VIETNAM NATIONAL, UNIVERSITY, HANOT UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES SERS SSR AR A det te ae soko TRAN THI MIEN VIEN THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ON THEIR SPEAKING PERFORMANCE (TAC DONG CUA NIEM TIN BOT VOT KHA NANG NOT CUA SINH VIEN) MINOR M.A THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60 1410 HA NOI, 2011 VLETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES 13 Ä ÿ 4 Ene ieoldeioicioioidioiioidiieaiaieoiaioisiolaiciciaiek ‘TRAN THỊ MIỄN VIỄN THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ON THEIR SPEAKING PERFORMANCE (TAC DONG CUA NIEM TIN DOI VOU KA NANG NOI CUA VINH VIÊN) MINOR M.A TIIESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60 14.10 Supervisor: ITA CAM TAM, Dr. HA NOI, 2011 wv TABLE OF CONTENTS Candidate's stalzment Acknowledgements Abstract Table of contents List of abbreviations List of tables Part one: INTRODUCTION `”. The aim of the study 3. Scops and Signifioance of the study.
Methods oŸ le stuđy,. Organization of the silẩy:. in oto Part two: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature Review 1. Concepls of Beliefs 1.
The origin of Beliefs 1. Beliefs in Language Learning Study 1. Reliefs about Language Learning 1. Beliefs about Language Leaming Inventory (BALLI) by Liorwitz 1.
Speaking Skill Assessment Criteria 11 1. Review of Previous Studies 12 Chapter 2: The Study 2. Data Collection Instruments 14 2. Observation and Note Taking 16 2.
Data Collecion Procedtre.3, Records of Learning Resuits. Data Analysis and Discussions 2. The Students’ Belicfs in Speaking Skill 2. The Effect of the Studenls’ Beliefs on their Speaking Performance Part three: CONCLUSION 1.
Limitations and Implications 30 3. Recommendation for further studies 31 References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix Œ Appendix Ð. Data Collection Instruments 14 2. Observation and Note Taking 16 2.
Data Collecion Procedtre.3, Records of Learning Resuits. Data Analysis and Discussions 2. The Students’ Belicfs in Speaking Skill 2. The Effect of the Studenls’ Beliefs on their Speaking Performance Part three: CONCLUSION 1.
Limitations and Implications 30 3. Recommendation for further studies 31 References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix Œ Appendix Ð. Appendix ‘two methods are used for assessing speaking skills. inthe observational approach, the student's behavior is observed and assessed unobtrusively.
In the structured approach, the student is asked to perfomm one or more specific oral communication tasks. His or her performance on the task is then evaluated, The task can be administered in a one-on-one setting with the test administrator and one student or in a group or class sctting, In cither sctting, students should fecl that they arc communicating meaningful content to a real audience. Tasks are focus on topics that all students can easily talk about, or, if they do not include such @ focus, students should be given an opportunity {0 collect information on the topic ‘There are many sets of criteria used in oral tests. For example, the Cambridge Cerlificals in English Language Speaking Skills (CEILS) (Thombury S., 2005) uses analytic scoring based on four assessment criteria: 1) Grammar and Vocabulary (accurate and appropriate use of syntactic forms and vocabulary to meet the task requirements), 2) Discourse mumagement (ability to express ideas and opinions in coherent and connected speech), 3) Pronunciation (ability to produce comprehensive utterances to fulfill the task requirements), 4) Interactive Communication (ahility to interact with other interlocutors by initiating and responding appropriately and at the required speed and rhythm).
Another example is the criteria suggested by Underhill N. (1987), which consists of 1) Fluency and Naturalness, 2) Vocalulary, 3) Connecting sentences (the ease of speaking several sentences together in a cormected way. Finally, the criteria suggested by the Royal Sociely of Art (RSA) (Hughes A., 1989) include » Accuracy: Pronunciation still obviously influenced by Ll though clearly intelligible. GrammaticaVlexical accuracy is general high, though some errors which do not deslzoy cormmunicalion arc acceplable.
= Appropriacy: Use of language generally appropriate to function, The overall intention of the speaker is always clear © Range: A fair range of language is available to the candidate, He is able to express hirnsclf without overtly having lo search words © Flexibility: Is able to take the initiative in a conversation and to adapt to new topics or changes of direction — though neither of these may be consistently manifested PART Lb DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 4. Belicfs about language learning Some rescarchers viewed botiefs aboul language leaming as a part of metacognilive knowledge, however, Wenden (1998) claimed that in second and foreign language literature, these two terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same construct. ‘The term, beliefs about language leaning, were nol clearly defined by rescurchers in previous studies, It seems either that the researchers assumed that the term can be understood intuitively or that the construct is too complex to be operationalized. In most studies, the term, beliefs shout language Iearning, is used as a known construct without providmg further explanation.
Sccond language rescarchers believed that EFL/ESL leamers bring their nenms, attitudes, perception and cxpeticnees into the learning task process and Icaming strategies (Sakui, & Gaies, 1999). Language experts identified that during the process of learning English as a second’ foreign language, shudents bring complex issues such as heliels, attitudes, norms and expectation into the course syllabus. Based on the related research, each second language learner has his/her beliefs and thought about language leaming and many factors will have opporlunity to allacls students beliefs and they can be considered as affective factors (Hortwitz, 1987), Aptitude, attitude, noms and perceptions have the potential to affect isamers’ language leaming process, their motivation and their ability to cope will English as a forcign language. Consequently, they can be considered as push or pull Gactor lo help leamers’ ultimate suecess in attainment of new language in shorter time (Bemat & Gvozdenko, 2005).
