USING COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO DEVELOP ENGLISH SPEAKING ABILITY

OF MATTHAYOMSUKSA THREE STUDENTS

A THESIS

BY

PRANEE NANTHABOOT

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Arts Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

at Srinakharinwirot University

June 2012
USING COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO DEVELOP ENGLISH SPEAKING

ABILITY OF MATTHAYOMSUKSA THREE STUDENTS

A THESIS

BY

PRANEE NANTHABOOT

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Arts Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

at Srinakharinwirot University

June 2012

Copyright 2012 by Srinakharinwirot University

USING COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO DEVELOP ENGLISH SPEAKING

ABILITY OF MATTHAYOMSUKSA THREE STUDENTS

AN ABSTRACT

BY

PRANEE NANTHABOOT

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Arts Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

at Srinakharinwirot University

June 2012
Pranee Nanthaboot. (2012). Using Communicative Activities to Develop English

Speaking Ability of Matthayomsuksa Three students. Thesis, M.A.

(Teaching English as a Foreign Language). Bangkok: Graduate School,

Srinakharinwirot University. Thesis Advisor: Dr. Somsak Khaewnuch.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of communicative

activities to develop English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3 students at

Watsantikaramwitthaya School, Ratchaburi. The participants were 30

Matthayomsuksa 3 students selected via random sampling. The students studied with

the researcher in a speaking classroom for seven weeks, in which the teacher used

various activities, such as describing and drawing pictures, mapping dialogues,

gapping information, playing jigsaws, and spotting the differences. The instruments

were five lesson plans, a pre-post speaking test, a teacher’s observation form, and a

students’ opinion form. The data from the speaking tests were analyzed using mean

scores, standard deviation scores, and t-test scores for dependent samples. The data

from the observation and opinion forms were analyzed using mean scores, standard

deviation scores.

The result of this study indicated that the students’ English speaking ability

after applying communicative activities was much higher than it used to be, with a

statistical significance at .05.

Keywords: Communicative Activities, English Speaking Ability

การใช้กิจกรรมทางภาษาเพื่อการสื่อสารเพื่อพัฒนาความสามารถด้านการพูดภาษาอังกฤษ
ของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 3

บทคัดย่อ
ของ
ปราณี นันทบุตร

เสนอต่อบัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ เพื่อเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของการศึกษา

ตามหลักสูตรปริญญาศิลปศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต
สาขาการสอนภาษาอังกฤษในฐานะภาษาต่างประเทศ
มิถุนายน 2555
ปราณี นันทบุตร. (2555). การใช้กิจกรรมทางภาษาเพื่อการสื่อสาร เพื่อพัฒนาความสามารถด้าน
การพูดภาษาอังกฤษ ของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 3 ปริญญานิพนธ์ ศศม.
(การสอนภาษาอังกฤษในฐานะภาษาต่างประเทศ). กรุงเทพฯ: บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย
มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ. อาจารย์ที่ปรึกษาปริญญานิพนธ์ : ดร. สมศักดิ์ แก้วนุช.

การศึกษาครั้งนี้มีจุดมุ่งหมายเพื่อพัฒนาความสามารถการพูดภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อการ
สื่อสารของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 3 โรงเรียนวัดสันติการามวิทยา จังหวัดราชบุรี กลุ่มตัวอย่าง
ที่ใช้ในการทดลองเป็นนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 3 จานวน 30 คน โดยใช้วิธีการสุ่มตัวอย่างอย่าง
ง่าย ใช้เวลาในการทดลอง 7 สัปดาห์ ใช้กิจกรรมเพื่อการสื่อสารอย่างหลากหลาย เช่น กิจกรรมใช้
รูปภาพอธิบาย,กิจกรรมเติมบทสนทนาจากตัวชี้แนะ, กิจกรรมเติมข้อมูลให้สมบูรณ์,กิจกรรม
เชื่อมต่อข้อมูลกิจกรรมค้นหาความเหมือนและความแตกต่าง เครื่องมือที่ใช้ในการทดลอง และเก็บ
รวบรวมข้อมูล คือ แผนการจัดการเรียนรู้ จานวน 5 แผน แบบทดสอบวัดความสามารถด้านการ
พูดภาษาอังกฤษ แบบสังเกตพฤติกรรมด้านการพูดภาษาอังกฤษ แบบแสดงความคิดเห็นต่อ
กิจกรรมภาษาเพื่อการสื่อสาร สถิติที่ใช้ในการวิเคราะห์ข้อมูลจากการทดสอบการพูดภาษาอังกฤษ
คือ ค่าเฉลี่ย ค่าเบี่ยงเบนมาตรฐาน และใช้สถิติ t-test แบบ Dependent Samples และข้อมูลสถิติ
ที่ใช้ในการวิเคราะห์จากแบบสังเกตพฤติกรรมด้านการพูดภาษาอังกฤษและแบบแสดงความ
คิดเห็นต่อกิจกรรมภาษาเพื่อการสื่อสาร คือ ค่าเฉลี่ย ค่าเบี่ยงเบนมาตรฐาน ผลการศึกษาพบว่า
ความสามารถด้านการพูดภาษาอังกฤษโดยใช้กิจกรรมทางภาษาเพื่อการสื่อสารของนักเรียนชั้น
มัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 3 หลังการทดลองสูงกว่าก่อนการทดลองอย่างมีนัยสาคัญทางสถิติที่ระดับ .05
 The thesis titled

“Using Communicative Activities to Develop English Speaking Ability

of Matthayomsuksa Three Students”

by

Pranee Nanthaboot

has been approved by the Graduate School as partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Master of Arts Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language of

Srinakharinwirot University

………………………… Dean of Graduate School

(Associate Professor Dr. Somchai Santiwatanakul)

June..…, 2012

Thesis Advisor: Oral Defense Committee:

…………………………..advisor …………………………...Chair

(Dr. Somsak Khaewnuch) (Dr. Anchalee Jansem)

..………………...……Committee

(Dr. Somsak Khaewnuch)

………………………Committee

(Dr. Apichai Rungruang)

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was accomplished with the help of many people. First, I would

like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my thesis’s advisor, Dr. Somsak Khaewnuch,

for his kind consultation, invaluable advice, constant encouragement, and patience in

providing helpful comments. His guidance kept me alive throughout the ongoing

research. He gave me a lot of recommendations and invaluable feedback to my work.

In appreciation, my respectful heart goes out to him forever. Without him, this study

would not have been achieved.

Next, I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to my

research committee Dr. Anchalee Jansem, and Dr. Apichai Rungruang for their

assistance, guidance, and most valuable comments.

My gratitude also goes to Mrs. Piyanard Sawangsak, Mrs. Kanchana Arnold,

and Mr. Nopadon Santhisiri for their guidance and insightful comments in developing

my research instruments.

Special thanks are given to Mr. Robin Zinger who sacrificed his valuable time

to edit drafts of my thesis.

My heartfelt thanks also go to all my teachers who gave me knowledge in my

life, and to the students at Watsantikaramwitthaya School who participated in this

study, and for their kind assistance, patience, and understanding.

Finally, I am especially indebted to my family for their understanding and

encouragement for me while I was studying at Srinakharinwirot University.

Pranee Nanthaboot
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 INTRODUCTION

Background…………………………………………………….…….……....1

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………..…10

Significance of the Study…………………………………..………...……..10

Scope of the Study……………………………………………….…………10

Definition of Terms……………………………………….………..………11

Hypotheses……………………………………………….……...……....… 11

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Communicative Language Teaching………………………..…...………….12

Principles of Communicative Approach………………….…………............14

Communicative Speaking………………………………….………….….…15

Components of Speaking…………………………………….………...…....16

Communicative Competence………………………………….…….…...….17

Stages of Teaching English for Communication……...…………….....……18

Failure of Teaching Speaking …………………..…………………….….....19

Problems with Speaking Abilities………………………………….……….20

Evaluating and Assessing English Speaking……………………..………....21

Rating Scales………………………….……………………………………..25

Related Literature on Communicative Activities………..…………………..29

 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter Page

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Population and Participants………….……….………………………………37

Research Instruments………………………………….……………………..38

Data Collection……………………………..………………………..………43

Data Analysis……………………………..…………….…………………....43

4 FINDINGS…………………………………………………...……..……….....….45

5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION……………………..…...……………...…54

REFERENCES………………………………………………..….……..…….…..61

APPENDICES…………………………………………..………...………...……..70

APPENDIX A English Speaking Test………………………..………………….71

APPENDIX B The three rater’s scores in English speaking test……….….……73

APPENDIX C English Speaking Rating Sheet………………………………….76

APPENDIX D English Speaking Ability Evaluation……………………….…..79

APPENDIX E Item Objective Congruence (IOC)………………………………81

APPENDIX F Speaking Observation Form……………………………..…...….85

APPENDIX G Students’ Opinion Form…………………..………………..……87

APPENDIX H Lesson Plan………………………………...……………………91

APPENDIX I Classroom Environment………………………………………….96

 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter Page

VITAE……………………………………………………….………….………......103
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 A comparison of the mean scores on pre-test and post-test by three raters….…46

2 A comparison of the mean score on pre-test and post-test………….....….……47

3 A comparison of the score of English speaking observation in each lesson

plan…………………………………………………………………….…….48

4 A comparison of the mean and SD score in each performance of the English

speaking observation……………………………………………………..…..50

5 A comparison of the mean score and SD score of English speaking observation

in each lesson plan………………..……………………….……..……..……51

6 The mean score and SD score of the students’ opinion toward communicative

activities…………………….……………… ……..…..……….……..….… 52
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background

In the present global society, learning foreign languages is very important

as foreign languages serve as important tools for communication, education, and

livelihood. Languages allow us to understand cultures and visions about the world

community. Foreign languages enable learners to be aware of the diversity of cultures

and viewpoints in the world community. We can have friendship and cooperation

with various countries. Languages bring about better understanding among different

nations. The learners are thus able to learn and understand differences of languages

and cultures, customs and traditions, thinking, society, economy, politics and

administration. They should be able to use foreign languages for communication as

well as for easier and wider access to bodies of knowledge, and will have vision in

leading their lives. The goals, learners’ key competency, and the bodies of knowledge

of the Basic Educational Core Curriculum emphasize knowledge and skill for

communication (Ministry of Education, 2008).

The foreign language constituting basic learning content that was prescribed

for the entire basic education core curriculum is English. The Thai government has

long realized the importance of the English language as a major core subject in

schools, and it has been a compulsory subject at varying levels for several decades.

