Tài liệu Tích hợp các hoạt động đa trí tuệ để phát triển kỹ năng nói tiếng anh cho sinh viên chuyên ngữ

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN INTEGRATING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES-BASED ACTIVITIES INTO TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS TO EFL LEARNERS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2019 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES CHAU VAN DON INTEGRATING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES-BASED ACTIVITIES INTO TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS TO EFL LEARNERS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Code: 9 14 01 11 Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. TRUONG VIEN, PhD HUE, 2019 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN TÍCH HỢP CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG ĐA TRÍ TUỆ ĐỂ DẠY KỸ NĂNG NÓI TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGỮ LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ CHUYÊN NGÀNH LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ NGÀNH: 9 14 01 11 NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN: PGS.TS. TRƯƠNG VIÊN HUẾ, 2019 The dissertation is completed at: UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Truong Vien (PhD) Reviewer 1: Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Van Long (PhD) Reviewer 2: Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Quang Ngoan (PhD) Reviewer 3: Huynh Anh Tuan (PhD) The dissertation to be defended to Board of Examiners At the Thesis Examination Council of Hue University At 03 Le Loi street, Hue City Date …… month …… year 2019 This dissertation can be found at: - The National Library - The Library of University of Foreign Languages, Hue University (57, Nguyen Khoa Chiem Street, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province) Công trình được hoàn thành tại: TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ Người hướng dẫn khoa học: PGS.TS. Trương Viên Phản biện 1: PGS.TS. Nguyễn Văn Long Phản biện 2: PGS.TS. Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn Phản biện 3: TS. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn Luận án sẽ được bảo vệ tại Hội đồng chấm luận án cấp Đại học Huế Họp tại Số 03 Lê Lợi, TP. Huế Vào lúc … giờ, ngày … tháng … năm 2019 Có thể tìm hiểu Luận án tại Thư viện: - Thư viện Quốc gia - Thư viện Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại Học Huế (Số 57 Nguyễn Khoa Chiêm, TP. Huế, Tỉnh Thừa Thiên – Huế) STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP The thesis entitled “Integrating Multiple Intelligences-based Activities into Teaching Speaking Skills to EFL Learners” has been submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. I have fully acknowledged and referenced the ideas and works of others, whether published or unpublished, in my thesis. My thesis does not contain work extracted from a thesis, dissertation or research paper previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any other educational institute. Signature CHÂU VĂN ĐÔN i ABSTRACT With the philosophy “Every learner is unique and intelligent”, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MIT) has proved to be a humanitarian and favorable premise to foster and promote learners’ language skills. Armstrong (2017) remarked while traditional language teaching and learning programs mainly focus on developing learners’ linguistic and reasoning skills, MIT proposes there are many other ways in which learners’ language skills can be developed better. As the major aim of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to enable students to promote their speaking skills to achieve progress in communicative competence, EFL instructors should create favorable conditions for students to develop their speaking skills. This study was an attempt to investigate the possible effects of integrating MI-based activities into developing the EFL students’ speaking skills, and then to find out the students’ evaluation of such an integration of MI-based activities. Therefore, to attain those two main objectives, the mixed research method was adopted: the quantitative approach utilizing a quasi-experimental study in which MI-based activities were integrated into an experiment. The participants were 60 EFL second-year students from the research site, randomly selected on their voluntary basis and were divided into an experimental group and a control group. The possible effects of such an integration of MI-based activities into the speakingtraining program were measured via the means of a pre- and post-test and the questionnaire administered to the experimental group as the two main research instruments. The qualitative approach, aiming at collecting some supplementary evidence regarding the participants’ responses. Qualitative data were collected from 30 experimental participants via the evaluation form and the interviews with six randomly chosen participants from the experimental group. The findings from the English speaking pre-test and post-test revealed significant statistical differences between the participants’ test scores of their EFL oral performances before and after taking part in the instructional intervention. The ii results of data analysis of the test scores shows that there was a significant difference (M = .43) in favor of the post-test. Such an improvement of the mean score in the post-test indicates that the program had some effects on improving the students’ speaking skills as well as enhancing their learning motivation. From the findings of the study, it is also depicted that the participants had positive evaluation of the integration of MI-based activities. Their support and satisfaction of the MI-based activities were indicated at high levels in terms of their better perceptions of their specific MI profiles, their acknowledgement of the benefits of the MI-based activities in facilitating their speaking skills, building up their confidence, promoting their learning motivation, and increasing their engagement in the discussion and interaction activities. Based on the above-mentioned findings, some implications are proposed from this research regarding the effectiveness of integrating MI-based activities on developing EFL students’ speaking skills, and the feasibility of promoting EFL students’ oral performances by integrating MI-based activities into EFL speaking training programs. