One semester of speaking tasks – an experimental approach with low proficiency students
This study tested the hypothesis postulating that Malaysian undergraduate students with low proficiency would make the most rapid progress in English if all guided learning time (tutorials and lectures) in the first semester was used entirely for speaking tasks. The study took the form of a No...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Indexed Article |
| Published: |
2013
|
| Online Access: | http://discol.umk.edu.my/id/eprint/7489/ http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/Pertanika%20PAPERS/JSSH%20Vol.%2021%20(4)%20Dec.%202013/22%20Page%201583-1594%20(JSSH%200747-2012).pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This study tested the hypothesis postulating that Malaysian undergraduate students with
low proficiency would make the most rapid progress in English if all guided learning
time (tutorials and lectures) in the first semester was used entirely for speaking tasks. The
study took the form of a Non-Equivalent Groups design with 59 Malaysian undergraduate
students in their first semester, the majority of whom had scored only Band 1 or Band 2 in
the MUET exam. The students were allocated alphabetically to an experimental group of
30 students, who were taught using all of the contact hours for speaking tasks and a control
group of 29 students who were taught using “as normal” method – including grammar
explanation and examples; reading; writing and listening tasks. All students took a pre-
test at the start of the semester and a post-test at the end of the semester, which assessed
their abilities in speaking, writing, reading and listening. Since, scores did not conform to
a normal distribution so the Wilcoxon Sigma rank test was used to assess the difference
in the scores between the pre-test and post-test, while the ManWhitney test was used to
compare the changes in the scores between the experimental and control groups. The
analysis showed no significant difference between the control group and the experimental
group, in terms of the changes in the scores between pre-test and post-test. |
|---|