Introduction
Being able to speak a foreign language is relevant in any professional field. English has become popular and important when communicating with others due to the number of native and non-native speakers who use it around the world (Crystal, 2008: 3-6). Kirkpatrick and Deterding (2011:373-387) stated that English as a lingua franca is not only used for communication among different groups of people, each speaking a different language, but also it is the most common use of English in the world. For these reasons, people who are enrolled in a university need to learn English during their student life.
Students at the Universidad Veracruzana study English as a compulsory subject in their curriculum. The two compulsory courses cover CEF level A1. Some of them do not continue studying English because during their written and oral tests they do not perform as they expect. It is common that during the oral test, students do not cope well with the interactional part; one possible reason may be that they do not have enough practice in class so when they face the final oral test they do not have enough tools to cope with a fairly good performance.
After observing university students’ performance at the Universidad Veracruzana in their end-of-term oral test, four speaking activities were selected to help them cope with their English oral test and to develop their speaking competence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of some speaking activities implemented in students’ oral practice that could help them to cope with an oral test.
Context of the research
The Universidad Veracruzana (UV) is a public University in Veracruz, Mexico. It is the main university in Veracruz. UV offers undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate programs in face-to-face, virtual, and blended learning modalities.
Some of them do not continue studying English because during their written and oral tests they do not perform as they expect.
The Universidad Veracruzana language centers offer courses to students who are enrolled in a degree program. They are part of the Modelo Educativo Integral y Flexible but for the purpose of this study they are to be called Basic English I and Basic English II courses. English I course has to be passed in order to take English II. The Basic English I oral test has responsive and interactive types of speaking according to Brown’s taxonomy (Brown, 2010:184-207). It consists of three sections; the first two parts of the test give a total of ten points, the last part gives a total of ten points having a total of twenty points. The first part is a question-answer speaking part between the teacher and the learner; the second corresponds to a short interview conducted by the teacher about a topic seen in class. The third one is an interactional section performed by two or three students in a role-play.
As English is a compulsory subject, its content is determined by the university. The content for Basic English I and II is related to the level A1 according to the Common European Framework.
The main aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of some speaking activities implemented in students’ oral practice that could help them to cope with an oral test. The second aim was to change students’ perceptions towards the oral test in English by using four types of speaking activities in class; as a consequence, two questions were formulated for this research:
Research question 1: In what ways can the use of designed speaking activities in class help Basic English I students to cope with the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test?
Research question 2: How can the use of designed speaking activities in class change students’ perceptions towards the end-of-term oral test?
 foto: Dulce Brenda Méndez |
Literature review
When talking about language learning, there are four skills that a person needs to develop: writing, speaking, listening and reading. Reading and listening are receptive skills; while speaking and writing are productive skills. Due to the different areas in which the speaking skill can be used in a person’s life, Bailey (2006:118) stablishes that speaking may be the most important of skills a person can have. In addition, Thornbury (2005:1) states that it is an ability people use in their daily lives. Speaking is an ability based on learner’s oral performance which can result on having assumptions, expectations or perceptions on their speech (Gumperz, 1999).
Developing productive skills is a process that a language learner experiments in the classroom. Harmer (2007a: 123-124) argues that speaking activities in the classroom offer opportunities to practice in a safe environment, which provide feedback for both teacher and students. Teachers help learners acquire abilities that they will not be able to accomplish by themselves; moreover, they need to be aware of learner’s needs when using the speaking skill that may not be a simple process (Goh and Burns, 2012:4-5; Bailey, 2006:121); therefore, learners should develop language awareness of the use of the language to improve the language (Howard, 1992, in James and Garrett, 2013:78-80).
Communication is an important skill to develop; therefore, communicative activities should be implemented in class. According to Littlewood (1981), communicative activities provide whole-task practice due to the variety of structured individual tasks, improve motivation, allow natural and create a context that supports learning.
