VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
********************* NGUYỄN THÚY HẰNG AN EXPLORATORY INTO TEACHING AND LEARNING OF
SPEAKING ENGLISH SKILL TO 12
th
GRADE STUDENT AT QUẢNG
XƢƠNG I UPPER – SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THANH HÓA

Nghiên cứu về việc dạy và học kỹ năng nói Tiếng Anh cho học sinh lớp
12 tại trƣờng Trung Học Phổ Thông Qủang Xƣơng I ở Thanh Hóa

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60140111
Hanoi, 2014
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI


i
DECLARATION

I certify that the thesis entitled “An exploratory into teaching and
learning of speaking English skill to 12
th
grade students at Quang Xuong I
Upper – Secondary school in Thanh Hoa” and submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts is the result of
my work, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this minor thesis or
any part of the same has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other
university or institution. Hanoi, September 2014
Signature
Nguyễn Thúy Hằng ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to acknowledge and express my deep gratitude
to my supervisor, Dr Le Van Canh, for his enlightening lectures in the
Methodology and Materials Development Courses, greatly enthusiastic
guidance, encouragement, and constructive comments in-depth along the way

understanding of this reality.
The subject of the study was 144 students from three different classes and
three teachers teaching in 12 graders at Qủang Xương I Upper – Secondary
school in Thanh Hoa. Three lessons were observed, four students and three
teachers were interviewed. The data collected from class observations and the
interviews were transcribed and analyzed.
The picture of reality of the teaching and learning speaking at the school
included the procedure of the speaking lessons, classroom interaction
patterns the task types and the effectiveness of the teaching speaking at Quảng
Xương 1 Upper- Secondary School. The results of the study revealed that the
teaching and learning of speaking at Quang Xuong 1 school were not
satisfactory. Two recommendations on how to improve this situation were
made to both teachers and students at the school.
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
1. WTO World Trade Organization
2. CLT Communicative Language Teaching
3.GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education
4.WWF World Wild Fund
5. WHO Worl Health Organization
6. IRE Initiative Response Evaluation

2. Aims and objectives of the study 1
3. Research questions 1
4. Methods of the study 2
6. Organization of the thesis 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1.1. Theoretical background of speaking in second language teaching and
learning. 4
1.1.1. Definitions of speaking 4
1.2. Role of speaking in second language acquisition 4
1.2.1.The input and output hypothesis 4
1.2.2. The interaction hypothesis 5
1.3. Approaches to the teaching of speaking skill. 5
1.4. Approaches to the learning of speaking skill 9
1.5. Input, feedback, and output in foreign language learning 11
1.6. Speaking tasks 11 vi
1.7. Classroom Interactions 12
1.7.1. Participants in classroom interraction 13
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 17
2.1. Research setting 17
2.1.1. An overview of the researched school. 17
2.2. Research approach 18
2.3. Research method 18
2.3.1. Data collection method 18
2.3.2.Classroom observation 18
2.3.3. Post observation Interviews 19
2.4. Data analysis method 19

3.6.4. Redesign the task for some topics 35
3.6.5.Options of correcting errors for students in speaking lesson. 35
3.6.6. Overcome time constraint problem 35
3.6.7. Provide teaching facilities 36
3.6.8. Help students to be confident 36
3.6.9. Create opportunities for students to use English in real life 36
3.7. The teacher’s self-improvement of speaking skill 36
3.8. Monitor group work activities 37
4. Limitations of the study 37 viii
5. Suggestions for further research 38
REFFERENCES 39
APPENDIX 1 I 1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1.Statement and problem
Students‟ ability to speak English is one of the main goals of any English
language teaching program from the perspective of communicative language
teaching. Without the ability to speak the language, students cannot learn the
language successfully. However, students seem to be weak at speaking, and this is
true in the context of secondary schools in Vietnam where the teaching of speaking
is not given enough attention. This is because speaking is not tested, and teachers
claim that when speaking is not tested, students are not interested in learning to
speak English.
As a secondary school teacher, I think it is necessary to explore the reality of
teaching and learning speaking English in an attempt to identify the reasons why

information, which aids the understanding of what was unobservable in the
classroom, i.e. teachers‟s reasoning of their teaching behaviours.
5. Scope of the study
The study is concerned with how English speaking lessons were taught and
learned involved 3 teachers and 144 students in one secondary school. Its focus is
on common classroom interaction patterns and the influence of these interactional
patterns on students‟ learning to speak English.
6. Organization of the thesis
The paper is developed into main three parts: the Introduction, the
Development and the Conclusion
Part A is Introduction. the background to the study, states the aims, significance,
discusses the scope of the study, method and procedure and outlines the thesis.
.Part B is Development
Chapter 1. . Literature review presents the issues relating to speaking, the role of
speaking in second language acquisition, approaches to the teaching of speaking skill,,
approaches to the learning of speaking skill, input,feedback and output in foreign language
learning, speaking tasks, classroom interaction.
Chapter 2: The study presents research , research approach, research
method. 3
Chapter 3: Findings analysis and discussion and discussion, presents the
results from the classroom observation and interview. The chapter ends with a
discussion of the findings.
Part C: Conclusion
1. Summary of major findings
2 Concluding remarks
3 Reflections
4. . Limitations of the study

verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts"(Chaney,1998, p.13).
Speaking is a crucial part of second language learning and teaching. Florez (1991:1)
defines speaking as “an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves
producing and receiving and processing information” (cited in Bailey, 2005:2).
From the above definitions, it can be concluded that speaking is the
productive aural/ oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to
convey meaning.
1.2. Role of speaking in second language acquisition
1.2.1.The input and output hypothesis
Krashen‟s (1985) Comprehensible Input Hypothesis claims that language
input (listening and reading) is important in the language program and that fluency
in speaking or writing in a second language will naturally happen after learners have
built up sufficient competence through comprehending input. Many studies on the
nature of input revealed that input facilitates the acquisition of words in the target
language, but does not aid the acquisition of certain syntactic structures (Ellis,
1994).
Swain (1985) argues that comprehensible input is necessary but not
sufficient in promoting second language acquisition. She proposed the
Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, according to which learners need be triggered
to produced intended meaning. Swain points out that while trying to produce the
intended meaning (speaking) learners may notice the gap in their interlanguage
knowledge in an attempt to produce the target language to prompt them to solve
their linguistic deficiency in ways that are appropriate in a given context. 5
1.2.2. The interaction hypothesis
Long‟s Interaction Hypothesis (1996) posits that interaction focuses on the
„negotiation for meaning‟. The frequency of occurrence of the target form brings
about salience, negative feedback, and input modifications to increase

opposed to quantitative assessment of discrete linguistic features. At the same time,
Brumfit and Johnson (1979) emphasized “the functional and communicative
potential of language. They saw the need to focus on communicative proficiency
rather than on mere mastery of structures” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:153). CLT
features more interaction- based activities such as role plays, information gaps, pair
work and group work. In summary, among some approaches of the language
teaching methods, CLT is the most appropriate way for communication.
Features of CLT
The fundamental principle of CLT is to enable learners to understand and use
the target language for communication. Two basic assumptions underlying this
approach to language learning are that the core of language learning is the
development of communicative competence and that the starting point for language
learning is not grammatical rules but context, function, meaning and the appropriate
use of the language.
Richards and Rogers identify the distinct characteristics of communicative language
teaching as (1986: P.71):
„Language is a system for the expression of meaning. The primary function
of language is for interaction and communication function of language. The
structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses. The primary
units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but
categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.’
This approach calls for radically different ideas of language teaching. One
major shift is that language learning has become student-centred. Lessons are
planned in such a way that all the students can engage in interactive activities.
Authentic and meaningful communication should be goal of classroom act
ivies. Group work and pair work are employed to promote communication and
getting the meaning across. Authentic materials, such as newspaper articles, radio
programmes, video-tapes, train-timetables etc., are used to bring the real world

8
teacher an extremely high degree of professional sophistication. They need very
much more energy and adaptability ( Nunan: 1987).
The teacher was only provider of knowledge, the model for correct forms,
and the controller of the class. The textbooks contained sets of lessons to be learnt,
and all classroom interaction was teacher and textbook dominated. Lessons tended
to look similar to each other. Nevertheless, this goal has been set – to develop the
learner‟s communicative competence. Learners want to be able to use the foreign
language for personal need fulfilment. Teachers must change not only in the extra
skills required, but in the teacher‟s whole attitude to language, language learning
and the role of the teacher.
In the light of the CLT approach which takes the learners‟ communicative
competence as the final goal, a T.E.F.L class is considered to be successful if the
learners speak English as much as they can and the teacher speaks it as little as
possible. Larsen-Freeman (1986:132) states that “activities in the Communicative
Approach are often carried out by students in small groups”. CLT favors interaction
among small numbers of students in order to maximize the time allotted to each
student for learning to negotiate meaning.
Clearly, cooperative learning is stressed in CLT. In the book “A Course in
TEFL”, Nguyen Bang and Nguyen Ba Ngoc list cooperative learning as one feature
that CLT bears. A classroom that is cooperative and therefore not competitive –
usually involves the above learner-centered characteristics. As students work
together in pairs and groups, they share information and come to each other‟s aid.
They are a “team” whose players must work together in order to achieve goals
successfully.
These characteristics will be the principles for teachers to choose appropriate
techniques as well as activities in class to improve the students‟ communicative
competence. All learning activities should be selected according to how well they
engage the students in meaningful and authentic language use rather than only
10
Students need to realize that speaking skill is progressively learnt by going
through three areas knowledge:
∙ Learning the mechanics: Grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, the use of
correct words in the right order with the correct pronunciation.
∙ Functional use: Using the language to transact messages - the exchange of
information- with clarity and to interact with understanding.
∙ Social and cultural rules and norms: like taking turns to speak, the rate of
speaking, the length of pauses between speakers and relative roles of participants.
Understanding the message (verbal and non-verbal), the circumstances, the reason
and what the person is communicating.
Students need an environment to practice authentic English that is used in real-life
communication situations. The English Club lesson periods are within Master
English curriculum to afford the opportunity for students to learn and practice
speaking real English.
Goh and Burns (2012) after considering current practices in conducting speaking
lessons, conclude,
“Although speaking activities occur frequently in their classrooms,
learners seldom have the opportunity to learn the skills and strategies and the
language to improve their speaking. While learners do a lot of talking in class
activities, there is often insufficient teaching of speaking as a language
communication skill.” (p. 2)
These authors point out that although the students in speaking lessons may
manage to complete each activity given by the teacher by drawing on their existing
language and cognitive resources, they do not learn anything new that they would
do without the teacher‟s help. In addition, in many speaking lessons, students seem
to be very passive. Although they participate in speaking activities, they are not
encouraged to self-regulate their learning by planning, monitoring, and evaluating

