ADAPTING “SMALL TALK” TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION SKILLS: A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH VILLAGE PROGRAM IN KERALA MUHAMAD HASBI Roll No. : H – 1507
ADAPTING “SMALL TALK” TO IMPROVE
COMMUNICATION SKILLS: A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH
VILLAGE PROGRAM IN KERALA
MUHAMAD HASBI
Roll No. : H – 1507
SUPERVISOR
DR. MADHAVI GAYATHRI RAMAN
DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of
the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Second Language
(M.A. TESL)
SCHOOL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
THE ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY
HYDERABAD
APRIL 2014
DECLARATION
In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious and the Most MercifulHereby the writer fully declares that this is made by writer himself, and it is not containing materials written or has been published by other people, and other people’s ideas except the information from the references.
The writer in capable accounts for this thesis if in the future this can be proved of containing others ideas or in fact writer imitates the others’ dissertation.
Likewise, the declaration is made by writer and writer hopes that this declaration can be understood.
Hyderabad, April 2014 Writer
Muhamad Hasbi
Roll no.: H-1507 This is to certify that the thesis entitled
Adapting “Small Talk” To
Improve Communication Skills: A Case Study of English Village Program
in Kerala submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
M.A. TESL is an original piece of research work done by Mr. Muhamad Hasbi under my supervision at the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
Hyderabad, April 2014 Supervisor
Dr. Madhavi Gayathri Raman
- – Assistant Professor Department Of Materials Development EFL – University, Hyderabad.
MOTTO
“I miss those times when I hadn’t a clue”
DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to:
His parents and siblings who have been since
long the source of motivation and support in
undertaking English language teaching as his
field of interest and profession
English language teachers and trainers, for
their attempts and contributions in making
the world a global village through English
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, all praises and thanks to Him, who has aroused the researcher’s interest in the area of research and made it possible to complete this thesis.
During the research planning, implementation, and report making, the researcher has received a lot of support from many, hence, he would like to express his gratitude to:
1. The Dean of the School of English Language Education for approving this thesis.
2. Dr. Madhavi Gayathri Raman, the researcher ’s supervisor for her excellent guidance.
3. Saifulla sir and Navi sir, the persons in charge as well as the trainers of the English Village program who had helped during research implementation and were partners of the trainer team.
4. Trainees of English Village program Batch June-July 2013, who have
5. Big family at EFL University as well as STAIN Salatiga, two universities where he learnt a lot about English language education.
6. His beloved parents and siblings for the love, support, and prayer night and day.
7. His beloved fellows united in Indonesian Association in Hyderabad, for sharing brotherhood-friendship and inspiring each other.
8. His fellows in the English and Foreign Languages University for the harmony and the history made.
The writer realizes that this thesis is still far from perfect. Suggestions, feedback, and comments are all welcome for the researcher to evaluate and to conduct better work in the future. At last, researcher hopes that this thesis can add to the research collection in the area of English language teaching and provide an alternative reference to researchers in the same area of interest.
Hyderabad, April 2014 Writer
Muhamad Hasbi
ABSTRACT
Being massively successful in connecting people across the world, English has been continuously gaining prestigious recognition and this has made effective communication skills in English a necessity in every walk of life. In this study, the researcher investigated the use of Small Talk as a method to the improve oral communication skills of 37 trainees in Kerala, by getting them involved in a series of communicative activities namely group discussion, general discussion and outside-classroom discussion.