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With all of my gratitude, I would like to express my whole-hearted thanks to the ones who contributed to this thesis with their academic expertise, substantive help or emotional support. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trương Viên for his continuous guidance, help, support and encouragement throughout the course of this study. Secondly, my sincere thanks also go to the lecturers of the University of Foreign Languages, Hue University: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trần Văn Phước; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Phạm Hoài Hương; Dr. Trương Bạch Lê; Dr. Phạm Hồng Anh, who have whole-heartedly guided me through each phase of this journey. I always feel your care about my study and professional development. Therefore, once again, I would like to express my deep thanks for all your kind help and enthusiastic encouragement. I also own a word of thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lưu Quý Khương and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tôn Nữ Mỹ Nhật for giving me such valuable suggestions for improving the quality of my thesis. I would also like to express my thanks to the Board of Rectors of my university for creating all the favorable conditions for me to take part in this Ph.D. program. I am grateful to the lecturers and students of the Foreign Languages Department of the university where the experiment for this study is conducted, particularly the students of second-year EFL class 2014-2018 (DC14) for their participation into the experimental study by filling the questionnaires, taking the pre/post-test, and answering the interview. Last but not least, the unconditional, innumerable, great affection, sacrifice and care of my family members for me during my Ph.D. program-taking journey beyond words. They are always the source of motivation and aspiration for me to overcome all my difficulties and achieve what I have academically dreamed so far. iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR European Framework of Reference for Languages CLT Communicative Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language ESL English as a Second Language IC Intelligence Center IQ Intelligence Quotient IT Information Technology LC Learner-centered LLS Language Learning Strategy MI Multiple Intelligences MIDAS Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales MIT Multiple Intelligences Theory MOET Ministry of Education and Training PBL Project-based Learning EF Evaluation Form SLA Second Language Acquisition SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language TPR Total Physical Response ZPD Zone of Proximal Development v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 3.1 Instruments used in the research ..................................................... 40 Table 3.2 Summary of the procedures of the main study ............................... 59 Table 3.3 Stages of analyzing interview data ................................................. 63 Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of mean performance in pre and post-test .... 69 Table 4.2 Residuals Statisticsa ………………………………………….…. 69 Table 4.3 Case Processing Summary ……………………………………... 70 Table 4.4 Test of Homogeneity of Variances ……………………………... 70 Table 4.5 Difference between means of pre-test and post-test ……………. 70 Table 4.6 Mean score of pre-test in comparison with the accepted mean ..... 71 Table 4.7 Mean score of the post-test in comparison with the good mean .... 71 Table 4.8 Participants’ English-speaking performances within 2 groups before and after the experimental program .................................... 72 Table 4.9 Correlation between the results of the pre-test and the post-test .... 74 Table 4.10 Means scores of experimental participants’ pre and postquestionnaire ................................................................................... 83 Table 4.11 Grouped data for the 6 clusters in the pre-questionnaire ............... 85 Table 4.12 The mean scores of the pre-questionnaire ...................................... 85 Table 4.13 Comparing mean score of Pre-questionnaire and Scale 3 (NS)...... 86 Table 4.14 Grouped data for 6 clusters in post-questionnaire ......................... 87 Table 4.15 Mean scores of post-questionnaire.................................................. 88 Table 4.16 Comparing mean score of Post-questionnaire and Scale 4 (“A”) ....... 88 Table 4.17 Participants’ preferred MI-based activities .................................... 95 Table 4.18 Summary of the study findings ....................................................... 131 vi Figure 3.3 The research procedures ................................................................ 38 Figure 4.1 Participants’ intelligences profiles ................................................. 67 Figure 4.2 Participants’ speaking performances reported in pre & post tests (both groups) reported in speaking pre-test and post-test ............... vii 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .................................................................... i ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 1.1. Background of the study .............................................................................. 