Rivers (1987: xiii in Richards and Renandya, 2004:208) claims that “communication derives essentially from interaction” so spoken language is used to maintain social interaction with meaningful topics so that learners interact among themselves to convey information. Shumin (1997 in Richards and Renandya, 2004:204-210) says that there are two types of interaction to improving speaking ability: small talk (brief, casual conversations) and interactive activities (provide exposure to authentic language).
Gower, Phillips, and Walters (2005:100-111) claim that there are three types of interactive activities: a) controlled activities (they are focused on accurate use of words, pronunciation and structures); b) guided activities (they offer models to follow during a speaking interaction by changing vocabulary or structures); and c) creative or freer communication (they encourage learner’s motivation as they are free to use the target language to communicate effectively).
Activity: “Find someone who” is also known as mingle or milling activity. Hummel (2014:75-77) states that the mental process that students experience when asking and giving information in this activity is also involved in second language acquisition. Thornbury (2005:66-67) claims that this activity provides repetitive practice of a particular language structure which becomes communicative by milling it. During the activity students have to walk around the classroom asking questions to other students so that they complete a survey or find a match.
Surveys are also known as questionnaires. These activities involve finding out information and reporting back (Riddell, 2003:125-127; Harmer, 2007a:130; Thornbury, 2005:83). According to Seligson (1997:60) surveys work well if there is a guessing element for student’s assumption.
Role-plays are situations and problems or tasks given in cards, the participants have a specific role to play in the situation and role cards usually have background information and points relevant to the tasks (Harmer, 2015; McDonough and Shaw, 2012; Ur, 2009 and Scrivener, 2005).
Simulations are large scale role plays. Background information is given, learners have assigned situations or problems of human interactions and social processes; participants can speak and react as themselves (Klippel, 2013:126-129; McDonough and Shaw, 2012:145-147; Ur, 2009:132; Scrivener, 2005:159; Thornbury, 2005:96-98).
Language testing is fundamental when learning a language because it is the measurement of the language ability of the learner (Davies, 1990:1-8). This ability tends to be seen as an individual competence although it is part of an interaction that occurs among speakers; therefore speaking is a shared social activity in which speakers select words according to the role they have (Louma, 2004:20-28). For that reason, assessing speaking may be crucial when learning a second language because it should be seen as a means to help students in their learning process (Frank, 2012:32). While being assessed, a learner could make language errors that may have a negative influence or perception on their performance and confidence, as a result they fell worried about being graded either by the teacher or classmates (Al-Issa & Al-Qubtan, 2010; Nazara, 2011).
Methodology
Trying to help students during the oral test, a classroom based action research was conducted by the teacher. It is a qualitative research because it is related to the social phenomena data that occur in a natural setting and it also has quantitative data as test scores are used for the analysis. During this type of study, the situation is not controlled by the researcher. It is subjective as this involves opinions, experiences and feelings of the participants of the study. It can be conducted with a small sample size as a group of fifteen students that corresponds to a class (Dörnyei, 2007:35-41).
An action research has four basic phases: a) plan (Planning the process); b) act and observe (putting the plan phase into action, and observing the data and results of the plan phase); c) reflect (reflecting about the results to plan future actions in the teaching practice). After observing the practice, the plan could be revised to start the process again with acting and observing, phase d). (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2008, in Denzin and Lincoln, 2007:271-278; Burns, 2010; McNiff, 2010:8-10).
The methods applied for this type of study are: a) observation (checklist); b) non-observation (exploratory questionnaire, final questionnaire, and classroom documents such as mid-of-term oral test, and end-of-term oral test) (Burns, 2010:56-57). A combination of closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires were used to gather information from students related to the speaking activities used in class so that quantitative and qualitative data were obtained. (Dawson, 2007: 30-34).
The speaking activities implemented in this study were: find someone who, surveys, role plays and simulations. Also, there were some prompt activities used in the class that guided students to construct questions in English. The grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary mistakes made during the mid-of-term oral test were used to write a language clinic activity. An activity related to the grading criteria of oral test was used for letting students know some of the aspects assessed in the oral test. The triangulation among the different results obtained from the instruments used in this action research supported the validity (the instruments measure what they supposed to measure, and avoiding bias, errors and influence from the researcher) and reliability of the research (Dawson, 2007:110-111). The results of the end-of-term oral test were used to show the interconnection between the mid-of-term oral test and the checklist; that analysis answered the research question 1 related to students’ performance during the oral test.