Since 2005, schools have been encouraged to establish bilingual departments where

the core subjects are taught in English, and to offer intensive English language

programs.
 2

The role of English in Thailand is quite important as it is in many other

developing countries. New technology and the adoption of the internet have resulted

in a major transition in terms of business, education, science, and technological

process, all of which demand high proficiency in English. With the economic

downturn in Thailand a few years ago, a large number of Thai companies had

embraced cooperation regionally and internationally. Mergers, associations, and

takeovers were common and English was used as the means to communicate,

negotiate and execute transactions by participants where one partner was a native

speaker of English or none of the partners were native speakers of English.

With the importance of English as a world language and the changes that came

with the National Education Act, plus the challenges of new technology, 5 new

changes occurred in Thailand in this decade. Firstly, there are now more than 56

international schools around the country. There are three foreign colleges and

universities in Thailand. Secondly, there are changes in English teaching and learning

in school. There are three objectives in either core or elective English courses. There

are knowledge, skill, and positive attitude towards English. Knowledge involves how

to use English language in communication, learning and understanding the culture of

native speakers, knowing the differences between Thai and the English language,

being able to use English to gain information in other subjects, being able to use

English to do lifelong learning to find pleasure and to use it in their work. There were

various concepts incorporated in English language teaching and learning, for example,

focus on learners and for communication. Communicative Approach is still used but

with more focus on listening and speaking. Thirdly, changes in English language

teaching and learning in universities. The following are the changes that would take
 3

place: there would be only one set of English scores used to consider students entering

the university that is the English scores from the English Proficiency Test of the

Ministry of University affairs. Universities would use the scores from this test to place

students according to their level of proficiency. Finally, quality assurance, the English

language proficiency of Thais would be evaluated with a national standardized test to

assure the quality of English language teaching and learning (Wiriyajittra, 1989).

The Ministry of Education in Thailand (2001) is focusing on the significance

and value of English. English has been placed in the curriculum from primary to

higher education. The Thai government announced that English language is the

international language. English is generally taught in primary and secondary schools.

And Thailand will participate in ASEAN within 2014. Everyone will speak English

for education and careers. In 2008, the Thai government announced plans to improve

requirements for native-speaker teachers in mainstream schools.

Although English is important, the education of English is not successful.

Thai students had poor scores in English tests. The results of the O-Net Test of Thai

students were also low. The mean score of English was disappointing. Thai people

have a low speaking ability. One major cause of the low proficiency of Thai is

certainly the teaching and learning of this language in schools and universities. In

primary and secondary schools, there are many obstacles. Teachers have heavy

teaching loads. There are too many students in a class (45-60). For example, teachers

are not competent in English and do not have enough knowledge about the culture of

the native speakers of English.

However, the problems in teaching and learning English in school come from

both teachers and learners. The English teaching problem is partly affected by
 4

teaching methods. Lochana and Deb (2006) state that most EFL teachers in Thai

schools or elsewhere teach language by lecturing and focusing on grammatical rules

instead of language use. Teachers often provide insufficient opportunities for learners

to practice English. Both teachers and learners frequently use Thai language

throughout English classes.

However, speaking is a productive skill which seems to be the most important

of all the four language skills because it can distinctly show the correctness and errors

that a language learner makes. Many students equate being able to speak as knowing

the language and therefore view learning how to speak the language. Therefore, if

students do not learn how to speak or do not get any opportunity to speak in the

classroom they may soon get de-motivated and lose interest in learning. On the other

hand, if the right activities are taught in the right way, speaking in class can be a lot of

fun, raising general learner motivation and making the English language classroom a

fun and dynamic place to be.

Speaking is fundamental to human communication. In the daily lives most of

us speak more than we write, yet many English teachers still spend the majority of the

class time on reading and writing practice almost ignoring speaking and listening

skills. If the goal of the language course is truly to enable the students to

communicate in English, then speaking skills should be taught and practiced in the

classroom.

Students won’t talk or say anything. A completely different reason for student

silence may simply be that the class activities are boring or are pitched at the wrong

level. Another way to encourage the students to speak English is simply to speak

English as much as possible in class.

 5

Thai education focuses on reading and grammar rather than speaking. In

addition, the students lack confidence to speak and they might develop negative

attitudes towards learning how to speak English.

After observing Mathayomsuksa 3 students for a long time, the researcher

found the problems of the students in English learning. First, they wanted to know

grammar; they always made mistakes in grammar. They always forgot full stops,

commas, and question marks in the sentences they wrote. They cannot write the right

word in the right position. Second, students could not write correctly; especially they

could not spell vocabulary. So they took a lot of time to write because it was difficult

for them. When I corrected their writing, I found that there were a lot of mistakes in

their writing and they could not find out their own mistakes. Third, when they

listened to the story from the CD, they could not answer the questions. Fourth, they

had problems in reading; they did not know the vocabulary and idioms, they could not

tell the story or answered the question. Lastly, namely that they often mumbled,

omitted words, repeated the same words, and often paused in speaking English.

Besides, many of them could not use the correct vocabulary, pattern, and clear

answers to communicate with their peers and the teacher.

At the same time, the researcher found 2 factors which cause the students to

have a low proficiency in speaking.

The first factor is from students. For Thai students, the use of English mostly

takes place in the classroom, and chance of using this language outside the classroom

is minimal. There are several reasons why students can not speak well. Firstly, many

of them do not realize the importance, value, and use of speaking English, so they do

not pay enough attention to do activities in class. This can cause them to have low
 6

speaking competence. This low competence causes them to lack confidence in

performing speaking abilities. Secondly, they do not like to make mistakes or to

appear stupid in front of their friends, some of them were very nervous when their

names are called to perform the speaking task in front of the class. Thirdly, they do

not know what and how to speak. Fourthly, they do not have sufficient opportunities

to practice. Fifth, they like to use their mother tongue rather than English when they

practice in class (Brown, 1994). These causes them to have negative attitudes towards

studying speaking English. These attitudes are very important factors that affect their

learning achievement. If they have good attitudes towards studying English, they will

learn it happily. In addition, the students’ attitudes are more important in developing

the speaking skill than the development of the other language skills (Chastain, 1971).

Another important reason the researcher’s found was that they had not used English in

their daily life. Most of students have no chance to speak English with their family

because their family members do not speak English.

The second factor is teachers who are a very important cause of students’

achievement of studying English. Wasanhawetwisit (1988) mentions that the

achievement of studying English depends on 2 factors; competent teachers and

motivated students. The former is a more important factor for successful studying

than the latter. Teachers’ quality is the most important factor in teaching English, so

English teachers have to improve their English skills about content and teaching

methodology all the time (Jarat, 1992, as cited in Carroll 1964). Moreover, the main

cause of unsuccessful studying of English is from the teachers themselves. They do

not follow the communicative approach. They usually use old and boring methods;

they do not provide students with sufficient opportunities to practice using English for
 7

communication, and they are not good motivators for students to practice speaking

(Suraswadee, 1993). Similarly, Pongtongchareon (1977) states her opinion that the

provided lessons which are not closely related to the students’ real life may cause

them not to realize the importance, use, and value of studying English. They will lack

interest and feel reluctant to participate in the activities. This negative attitude towards

studying English is the most important cause of the students’ negligence in attending

English classes. Besides, English teachers must improve their knowledge about

teaching methodology. They must provide students with communicative speaking

activities, which help them use English in various real situations. (Kunlapapuek 1999,

as cited in Prapphal 1984).

When the researcher finds that teachers and students are the important factors

of teaching and learning English, the researcher chooses the approach to solve their

problems and improve their teaching and learning.

Language learning presently emphasizes communicative abilities. One of the

famous approaches in teaching language is the communicative approach.

Angwattanakul (1994) states that the communicative approach is the teaching of

foreign languages that is aimed at developing communication skills, the teaching that

tries to help students to use language appropriately in different situations with a focus

on fluency rather than accuracy. Harmer (2002) points out that the focus of teaching

language should not be on grammar only; language teaching should focus on the

function of the language, the purpose of communication, and the appropriateness of

language use.

The goal of communicative approach lies in activities. Practicing with

communicative activities can certainly help students develop their language abilities.
 8

Harmer (2002) states that communicative activities are aimed at developing students’

ability to use language to interact with people in real situations. Hymes (1978 as

cited in Angwattanakul, 1994) explains that communicative abilities can enable

learners to use language or interpret it correctly in social interactions. Communicative

activities make learners notice who is talking with whom, when they should or should

not say something, and how they should say something. In short, communicative

approach is a teaching approach that encourages learners to use language in

appropriate situations and social interactions.

Communicative activities include any activities that encourage and require a

learner to speak with and listen to other learners, as well as with people in the

community. Communicative activities have real purposes: to find information, break

down barriers, talk about one’s self and others, and learn about cultures. Therefore,

even when a lesson is focused on developing reading or writing skills, communicative

activities should be integrated into the lesson.

There are four benefits and five challenges of using communicative activities.

Four benefits are as follows; first, the students have more exposure to use the target

language. Second, they have more authentic opportunities to use the language. Third,

communicative activities are funny and interesting for students. Lastly, they provide

an opportunity to use authentic materials.

However, there are five challenges: first, the teacher needs to know how to

offer support and what support needs to be offered. Thai is more time is needed for

planning and preparation of activities. Second, communicative activities can pose

challenges in assessment. Third, learners can be resistant-especially if they are

 9

accustomed to teacher-centered styles of teaching. Fourth, the class is not too big.

Fifth, the teacher must use language accurately and fluently.

When designing communicative activities, teachers will make the activities as

truly communicative as possible. The teachers’ role is to plan, to structure and to

guide communicative activities, and then they remain available as a consultant or

facilitator. Moreover, the teacher should create a classroom environment or

atmosphere in which students feel free to express themselves, to make mistakes, and

to try out a new language. The activities should also be motivating and encouraging

to the learners to use authentic language in a meaningful context. Regarding the

teacher’s correction, it is not advisable to correct the students’ mistake during

communicative activities (Brown,1994; Mulling,1997).

The researcher studied the results of communicative activities through

speaking skills, it helped students speak more. Below are some research studies that

support CLT activities.

Jupamaktha (1996), Kanlapapuek (1999), Ketcharung (2000), Phumsaidorn

(1997), Rasri (1995), and Sirikongkasakul (1996) found that communicative activities

can increase students’ English speaking ability at the secondary level, and vocational

certificate student level.

From the information above, the researcher was aware of the importance of

English in Thailand and the limitations of teaching this subject to students. As an

English teacher, the researcher thought that one way to teach English better was to

find a good teaching method. In this study, the researcher applied communicative

activities in a classroom. Communicative activities, according to some theorists and

 10

researchers mentioned above, should be able to help solve some teaching and learning

problems or limitations of both the teacher and his or her students.

Purpose of the study

There were two main purposes of this study.