1 1.2. Statement of the problem ............................................................................. 3 1.3. Research objectives ...................................................................................... 4 1.4. Research questions ....................................................................................... 5 1.5. Research scope ............................................................................................. 5 1.6. Significance of the study .............................................................................. 5 1.7. Organization of the thesis............................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 9 2.1. Multiple Intelligences Theory ...................................................................... 9 2.2. Individual differences in an English speaking class..................................... 13 2.3. Social Interaction, Learning Styles and Individual Differences .................. 14 2.3.1. Relationship between Multiple Intelligences, Learning Styles, LearnerCenteredness, and Communicative Approach .................................................... 17 2.3.1.1. Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles ........................................... 17 2.3.1.2. Learner-centeredness approach .............................................................. 18 2.3.1.3. Communicative approach....................................................................... 18 2.4. Speaking skills ............................................................................................. 20 2.4.1. Definition of speaking ............................................................................... 20 2.4.2. Components of speaking skills ................................................................. 20 viii 2.4.3. Definition of MI-based speaking activities ............................................... 21 2.4.3.1. Project-based activities ………………………………………………. 24 2.4.3.2. Poster-making activities ……………………………………………… 24 2.4.3.3. Common features between project-based and poster-making activities 25 2.5. Implementing MI-based activities in EFL classrooms ............................... 25 2.6. Previous studies relating to the application of MIT ..................................... 27 2.6.1. Previous studies on integrating MI-based activities in teaching speaking 27 2.6.2. Some viewpoints on integrating MI-based activities into speaking instruction ................................................................................................................ 31 2.7. Chapter summary ......................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................ 35 3.1. Revisiting the Research Questions .............................................................. 35 3.2. Research design ............................................................................................ 35 3.3. Research procedures..................................................................................... 37 3.4. Research participants ................................................................................... 39 3.5. Research instruments ................................................................................... 40 3.5.1. MI inventory.............................................................................................. 41 3.5.2. English-speaking pre-test and post-test..................................................... 42 3.5.3. Questionnaires ........................................................................................... 43 3.5.4. Evaluation form ......................................................................................... 44 3.5.5. Interview ................................................................................................... 45 3.6. Research context .......................................................................................... 47 3.7. Roles of the researcher ................................................................................. 48 3.8. Ethical issues ................................................................................................ 48 3.9. Research implementation ............................................................................. 49 3.9.1. The pilot study........................................................................................... 49 3.9.2. The official study ...................................................................................... 51 3.9.2.1. Overview ................................................................................................ 51 3.9.2.2. The Conventional speaking-training program ....................................... 51 3.9.2.3. The experiment....................................................................................... 56 ix 3.9.3. Administering the MI inventory ............................................................... 60 3.9.4. Administering questionnaires ................................................................... 60 3.9.5. Administering speaking pre-test and post-test .......................................... 60 3.9.6. Administering interviews and evaluation form ......................................... 61 3.10. Data analysis .............................................................................................. 62 3.11. Research reliability and validity ................................................................ 63 3.12. Chapter summary ....................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................. 65 4.1. Effects of integrating MI-based activities .................................................... 65 4.1.1. Participants’ MI profiles ........................................................................... 