The second research question related to students’ perceptions towards speaking activities in the classroom is answered by a correlation among the exploratory questionnaire, the final questionnaire, the checklist and the end-of-term oral test; this correlation examines the relationship among all the different variables (Dörnyei, 2007).
The intervention took place from February to June 2016. The research was conducted at the Language Center Orizaba; it is part of the Universidad Veracruzana. A Basic English I group of students participated in this research; the group started with 25 students but some of them did not continue with the course because of personal reasons. At the end, 18 university students were part of this study, 5 women and 13 men. They were between the ages of 17 and 26 years with different areas of study such as, engineering, dentistry, nursery or chemistry.
 foto: Dulce Brenda Méndez |
Instruments
The exploratory questionnaire measures perceptions, main concerns, needs and behavior of the students involved in this research (Dörnyei, 2007; Burns, 2010). It tries to make students reflect on their speaking abilities in the target language. This instrument has nine questions related to student´s feelings and thoughts towards the speaking exam. Students give their perspective about their personal oral competence when starting the course. The dates of the instruments’ implementation are shown in table 3.1.
The final questionnaire was administered individually to each student after the end-of-term oral test. There were twelve questions related to their feelings, their performance, the activities implemented and their main concern during the test (See Appendix 1).
The mid-term oral test was designed and administered by the teacher; it was similar to the end-of-term oral test. The end-of-term oral test used for the study was the test that is standardized for all Basic English I students. It was administered by the teacher and a second teacher to avoid having bias or being subjective when grading students (Brown, 2010: 20-21).
The checklist is observational as it is done right after observing student’s performance in order to collect data from them (Norton, 2009: 107-108; Burns, 2010:62-63). After having the end-of-term oral test, the teacher fills in a checklist that provides information related to accuracy when speaking, being able to communicate effectively, to ask and answer questions (See Appendix 2).
Data collection and implementation
The exploratory questionnaire was administered in the third week of class because the first two weeks are for students’ enrollment. Two students did not take this questionnaire in that week as their first class was until March; in their second class, they answered it. The final questionnaire was answered on May 30th. It covered their perspective towards the end-of-term oral test. It was similar to the exploratory questionnaire but three questions were added concerning to the speaking activities used in this research.
The checklist was designed to be applied the same day that the students had their end-of-term oral test; it was used by the teacher to collect data about students’ performance. It covered aspects related to accuracy, understanding and communication.
The classroom documents are non-observable instruments in action research (Burns, 2010: 56-57). The mid-term and end-of-term oral tests are programmed by a board of teachers in the state. They are in charge of the grading criteria for oral tests and for the design of the standardized end-of-term oral test. The mid-term oral test was used for collecting different data about their English accuracy on March 23rd; the end-of-term oral test was used to collect data about the activities implemented on May 25th. Students were grouped in pairs and a trio.
Four speaking activities were selected for this study; “find someone who”, surveys, role play and simulations (Gower, Phillips, and Walters, 2005: 110-111). The activities were used twice a month during the course, they were presented in different formats using different grouping arrangements such as pairs or trios due to the characteristics of the end-of-term oral test that gives such possibilities when assessing (See Appendix 2).
A language clinic activity was designed. During the mid-term oral test, all the mistakes that students had were categorized and divided in seven parts that students had to correct but in written form to make them aware of their mistakes in the language as something natural (Donmall, 1985:7); then, they would realize how they could be corrected (See Appendix 6). A prompts activity was done with prompts related to a topic that stimulate students in advanced learning activities (Pressley et al., 1992: 91-109).