1. To investigate the effects of using communicative activities on the English

speaking abilities of Matthayomsuksa 3 students

2. To study the students’ opinions through communicative activities.

Significance of the study

The researcher expected that communicative activities would help students

improve their speaking skill and their speaking behavior. It was also expected that the

results of the study would benefit English teachers searching for an efficient way to

solve the low speaking ability of general students. Teachers may apply teaching

methods similar to this study.

Scope of the study

Population and participants

1. The population in this study was Matthayomsuksa 3 learners. The

participants were 30 students selected at convenience from Watsantikaramwitthaya

School, Ratchaburi. The study was conducted during a two-month period, in a

classroom which met three hours per week

2. The variables in this study were as follows:

2.1 Independent variable was communicative activities

2.2 Dependent variable was English speaking ability

 11

Definition of Terms

1. Communicative activities refer to English speaking activities used in the

classroom, in which students have many opportunities to communicate, interact, and

use verbal language as a mean of communication.

2. English speaking ability refers to the ability to share information fluently and

accurately, including the ability to choose appropriate vocabulary and structures in all

contexts. This performance can be measured using the criteria for measuring English

speaking ability that consists of rating scales adapted from Council of Europe, (2001)

and Nunan (2004).

Hypotheses

1. The speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3 English students at

Watsantikaramwitthaya School after learning through communicative activities would

be higher than before the experiment.

2. The students would have a positive attitude through English after they

studied through communicative activities.

 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study investigates the effects of using communicative activities on

Matthayomsuksa 3 students English speaking ability and their opinions toward the use

of communicative activities. This chapter is divided into 10 parts:

1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

2. Principles of communication methodology,

3. Communicative speaking

4. Components of speaking

5. Communicative competence

6. Stages of teaching English for communication

7. Failure of teaching speaking

8. Problems with speaking abilities

9. Assessing and evaluating English speaking

10. Rating scales

1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Language is the best material used for communication, so an effective approach

to teach language is the one that helped learners to be able to use language for actual

communication. It is generally accepted that communicative approach (henceforth,

CA) or simply communicative language teaching (henceforth, CLT) is the most

suitable approach for teaching language for the aim of communication because its

main aim is for developing learners’ communication competence

(Angwattanakul, 1994).
 13

According to the principle of the CLT, the learners do not study only the

linguistic structures and the rules of grammar, but it stresses the importance of using

language for communication (Allwright, 1978; Cambell, 1972; Nunan, 1991; Richards

& Rodgers, 1995; Savignon, 1991). Besides, Johnson (1981) suggested while

studying, students must try to communicate with their peers and try to make them

understand what they said. Furthermore, teaching English for communication was to

emphasize the language competence for learners and they must try to communicate in

real situation. (Aksaranuhroh,1989; Fotos & Ellis,1991; Murcia,1991; Murphy,

1991). From the above, it could be concluded that to teach language for

communication, the teacher must put the emphasis on the students’ communicative

competence to use it in real communications.

CLT was developed into two ways: 1). a notional-functional approach which

extends the teaching of grammar to include the teaching of interactional notions

(paying attention to the factors of formality and functions, such as making requests,

apologies, invitations, and introductions) and 2). learner-centered approach which

emphasized the importance of learners learning the language (Carter & Nunan 2001).

Similarly, Hedge (2000) states that communication does not only involve

information and language, but it also involves purposes and attitudes (Davies & Pearse

2000). The learners’ attention is focused on the ideas communicated, not on the

language used.

In summary, communicative language teaching is an approach generally used

at the present moment. It includes two approaches, a notional-functional and learner-

centered approach. It is very beneficial for the students to use language authentically

and then they should be able to communicate ideas easily in real life situations.
 14

Speaking is a vital productive skill that can be used for communicating, especially for

second language learners.

Communication is important in foreign language learning, but developing the

ability to really communicate in English is the main goal of an English course. At the

end of a course, the learners should be able to communicate effectively in English

outside the classroom for studying, working, or doing leisure activities.

(Davies & Pearse 2000).

Davies and Pearse (2000) state that there are three features of using language.

First, learners communicate because they want to or need to, not just to practice the

language. Second, the learners’ attention is focused on what they are communicating

(for example information, ideas, opinions, feelings), not on how they are

communicating (for example the grammar of the language). Third, the language is

usually very varied in grammar and vocabulary, and a single structure or a few

structures are not normally repeated over and over again.

In summary, communication is not just a matter of information and language.

It also involves purpose and attitude. The learners’ attention is focused on the ideas

communicated, not on the language used. It is unlikely that anyone except a language

student would either need or want a text

2. Principles of Communicative Approach

To be successful in teaching English for communication, the teacher should

follow the principles and trends of teaching and learning arrangement. Morrow

(198: 59-66) expresses 5 principles of communicative approach: Firstly, the students

must be aware of the objectives of each lesson. These objectives should be performed

of something such as reading for understanding a set of instruction, writing a letter

 15

reserving a room of hotels etc. The teacher must be sure to have a clear answer for a

student. Secondly, the teacher must realize that the process of communication deals

with strings of sentences, ideas and oral performances. The management of language

cannot be produced in individual elements, but in the context of the whole. Thirdly,

there are three important elements in communication: information gap, choice of

performances, and feedback. Fourthly, the students must be provided with a lot of

practice in doing something or learning by doing. And fifthly, the teacher should not

always criticize unimportant mistakes during the communicative activities. He must

realize that the learners who try to express something that they are not quite sure how

to say but want to communicate is a very important feature of using a foreign

language.

Davies and Pearse (2000) state that teachers should establish English as the

main classroom language, try to use interesting topics and stimulating activities which

take the learners’ mind off the language at least a little, and encourage learners in their

efforts to communicate their ideas instead of trying to control what they say and

interrupting them to correct their language mistakes.

In conclusion, in each learning unit the students have to be told the learning

objectives and they should have sufficient opportunities to practice using language for

communication. Interactions between the speaker and listener are a very important

component in communication.

3. Communicative Speaking

Definition of communicative speaking

Educators define the meaning of communicative speaking in various ways:

Paulston (1978) states that speakers have to interact while they are talking, sharing
 16

information, and following social rules. Littlewood (1995) suggests that the speakers

should choose and use content appropriate to their listeners. Vallette (1977) considers

speaking as a social skill. With communication being the goal of second language

acquisition, emphasis is on the development of correct speech habits. Speaking

involves more than pronunciation and intonation. At the functional level, speaking

means making oneself understood. At a more refined level, speaking requires correct

and idiomatic use of the target language.

According to Bygate (1987) interactive skills involve making decisions about

communication while maintaining desired relations with others. Cohen (1994) insists

that speakers should have fluency in the language and use vocabulary and structure in

suitable situations. In addition, Krashen et al. (1983) says that competent speaking is

integrated with listening. Speaking fluently in a second language occurs after

speakers have been given effective and comprehensible input.

In summary, competent speaking come from a speaker’s ability to

communicate by sharing information fluently and accurately, including appropriate

selection and use of vocabulary and structures. However, to communicate perfectly,

teachers and learners must consider other components of speaking as well.

4. Components of Speaking

Weir (1993) writes that if it is necessary to be more specific about

effectiveness in deploying improvisational skills, an examiner might make detailed

assessments in terms of fluency, appropriateness, accuracy and range. Fluency is

smoothness of execution. Ability to negotiate meaning includes the ability to use

communication strategies with ease when facing difficulties. Appropriateness includes

degree of politeness, suitable timing in turn taking, suitability of language used in

 17

requesting clarification and expressing disagreement. Accuracy focus on both

intelligibility and grammar. Range refers to adequacy and variety of vocabulary and

structures.

In summary, the components of an oral English activity should emphasize the

nature of communication. The three most important components are fluency,

appropriateness and accuracy. Fluency conveys the meaning smoothly in each

situation. Appropriateness refers to proper use and choice of words, phrases or

sentences suitable to conveying meaning. Accuracy implies correct use of structure

and grammar as well as vocabulary and pronunciation. Overall, the purpose of a

speaking activity helps learners communicate successfully.

5. Communicative Competence

The communicative competence means the language learners’ abilities, which

leads them to interact with other speakers with correct meaning in each situation.

Wongsothorn (1995) states that there are three main abilities in communicative

competence: First, linguistic which consists of the knowledge of phonology,

vocabulary and grammar. Second, socio-linguistic which means using the language in

various situations during communication. Third, discourse, the ability to use the

sentence relating to the appropriate situation. Similarly, Hymes (1978) and Murcia

(1991) mention that there are four communicative competences as follows: First,

grammar, the understanding of vocabulary, pronunciation and syntax. Second, socio-

linguistic, the knowledge of speech acts and appropriate use of language. Third,

discourse, the ability to produce the relation between sentences and appropriate

situation and last, strategic, the ability which is used to support successful

communication.
 18

Moreover, Scarcella, and Oxford (1992) state that effective speakers employ a

variety of abilities. Canale and Swain (1980) descry these as grammatical,

sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competencies. Grammatical competence is

using and understanding grammatical structures accurately and unhesitatingly relative

to fluency. Sociolinguistic competence includes speech acts such as apologies and

compliments. Discourse competence involves effective negotiation of ideas within a

given discourse. Strategic competence was when speakers have mastered language

strategies, allowing them to stretch their ability to communicate effectively in their

new language.

6. Stages of Teaching English for Communication

Nowadays, teaching English stresses the students’ abilities for real situations.

Many language experts mention the stages and the principles of teaching English that

lead to successful communication. Chastain (1971) mentioned his three steps of

guideline and principles of teaching English: First, the students must be aware of the

meaning of the new language items. Second, the students practice the new language

items, and last the students communicate their thoughts with their friends. In addition,

there are three principles of teaching language for communication: First, the teacher

tells his students the objectives of each learning unit. Second, the meaning of

language items are made clear for students. Third, the students practice the new

language items and then they transfer the new language items to other skills for

communication (Scott, 1981) Similarly, there are three phases of teaching English for

communication: First, the teacher presents new language to students, then the students

practice it and last, they use it to practice and to communicate with their peers

(Angwattanakul, 1994; Wiriyajittra, 1989).

 19

In summary, there are three important stages in teaching languages for

communication: present the new language, practice the new language, and

communicate with peers.

7. Failure of Teaching Speaking

The main purpose of teaching speaking is to enable students to communicate

orally with foreigners, but students usually do not have the abilities to speak. The

student who wants to develop their speaking skill to the fullest is advised to go and

live among the native speakers. Chastain (1971) indicates that the failure of teaching

speaking comes from 2 factors: First, it is from the teacher. He does not stress on

communication in the setting objectives stage. He always thinks that speaking means

only making English sounds in class, he is not sure about using foreign language in

class, and he always thinks that it is easier to control the class by keeping students

working on material in books and he still stresses on linguistic competence more than

communication. Second, it is from the students. They always think that speaking

activities are more difficult than sitting back and listening to the teacher or chatting

with their friends. They feel uncomfortable in the first speech of the foreign language,

and most of them do not like to make mistakes or to appear stupid in front of their

friends. These are the important things that cause the students to have bad attitudes

toward studying speaking English.

