Improving Non-Majored Students’ Fluency in the English Speaking Skill in the Online Environment via Ms-Team
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210226.012Keywords:
non-English major, speaking fluency, online learning, big size class, low levelAbstract
Teaching the speaking skill for non-majored students in an online environment with large class size is a challenge for EFL teachers. Therefore, this study aims at exploring English speaking difficulties in the online environment in terms of interaction and concentration in the relationship with the students’ speaking fluency. The study involved about 70 non-English majors at Van Lang University in answering a questionnaire. The results revealed that although students were taught the prescribed syllabus of balancing integrated skills, their teachers still had the trend of avoiding (or lessen the time) teaching the speaking skill online. The results further indicated that the learning of speaking online was passive, mostly because of the students’ lack of input due to their low level and their lack of interaction with their teacher and peers. Findings are hoped to contribute to a better understanding of non-English majors’ speaking fluency difficulties in the online EFL context. Then, a solution of adopting Microsoft Whiteboard, which is already integrated with Microsoft Teams, is suggested to partly help enhance the teacher- students’ interaction, the most frequent and typical interaction, as a method to increase the students’ fluency when learning online.
References
Colorful, V., & Abaidoo, N.. The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 12(1)(2015) 29-42.
Barrette, C.M.. Students’ preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal. 19(1)(2001) 5-36.
Bender,T.. Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC. (2012).
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., … Huang, B.. How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research. 74(3)(2004) 379–439.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et al.. A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research. 79(3)(2009) 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844v1.
Bracher, J.. A survey of online teaching by native-speaker English instructors at Japanese universities. JALT CALL Journal. 9(3) (2013) 221– 239. http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/9_3_Bracher.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2016.
Broadbent, J.. Comparing online and blended learner's self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education. 33(2017) 24-32.
Burdman, P..Cyber U. Anaheim (California) Orange County Register, September 13, sec. 1, p. 9. (1998).
Burrows, T., Stepanczuk, D.. Gauge of readiness for Internet based language learning: An 800-pound GORILLA. Jaltcall journal. 9(2) (2013)197-217
Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiberg, K. W.. Technology and teaching English language learners. (2003)
Bygate, M.. Speaking, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1987)
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.. Integrative planning through the case of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. (2005) 37-74.
Carlson, R. A., Sullivan, M., & Schneider, W.. Practice and working memory effects in building procedural skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and Cognition. 15 (1989) 517-526.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R.. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science. 35(8) (1989) 982-1003
Damaris E. Silalahi. Correlation between Students’ Learning Motivation and speaking Competence at SFL FKIP University HKBP Nomensen. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences (IJELS). 3(6)(2018)992-995 https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.3.6.11
Duran, A. & Cruz, M.. The interactive whiteboard and foreign language learning: A case study. Porta Linguarum.15 (2011) 211-231.
Goertler, S.. Hybridizing the curriculum: Needs, benefits, challenges, and attitudes. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation.(2009) 53–64.
Goertler, S., Bollen, M., & Gaff, J.. Students’ readiness for and attitudes toward hybrid FL instruction. CALICO Journal.29(2)(2012)297–320. https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO/article/download/23730/22585. Accessed 5 July 2016.
Hai-Jew, S.. Evaluating “MS Teams” for Teaching and Learning. C2C Digital Magazine. 1(13)(2020) 7.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. 32 (2012)
Hung, M.L., Chou, C., Chen, C.H., & Own, Z. Y.. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education. 55(2010) 1080-1090.
Karsenti, T.. The interactive whiteboard: uses, benefits, and challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 42(5) (2016) 1-22.
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T.. Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.6(2) (2010), 533-541.
Lamb, T. E. R. R. Y., & Little, S. A. B. I. N. E..Assessment for autonomy, assessment for learning, and learner motivation: Fostering learner identities. Classroom-based Assessment in L2 Contexts. (2016) 184-206.
McCarty, S.. Theorizing and realizing the globalized classroom. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges. (2007) 90–115.
McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D.. A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 71(2) (2015) 255–270.