A grading criteria for oral test should be provided to offer a reference on the kind of performance students should have during the end-of-term oral test (Gardner, 2012).They, which grade Basic English I students, are designed by a board of teachers at the Universidad Veracruzana; they have to be followed to have a reliable score. The grading criteria for end of term oral tests were used to grade students during the mid-term and end-of-term oral test.
Data analysis procedure
The purpose of the exploratory questionnaire was to collect information about students’ perception of their performance in the oral test previous to it; while, the final questionnaire focused on students’ perception after presenting their oral test. By triangulating such information, the analysis might show how they evaluate their performance at the beginning of the course and at the end of it (Burns, 2003: 162-165; Silverman, 2006:156). This triangulation was done by analyzing and categorizing the information that emerged which is known as content analysis (Dawson, 2007: 118-119).
During the end-of-term oral test, the teacher filled a checklist; the focus of it was on the different aspects the grading criteria covered. The information provided was analyzed and triangulated with the scores both teachers give to students when being assessed (Burns, 2003: 162-165; Silverman, 2006: 156).
English I students at the Universidad Veracruzana are assessed on their oral performance by two teachers, their head teacher and a different professor having a group with the same level of English. Their teacher can give them a maximum of four points; the other sixteen points are given by the other professor. The maximum of points are twenty during the end-of-term test. For the purposes of this study, the ten points that correspond to the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test were taken into account. This information was analyzed with the checklist.
Qualitative research has the characteristic of being subjective; consequently, it has to be validated by involving participants in the final conclusions and by the triangulation of data (Dörnyei, 2007:160-161). For that reason, the participants of the study gave their conclusion in the final questionnaire about the effectiveness of the speaking activities used in class; in addition, the information provided by the different instruments such as the exploratory questionnaire, the final questionnaire, the checklist, and scores from the end-of-term test was compared.
Findings
Research question 1: In what ways can the use of designed speaking activities in class help basic English I students to cope with the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test?
An analysis was done between the grades that students obtained in the mid-term oral test and the end-of-term oral test. Then, those global grades were triangulated with the data obtained in the checklist to validate that the grades in both test refer to the categories that emerged in the checklist (Burns, 2003: 162-165; Silverman, 2006: 156).
In the mid-term oral test, students’ performance showed that most of them failed the interactional section of test and only few passed with low scores. In the end-of-term oral test the grades obtained increased because most of them passed this section of the test and only few failed. The grades in both oral tests were triangulated with the data in the checklist. Graph 4.1 named oral tests grades show how students increased their grades.
The results in the checklist indicate that the majority of students achieved an effective communication during the end-of-term oral test. A large number of students produced accurate questions and answers. This can be seen in graph 4.2 named checklist results.
Research question 2: how can the use of designed speaking activities in class change students’ perceptions towards the end-of-term oral test?
Qualitative data was analyzed by content analysis that shows how certain categories emerged from the collected data in different instruments (Dawson, 2002:118-119). The categories that emerged from the data are: communication, accomplishment of activities, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar, confidence, nervousness, pronunciation, and students’ awareness about their oral performance.
The category of communication emerged from the analysis of the exploratory questionnaire, the questionnaire, the checklist and the oral tests. The questions that were used for answering this category were: “¿Piensas que fuiste capaz de preguntar y responder las preguntas? ¿Por qué?” / “¿Piensas que fuiste capaz de comunicarte efectivamente durante el examen oral?”; “Do you think that you were able to ask and answer the questions? Why?” / “Do you think that you were able to communicate effectively during the oral test?”
A number of students mentioned that the speaking activities implemented in class helped them achieve communication during the end-of-term oral test. It may have been because of the practice in class he had; it could help him when practicing similar situations in class to have an idea about what to say and how to say it.
Accomplishment of activities is one of the aspects that was evaluated in the end-of-term oral test. This category emerged from the exploratory questionnaire and oral tests. Some students mentioned that they could accomplish the activities assigned. The question used for the analysis was: “¿Piensas que hiciste todas las actividades asignadas?” / “Do you think you accomplished the activities? Some of students said that they did accomplish the activities. Speaking activities in class could help students when practicing different situations in class.