66 4.1.2. Participants’ speaking performances before and after experiment ........... 67 4.1.2.1. Participants’ speaking performances between two groups .................... 68 4.1.2.2. Comparison of the participants’ speaking performances within the control group prior to and after the experiment .................................................. 72 4.1.2.3. Comparison of the participants’ speaking performances within the experimental group prior to and after the study .................................................. 72 4.1.2.4. Exploratory investigation: Correlation between the results of the pretest and the post-test ............................................................................................ 74 4.2. Discussion of the effects of integrating MI-based activities ........................ 75 4.3. Participants’ evaluation of the integration of MI-based activities ............... 81 4.3.1. Participants’ responses in the questionnaires ............................................ 82 4.3.1.1. Findings from pre-questionnaire ............................................................ 85 4.3.1.2. Findings from post-questionnaire .......................................................... 87 4.3.2. Participants’ responses in the evaluation form ......................................... 97 4.3.3. Participants’ responses in the interviews .................................................. 102 4.3.4. Impacts of the extra-curricular speaking-training activities ..................... 115 4.4. Discussion of findings on participants’ evaluation of integrating MIbased activities ................................................................................................... 119 4.4.1. Participants’ perceptions of integrating MI-based activities …………… 120 x 4.4.2. Benefits of integrating MI-based activities …………………………….. 122 4.4.3. Participants’ support of integrating MI-based activities ………………. 123 4.4.4. Participants’ preferred MI-based activities suitable with MI profiles ….. 125 4.4.5. Frequency of using teaching materials …………………………………. 128 4.4.6. Some remaining problems with integrating MI-based activities ………. 129 4.5. Chapter summary ......................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................... 132 5.1. Summary of the key findings ....................................................................... 132 5.2. Pedagogical implications ............................................................................. 135 5.3. Limitations of the study ............................................................................... 138 5.4. Recommendations for further study ............................................................. 138 AUTHOR’S WORKS ........................................................................................ 140 REFERENCES 141 LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 149 xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction This chapter presents the background of the study, the rationale, objectives, and scale of the research. Then, the significance of the research is mentioned and discussed. 1.1. Background of the study The primary goal of learning a foreign language, according to Brown (2001), is the competence to carry out communicative activities in which learners are able to use the target language and express it properly in real-life situations for various functions and different extents. In language study, oral communicative skills (mainly speaking and listening competencies) are normally regarded as the ones of most considerable difficulties to be trained and developed. Such difficulties in developing speaking skills, according to Harmer (2007), are mainly due to the lack of authentic documents and environment for practicing speaking the language as well as the learners’ acquisition methods. Applying various and flexible methods based on a learner-centered approach and promoting diverse and multiple skills and intelligences can help develop learners’ oral communicative skills. Creating a friendly and encouraging EFL speaking environment can help language learners to communicate effectively with one another. Within this such a motivating academic environment, language learners feel comfortable to express and exchange their ideas orally, and thus, make their progress in speaking skills. “Application of MI-based approach helps students to promote their positive strengths as well as design relevant learning methods in an effective academic environment” (El-Naggar, 2000, p. 25). The traditional methods of language teaching and learning, argued by Nunan (1991), Savignon (2000), Larsen-Freeman (2000), and Brown (2001), first of all, are generally based on sentence patterns and models of teaching procedures for practicing how to use the language applied and built from such fixed grammatical points. Therefore, such a classroom use of the language might likely be entirely 1 isolated from its authentic socio-cultural contexts and functions. Also, the four language skills are often trained and developed through separated classroom activities generally implemented in a teacher-controlled atmosphere, and the students have limited chances for participation. Most important of all, the speaking skills, in such traditional teaching and learning methods, are trained and practiced based on the teacher’s models of drills and much attention is paid to error correction, not to highlight and promote the students’ communicative competences. It can be seen that not much importance is attached to the individual distinction among the different learners regarding their preferences or styles of acquiring and producing the target language that they have learned. Thereof, it is indicated by Johnson (2013) that in traditional classrooms, the