Murray, A., & Blyth, A.. A survey of Japanese university students’ computer literacy levels. JALT CALL Journal. 7(3) (2011)307–318. http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/7_3_Murray.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2016.
Nation, I. S. P.. Improving speaking fluency. System. 17(3) (1989) 377–384.
Nawaz.A, Bibi. N, Sheikh. A, Bilal, H.A, Rehman. A.. The Role of Motivation in Learning English Language for Pakistani Learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 4(2014) 254- 258.
Namaziandost, E., Hashemifardnia, A., & Shafiee, S.. The impact of opinion-gap, reasoning-gap, and information-gap tasks on EFL learners’ speaking fluency. Cogent Social Sciences, 5, (2019)1630150. doi:10.1080/23311886.2019.1630150
Nguyen, T.. The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 11(2) (2015) 309-319.
Oz, H.. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards in the English as a foreign language classroom. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology. 13(3) (2014)126-147.
Richard, J.C., & Schmidt, R.. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. 3 (2002).
Russell, T. L.. The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. (1999).
Salmon, G. E-tivities: The key to active online learning. (2013).
Schmidt, R..Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education. 6 (2012) 27.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education. 4 (2000).
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S.. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In Applications of flow in human development and education. (2014) 475-494).
Shih, C.C. & Gamon, J.. Web-based Learning: Relationships among Student Motivation, Attitudes, Learning Styles, and Achievement. Journal of Agricultural Education. 42(4) (2001) 12-20. Retrieved December 30, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/94180/.
Smith, P.,. Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational Psychology. 25(1) (2005) 3-12
Shudong, W., Higgins, M., & Shima, Y.. Training English pronunciation for Japanese learners of English online. JALT CALL Journal. 1(1)(2005) 39–47. http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/1_1_Wang.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2016.
Simpson, O.. Supporting students for success in online and distance education. (2013).
Simpson, O.. Supporting students in online, open and distance learning. (2018).
Stephenson, J. (Ed.). Teaching & learning online: new pedagogies for new technologies. (2018).
Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S.. Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in education. 38(2) (2005) 213-230.
Stone, K.. 10 Best Online Whiteboards for Team Collaboration in 2020. (2020). Retrieved from https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/06/04/best-online-whiteboards/
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. Mind wandering and education: from the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology. 4 (2013) 495.
Turel, Y. K., & Johnson, T.E.. Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society. 15(1) (2012) 381-394.
Xu, H. L. & Moloney, R.. Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 27(2) (2011) 307-325.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education. 68 (2013) 334-344.
Yanez, L. & Coyle, Y.. Children’s perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal. 65(4) (2010) 446-457.
Young, J. R.. Rethinking the Role of the Professor in an Age of High-Tech Tools. Chronicle of Higher Education. 44(6) (1997).
Wanstreet, C. E.. Interaction in online learning environments: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 7(4) (2006) 399.
Winke, P., & Goertler, S.. Did we forget someone? Students’ computer access and literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal. 25(3) (2008) 482- 509
Winke, P. M., & Goertler, S..An introduction to distance language learning. Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices. (2008) 1-10.
Winke, P., Goertler, S., & Amuzie, G. L.. Commonly taught and less commonly taught language learners: Are they equally prepared for CALL and online language learning? Computer Assisted Language Learning.23(3)(2010)53–70. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.486576.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Phan Thi Ngoc Thach, Duyen Thi Nhu Huynh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright
The copyright of all articles published in the Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference (paic) remains with the Authors, i.e. Authors retain full ownership of their article. Permitted third-party reuse of the open access articles is defined by the applicable Creative Commons (CC) end-user license which is accepted by the Authors upon submission of their paper. All articles in the aicp are published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license, meaning that end users can freely share an article (i.e. copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt it (i.e. remix, transform and build upon the material) on the condition that proper attribution is given (i.e. appropriate credit, a link to the applicable license and an indication if any changes were made; all in such a way that does not suggest that the licensor endorses the user or the use) and the material is only used for non-commercial purposes.