For the category of pronunciation, the question “¿Piensas que fuiste capaz de pronunciar correctamente? “Do you think you were able to pronounce correctly?” was used; it was taken from the exploratory questionnaire and the final questionnaire. The scores in both oral tests were considered too. This category is one of the aspects considered in the grading criteria for oral tests. Some students said that they had an intelligible pronunciation, it may have been due to the practice he had during speaking activities in class and the feedback provided by the teacher and other learners.
The category of vocabulary and grammar emerged from the question: “¿Piensas que usaste el vocabulario apropiado?” / “Do you think you used the appropriate vocabulary?” It was taken from the exploratory questionnaire and the final questionnaire, the checklist and the grades in both tests were also considered. This classification is one of the aspects considered in the grading criteria. Some students said that they used proper vocabulary and had accuracy in grammar. Using the four speaking activities proposed in class with different situations, similar to those used in the end-of-term oral test, may have provided the practice in vocabulary and grammar that learners needed when facing the end-of-term oral test.
For the category of confidence, the exploratory questionnaire, the final questionnaire and the grades were analyzed. A numerous number of students seemed more confident in the end-of-term oral test than in the mid-term oral test; this may have been a consequence of working in a number of times with different role plays and simulations that gave them the necessary practice to face an English oral test.
Some students mentioned that they felt nervous during the oral tests. Affective factors such as nervousness or anxiety may influence learners’ performance during a speaking test; then, a low learner’s performance may not be due to their knowledge of the language but due to this affective factor.
As this course is a mandatory subject for this group of learners, failing is a concern that some students have. After the implementation of the language clinic activity, students became more aware of their mistakes and performance when speaking English; some of them felt confident about their performance but after the language clinic activity they realized what their mistakes were. After the activity, they were able to see their oral mistakes on paper; this made them have a different perspective of what oral mistakes were made during an oral test. After this activity, learners tended to correct and give feedback to each other, which became a common activity in class. As a consequence, they became more aware of their own mistakes not only when speaking but when writing.
On one hand, the results suggest that the data in both tests and the checklist coincide in the same categories, as a consequence the designed speaking activities implemented in class seemed to have helped Basic English I students to cope with the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test. On the other hand, the findings derived from the study showed that designed speaking activities in class may have had an influence on changing students’ perceptions towards the oral tests in English. Some of the areas that have been influenced were confidence, language awareness, nervousness, failure, accomplishment of activities, communication, pronunciation, and vocabulary and grammar.
Discussion and reflections
This action research allowed the investigator to analyze previous assumptions made about students’ oral performance systematically. This was done through the collection of different data that showed students’ language ability, thoughts and behavior.
After working with other Basic English I groups, the researcher noticed that most of the learners were not able to cope with the end-of-term oral test; she assumed that “it was a result of lack of speaking practice”. To verify that assumption, she elaborated an exploratory questionnaire that collected information about students’ needs, thoughts and feelings towards the oral test.
The exploratory questionnaire showed that they were worried about their oral performance, which showed that it was a need for them. One of the reasons they mentioned to be worried about was the lack of speaking practice in previous English courses. Therefore, the researcher decided to work on the speaking ability by choosing four speaking activities to work with in class. The researcher adapted the activities in class to fit in the learners’ needs.
Firstly, having invested time and effort for the oral practice of the students during regular courses let them to have knowledge over the conditions in which the discursive activity occurs, starting from aspects such as: the topic in discussion; the length of the practice time in class; the practice of a strategic work; when helping students in their intervention and incorporating suggestions and corrections done to others during the same activity; structuring their requests of clarification to the teacher; the negotiation of meaning; self-correction in their pronunciation, among the most outstanding in the observations done by the researcher.
Secondly, learners may not have had enough practice in the class for the speaking skill due to the points in the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test. The researcher considered that the practice in class may help learners to cope with the oral test but also with English courses in the future.