The results of the study show that Small Talk has successfully improved their speaking performance as measured periodically during the program, using two scales of the CEFR framework, the Global Oral Assessment Scale and Oral
Assessment Criteria Grid. The finding suggests that language teachers and
trainers could either adapt or adopt Small Talk in the classroom to improve or enhance students’ speaking skills.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE ........................................................................................................... i DECLARATION .......................................................................................... ii CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................... iii MOTTO ...................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION ............................................................................................ v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ viii TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................... ix LIST OF APPENDICIES ............................................................................ xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction …………................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Questions and Objectives ……...................................... 3
1.3 Research Hypothesis ..................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................... 5
2.0 Introduction …………..................................................................... 5
2.1 Functions of Speaking ................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Talk as Interaction ………………………………………... 5
2.1.2 Talk as Transaction …………………………….……..…… 7
2.1.3 Talk as Performance ………………….…………………… 9
2.3 The Role of Attitude in Language Learning ……………..……… 12
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................... 14
3.0 Introduction ……............................................................................ 14
3.1 Method of Data Collection and Data Analysis …..….........……... 15
3.2 Profile of English Village ….…………………………………….. 16
3.3 Profile o f the Trainees ……………………..……………..………. 18
3.4 The Program ………………………………………….………….. 18
3.4.1 Research Timetable ……………………………..………… 19
3.4.2 Small Talk Ac tivity Design and Timetable ………..…….... 20
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS……………………………................ 24
4.0 Introduction ................................................................................... 24
4.1 Questionnaire I .............................................................................. 24
4.2 Questionnaire II .............................................................................. 25
4.2.1 Trainees Attitude towards the Small Talk Training ……..... 26
4.2.2 Trainees’ Evaluation on the Topic Materials ..…..……..….. 28
4.2.3 How Each Sequence of Small Talk Activities Has Affected Trainees ……………………………..………...……..…….. 31
4.3 Students’ Speaking Records …………………………....…..…… 35
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION …………………………………..….......... 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................ 40 APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 42
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Questionnaire I ……............................................................... 41 Appendix 2.
Trainees’ Spoken Language Performance in Questionnaire I . 42 Appendix 3. Trainees’ Prior Exposure to English and Their English Spoken
Performanc e ……………….................................................. 43 Appendix 4. Table of Statements in Questionnaire II ................................. 45 Appendix 5. Data Tabulation of Questionnaire II
……............................... 46 Appendix 6. Trainees’ Evaluation on the Topic Materials in Questionnaire
II ……………………………………………………………. 48
Appendix 7 Global Oral Assessment Scale According to CEFR …...……. 49 Appendix 8 Oral Assessment Criteria Grid According to CEFR …...……. 50 Appendix 9 Day-to-Day Printed Mat erials ……………………………….. 51
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION1.0 Introduction
This introductory part provides the background the study. It also states the research questions and objectives of this study.
1.1 Background of the Study
English may have been defeated by Chinese in terms of the number of speakers, but it continues to be the most widely used official language in most countries and a means of communication across the globe. This means that people all over the world consider English as an important mode of communication. Thanks to advancements in information technology, English is now accessible to many in both the spoken and written modalities. Exposure to it is no longer restricted to the classroom or to a face- to-face mode; technology has made it possible to interact with the language in the virtual or digital mode.
This rapid spread of English in several countries hassled to the growth of indigenous local varieties of English in many countries particularly in those where English is a second language. Thus, we have varieties such as Singapore English, Indian English, Nigerian English existing alongside the log-established British, American and Australian varieties. It is therefore no wonder that English is now been referred to as
Global Language , Lingua Franca, World English or English as an International
Language.This has made English one of the most popular foreign languages taught in schools. The four skills of the language, i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing are taught in school though the amount of importance given to each of these varies. In an ESL context, Reading and writing are always taught from the earliest grades. In fact, the language is acquired through these literacy skills. Listening and speaking have not received much importance until recently. In a world where oral communication plays a key role, these skills are now rightly perceived as indicators of a person
’s language proficiency.
Proficiency in oral language skills are a must in order to be able to communicate in English be it in educational settings, at the work place or for social purposes. In education, a wide range of resources are available for someone who wants to widen their knowledge base. According to Tuzlukova and Al-Mahrooqi (2010)
“English functions as a bridge that synchronically and diachronically connects students as individuals with an enormous knowledge base and resource of information. The amount of information stored in English is huge, but it is not readily accessible to those who do not know the language.
” As Wickramasinghe & Perera (2010) note, English is a prerequisite for the handling of complex information and communicating it effectively in most professional fields. Nowadays, the teaching of spoken English, has gained widespread popularity due to the expansion of the IT industry which requires personnel with good communication skills. With a shift in language teaching paradigms over the years, and the emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, the importance of using real-time communicative tasks to teach language has gained importance and this is reflected in the teaching of speaking. Teachers and students have realized the importance of using those activities in the classroom that simulate actual language use outside it. Spoken English classes and training centers today, make use of a variety of teaching approaches such as CLT, and task-based language teaching, so that the teaching of speaking in the classroom has greater relevance to real-life, natural and spontaneous spoken language.