In conclusion, the causes of failure of learning and teaching speaking English

are from both teachers and students. The teachers do not use the principles of CLT in

teaching speaking. The students have negative attitudes through speaking English,

which cause them to neglect speaking activities. So, it is necessary for English
 20

teachers to seek a beneficial technique to help students have good attitudes through

studying speaking English.

8. Problems with Speaking Abilities

Many second language learners are not successful in learning English. Ur

(1996) points out there are four problems:

1. Inhibition, speaking requires real-time exposure to an audience. Learners

are often inhibited from trying to speak in a foreign language in the classroom. They

are worried about making mistakes, are afraid of criticism or losing face, or are simply

shy to speak.

2. Nothing to say, learners often complain that they cannot think of anything to

say. They have no motivation to express themselves beyond the classroom pressure

that they should be speaking.

3. Low or uneven participation, one person can speak at a time in a given

speaking activity. Therefore, in a large group each person will have little chance to

speak. Some learners tend to dominate whereas others speak very little or not at all.

4. Mother-tongue use, when second language learners share the same “mother

tongue” in classes, they tend to use it because it is easier. They feel that it is not

natural to speak in a foreign language.

There are some suggestions that can help language teachers solve problems.

They should use group work, do the activities on easy language, make a careful choice

of topic and tasks to stimulate interest, give some instruction or train in discussion

skills, and keep students speaking the target language (Ur,1996). In addition, teachers

should create a relaxed atmosphere, accustom the learners to listening and speaking in

natural interaction, organize pairs and group work, and avoid any obsession with
 21

accuracy. Moreover, the teachers should encourage incidental classroom speaking,

give learners the expressions they need and exploit every opportunity for conversation

(Davies & Pearse, 2000). Besides the classroom tasks, students need to be aware of

the socio-linguistic rules of the target language as well as the cultural differences

involving what constitutes appropriate use of their new language as opposed to their

first language (Celce-Murcia & Goodwin, 1991).

In conclusion, all of the views of Celce-Murcia and Goodwin (1991), Davies

and Pearse (2000), and Ur (1996) are relevant in helping students use a second

language effectively.

9. Evaluating and Assessing English Speaking

The purpose of assessment instruments is to provide representative grammar,

vocabulary and phonological features of language for evaluating student’s speaking.

Therefore, teachers should consider the best way to test learners because the

assessment reflected what has been taught and what has been learned.

Assessing speaking ability was rather difficult and subjective. Nevertheless, it

must be valid and reliable (Hughes, 2000). The following are several oral test

techniques mentioned in Heaton (1990), Weir (1993), and Underhill (2000) point out

that effective activities to test learners should include pictures,

discussion/conversation, interview, role-play, oral report. They suggest several

techniques as follows:

1. Using pictures

Using pictures for description, comparison and sequencing, plus pictures

with speech bubbles and maps. A picture sequence is when a learner sees a panel of

pictures depicting a chronologically ordered sequence of events and has to tell the
 22

story in the past tense. Another technique is to ask a candidate a series of questions

concerning the content of a picture. The questions may embrace the thoughts and

attitudes of people in the picture, or seek discussion of future developments that might

arise from the situation depicted in the picture, making, and testing learners in pairs.

2. Discussion/conversation

This technique is that two people have a conversation on a topic of common

interest. This kind of assessment is very difficult to conduct in the framework of a

language test, and it can occur only when both people are relaxed and confident. The

topic discussed and the directions taken by the conversations are the result of the

interaction between people involved in a kind of negotiation. However, it depends on

the ability of the assessor to create the right atmosphere.

3. Interview

The interview is the most common of all oral tests. It is a direct exchange

between a learner and an interviewer. It follows a pre-determined structure, but both

of them still have freedom to say what they really think. The interviewer will find out

things about the learner and get answers to certain questions. The interviewer

maintains firm control and keeps the initiative. After the learner has finished his

answer or comment, it depends on the interviewer to make the next move to develop

the topic further or raise a new one. Normally, the interviewer has a prepared list of

written or memorized questions to ask or topics to bring up.

4. Role-play

For this technique, the learner is required to take on a particular role and to

imagine himself in that role in a particular situation. The learner has to converse with

the assessor in a way which is appropriate to the role and the situation given. The
 23

learner is given a set of instructions before the test explaining in simple language

exactly what he is supposed to do.

Role-play situations are chosen to test the learner’s general social language or

to elicit particular types of language, for example, particular functions: complaining,

giving directions, particular structures: narration of accident (past tenses), break- in

(passive) and particular topic vocabulary: hotel, flight booking.

5. Oral report

For this technique, learners should prepare and give oral presentations lasting

for 5-10 minutes. The learners can have notes with them. They can use simple visual

aids such as an overhead projector, blackboard, or flipchart diagrams if necessary. At

the end of the presentation, the speaker will have to deal with any questions from the

listeners. Making an oral presentation is an authentic and communicative activity both

for professional and academic purpose. The learners can make the presentations

directly to interviewer for a formal test procedure. They can do a whole activity for a

final summary without a teacher or assessor. The learner in consultation with his

teacher should choose the topics.

Additionally, there are many activities that Richards (2006), Pattison (1989),

Harmer (2007) and Thornbury (2008) have in common which are information gap

activities, jigsaw activities and opinion gap activities.

Information gap activities include a transfer of giving information from one to

another which mean decoding or encoding information from or into language, For

example, the students work in pairs and one student has a part of the information and

tries to convey it verbally to the other. Also, the activity also always relates to the
 24

selection of relevant information. Students might be required to meet the criteria

measured by the completion and correctness in transferring the information.

Klanit (2010) mentions that the goal of information gap activity is to

encourage the learner to use the target language to generate real communication in

solving a task. In an information gap activity, the learner finally realizes that the aim

is not to find specific information from their classmates but to practice given language

items (Pattison, 1989).

In order to complete the task outcome, the learners have to communicate

(Thornbury, 2008). The information gap activity is often used in communicative

activities. It is necessary that learners do not see the material of their partners, thus

the teacher should organize the class so that learners can sit opposite to their partner

(Gower, Philips & Walters, 2005).

Richards proposed that implementation of information gap activities as

follows: Find the difference; first, students are divided into A-B pairs. The teacher has

copies of two sets of pictures. One set (for student A) contains a picture of a group of

people. Another set (for student B) contains a similar picture but it contains a number

of slight differences from the A-picture. Students then sit back to back and ask

questions to find out how many differences exist between the two pictures.

Jigsaw activities are based on the information gap concept. The teacher

divides the class into groups. Each group has some of the same information that helps

to complete the activity. To complete the activity, the class has to gather some parts

of information from each group member by using the target language to communicate

meaningfully (Richards, 2006). Harmer (1985) mentions that the aim of this activity

is to give learners only some information and then ask them, for example to use that
 25

information as part of a story which they have to ask other learners in order to

complete the task. Thornbury (2008) suggests that the teacher can use pictures instead

of information.

Opinion gap activity involves identifying and combining a personal preference,

feeling or attitude in response to a provided situation. One example is discussing a

social issue. Doing the activity may include justifying one’s opinion by using factual

information and formatting arguments. However, the outcome can not be justified as

right or wrong and it is unnecessary to expect the same outcome from different

individuals or occasions (Pattison, 1989).

10. Rating Scales

Underhill (2000) gave an example of a rating scale for general spoken English

as follows:

Level 1 means very limited personal conversation. Knew formulaic greetings and

some vocabulary. Cannot construct correct simple sentences.

Level 2 means personal and limited social conversation. Can answer simple questions

about personal topics correctly in present and past tenses.

Level 3 means basic competence for social and travel uses. Had basic command of all

simple tenses and can operate question and negative forms. Showed awareness of

perfect forms but made errors in using them. Was familiar with common concrete

vocabulary and still searched for words while using them.

Level 4 means elementary professional competence. Made effective use of all tenses,

including past vs. perfect and simple vs. continuous distinctions; occasional errors in

tense forms. Had a fully active concrete vocabulary and larger passive vocabulary.
 26

Level 5 means generally professional on all familiar and common topics; may be at a

loss for words on other topics, but was able to paraphrase successfully. Can produce

correct complex sentences; very rare errors in structural forms, but made errors of

idiom or collocation.

Underhill (2000) also suggests that rating scale descriptions can be built up on

the basics of the typical learner, and few learners were typical. However, he

suggested designing a rating scale with several mark categories. Then, Hughes (2000)

noted five oral assessment criteria with detailed descriptions as follows.

1. Accent

Level 1 means pronunciation frequently unintelligible.

Level 2 means frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent made understanding

difficult and required frequent repetition.

Level 3 means “Foreign accent” requires concentrated listening, and

mispronunciations led to occasional misunderstanding and apparent errors in grammar

and vocabulary.

Level 4 means marked “foreign accent” and occasional mispronunciations which did

not interfere with understanding.

Level 5 means no conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not be taken for a native

speaker.

Level 6 means native pronunciation with no trace of “foreign accent”

2. Grammar

Level 1 means grammar almost entirely inaccurate phrases.

Level 2 means constant errors showing control of very few major patterns and

frequently
 27

preventing communication.

Level 3 means frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing

occasional irritation and misunderstanding.

Level 4 means occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns, but no

weakness that causes misunderstanding.

Level 5 means few errors, with no patterns of failure.

Level 6 means no more than two errors during the interview.

3. Vocabulary

Level 1 means vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.

Level 2 means vocabulary limited to personal and survival areas.

Level 3 means choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary

prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics.

Level 4 means professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest; general

Vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some

circumlocutions.

Level 5 means professional vocabulary broad and precise; general vocabulary

adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situations.

Level 6 means vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an educated

native speaker.

4. Fluency

Level 1 means speech was so halting and fragmenting that conversation is virtually

impossible.

Level 2 means speech was very slow and uneven except for short or routine sentences.
 28

Level 3 mean speech was frequently hesitant and jerky; sentences may be left

uncompleted.

Level 4 means speech was occasionally hesitant with some unevenness caused by

rephrasing and groping for words.

Level 5 means speech was effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non-native in speech

and evenness.

Level 6 means speech on all professional and general topics as effortless and smooth

as a native speaker’s.

5. Comprehension

Level 1 means understanding too little for the simplest type of conversation.

Level 2 means understanding only slow, very simple speech on common social and

touristic topics; require constant repetition and rephrasing.

Level 3 means understanding careful, somewhat simplified speech when engaged in a

dialogue, but may require considerable repetition and rephrasing.