To develop the oral skill, four speaking activities were selected, two guided and two communicative activities to help students with their accuracy and fluency practice. Moreover, those activities were similar to tasks in the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test, so students could cope with it.
As it can be seen in graph 4.1, the grades in the end-of-term oral test were higher than in the mid-term oral test and less students got low grades. This situation might have been because of the practice provided when implementing speaking activities in class because they were selected to give them training for that test. Graph 4.2 showed the correlation between the grades in the end-of-term oral test and the checklist used during it; the results were similar, which means that most students coped well with the interactional section of the end-of-term oral test. The checklist evidenced the teacher’s perception about student’s performance. This may have been because learners used the language in speaking activities constantly; they interacted with different students each time and a variety of situations were suggested for them to work with.
After the implementation of the language clinic activity, students seemed to have developed language awareness. This awareness was unexpected by the researcher and it worked when having activities because students became used to be corrected by the teacher and by other students. This awareness was developed not only for the oral skill but for writing, listening and reading too, this made the researcher reflect on the importance of awareness when having an oral test.
A factor that the researcher did not consider at the beginning of the study was the attitude that each student had towards the speaking activities and the end-of-term oral test. After applying the exploratory questionnaire, the researcher realized that the student´s perceptions towards the oral tests were relevant for this study.
After applying the action and the second observation results suggest that implementing designed speaking activities changed students’ perceptions towards the end-of-term oral test. They became more aware of their performance which corresponds to the phase of revised plan. The researcher reflected that this situation seemed to allow the improvement of the exchange of meaning and production of the knowledge, one of the current aims of language courses.
In addition, learners seemed willing to do the activities implemented in class; furthermore, the results about the perceptions towards the implemented speaking activities suggest that affective factors should be considered when having an oral test; nervousness, and confidence were some of the affective factors mentioned by the learners in the exploratory questionnaire and the final questionnaire. For that reason, it can be said that the category of nervousness and confidence emerged from students’ comments which may be factors or elements to consider in future actions with the purpose to have a more complete appreciation of the facts explored in the classroom.
With regard to the results of the end-of-term oral test, most grades were high; unfortunately, few students failed due to the lack of commitment with their studies and because they missed classes. Therefore, the researcher concluded that another factor to take into account is motivation when going to classes and development of a commitment with their English course.
The researcher reflected on students’ attitude towards the activities due to the fact that they seemed to be positive because they participated in all the activities implemented during the course. The language awareness that they unconsciously developed during the course, seemed to have made them become more confident when being corrected and open to suggestions made not only by the teacher but also by other students.
Conclusions and implications
When I planned this study, my objective was to help students to explore the usefulness of some speaking activities implemented in students’ oral practice that could help them to cope with an oral test, but there were aspects I did not considered at the beginning of this research and only now, reflecting critically, I can recognize.
In my plans, the objective was to provide enough oral practice to help students cope with the end-of-term oral test. For that reason, I selected some activities that were applied in class, I observed how they worked and then I revised the initial plan.
Results in this investigation suggest that a great number of students were able to accomplish all the activities asked in the end-of-term oral test due to the training in class. After the mid-term oral test, it was perceived that students’ performance was low but it increased after the training in the speaking activities and the support provided by the teacher. This is a relevant aspect in my professional practice because having practiced in the classroom helped students in their oral performance.
Practicing a language with possible situations that students could face, makes them have an idea about what to say, and how to say it. Our evidence showed that situations to face are better manageable when they are close to student’s needs and interests. This experience has made me realize the importance of speaking activities for learners when having an oral test.
As it was mentioned, I had to revise the initial plan which made me notice that not only speaking activities but all the activities implemented in a course can influence students’ perceptions towards the language; for example, the language clinic activity increased language awareness which helped students notice their mistakes in order to correct them. According to the checklist and the questionnaire, students became more confident when speaking because they could communicate and achieve the tasks in the end-of-term oral test than in the mid-term oral test. This activity guided me on what language needs my students had after the mid-term oral test. From that, I could design activities to help them learn the language to pass the course.