Of the many methods used to teach speaking, one that attracted the researcher ’s interest is James Hunter’s proposal of Small Talk (2012). The researcher was interested in finding out whether the use of Small Talk would be effective in improving the communication skills of adult learners enrolled in a language program in Malappuram district, Kerala, India.
1.2 Research questions and objectives
The research questions addressed in this project are:
1. How effective is Small Talk in promoting English communication skills in the classroom and outside it?
2. How effective were the materials used in improving the communication
3. What is the attitude of the trainees towards Small Talk as a methodology for improving their communication skills? The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To ascertain the effectiveness of Small Talk in promoting English communication skills in the classroom and outside it.
2. To ascertain the effectiveness of the materials used in this methodology.
3. To determine the attitude of the trainees towards Small Talk as a methodology for improving their communication skills.
1.3 Research Hypothesis
The basic hypotheses of this research are:
1. Small Talk will help to improve trainees’ oral communication skills.
2. The themes and topics chosen for Small Talk activities in the classroom and outside will contribute for improving their communication skills as these are related to real-life language use.
3. Trainees will find Small Talk an interesting and useful method to improve their communication skills and so will respond to it positively.
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the functions of speaking. It then explains in detail what is meant by Small Talk. The chapter also touches upon the role of attitude in language learning.
2.1 Functions of Speaking
There are several functions of speaking. Brown and Yule (1983) distinguish between the interactional functions of speaking, which serve to establish and maintain social relations, and the transactional functions, which focus on the exchange of information. Jack C. Richards (2008) adds another function that he called performance functions. The three are as follows:
2.1.1 Talk as interaction
Talk as interaction r efers to what we normally mean by “conversation” and describes interaction that serves a primarily social function. When people meet, they exchange greetings, engage in small talk, recount recent experiences, and so on because they wish to be friendly and to establish a comfortable zone of interaction with others. The focus is more on the speakers and how they wish to present themselves to each other than on the message. There can be such exchanges may be either casual or more formal, depending on the circumstances and their nature. The main features of talk as interaction can be summarized as follows:
- has a primarily social function
- reflects role relationships reflects speaker‟s identity >may be formal or casual
- uses conversational conventions
- reflects degrees of polite>employs many generic words
- uses conversational regi
- is jointly constructed Several skills to be taught in order to develop talk as interaction include opening and closing conversations, choosing topics, making small-talk, joking, recounting personal incidents and experiences, turn-taking, using adjacency pairs ( a sequence of two related utterances by two different speakers. The second utterance is always a response to the first such as complain
- –apologize, compliment–accept, etc), interrupting, reacting to others, and using an appropriate style of speaking. Talk as interaction is perhaps the most difficult skill to teach since interactional talk is a very complex and subtle phenomenon that takes place under the control of unspoken rules. These are best taught by providing examples embedded in naturalistic dialogs that model features such as opening and closing conversations, making small talk, recounting
2.1.2 Talk as transaction
Talk as transaction refers to situations where the focus is on what is said or done. The message and making oneself understood clearly and accurately is the central focus, rather than the participants and how they interact socially with each other. In such transactions,
. . . talk is associated with other activities. For example, students may be engaged in hands-on activities (e.g., in a science lesson) to explore concepts associated with floating and sinking. In this type of spoken language students and teachers usually focus on meaning or on talking their way to understanding. (Jones 1996:14)
The main features of talk as transaction are: it has a primarily information focus. - the main focus is on the message and not the participants. -
- participants employ communication strategies to make themselves underst
- there may be frequent questions, repetitions, and comprehension checks, as in the example from the preceding classroom lesson.