Rod Ellis (2003) indicated that a leamer has a belief about language learning when © Sthe hus identified different altribules about language learning and their abilityto learn Tanguage, for example, the language they are leaming; how best to learn a language; the importance of learning about the culture of the second language; whether they expect to be successful * Sthe has cvaluated these attributes as positive or negative 1.2, Bellefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLD by Lorwttz ‘two methods are used for assessing speaking skills. inthe observational approach, the student's behavior is observed and assessed unobtrusively. In the structured approach, the student is asked to perfomm one or more specific oral communication tasks. His or her performance on the task is then evaluated, The task can be administered in a one-on-one setting with the test administrator and one student or in a group or class sctting, In cither sctting, students should fecl that they arc communicating meaningful content to a real audience.
Tasks are focus on topics that all students can easily talk about, or, if they do not include such @ focus, students should be given an opportunity {0 collect information on the topic ‘There are many sets of criteria used in oral tests. For example, the Cambridge Cerlificals in English Language Speaking Skills (CEILS) (Thombury S., 2005) uses analytic scoring based on four assessment criteria: 1) Grammar and Vocabulary (accurate and appropriate use of syntactic forms and vocabulary to meet the task requirements), 2) Discourse mumagement (ability to express ideas and opinions in coherent and connected speech), 3) Pronunciation (ability to produce comprehensive utterances to fulfill the task requirements), 4) Interactive Communication (ahility to interact with other interlocutors by initiating and responding appropriately and at the required speed and rhythm). Another example is the criteria suggested by Underhill N. (1987), which consists of 1) Fluency and Naturalness, 2) Vocalulary, 3) Connecting sentences (the ease of speaking several sentences together in a cormected way.
Finally, the criteria suggested by the Royal Sociely of Art (RSA) (Hughes A., 1989) include » Accuracy: Pronunciation still obviously influenced by Ll though clearly intelligible. GrammaticaVlexical accuracy is general high, though some errors which do not deslzoy cormmunicalion arc acceplable. = Appropriacy: Use of language generally appropriate to function, The overall intention of the speaker is always clear © Range: A fair range of language is available to the candidate, He is able to express hirnsclf without overtly having lo search words © Flexibility: Is able to take the initiative in a conversation and to adapt to new topics or changes of direction — though neither of these may be consistently manifested The pmpose of this study is to see how students’ heliefs affect their speaking skill by using the BALLI (Horwitz, 1988) survey instruments. Identification of these beliefs is to examine whether students’ speaking beliets could be linked to their speaking performance.
Moreover, the study recommends some implications for teaching English speaking skill 3. Scope and Significance of the study This paper concentrates on finding beliefs of students in language leaming, especially in leaming Linglish speaking. Hence, it examines how students’ beliefs affected thelr speaking performance Furthermore, the research may be potential in equipping for modifying speaking activities in the eourse book in a more flexibls and orcative way. By doing survey of students’ beliefs, the study might give teachers a profound insight into how to help students studying English speaking skill effectively.
Methods of the study: The presem study was designed lo usc both quantilative and qualilative rescareh methods for the analysis. Two major complementary sources of data were used in the current study. The distributions of a questionnaire of Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALL) (Horwitz, 1988) provided quantitative data. The presentations of the students about given topic were used to elicit the qualitative data.
Afsr collecting the distributions, the questionnaire data will be analyzed in order of five themes of BALLI (Horwitz, 1988) so as to find out the beliefs of the students in achieving a good speaking skill. ‘rhe influence of students’ beliefs on speaking performance was examined via students’ aeadamic marks and their prosentalions. Organization of the study The study is organized as follows: Part one: Introduction prescnts the rationale, the aim, the scope and significance, the auethod and organization of the study. Part ovo: consisis of three chaplers fe In the early 1980s, Iforwiz (1985) developed an instrament for identifying ‘olicfs about forcign language Icarning.
Kuntz (1996) maintains, Horwitz’s BALLI evolved as a resuitt of a brain-stoming session that she had with 25 language teachers. Horwitz (1988) then compiled a teacher-generated list of beliefs that students anight have aboul. lauguage learning and developed an instrument, for her study, which she called Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) after consulting specialists in cognitive science and psychology. ‘Three distinct BALLIs are in use today: (1) BALLI to ancasure the beliefs of the students of English as a second language (RSI.
The first BALLI consisted of 27 statements and was uscd to assess beliefs of immigrants leaning English as a second language in Texas. The second BALLI focused on the beliefs held by teachers of foreign languages; it consisted of 27 statements. The third BALLI comprised 34 slalements and was employed by Horwitz to gather the opinions of students leaning Franch, German and Spanish at the University of ‘Vexas at Austin. All the different versions of BALLIs employed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agres”, Questions in the BALLI were divided into groups accarding to their theme or topic.
Initially, Horwit’s BALLIs (1981, cited in Kun, 1996) comprisod four themes, ic. (1) foreign language aptitude, (2) difficulty of language learning, (3) nature of language learning, and (4) language learning strategtes. Then Horwitz (1987) modified the fourth theme to “learning and communication strategies” and added “motivation and expectation” to her instrument, The final BALLI (1988) to asscss belicfs about forcign language Jearning had this structure. ‘The first category of the BALLI ‘Foreign Language Aptitude” concerns the general existence of special ability for language leaning.
The second category ‘Difficulty of language learning’ concerns the general difficulty of learning a foreign language.