When the plan was reviewed, I had to consider the limitations that were presented in the class and that made me modify some of the original activities. One limitation was that participants were not completely committed with the activities and their attendance was low. This is the reason why in further research, I would like to implement the same activities in non-compulsory English courses to contrast the results and implications. The instruments and activities in this research would be adapted to the new group of students.
At the end of the research, another significant finding was that the activities implemented during the course stimulated students to become more aware of their performance when speaking in English. As Harmer (2007) argues, speaking activities in the classroom provide opportunities to practice in a safe environment which provide feedback for both teacher and students; therefore, the practice is not only about the language but also about the use of error correction in class by the teacher and students which helped students in their language awareness (Howard, 1992, in James and Garrett, 2013: 78-80).
I also could observe that students’ confidence was one factor that was influenced by the activities implemented in the research; confidence may have been influenced by the constant feedback done in class and by the language awareness that was developed during it. Some learners mentioned that they could express themselves better in the end-of-term oral test than in the mid-term oral test.
Finally, I would like to reflect on what some participants of this study implied in regards to their English language performance. The students’ comments suggest that affective factors are crucial when learning a language and having an oral test due to the fact that they mentioned they were nervous before and during the end-of-term oral test. This made me realized that speaking activities in class are not the only factor that contributes to students’ oral performance; there are other aspects such as affective factors that should be considered.
With this investigation, I hope to have contributed somehow to my teaching area, to understand how students are influenced by the activities implemented and the training provided in class; in addition, teachers in language areas could start implementing some of the activities suggested in this research for guiding their students in developing their oral ability. In this way, teachers could be aware of the factors that influence their professional practice and, as a consequence, they would be acting as reflective professionals.
References
Al-Issa, A.S. & Al-Qubtan, R. (2010). Taking the floor: Oral presentations in EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 1(2), 227-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010.220425
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Issues in teaching speaking skills to adult ESOL learners. In J., Comings, B., Garner & C., Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy 6. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, H. D. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. NY: Pearson Longman.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge
Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24 (01), 3-6.
Davies, A. (1990). Principles of language testing. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Dawson, C. (2007). A practical research methods. A user-friendly guide to mastering research. UK: How to books Ltd.
Donmall, G. (1985). Language awareness. NCLE papers and reports 6, 7.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Frank, J. (2012). The roles of assessment in language teaching. English teaching forum, 50(3), 32.
Gardner, J. (Ed.). (2012). Assessment and learning. London, UK: Sage.
Goh, C. C. M. and Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking. A holistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gower, R., Phillips, D., and Walters, S. (2005). Teaching practice. A handbook for teachers in training. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Gumperz, J. (1999). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In
Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (Eds.) The Discourse Reader. Oxon: Routledge.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Oxford: Pearson.
Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. England: Pearson.
Howard, N. (1992). Language awareness and second language development. In C., James and P., Garrett (ed.), Language awareness in the classroom. New York: Routledge. (2013).
Hummel, K. M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition. Perspectives and practices. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R. (2008). Participatory action research. Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K., Denzin and Y. S., Lincoln (Eds.). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Klippel, F. (2013). Keep talking: Communicative fluency activities for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. and Deterding, D. (2011). World Englishes. In J., Simpson (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Louma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2012). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
McNiff, J. (2010). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new action research. Dorset: September books.
Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ Perception on EFL Speaking Skill Development. JET (Journal Of English Teaching), 1(1), 28-43. doi:10.33541/jet.v1i1.50.
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching & learning. A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. USA and Canada: Routledge
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109
Richards, J. C., and Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2004). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Riddell, D. (2003). Teaching English as a foreign language. UK: McGraw Hill.
Seligson, P. (1997). Helping students to speak. London: Richmond Publishing.
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching. A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: Macmillan.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Strategies for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Harlow: Longman.
Ur, P. (2009). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waters, S. and Bell, J. (2014). Ethics and integrity in research. USA: McGraw Hill.
Watkins, P. (2014). Learning to teach English (No. 2nd). Delta Publishing.