Talk as transaction is more easily planned since current communicative materials are a rich resource of group activities, information-gap activities, and role-plays that can provide a source for practicing how to use talk for sharing and obtaining information, as well as for carrying out real-world transactions. These activities include ranking, values clarification, brainstorming, and simulations. Group discussion activities can be initiated by having students work in groups to prepare a short list of controversial statements for others to think about. Groups exchange statements and discuss them, for example: “Schools should do away with exams.” “Vegetarianism is the only healthy lifestyle.” “The Olympic games are a waste of money.” Role-play activities are another familiar technique for practicing real-world transactions and typically involve the following steps:
Preparing: reviewing vocabulary, real-world knowledge related to the content, and
context of the role play (e.g., returning a faulty item to a store),
modeling and eliciting: demonstrating the stages that are typically involved in the
transaction, eliciting suggestions for how each stage can be carried out, and teaching the functional language needed for each stage), and
practicing and reviewing: assigning students roles and practicing a role play using cue
cards or realia to provide language and other support.2.1.3 Talk as performance
The third type of talk that can usefully be distinguished has been called talk as performance. This refers to public talk, i.e., talk that transmits information before an audience, such as classroom presentations, public announcements, and speeches. The main features of talk as performance are:
- a focus on both message and audi>predictable organization and sequen>importance of both form and accuracy
- language is more like written language
- is often a monologue Several skills to be taught in order to develop talk as performance are using an appropriate format, presenting information in an appropriate sequence, maintaining audience engagement, using correct pronunciation and grammar, creating an effect on the audience, using appropriate vocabulary, and using an appropriate opening and closing. Teaching talk as performance requires a different teaching strategy. Jones (1996:17) commented that “initially, talk as performance needs to be prepared for and scaffolded in much the same way as written text, and many of the teaching strategies used to make
” This approach involves providing examples or models of speeches, oral presentations, stories, etc., through video or audio recordings or written examples. These are t hen analyzed or “deconstructed” to understand how such texts work and what their linguistic and other organizational features are.
2.2 Small Talk Methodology
Small talk is a methodology in English language teaching initiated under communicative language teaching (CLT) approach aiming primarily at achieving fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. It is a learner-centered approach, allotting almost the entire duration of the class for students‟ spoken activity. Hunter (2011) notes that:
„Small Talk‟ began as an experiment in learner-centred, reflective teaching of oral communication over 20 years ago ( Harris 1998 ) and has developed into a comprehensive approach to developing accuracy, fluency, and complexity in oral productio n. In a „Small Talk‟ session, students use their communicative ability in conversation without intervention by the teacher, and then receive feedback. Each session has a pre-appointed student leader, who is responsible for choosing the topic, providing questions and relevant vocabulary to further the discussion, putting classmates into small groups, timing the conversation, and leading a „check-in‟ session at the end, in which each group reports to the whole class on their conversation. The teacher, having no role in or responsibility for the conversations, is able to observe the interactions and afterwards to suggest ways in which they can be improved. In a typical 50-minute class, there are usually ten minutes at the end for „coaching‟, when the teacher comments on the interaction and dynamics of the „Small Talk‟ session. For instance, I often teach or remind quiet or non-fluent students ways to get their point across; I remind dominating talkers to be patient and to invite others to participate; and we pra ctise how to „listen actively‟, to show interlocutors our comprehension (or lack of it) and to interrupt for clarification whenever necessary.
The steps undertaken in the small talk method along with the time allotted for each step are as follows:
1. The day before the session, the leader announces the topic.
2. At the beginning of the session, the leader writes discussion questions and vocabulary on the board, re-introduces the topic, and clarifies any confusion; the leader also puts the students into groups of three to four and tells the students to begin. (3-5 minutes)
3. Groups discuss the topic. (15-20 minutes)
4. The leader asks the groups to bring the conversation to a close and prepare for check-in; the groups decide what to report to the class and who will do it. (5 minutes)
5. The leader invites each group to check in with the class about the highlights of their conversation. (5 minutes)
6. The leader thanks the class and reminds them of the next „Small Talk‟ date and the leader for that session. (1 minute)
The researcher made certain changes to this structure while implementing it in the classroom and these changes along with the reasons for doing so are discussed in the next chapter.