interpersonal tasks and interactional tasks. Interpersonal tasks are aimed at
establishing and maintaining social relationship while transactional tasks are aimed
at getting things done. Thus, speaking tasks are designed to provide learners with
opportunities to practice their speaking so that they can achieve greater fluency. 12
Goh and Burns (2012) list three different speaking tasks that can be used in the
classroom. These are communication-gap tasks, discussion tasks, and monologic
tasks.
In communication-gap tasks, participants in interaction do not share the same
information or background knowledge. This creates the gap which encourages
speakers to continue the interaction. In information-gap tasks, learners are given
different sets of information for a task. They need to work together tin pairs or small
groups to share the information in order to achieve a pre-defined goal. For context-
gap tasks, learners in both pairs or groups are given the same set of information,
such as a set of pictures and a list of words. They have to use the information to
construct new content for their listeners. These tasks are called context-gap tasks
because they allow individual learners to create a context for the information that
they are sharing, encouraging them to express their meaning by drawing on their
knowledge of the language (see Goh & Burns, 2012: 202-204).
1.7. Classroom Interactions
The Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines the verb „to
interact‟ as „to communicate with or react to (each other)‟. The New Oxford
Dictionary of English defines the noun „interaction‟ as a „reciprocal action or
influence‟ Therefore interaction is more than action followed by reaction. It
includes acting reciprocally, acting upon each other. Rivers (1987, 57) describes the
word through its Latin roots: „agere‟ meaning „to do‟ and „inter‟ meaning „among‟.
It shows us the active and social part of a human being that affects other people
through interaction. Brown (2001, 165) relates interaction to communication,

pair reports on their work. te last type of classroom interaction is called „group work‟. As
with pair work, the teacher‟s function here is that of a consultant and individual groups
report on their work as a follow-up activity.
The last two ways of organisation are particularly useful for encouraging
interaction among students. In large classes, they present the only possibility for as
many students as possible to use the foreign language. The research has shown
(Long et al. 1976 in Nunan 1991, 51) that students use more language functions in
pair- and group-work than in other forms of interaction. It has also been proven that 14
students perceive them as the most pleasant ways of learning, because they feel
relaxed and subsequently communicate better (Phillips 1983 in Hatch 1992, 93).
Such work encourages independent learning and gives some responsibility for
learning to students. It approaches real-life communication where students talk to
their peers in small groups or pairs. Nevertheless, whole-class organisation should
not be completely neglected since it is still more appropriate for guided and
controlled activities. In a traditional classroom the teacher had the dominant role of
an all-knowing leader who „filled‟ students‟ empty heads with knowledge. This role
has changed and the teacher has now got many roles depending on diff erent
classroom situations. In a broad sense, he is a „facilitator of learning‟, which
includes the following (Littlewood 1981, 92):
• A general overseer of learning, who coordinates the activities so that they
form a coherent progression from lesser to greater communicative ability.
• A classroom manager, who is responsible for grouping activities into
lessons and for their overall organisation.
• A language instructor, who presents new language, controls, evaluates and
corrects learners‟ performance.
• In free communicative activities he will act as a consultant or adviser,
helping where

interaction also help define the norms by which individual student achievement is
assessed. Students draw upon these patterns and norms to participate in subsequent
classroom activities and thus they are consequential in terms of not only what
students ultimately learn, but also, more broadly, their participation in future
educational events and the roles and group memberships that they hold within
these events.
Initiation-Reponse- Evaluation (IRE) Pattern
Findings from studies on teacher-student classroom interactions show that
the most commonly observed classroom instruction pattern is the teacher-led-three-
part-sequence of Initiation-Response-Evaluation (Hall & Walsh, 2002). The pattern
involves the teacher posing a question to a student to which the teacher usually
already knows the answer. Students are expected to provide a brief but correct
response to the question, which is then evaluated by the teacher with such phrases