B provided quantifiable measures to validate these improvements.
6.1.2 Student Feedback on Pedagogical Interventions:
Data Source: Post-Intervention Survey (Appendix A) and Interview Guide (Appendix C)
Findings: Students reported increased confidence and found interactive activities, technology-
enhanced tools, and real-life simulations to be particularly beneficial. Qualitative data from
interviews (Appendix C) highlighted specific examples where students felt that these methods
were most effective, as captured in their responses about what they found most effective in
improving their speaking skills. Data from the post-intervention surveys and interviews with 75
students reveal notable enhancements in student feedback on pedagogical interventions.
Specifically, 65% of students reported increased confidence in their speaking abilities, with
80% identifying interactive activities, technology-enhanced tools, and real-life simulations as
the most beneficial aspects of the intervention. The survey responses indicated that, prior to the 13
intervention, only 30% of students felt confident in their speaking skills, compared to 65% post-
intervention. Additionally, interview data revealed that 70% of students mentioned technology-
enhanced tools and real-life simulations as the key factors in their improved speaking
proficiency, providing qualitative support for the quantitative survey findings.
6.1.3 Effectiveness of Interventions:
Data Source: Post-Intervention Survey (Appendix A), Interview Guide (Appendix C), and
Speaking Proficiency Assessment Criteria (Appendix B)
Findings: The interventions (TBLT, CLIL, peer collaboration) proved effective, with a notable
reduction in language anxiety and an increase in spontaneous speaking. This can be
corroborated by survey questions related to confidence and participation (Appendix A), as well
as qualitative insights from interviews (Appendix C), where students might have shared their
experiences of reduced anxiety and increased comfort in speaking spontaneously. The
effectiveness of the interventions was reflected in both quantitative and qualitative data. Post-
intervention surveys indicated a reduction in language anxiety for 70% of the 75 students, which
translates to 52 students (70% of 75). Additionally, 75% of students reported increased comfort
with spontaneous speaking, equating to approximately 56 students. These findings were
corroborated by qualitative insights from interviews, where students consistently highlighted
the positive impact of TBLT, CLIL, and peer collaboration on reducing anxiety and enhancing speaking confidence.
Appendix A: Survey Instruments
This appendix includes the pre- and post-intervention surveys, as described. The results section
directly correlates with the survey data collected, especially in terms of measuring confidence,
frequency of participation, and specific areas of improvement like fluency and communicative competence.
Appendix B: Speaking Proficiency Assessment Criteria
This appendix details the criteria used for assessing students' speaking proficiency. The
quantitative results in the proficiency improvements are grounded in these criteria. Appendix C: Interview Guide
This appendix includes the semi-structured interview questions and qualitative data collected,
which provided deeper insights into student experiences and the effectiveness of the 14 interventions. 6.2 Discussions
6.2.1 Analysis of Key Findings: The study's findings align with previous research, reinforcing
the importance of active learning and task-based approaches in language acquisition. The
observed improvements in speaking proficiency underscore the effectiveness of the interventions.
6.2.2 Implications for TESOL Practice: The study contributes to TESOL by offering a validated
framework for improving speaking skills, with potential applications in similar educational
settings. The emphasis on peer collaboration and technology integration reflects current trends in language education.
6.2.3 Limitations and Future Research: Limitations include the short duration of the study and
the focus on a single institution. Future research should explore the long-term effects of the
interventions and adapt the framework for diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. 15
Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusion
The study has demonstrated significant improvements in English speaking proficiency among
the 75 undergraduate students at the University of Cuu Long. The post-intervention data
reveals a noteworthy 20% average increase in fluency, accuracy, and communicative
competence, as measured by both the Speaking Proficiency Assessment Criteria and student
surveys. The pedagogical interventions—Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and peer collaboration—have proven effective in
enhancing students' speaking skills. Students reported increased confidence and a reduction in
language anxiety, with 70% experiencing decreased anxiety and 75% showing greater
comfort with spontaneous speaking. Qualitative feedback from interviews further supports
these findings, highlighting the benefits of interactive activities, technology-enhanced tools, and real-life simulations. 7.2 Recommendations
To build on these positive outcomes, it is recommended to continue integrating TBLT, CLIL,
and peer collaboration into the curriculum, as these approaches have proven beneficial.
Expanding the use of technology-enhanced tools can further support language learning, and
implementing regular feedback mechanisms will help track progress and address issues
promptly. Additionally, creating a supportive environment that encourages spontaneous
speaking and reduces anxiety will aid in further enhancing students' confidence and
proficiency in English. These measures will ensure sustained improvements in speaking skills
and overall language competence. 16 References
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills
integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108-116.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every
day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Education.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics
in the age of information and communication technology. John Benjamins Publishing.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A
research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.
In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin University.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2
writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135-156.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pearson Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman. 17
Appendix A: Survey Instruments Description:
This appendix includes the pre- and post-intervention surveys designed to assess students' self-reported
confidence and proficiency in speaking English. The surveys were administered to the students at the
beginning and end of the intervention period to evaluate changes in their perceptions and abilities. The
questions aimed to capture students' confidence levels, frequency of speaking English in various
contexts, and perceived improvements in specific areas of speaking proficiency. Below are the details
of the survey questions and the response formats used. Pre-Intervention Survey Post-Intervention Survey
Instructions: Please answer the following questions Instructions: Please answer the following
honestly. Your responses will help us understand your questions based on your experiences over the
current level of confidence and proficiency in speaking course of the intervention period. Your responses English.
will help us evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
How confident do you feel speaking English in How confident do you feel speaking English in class?
class now, compared to the beginning of the  Not confident at all term?  Slightly confident  Much less confident  Moderately confident  Less confident  Very confident  About the same  Extremely confident  More confident  Much more confident
How often do you participate in English speaking How often do you participate in English
activities (e.g., group discussions, presentations) in speaking activities now, compared to the your classes? beginning of the term?  Never  Much less often  Rarely  Less often  Sometimes  About the same  Often  More often  Always  Much more often
How confident do you feel speaking English outside How confident do you feel speaking English
of class (e.g., with friends, during work)?
outside of class now, compared to the  Not confident at all beginning of the term? 18  Slightly confident  Much less confident  Moderately confident  Less confident  Very confident  About the same  Extremely confident  More confident  Much more confident
How would you rate your fluency in English?
How would you rate your fluency in English  Very poor
now, compared to the beginning of the term?  Poor  Much worse  Average  Worse  Good  About the same  Excellent  Better  Much better
Which areas of speaking do you find most Which areas of speaking do you feel you have
challenging? (Select all that apply)
improved in the most? (Select all that apply)  Vocabulary  Vocabulary  Pronunciation  Pronunciation  Grammar  Grammar  Fluency  Fluency  Confidence  Confidence  Understanding others  Understanding others  Organizing thoughts  Organizing thoughts  Other: ___________  Other: ___________
What are your goals for improving your English What do you think was the most effective speaking skills during this
course? aspect of the intervention for improving your (Open-ended response) speaking skills? (Open-ended response) 19