2.3 The role of attitude in language learning
Studies have shown that attitude is one of the key factors for success in language learning (Alhmali, 2007; Ghazali et al., 2009). According to Gardner (1985) attitude is an evaluative reaction to some referent or attitude object, inferred on the basis of the individual‟s beliefs or opinions about the referent. “Attitude is thus linked to a person‟s values and beliefs and promotes or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity, whether academic or informal” (Gardner, 1985). Attitude is also defined as a disposition or tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain thing such as an idea, object, person, or situation. Students have positive or negative attitudes towards the language they want to learn or the people who speak it.
Attitude is crucial in bringing motivation and achievement in learning process including language learning. As Reid (2003) declared, “Attitudes are important to us because they cannot be neatly separated from study.” Attitude is therefore an essential factor influencing language performance. A positive attitude might spur learners to interact with native speakers, which in turn increases the amount of input that learners receive. A positive attitude often leads learners to use a variety of learning strategies that can facilitate skill development in language learning. A positive attitude leads to a greater overall effort on the part of language learners and typically results in greater success in terms of overall language proficiency and competence in specific language skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. A positive attitude also helps learners maintain their language skills after classroom instruction is over (Gardner, 1985).
In the next chapter, we present a discussion of the tools used to collect information from the trainees. We also present (i) a profile of the English Village and the trainees, and (ii) details of the Small Talk sessions.
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
According to Yoseph and Yoseph (1979, in Sukardi, 2005), research is the art and science of looking for the answer to a problem. This classroom action based research substantially investigates the reliability of Small Talk activity in developing English communication using a qualitative approach, as its research problem fulfills a quantitative research tendency as follows (Creswell, John W, 2012):
1. Measures variables: Here, the two variables as have been mentioned earlier are “the teaching of Small Talk Activity” and “the impact on trainees’ English communication”.
2. Assesses the impact of these variables on an outcome: Here, the outcome is drawn by analyzing their communication performance using CEFR rubrics.
3. Tests theories or broad explanations: This research, in a way, tests the reliability of Small Talk activity in developing English communication which was also researched by Hunter (2011) in a formal classroom situation.
4. Applies results to a large number of people: Taking 6 samples, the result predicts the progress of all the trainees and reflects real proof of the activity being tested.
As it is conducted in a training format, this finding proposes new formats of English communication teaching in all English communication training programs, adaptable or adoptable for teaching speaking skills in classroom settings.
3.1 Method of Data Collection and Data Analysis
In this study, the data along with their mode of collection and analysis are described as follows:
1. Questionnaire 1 Given on the first day of the meeting, this questionnaire was used to determine s tudents’ English speaking level prior to training. It contained 12 questions. The responses were to be marked on a frequency scale from Always Often, Sometimes,
Seldom and Never, carrying 5 to 1 point respectively. This was used to identify
students’ exposure to English (Question 1 – 4) and their speaking performance (Question 5
- – 12) to determine if their exposure to English had contributed to a better performance in their spoken production.
2. Classroom Small Talk notes The researcher took notes during classroom group and general discussion in every meeting (to be used later for evaluation or recommendations for the program).
3. Group-Outside Classroom Small Talk voice records Conducted on Day 5, Day 10, and Day 15, discussion sessions of 3 groups (those including 6 sample students) were recorded (total: 9 records) to keep track of the progress of speaking performance of the sample-students periodically throughout the program. These were later analyzed using the CEFR rubrics.
4. Individual-Outside Classroom Small Talk voice records These records were to investigate students’ English communication level post- training. In the last two days of the program, each student was invited for an outside classroom small talk the discussion of which was recorded (total: 37 records), to be analyzed using the CEFR rubrics.
5. Questionnaire 2 Given on the last day of the meeting, Questionnaire 2 was designed (a) to find out the correlation between students
’ attitude towards English during the program and the progress of their English after training by counting the sum of the points for the attitude towards Small Talk activity (classroom and outside classroom) and the progress of their English after training. It was also used to (b) evaluate the effectiveness of the materials through assessing trainees’ satisfaction levels using 5 criteria, i.e., whether they were interesting, culturally matched, psychologically matched, linguistically rich and stimulating speaking, i.e., whether that materials motivated or stimulated them to speak about certain with others.