Level 4 means understanding normal educated speech quite well when engaged in a

dialogue, but requiring occasional repetition or rephrasing.

Level 5 means understanding everything in normal educated conversation except for

very colloquial or low-frequency items, or exceptionally rapid or slurred speech.

Level 6 means understands everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be

expected of an educated native speaker.

In conclusion, the rating scale of general spoken English consists of accent,

grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

 29

Related Studies

Teaching English as a foreign language using communicative activity has

been proven effective by researchers at various levels of education. Many Thai and

foreign research projects over the past twenty years have investigated communicative

activity. A few important cases are described below.

Jupamaktha (1996) did research on students’ achievement comparison

between an experimental group who were taught communicative activities through

information transfer and the control group taught by activity that was provided in the

textbook. The two experimental groups were Matthayomsuksa 3 students at

Prengwisuthathibodee, Samutprakan. It was found that the students’ achievement in

English listening of the experimental group and control group was significantly

different. The students’ achievement of the experimental group was higher than that

of the control group.

Rasri (1996) studied a comparison of Mathayomsuksa 4 students’ listening and

speaking ability for tourism and interest in learning English through communicative

activity based on Keith Johnson’s principles and the method in a teacher’s manual. It

was found that Keith Johnson’s communicative activity approach and teacher’s

manual was significantly different. Students who were taught through Keith Johnson

have English listening-speaking ability on tourism higher than students taught through

the teacher’s manual method.

Sirikongkasakul (1996) studied the effect of communication strategy

instruction on English oral communicative proficiency of Mathayomsuksa 3 students.

It was found that the students’ English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3 students
 30

was higher than the ability of those being taught through ordinary teaching which was

significantly different.

Phumsaidorn (1997) studied the development English communication through

the information gap principles of Pratom 6 students at Chumchonnanachanwitthaya

School, Karasin. It was found that the students’ English achievement who were taught

through the information gap principle was higher than the students’ achievement

taught through the teacher’s manual. The research suggests that English

communicative teaching through the information gap principle help learners speak,

encourage participation and use English fluently.

Kanlapapuek (1999) studied the development of English speaking skill of

Mathayomsuksa 4 students at Kuangnaipitthayakan School, Ubonratchathanee. It was

found that using pair activity in class helps students develop their English speaking

behaviors. The effort of communication by using spoken language and gesture were

at excellent levels. The English speaking ability development level is fluent and

accent was well level.

Phuphanpet (2004) investigated the development of first year certificate

students’ ability in speaking English by using communicative activities including spot

the differences, information gap activities, role play, mapped dialogues, and jigsaw

activities. The subjects were 20 students at Samutprakan Technical College who were

taught for 34 hours. The instruments used in this study were lesson plans, the English

speaking ability test, the self-evaluation form, and the observation form. The data was

statistically analyzed by mean, percentage, and t-test dependent sample. The findings

of this study revealed that the learner’s ability in speaking English was significantly

different at the .01 level.

 31

Wongsuriya (2003) improved English speaking and listening communicative

competence of the first year diploma vocational students at Rajamangala Institute of

technology Sakonakorn Campus, through real life situations. The participants of the

study were seven first year diploma vocational students, who were selected by simple

random sampling. The instruments used in this study were communicative English

lessons with communicative activities, pre-test and post-test conversation outlines, a

teacher-rating form for communicative English speaking and listening competence,

students’ self-rating scale attitude toward English learning reflective diaries, and an

audio-recorder. The finding of this study revealed that after learning through the real

life situation project, the students’ speaking and listening communicative competence

before and after the experiment was significantly different at the level of .01. The

students’ attitudes toward learning English were excellent with mean scores at 4.50

using a 5 scale rating evaluation.

Pojit (2004) studied using language games and communicative activities to

enhance English speaking ability of Pratomsuksa five students at Wat Dishongsaram.

It was found that after employing language games and communicative activities, the

students’ English speaking increased at the .01 level of significance.

Ketthongkum (2005) studied the effect of using English supplementary

materials including role play and information gap activity on developing listening and

speaking competence of the third year certificate vocational students in the Tourism

and Hotel major at Premruetai Administration Technology School. The sample of this

study was 18 third year certificate vocational students in the Tourism and Hotel major.

The instruments used in this study were six lesson plans, a pre-post test, and

supplementary materials on developing listening and speaking competence and a

 32

students’ pleasure questionnaire. The finding of this study indicated that the students’

abilities in listening and speaking competence before and after the experiment were

significantly different at the level of .01. Students’ attitude toward English

supplementary material on improving listening and speaking competence were good at

level of 3.82.

Ponglangka (2007) studied whether Matthayomsuksa 5 students developed

their communicative English speaking ability after learning through role play. The

sample was 20 Matthayomsuksa 5 students from Wachirathamsopit School who were

enrolled in an elective course in listening and speaking skills. The instruments

consisted of eight lesson plans, pre-test and post-test of communicative English

speaking, and students’ self-assessment form. The finding of the study indicated that

the students’ communicative English speaking ability before and after the experiment

was significant difference at the .01 levels.

Domesrifa (2008) investigated whether Matthyomsuksa 1 students could

improve their communicative English speaking ability after learning through

communicative activities including information gap, mapped dialogue, jigsaw

activities, “spot the difference”, and role play. The participants were 20

Matthayomsuksa 1 students from the English program at Lertlah Kanchnapisek Road

School. The instruments consisted of six lessons on oral communicative activities,

pre-post tests of communicative English speaking, the students’ self-assessment form,

and observation form. The results of the study revealed that the students’

communicative English ability before and after the experiment was significantly

different at the .01 level.

 33

Noom-Ura (2008) investigated whether the course designed to improve a low

level of English proficiency of students’ listening and speaking ability could promote

students’ positive attitudes toward learning English. The sample was 28 students who

were selected randomly from 360 first year students from the lowest ability group at

Thammasat University. The instruments used in this study were a pre-post test,

pre-post questionnaire, a self-reflection check sheet, and a course evaluation form.

The result revealed that students’ listening ability was significantly increased from

17.82 to 22.61 and student’s speaking ability was significantly increased from 22.71 to

33.75. The result of the study identified that students had positive attitudes toward

3.87-4.04), affective (the mean from 3.21-3.38), and behavioral changes (the mean

from 2.66-3.03).

Klanit (2010) investigated whether students in the English major program

under the faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Udonthani Ratjapat Institute

improved their English speaking proficiency after learning through communicative

activities: information gap and role play. The participants were nine students from

different levels: 3 students with a high level of proficiency in English, 3 students with

a medium level of proficiency in English, and 3 students with a low level of

proficiency in English. The data was collected from four sources; speaking test as

pre-test and post-test, student diaries, teacher’s journal, and ethnographic interview.

The score variations indicated that the development in speaking proficiency for the

students was significantly different at the .05 level.

Promshoit (2010) evaluated the development of learners’ listening and

speaking abilities through using pair work and information gap activity. The subjects

were 30 students studying in the second year vocational level in Hotel Management of
 34

Samutprakarn Institute of Commerce and Technology School. The experiment was

conducted for 12 hours within a 4 week period from February to March 2010. The

instruments used in collecting data were lesson plans, English language activities, pre-

test and post-test, and teacher-rating for communicative English speaking competence.

It was found that there was a significant difference between the mean score of the pre-

test and post-test at the .01 level after students learned through the communicative

activities.

In summary, the Thai researchers found that communicative activities help

students develop their English speaking abilities effectively.

Foreign Research

Escola (1980) studied the effect of using communicative activities to develop

listening and speaking skills through a modern language association-cooperative

language test. The study compared 61 students’ learning English level 2 and level 4

who were studying in higher education in Maryland by dividing 30 students in the

experimental group and 31students in the control group. The experimental group was

taught listening-speaking skill through communicative activities, but the control group

was taught by traditional teaching. It was found that the abilities of both groups on

listening-speaking are significantly different. It supported that communicative

activities helped students develop better listening-speaking ability.

Dabrisay (1982) studied students’ ability on using communicative activities in

Ottawa University. The learners were divided into 2 groups: an experimental group

and a control group. The experimental group was taught language in real situations
 35

by using discourse level. The control group practiced by using pattern drills. The

results indicated that students practiced through communicative activities score higher

than students who did not practice communicative activities.

Troudi (2006) investigated into the change in perceptions of and attitude

toward learning English in a Malaysian college. The study focused on investigating

the changes in attitude toward learning English during the critical transition period

from the secondary school, where they used Malay as a medium for instruction, to

college, where they used English as a medium for instruction. The participants were

100 first year certificate and diploma students majoring in business studies and

computer science. The instruments used in the study were student weekly journals

and student interviews. The results revealed that there was a change in students’

attitudes from the time that they were in the secondary school to the time that they

studied at the college. Students had more positive attitudes when they studied at the

college because of the environment that encouraged them to use English for

communication and learning. Their self-confidence also increased when speaking

English in the college.

Wan Yu (2010) investigated student’s perception of the English Village

Program at the Fong Shan Elementary School in Kaohsiung County, Taiwan. The

research combined quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The instruments

used in this study included a student questionnaire, student interviews, classroom

observations, and teacher interviews. The results revealed that the themed classrooms

with communicative activities, the native English-speaking teacher’s authentic style

and the communicative language teaching approach motivated students to learn

English. Students had a positive attitude toward communicative activities used in the
 36

classroom and also had highly positive motivation and attitudes toward the English

Village Program.

In summary, the studies revealed above show that the use of the

communicative activities in the classroom was an important approach in teaching

English for communication. Students improved their speaking abilities when they

were encouraged to speak. It was also revealed in the classroom that teaching English

through communicative activities caused students to have positive attitudes and

perceptions toward learning English.

 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study aimed at studying using communicative activities to develop

English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3 students. This chapter presents the

methodology used, including the participants, instruments, procedures, and data

analysis.

Research Methodology

Research design.

The research was an experimental study of a single group which was pre and

post tested for a quantitative data collection.

Variables.

The independent variable was the use of communicative activities to develop

student’s English speaking ability, and the dependent variables were the student’s

speaking ability.

Data.

The data collected in this study consisted of the scores of the pre-test and post-

test, self-rating scores for the quantitative data.

Population and participants.

Population.

The population was 3 classes of Matthayonsuksa 3 students of

Watsantikaramwitthaya School, Paktho District, Ratchaburi Province. They studied in

the second semester of the academic year 2011. The total number of the students was

103.
 38

Participants.

The participants were one class of Matthayonsuksa 3 students of

Watsantikaramwitthaya School in the second semester of the academic year 2011.

They also studied English 23102. The participants were 30 Matthayomsuksa 3

students selected via simple random sampling.

Research instruments.