students with highly developed analytical and reasoning skills are the ones who are more likely to be considered successful learners according to the instructors’ assessment. Dorgham (2011) proposed that most learners own various types and levels of intelligences and utilize them following their own ways. Therefore, teachers should always be aware that learners have differential learning styles, levels of intelligences in participating and performing classroom activities. Nunan and Baily (2009), Oxford (2001), and Ezarik (2001) also shared their common viewpoint that teachers could find their proper ways of teaching through focusing on the students’ learning styles and thinking strategies: Teachers are in a bad need to find the right strategies to fit the diverse learning styles of each individual within the classroom context. In order to achieve the required skills, the eight MIs need incorporating into everyday classroom learning (Ezarik, 2001, p. 143). The change from teacher-centered to learner-centered approach to learning means a reduction in teacher domination, with a corresponding increase in student control and initiative (Jones, 2007; Geven & Attard, 2012; Johnson, 2013; Crumly, 2014; and Hoidn, 2016). Learner-centeredness has proved to be a practical approach in EFL teaching and learning. Johnson (2013, p. 19) views “learner-centered approach is self-directed learning.” The principle of learner-centeredness stipulates 2 that “the teacher's role is a facilitator, with the student acting as a reflective partner” (Crumly, 2014, p. 26). Therefore, learning styles and multiple intelligences can be considered focusing on learner-centeredness and share some common characteristics: the teacher’s role, in these language teaching and learning approaches, is the one of a facilitator and a helper, and the learner working as a sharing and active partner. Another common feature that these theories share among each other is the viewpoint of training the learner as an entire person. Ahmed (2013) remarked, “Shifting the central roles from the teacher-centeredness to the student-centeredness in classroom activities conforms with Dewey’s concept of empowering the students” (p. 115). According to Gardner (1983), intelligence is defined as “the ability to deal with problems in real-life situations or to propose solutions practically valuable in various cultural and social contexts” (p. 214). He proposed that individuals possess at least eight types of intelligences: bodily-kinesthetic; interpersonal; musical-rhythmic; verbal-linguistic; visual-spatial; logical- mathematical; intrapersonal and naturalistic. Recently, two more types of intelligences named spiritual and existential were added by Gardner (1996). 1.2. Statement of the problem In general, there have been quite a lot of research to investigate the effects of MIT application aiming at developing learners’ linguistic knowledge and communicative competence (e.g., Campbell, 1994; Armstrong, 1993; Christison, 1996 & 1999; Younas & Subhani, 2015; among the others). However, in the field of applying MI-based activities to promote language learners’ speaking skills, the number of such studies is minimal (Orhan & Hasan, 2015). Speaking in the target language has taken up a significant place throughout the history of language teaching and learning (Brown, 2001 and Nunan, 1991). Nowadays, speaking skills have themselves manifested to be a separate field of teaching, learning, and assessment. Nevertheless, Nunan (1991) and Samira (2014) commented that little attention has still been paid to spoken discourse production. Due to the difficulties in learning how to speak in the target language, it is, 3 therefore, more facile for many teachers and students to concentrate on the written form and use of the language instead of developing the speaking skills. Vietnamese EFL students are in the same situation and always confront with many difficulties in learning English as a foreign language, particularly how to develop their EFL speaking skills. This reality is reflected in the results of their language tests and examinations, from the high-school graduation exams in general English to the communicative skills tests in particular at tertiary level. From the survey of the test scores of the EFL first-year students at the Foreign Languages Faculty at the research site in the second-term of the academic year 2015-2016, it revealed that the students’ scores were quite low in all language skills, particularly in the EFL speaking subject. From both of the teachers’ and students’ viewpoints, EFL Vietnamese students usually feel reluctant in participating in English speaking activities due to their problems, such as limited vocabulary, lack of confidence, large number of students in the class, inconveniences of classroom furniture design, not much use of visual aids in class, inflexible teaching and learning methods to develop students’ speaking skills, etc. Aiming at improving the speaking skills, or oral performances as it is sometimes used interchangeably in this study, for the EFL students at the research site, the researcher put forward the integration of MI-based activities into the EFL experimental program as the core of designing and implementing speaking-training lessons. Then, based on the findings relating to the possible effects of integrating such MI-based activities, the participants’ evaluation of such an integration of MIbased activities were explored. 1.3. Research objectives The current study was conducted to achieve the following two goals: - To survey the effects of integrating MI-based activities into the EFL speakingtraining program to develop students’ speaking skills. - To investigate the students’ responses to such an integration of MI-based activities into their EFL speaking-training program. 4