3.2 Profile of English Village
The English Village is a monthly English training program conducted since 2005. It is organized by Ma’din Academy, located in Swalath Nagar, Melmuri, Malapppuram district of Kerala state, India. The aim of behind its establishment is to equip people, especially those living in the area, with good communication skills and competence in English, since globalization continues to demand that people speak English in order to be able to perform well in different spheres of life be it academics, work, or simply daily communication with people around the world. This innovative program has been reasonably helpful to the people, as it has created an awareness of the importance of communicating in English in order to have access to better education and jobs.
Designed to train students in communication skills, English Village offers a residential training program in which the participants are required to stay in a comfortable house- complex for 17 days where classes and daily activities take place. These are supported with good facilities promoting the learning process. The facilities included are as follows:
1. Multimedia Classroom: this classroom, furnished with audible sound system, projector, lighting and fans, is used regularly for the learning process. It allows trainers to make the class as creative and pleasant as possible. Trainers are also free to use another hall available or the open space available outside.
2. Hall: this hall can be used whenever a class session needs more space for a certain activity. The researcher personally found this helpful each time he had to conduct classroom warm-up activities like games or quizzes.
3. Homestay: a two-storey house where the trainees and trainers stay during the program. It has three rooms meant for the three trainers and six rooms shared by the participants. A CCTV is provided in each trainee room to monitor their activities.
4. Other facilities include adequate number of bathrooms and toilets, and a dining room.
In this English Village complex, the students are compelled to communicate only in English, though in the first two days they were allowed to use Malayalam. Any trainee who broke this rule was charged Rs. 500 per case as per the rules. This made the no- Malayalam rule effective and gave them the courage to start speaking in English.
3.3 Profile of The Trainees
At the beginning of the program, there were 40 participants. However, three of them dropped out of the program leaving a total number of 37 participants (see Appendix II for the complete list of the participants together with their spoken language performance). They shared diverse backgrounds in terms of age (ranging from 18 to 36), spoken language (Malayalam majorly, English, Kannada, Tamil, Urdu, Arabic, and Hindi for several), culture, native-place (Kerala majorly, and Karnataka for several), and qualification (college students to professional workers). These diverse backgrounds of trainees created no issues for them to learn during the program. Instead, it helped establish more engaging interactions inside and outside the classroom amongst. To note, a quarter of them considered their English ability as being poor, whereas the remaining three fourth felt they had average ability.
3.4 The Program
Lasting for 17 days, the research program spanned 15 days of effective training. The schedule was as given below: Table 1. The program schedule
Time Program Note
7.00 a.m. Each teacher specializes one
- – 9.00 a.m. Session I 9.00 a.m. concern of the subject teaching,
- – 10.30 a.m. Break I
i.e., (i) grammar and structure, 10.30 a.m.
- – 12.30 p.m. Session II
(ii) personality building 12.30 p.m.
- – 2.30 p.m. Break II
2.30 p.m.
(involving attitude, manner, motivation, personal development, career guidance, future planning, etc), and (iii) the communication class, with flexible sessions shifting time to keep trainees’ mood good 4.30 p.m.
- – 4.30 p.m. Session III
- – 5.00 p.m. Break III 5.00 p.m.
- – 6.30 p.m. Session IV 6.30 p.m.
- – 7.30 p.m. Break IV 7.30 p.m.
- – 9.30 p.m. Session V 9.30 p.m.
- – 7.00 a.m. Break V
3.4.1 Research Timetable
The research was carried out for 17 days, i.e., 1 day for Introduction and administration of Questionnaire I, 15 days for the action research class, and 1 day for the administration of Questionnaire II and concluding the program. The table below presents the schedule in detail.
Table 2. Research timetable
Dates Days Topics for the day
June 16 Pre-training (Introduction + Questionnaire I) June 17 Day 1 Taking Foreign Guest into Kerala Tour June 18 Day 2 Traditional Lifestyle vs Modern Lifestyle June 19 Day 3 Tour de India June 20 Day 4 At the Restaurant June 21 Day 5 Flatmates June 22 Day 6 Political Debate
June 23 Day 7 Students’ Suicide: Whose Fault?