The research instruments being applied in this study for quantitative data

collection consisted of lesson plans, English speaking test, criteria of speaking ability

for evaluating speaking ability, speaking observation form, and student’s opinion

form.

Lesson plans.

The lesson plans were constructed along the following procedures:

1. The researcher studied the curriculum, the course objectives, course

description, goals, learners’ key competency, bodies of knowledge, purpose, content,

grammar structure, phrases and wordlist from the Basic Educational Core English

Curriculum 2008 (Ministry of Education, 2008). The lesson plans are then designed

in detail based on research and theories on communicative activities.

2. The researcher selected the language functions which were relevant to

course objective from textbooks.

3. The researcher selected the contents that are relevant to the Basic

Educational Core English Curriculum 2008 including:

1. Describing pictures

2. Ordering food

3. Shopping
 39

4. Asking and answering information

5. Describing differences

4. The researcher designed lesson plans based on three principles of teaching:

presentation, practice, and production by using the authentic demi-content from the

textbooks. Those lesson plans did not only focus on speaking skill, but also the

importance of listening. The students were provided with different communicative

activities as the following:

1. Describing and drawing

2. Mapped dialogue

3. Information gap

4. Jigsaw

5. Spot the differences

5. The expert in English language teaching and learning examined the

lesson plans in terms of the correctness of the content, and relevancy to the course

objectives. The three experts included experienced school teachers and native

speakers of English. The thesis advisor discussed, checked the lesson plans and

provided feedback. To examine the practically of the lesson plans, the lesson plans

were pilot tested with 32 students in another class who also were Matthayomsuksa 3

students in the school. They were not the participants of this study.

6. The researcher revised, modified and made some changes to the weak points

of the lesson plans that needed to be improved after doing the pilot study.

English speaking test.

The English speaking test comprised pre-test and post-test for measuring
 40

students’ speaking ability. Those two tests were the same. There were five tasks with

different language functions and situations, including describing pictures, ordering

food, shopping, asking and answering information, and describing differences. The

guidelines for designing the test included the Secondary English curriculum of

Matthayomsuksa 3 and content from My world textbook. The activities, assessment

and evaluation in speaking competence analyzed based on concepts adapted from

Heaton (1990), Weir (1993), Ur (1996) and Underhill (2000). The test consisted of

conversation, interviews and 5 situations. There were ten general questionnaires in

the conversation and 5 situations in the test (See Appendix A). The evaluation

adapted from Oller (1979) and Carroll (1981). The components of assessment

included behavior, fluency, and grammar and vocabulary. The researcher and two

raters rated each statement according to learners’ performance (See Appendix B).

Below are the criteria for the assessment:

Behavior (Communication)

Level 5 means can initiate, expand and develop a theme; speaking proficiency

equivalent to that of an educated speaker. Express ideas clear and relevant to the

topic.

Level 4 means present the case clearly and develop the dialogue coherently

and constructively. Some hesitation and repetition due to a measure of language but

interacts effectively.

Level 3 means gist of dialogue is relevant and can be basically understood.

Need to ask for repetition or clarification.

Level 2 means only catches part of normal speech and unable to produce

continuous and accurate discourse

 41

Level 1 means not able to understand or speak

Fluency.

Level 5 means speed as fluent and effortless as that of a native speaker

Level 4 means speed of speech seems to be slightly affected by language

problem.

Level 3 means speed and fluency are rather strongly affected by language

problem.

Level 2 means usually hesitant; often forced into silence by language

limitations.

Level 1 means speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation

virtually impossible.

Grammar &Vocabulary.

Level 5 means makes few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar or word-order.

Use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of a native speaker.

Level 4 means occasionally makes grammatical and/or word-order errors

which do not obscure meaning. Sometimes uses inappropriate terms and/or must

rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies.

Level 3 means makes frequent errors of grammar or word order which

occasionally obscure meaning. Frequently uses wrong words; conversation somewhat

limited because of inadequate vocabulary.

Level 2 means grammar and word-order errors make comprehension difficult.

Must often rephrase sentences and/or restrict self to basic patterns. Misuse of words

and very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult.

Level 1 means error in grammar and word order so severe as to make speech
 42

virtually unintelligible. Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation

virtually impossible (Heaton, (1990); Weir, (1993); Ur, (1996); and Underhill, (2000)

(See Appendix C).

The construction of the pre-test and post-test of speaking ability.

1. The researcher studied the curriculum, the course objective, and the course

description, then reviewed how to construct a speaking test from several sources

written by Heaton, (1990); Weir, (1993); Ur, (1996); and Underhill, (2000) for

designing the test (See Appendix D).

2. The experts including the thesis advisor, and an experienced school teacher

examined the test, and then the three experts checked the content validity of the test

and the researcher calculated the index of the correlation of all items by using Item

Objective Congruence (IOC) (See Appendix E). Next, the researcher did the pilot

study with Matthayomsuksa 3 students, consisting of 32 students who were not the

participants of the study to check the practicality of the test.

3. The researcher revised the test based on the experts’ comments and the

results of the pilot test. The test then was revised to improve the weak points.

Speaking observation form.

The form was designed to observe students’ behavior toward the use of

communicative activities in the classroom. It was conducted in accordance with the

criteria outlined by Ellis (2003). The form consisted of ten performances and dealt

with the researcher’s opinion on the improvement in their speaking ability and

learning through the use of communicative activities in the classroom. The researcher

rated each performance using the five point scale ranging. The observation form used

in every class by the researcher (See Appendix F).

 43

Students’ opinion form.

The students’ opinion form designed by the researcher to study

Matthayomsuksa 3 students through communicative activities. They were asked to

give their views on communicative activity at the end of the course English 23102.

There were 10 items in the students’ opinion form with five rating scales. The

students had to rate each item according to their opinions. The questionnaire was

adapted from Saezhong (2005). For example communicative activities help me

improve my English speaking abilities.

5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3= uncertain, 2= disagree, and 1 = strongly

disagree (See Appendix G).

Data Collection

The learners’ English speaking test collected before pre-test, and after post-test

the process. Before participating in the instruction, the participants from

Matthayomsuksa 3 took interviews towards interviewing. The speaking observation

data was collected in every class. And the students’ opinion was collected after the

process.

The students were taught and conducted by the researcher for 7 weeks with a

total of 20 periods. The learners were asked to give their views in the students’

opinion form to study their opinions toward communicative activities at the end of the

course. The questions consisted of rating scales.

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed to fulfill the two objectives of this study. The first

objective is to examine the use of communicative activities to develop learners’

English speaking ability. It was analyzed based on language use in speaking English
 44

effectively and behavior towards communication. The scores on English speaking

ability from the pre-test and post-test were computed and converted into mean scores

and t-test based on the total number of bases in the dependent sample. The steps of

data analysis process involved determining the mean and standard deviation to check

whether or not the mean scores of pre-test and post-test were significantly different.

Charts were used to display the data with clarity and ease of assessment. The second

objective was to explore the students’ opinion of improvement in English speaking

abilities after learning communicative activities. The rating score of the speaking

observation form was used by the researcher, counted and converted into mean scores.

The rating score was analyzed in tables to determine differences in the learners’

English speaking performance before, and after learning English through

communicative activities. Students’ opinions were tested in terms of mean scores and

each factor was compared.

In conclusion, the data was displayed, analyzed and interpreted to produce the

findings of this study. The analysis and interpretations were based on learners’ pre-

post speaking ability test scores, speaking observation scores, and students’ opinion.
 CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

The purpose of the study was to analyze the use of communicative activities to

develop English speaking ability. The participants were 30 Matthayomsuksa 3

students at Watsantikaramwitthaya School, Paktho, Ratchaburi. The data from the

study was obtained through a pre-post English speaking test and questionnaires

answered by the participants. The research findings were presented according to two

main objectives: 1) To study the effects of using communicative activities on the

English speaking abilities of Matthayomsuksa 3 students and 2) To investigate

student’s opinion towards communicative activities.

Objective 1: The effects of using communicative activities on the English

speaking abilities of Matthayomsuksa 3 students.

The first research objective was to investigate the effects of using

communicative activities on the English speaking abilities of Matthayomsuksa 3

students. The hypothesis was tested on students by using two instruments: English

speaking tests and a speaking observation form. The pre-test and post-test scores were

assessed by three raters, which were calculated statistically.

To test the hypothesis, the mean scores and SD scores on pre-test and post-test

were compared by using an independent t-test.

The pre-test and post-test scores were assessed by three raters and calculated

mean and SD scores of 30 Matthayomsuksa 3 students. According to table 1, the three

raters’ mean scores of the post-test were much higher than those of the pre-test. The

result of the English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3 students was also the same

way. The participants had significantly mean scores on the post-test (M = 10.97)
 46

higher than the pre-test (M = 3.37). The results indicated that the Matthayomsuksa 3

students developed their English speaking abilities after participating communicative

activities.

Table 1 A comparison of the mean scores on pre-test and post-test by three raters

English speaking ability (Mean)

Rater Pre-test Post-test

Rater 1 3.50 11.00

Rater 2 2.87 11.23

Rater 3 3.73 10.67

Average 3.37 10.97

According to table 1, the three raters’ mean scores of the post-test were much

higher than those of the pre-test. The result of the English speaking ability of

Matthayomsuksa 3 students was also the same way. The participants had significantly

mean scores on the post-test (M = 10.97) higher than the pre-test (M = 3.37). The

results indicated that the Matthayomsuksa 3 students developed their English speaking

abilities after participating through communicative activities.

 47

Table 2 A comparison of the mean scores on pre-test and post-test

English speaking ability Mean SD d t p-value

Pre-test 3.37 1.71

7.60 1.14 36.51 0.0000*

Post-test 10.97 1.99

Note * = p < .05

Table 2, it was found that the English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 3

students was significantly higher after learning communicative activities, significant at

the .05 level. The participants had significantly higher mean scores on the post-test

(M = 10.97, SD = 1.99) than the pre-test (M = 3.37, SD = 1.71).

 48

Table 3 A comparison of the score of English speaking observation in each

lesson plan

Score

Performance Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

plan 1 plan 2 plan 3 plan 4 plan 5

1. Learner is active to use English 15 16 17 18 19

while drilling.

2. Learner enjoys speaking. 15 16 17 18 19

3. Learner is self-confident to make 11 12 15 16 18

conversations among their friends.

4. Learner provides ideas in classroom. 13 14 15 17 19

5. Learner asks some questions about 14 14 15 16 19

the task.

6. Learner tried to edit himself/herself 13 13 16 16 18

while using language.

7. Learner uses sentences while using 12 13 15 16 17

language.

8. The speed of learner’s speed seems 13 14 15 16 17

to be slightly affected by language

problems.

9. Learner uses appropriate vocabulary 12 15 17 18 19

and idioms to make conversations.

 49

Table 3 (continued)

Score

Performance Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

plan 1 plan 2 plan 3 plan 4 plan 5

10. Learner pronounces clearly. 12 14 16 17 18

Total score 130 141 158 168 183

According to table 3, there were five level scores from 10 performances which

were assessed by the researcher in 5 lesson plans. Each lesson plan which took 4

hours long was assessed every hour so the researcher totally assessed lesson plans 20

times. There were 10 performances to be calculated and the full score was 20 points so

the total score is 200. The data was calculated by the Microsoft Excel program.
 50

Table 4 A comparison of the mean and SD score in each performances of the English

speaking observation

Performance Mean SD

1. Learner is active to use English while drilling. 17.00 1.41

2. Learner enjoys speaking. 17.00 1.41

3. Learner is self-confident to make conversations among 14.40 2.58

their friends.

4. Learner provides ideas in classroom. 15.60 2.15

5. Learner asks some questions about the task. 15.60 1.85

6. Learner tried to edit himself/herself while using 15.20 1.94

language.

7. Learner uses sentences while using language. 14.60 1.85

8. The learner’s speed seems to be slightly affected by 15.00 1.41

language problems.

9. Learner uses appropriate vocabulary and idioms to make 16.20 2.48

conversations.

10. Learner pronounces clearly. 15.40 2.15

Average score 15.60 1.89

According to table 4, noticeably, the mean score on performance one and two

were the highest of all performances. Learner is active to use English while drilling

and Learner enjoys speaking. The mean score on performance three was the lowest of

all performances: Learner is self-confident to make conversations among their friends.

 51

Table 5 A comparison of the mean score and SD score of English speaking

observation in each lesson plan

Lesson plan

1 2 3 4 5

Mean 13.00 14.10 15.80 16.80 18.30

SD 1.26 1.22 0.87 0.87 0.78

The data in table 5 showed students displayed developed speaking skills within

all lesson plans. The scores showed the development of English speaking abilities

increased step by step continually. The mean scores on lesson one to lesson 5

increased from 13.00 to 14.10 to 15.80 to16.80 to18.30 respectively. The results

indicated that the Matthayomsuksa 3 students developed their English speaking

abilities after learning communicative activities.

Objective 2: Students’ opinions through communicative activities

The second research objective was to study the students’ opinions through

communicative activities. They were asked to give their views on communicative

activities at the end of the course English 23102. There were 10 items in the students’

opinion form with five rating scales. The results were shown in table 6.
 52

Table 6 The mean score and SD score of the student’s opinion toward communicative

activities

Level of Opinion

Items Mean SD

1. Communicative activities are very interesting for me. 4.50

0.50
2. Communicative activities help me to speak English.
4.60
3. Communicative activities help me develop my English 0.56
4.40
pronunciation. 0.62

4. Communicative activities help me improve my English speaking

4.70
abilities. 0.47

5. Communicative activities help me improve my grammar and

4.20
vocabulary. 0.71

6. Communicative activities help me have fun in the class.

4.50
7. I have more confidence to speak English after I practice 0.63
4.17
communicative activities in class. 0.65

8. I have more chance to participate in class activities.

4.33
9. Communicative activities help me think more analytically in 0.80
4.63
English. 0.56

10. Communicative activities help me speak English more fluently

4.43
and correctly. 0.57

Average
4.45
0.61
 53

The results in Table 6 showed that the students strongly agreed that

communicative activities helped them improve their English speaking abilities. The

mean score from the opinion form was 4.45. The mean scores of all the points asked

about in the opinion form were high, too. The opinion form asked questions about

whether the students thought that the communicative activities could 1) help them

develop their speaking ability, 2) make them think more analytically, 3) encourage

them to speak English, 4) make them interested in studying, 5) make them enjoy

studying, 6) help them speaking more fluently, 7) help them develop their English

pronunciation, 8) make them have more chances to speak, 9) help them improve their

grammar and vocabulary, and 10) make them more confident. The mean scores

obtained from all ten points were 4.70, 4.63, 4.60, 4.50, 4.50, 4.43, 4.40, 4.33, 4.20,

and 4.17 respectively.

In conclusion, the Matthayomsuksa 3 students improved their English

speaking abilities after learning communicative activities. There was a significant

difference at the .05 level. Regarding the student’s opinion toward communicative

activities, they agreed with the above benefits of learning communicative activities.
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the study and the research findings are summarized. Then, the

applications, the limitations of this study, and the further studies are discussed.

Summary of the Study

The 30 Matthayomsuksa three students studying E 23102 in the second

semester of the academic year 2011 at Watsantikaramwitthaya School were asked to

do a pre-test by being interviewed with general questions one by one and drawn one

situation to speak it in pairs. The scores were assessed by three raters. This class was

observed by the researcher. The observation form was employed to observe his/her

speaking improvement every class (20 classes). At the end of the course, they were

assigned to do a post-test by speaking on a same topic, and put a check on the

students’ opinion form toward communicative activities. The speaking abilities were

assessed by three qualified raters using Oller, 1979 and Carroll, 1981 assessment

criteria. Then, the statistics t-test was applied to find the difference between the mean

scores of the pre-test and post-test in order to investigate the effects of using

communicative activities on the English speaking abilities. After that the mean score

of the teacher’s observation was compared with all of the performances. Finally, the

mean scores of the students’ opinion were analyzed to study the students’ opinion

towards communicative activities.

Research Objectives and Findings

The research aimed at studying the following objectives:

1. The first objective was to investigate the effects of using communicative activities

on the English speaking abilities of Matthayamsuksa 3 students

 55

The findings indicated a significant difference between the pre-test and the

post-test mean scores at the .05 level.

According to the observation results, students gradually improved their

English speaking abilities from lesson plan 1to lesson plan 5. As a result of that the

development of their English speaking abilities increased continuously. The results

were also related to the pre-test and post-test that the students improved their speaking

abilities after learning communicative activities.

In summary, the students could improve their English speaking abilities

significantly because communicative activities provided them with speaking skills.

2. The second objective was to study the students’ opinions through communicative

activities.

According to the students’ opinions, it was found that the students were

satisfied with communicative activities. Communicative activities help them improve

pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. The highest mean score was item 4 (4.70):

communicative activities help them improve their English speaking ability.

Furthermore it showed that communicative activities had benefits for them. They had

fun in the class activities. They felt their speaking abilities were improved because

they could speak English more fluently and correctly. Furthermore, the students were

satisfied with the communicative activities provided with a high level. They had

greater confidence to speak and had more chance to practice in the class. Lastly, they

were interested in communicative activities. The analysis of the data revealed that the

mean scores of all items were 4.45 and the standard deviation was 0.61. It could be

concluded that communicative activities provided students better speaking and it also

satisfied them.
 56

Discussion

There are three main research results to be discussed in this study concerning the

students’ development in their speaking abilities, the students’ learning behavior, and

the students’ opinions towards communicative activities.

Firstly, students practiced speaking in varied situations such as ordering food,

shopping, asking and answering information in order for the students to see that

English was important for them and that they could use it in real situations. The

students were expected to greater understand that they could communicate in English

and could stop being shy. This made students more confident about what to say and

how to use language in a situation. Having students practice in real situations is

supported by the findings of Aksaranukroh, (1989), Foto and Ellis, (1991), Murcia

(1991), and Murphy ( 1991). These researchers point out that in teaching English for

communication, teachers should emphasize not only language competence but also

ability to communicate in real situations. Hedge (2000) states that the success of the

communicative approach depends on how well teachers can make their students use

language in meaningful contexts, in authentic, real-life situations. Similarly, Davies

and Pearse (2000) state that developing activities to help students really communicate

in English is the main goal of an English course but teachers must help their students

to communicate effectively in English outside the classroom for studying, working,

and leisure activities. This study reconfirms that activities designed to imitate real-life

situations can improve students’ speaking ability. The pre-test and post-test scores

show the development.

Secondly, the scores from the observation form show that that the students’

English speaking ability developed continually. The researcher found that the
 57

students who were shy became more confident. The research classroom gave more

chances for the students to speak. The atmosphere was better for teaching and

learning. In the researcher’s experience, the classroom was different from the

traditional classroom, in which teachers totally controlled the students, and in which

the students were more silent. In the research classroom, the students were more

vocal and more active to learn.

Lastly, from the score from the opinion form, the students stated that they had

developed in many ways. For example, they could think more analytically, speak

English more confidently, and improve their grammar while doing activities. They

showed that students can be successfully not only in speaking but also in other areas.

More importantly, the results show that the students can develop a good attitude

toward English. In many classrooms, the reason why students feel bad about English

is mainly because the teaching is boring and not meaningful to students. Therefore,

we should encourage the use of communicative activities in classrooms to build up a

good attitude through English. However, that teacher should always use activities. In

some classes, teachers may spend time explaining grammar or ways to use words

correctly. All of the students agreed that communicative activities provided them

many benefits as mentioned above. More importantly, communicative activities

helped the students enhance their English speaking abilities.

Implication

Communicative activities should be applied to English speaking classes.

In senior secondary schools, communicative activities can be applied to basic

speaking classes. Students will have an opportunity to practice speaking and have

courage and confidence in public speaking.

 58

In vocational schools, communicative activities can be employed in business

classes. Students will be able to learn, discuss and debate in groups. Not only will

students learn to deliver a speech, but they will also be able to give effective

presentations in public.

In colleges or universities, communicative activities can be applied to different

speaking classes because the procedure of communication can help students improve

their English speaking ability. They will be able to speak more correctly and fluently

after participating communicative activities.

In brief, communicative activities can be applied to many subjects at different

levels: senior secondary school, college, vocational schools, and university as

mentioned above. This activity is beneficial in developing student’s speaking ability.

Limitations of the Study

There are some limitations in this study as follows:

1. There was only one group of E 23102. But there should be at least two

groups each semester so that the result can be compared.

2. The time given for the experiment was only 20 periods, which is significant

because research conducted by classroom teachers over longer periods of time may

yield different findings.

3. Limitation of observers. One of the main principles of communicative

activities was to observe 10 performances of the English speaking behaviors and each

of them was observed and checked 4 times a plan. So, it is necessary to have enough

teacher assistants or students in order to get the accurate data. In the experiment, there

was only a researcher who observed 30 students during participation in speaking

activities.
 59

Suggestions for Further Studies

The following suggestions may be beneficial to English teachers who are

interested in using communicative activities to improve their student’s speaking

ability.

1. This study only investigated Matthayomsuksa 3 students’ speaking ability.

There should be a study of other students’ speaking abilities in different levels.

Perhaps, communicative activities are not appropriate for university students.