June 24 Day 8 The Great Indian Persons June 25 Day 9 A Wife for My Son June 26 Day 10 Planning My Future: Marriage, Work, Study June 27 Day 11 Living in a City June 28 Day 12 Who Should be Sacrificed? June 29 Day 13 The Elixir of Life June 30 Day 14 An Expedition to Himachal Pradesh July 1 Day 15 The New Capital City of Kerala July 2 Post-training (Conclusion + Questionnaire II)
3.4.2 Small Talk Activity Design and Timetable
The Small Talk activity was administered in 15 sessions over 15 days. The format used in this study was adapted from the Hunter (2011) version to suit our requirements. The rationale for doing so is given below. The following table presents the comparison of the small talk program before and after adaptation:
Table 3. Comparison between Small Talk before and after adaption
Before Adaptation After Adaptation Sub-activities duration Sub-activities duration
introduction, questions, 3-5 min Language games, quizzes, ice- 15 min discussion on the topic of the breaking, topic introduction day
group discussion 15-20 Peer/ group discussion 25 min min preparation for class-report 5 min General discussion (debate, 45 min role-play, drama, talk-show) class-report per group (check- 10 min Evaluation, feedback, 5 min in) comment leader’s closure 1 min Total time 45 min Total time 90 min
1. Topic: Topic was not given the previous day as in the Hunter’s version to elicit natural and spontaneous production from the trainees, as in real life people engage in unprepared, real-time conversation. Topics and materials were prepared exclusively by researcher to meet the standard and the expected training outcomes instead of being chosen by the learners.
2. Leader The leader role was deleted. All trainees played the role of learners thus all got equal chances to actively speak. In the leader-role positions, the trainee had to be passive and not involved in any discussion. This would tend to create a gap between the leader and the others and they could feel inferior to the chosen leader.
3. The benefit of time The available allotment of 90 minutes made it possible for the researcher to add pre-discussion activities as well as to lengthen the duration of each activity and the feedback/comments session.
4. Pre-discussion activity The researcher always opened the class with fun and motivating activities such as languages games, quizzes, ice-breaking, etc which worked well in bringing the attention of the trainees to the class.
5. Group discussion Group discussions and peer-discussions were used whenever it was felt that either one suited the purpose or outcome better.
6. Check-in vs general discussion The check-in offers learners the chance to report what have they discussed with their group but gives no room for interaction. Thus, the general discussion format was chosen. A variety of activities such as meeting, debate, role-play, drama, talk-show, etc. can be used as these different formats allow trainees to improve their speaking skills (fluency, accuracy, self-confidence, expression, timing, etc).
7. Teacher-learner role This is still learner-centered small talk program. However, unlike Hunter’s format, the teacher can sometimes interrupt or manage the class if necessary to meet its program goal to help them speak better and faster.
Having made these adaptations, all Small Talk activities ran as follows: Each session was led by the trainer starting with ice-breaking/ quizzes/
- language games, and introduction of the topic. The topics were not given before the class so as to elicit spontaneous or more natural production of English conversation (10-15 minutes).
The trainees engage in peer/ group discussion soon after the topic is
- introduced. The trainer will not to interrupt their discussion and joined in only if they asked for confirmation or explanation (vary between 20-40 minutes). The groups in turn reported their discussion to the class led by the trainer in
- the forms of debate, role-play, drama, or talk-show. The direct communicative feedbacks from all trainees are encouraged. The trainer mediated and prompted their communication (vary between 20-40 minutes) The trainer gave his comments, feedback, or evaluation. The trainees were >invited to get involved to comment (5 minutes). The trainer ended the meeting.
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter looks at the analysis of data obtained from all the research instruments including Questionnaire I, Questionnaire II and Students’ Speaking Records.
4.1 Questionnaire 1
Questionnaire 1 (see Appendix 1), a rating scale based on frequency, was administered on the first day of the program, prior to the training sessions to determine students’ prior exposure to English and their English spoken performance. The data was compiled and analyzed to find out whether greater exposure contributed to better speaking skill. First, trainees’ responses were tabulated in a scoring format in which each answer carried a score between 1 and 5 - 5 for always, 4 for often, 3 for sometimes, 2 for seldom, 1 for
never . The total amount of exposure category and speaking state category were
separately counted to find out the ability level they belonged to, namely:
- poor (if it scores below one third of total amount