2. Researchers may conduct research outside the classroom. Because this study

and past studies have shown that real-life situations help students learn language

effectively, an English teacher may take his or her students to communicate with

people outside the classroom, or to do extra-curricular activities, and then investigate

how their speaking ability develops.

3. Teachers should study the principles and teaching methodology related to

communicative activities clearly if they want to be more successful. It can be a failure

if teachers do not know how to use communicative activities correctly. For example,

communicative activities should be used in a small class, and teachers should use the

medium language accurately and fluently. In addition, teachers should follow certain

steps strictly: presentation, practice, and communicate.

4. The researcher should compare the students’ opinion both before and after

the experiment. This is to provide sufficient evidence of how the communicative

activities can change students’ opinion at two points of time.

5. There should be more than one rater to observe the students’ speaking

ability and behavior in order to get the most accurate data. To avoid bias and to cross-
 60

check the result of any experiment or research, the more raters there are, the better and

more reliable the research becomes.

 61

REFERENCES
 62

References

Allwright, R. (1978). Language learning through communicative practice in

the communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Aksaranukhroh, S. (1989). Teaching language skills and culture. Bangkok:

Chulalongkorn University Press.

Angwattanakul, S. (1994). English teaching methods. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn

University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles and interactive approach to language

pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bygate, M. (1987). Oral communication in TESOL: Integrating speaking, listening

and pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cambell, R. N. (1972). Linguistic and social aspects of communicative

competence in teaching English as a second foreign language.

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Carroll, B. J. (1981). Testing communicative performance. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Carroll, B. J. (1964). Language and thought. New Jersy: Englewood Cliffs.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to speakers of other languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Goodwin, J. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign

language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 63

Chastain, K. (1971). Developing second language skill: Theory to practice

(2 nd ed.). Chicago: Rand Mc Nally College Publishing.

Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing speaking skills: Assessing language ability in the

classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for

language: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Dabrisay, M. (1982, January). A feasibility student of large scale communicative

testing. A Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(9): 76-83.

Davies, P., & Pearse, P. (2000). Success in English teaching Oxford handbooks for

language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Domesrifa, K. (2008). A study of using oral communicative activities to enhance

English speaking ability of Matthayomsuksa 1 students. Unpublished Master’s

project. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Escola, Y. H. (1980). Certain effects of selected activities of communicative

competence training on the development of German: A case study.

Dissertation Abstracts International. 45(12), 2930-A.

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task based

approach. TESOL Quarterly 25(4).

Gower, R., Philip, D., & Walter, S. (2005). Teaching practice: A handbook for

teacher in training. Thailand: Macmillan.

Harmer, J. (1985). The practice of English language teaching. Hong Kong: Longman.
 64

Harmer, J. (2002). How to teach English. (8 th ed.). England: Addison Wesley

Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson

Education.

Heaton, J. B. (1990). Classroom testing: testing speaking skills. London: Longman.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in a language classroom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1978). On communicative competence in the communicative approach

to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jarat, C. (1992). A comparison of English listening-speaking achievement of

Matthayomsuksa 5 students toward communication approach and teacher

Manual. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand,

[in Thai].

Johnson, K. (1981). Some background some key terms and some definitions

in communication in the classroom. New York: Longman Group Limited.

Jupamaktha, S. (1996). The effects of using communicative activities through

information transfer on Matthayomsuksa 3 students. Unpublished Master’s thesis.

Kasetsart University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Kanlapapuek, P. (1999). The development of students’ English speaking skill through

pair work activities. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Mahasarakham University,

Thailand, [in Thai].

 65

Ketthongkum, W. (2005). The effect of using English supplementary materials on

developing listening and speaking competence of the third year vocational level

students in tourism and hotel section at Premruetai administration technology

school. Unpublished Master’ project. Srinakarinwirot University, Thailand,

[in Thai].

Klanit, P. (2010). Communicative activities for developing English speaking

proficiency in Thailand. Retrieved from

www.docstoc.com/docs/27297621/communicative-activities

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, D. T. (1983). Principle and practice in secondary

language acquisition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Littlewood, W. (1995). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lochana, M. & Deb, G. (2006). Task based teaching: Learning English without

tears. Retrieved from http:// jurnal.com/Sept_06_ml&gd.php

Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Curriculum 2008. Bangkok: Kurusapa

Ladprao Publishing.

Morrow, K. (1981). Principles of communicative methodology. In Keith. Johnson and

Keith Morrow (Eds), Communication in the classroom: Application and methods

for a communicative approach . Essex, England: Longman.

Mulling, S. S. (1997). Getting to talk: communicative activities for the ESOL

classroom. New Jersey: Kean College.

Murcia, M. C. (1991). Teaching English as second or foreign language. (2 nd ed.).

Harper Collins Ltd.

 66

Murphy, J. M. (1991). Oral communication in TESOL: Integrating

speaking, listening, and pronunciation, TESOL Quarterly, 25(1),51-75.

Noom Ura, S. (2008). Teaching listening speaking skills to Thai students with low

English proficiency Asian EFL Version, 10. Retrieved from

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ _08_sna.php

Nunan, D. (1991). Communication task and the language curriculum. TESOL

Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.

_______. (2004). Task-based teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oller, J. W. (1979). Language test at school: A pragmatic approach. London:

Longman.

Pattison, P. (1989). Developing communication skills. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Paulston, C.B. (1978). Teaching English as second language: Techniques and

procedures. New York: Wintrop Publisher.

Phumsaidorn, R. (1997). The development English communication through the

Information gap principles of Pratom 6 students. Unpublished Master’s thesis.

Khonkaen University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Phupanpet, U. (2004). The Effect of using oral communication activities to develop

English speaking ability of the first year certificate vocational students.

Unpublished Master’s project. Srinakarinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Ponglangka, K. (2007). A study of using role play activities to enhance

Matthayomsuksa 5 students’ English speaking ability. Unpublished Master’s

project. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

 67

Pongtongcharoen, S. (1977). Teaching English as a foreign language. Unpublished

Master’s thesis. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Pojit, R. (2004). Using language games and communicative activities to enhance

speaking ability of Pratomsuksa five students at Wat Dishongsaram.

Unpublished Master’s project. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Prapphal, K. (1984). Communication activities in the classroom. Bangkok:

Thai/TESOL, Thailand.

Promshoit, V. (2010). The use of English language activities in developing listening

and speaking abilities of second year vocational students majoring in hotel

management of Samutprakan Institute of commerce and technology School.

Unpublished Master’s project. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Rasri, A. (1995). A Comparison of Matthayomsuksa IV students’ listening & speaking

ability for tourism and interest in learning English through the communicative

activity based on Keith Johnson’s principles and the method in the teacher’s

manual. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand,

[in Thai].

Richards, J.C., & Theodore S. R. (1995). Communicative language teaching in

approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore:

Cambridge University Press.

Saezhong, K. (2005). The effects of participating in oral presentations on the English

speaking abilities of fourth-year English majors. Unpublished Master’s project.

Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

 68

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the Art.

TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.

Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning. Boston:

Heinle and Heinle Publisher.

Scott, R. (1981). Speaking in communication in the classroom. London: Longman.

Sirikongkasakul, S. (1996). The effect of communication strategy instruction on

English oral communicative proficiency of Matthayomsuksa three students.

Unpublished Master’s thesis. Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, [in Thai].

Suraswadee, P. (1993). Human relation and English teaching. Bangkok:

Chulalongkorn University Press.

Thornburry, S. (2008). How to teach speaking. Malaysia: Pearson Education.

Troudi, S., & Choy, S. (2006). An investigation into the change in perception of

and attitude toward learning in Malaysian college [Electronic version].

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18, 120-130.

Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE99.pdf

Underhill, N. (2000). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing

techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Vallete, R.M. (1977). Modern language testing. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.
 69

Wansahawetwisit, W. (1988). Teachers’ problems in teaching English for

communication at upper secondary level in government schools in educational

region Two. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Kasetsart University, Thailand,

[in Thai].

Wan Yu, C. (2010). Taiwanese elementary students’ motivation and attitude toward

learning English village program in Kaohsiung county. Available from June 16,

2011, from http://20.132.48.254/PDFS/ED511897.pdf

Weir, C. (1993). Understanding and developing language test. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.

Wiriyajittra, A. (1989). Communicative approach. Bangkok: Augsornjaruentut.

Wongsothorn, A. (1995). English test techniques. Bangkok: Augsornjaruentut.

Wongsuriya, P. (2003). The development of English speaking and listening

competence through real life situation. Unpublished Master’s thesis.

Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, [in Thai].

 70

APPENDICES
 71

APPENDIX A

English Speaking Test

 72

English Speaking Test

Part 1

Interview Questions for Speaking Test (5-10 minutes)

1. Could you tell me your name?

2. How many sisters or brothers do you have?

3. What does your sister/ brother look like?

4. What does your favorite actor / actress look like?

5. Where do you live?

6. How far is it from your house to school?

7. How do you come to school?

8. Tell me the way from school to your house?

9. What food do you like to eat?

10. What do you like to buy when you go shopping?

Part 2

Situation for Speaking Test

Draw lots of situations to speak with their partners (5 minutes)

- Describing the picture

- Ordering food and drink

- Shopping

- Asking and answering information

- Describing people
 73

APPENDIX B

The Three Raters’ Scores in English Speaking Test

 74

The three raters’ scores in English speaking test

Pre-test Post-test
student
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3

1 3 3 3 10 10 10

2 1 1 3 9 9 9

3 2 1 3 11 12 11

4 1 1 3 9 9 8

5 3 0 3 8 8 7

6 2 2 2 8 10 10

7 2 2 2 9 10 10

8 3 3 3 10 11 11

9 3 3 3 10 10 9

10 4 3 4 11 12 11

11 3 3 4 12 12 11

12 4 2 4 11 10 10

13 3 2 3 10 9 9

14 5 5 6 14 14 13

15 4 2 3 14 14 14

16 8 6 9 15 15 15

17 3 2 3 10 11 9

18 4 2 3 13 12 10

19 4 3 3 14 14 13

20 3 2 3 10 11 10
 75

21 8 8 8 15 15 15

22 3 3 3 10 11 9

23 3 2 3 9 9 9

24 3 2 3 10 10 9

25 3 3 3 11 11 11

26 3 2 3 11 10 10

27 3 2 3 9 9 9

28 4 4 6 12 12 12

29 3 3 2 11 12 11

30 7 9 8 14 15 15

Mean 3.50 2.87 3.73 11.00 11.23 10.67

S.D. 1.66 1.93 1.80 2.03 1.99 2.09

 76

APPENDIX C

English Speaking Rating Sheet

 77

English Speaking Rating Sheet

Student……………………………..Rater….…………….....Date………….Score……

Score Behavior ( Communication )

1 Not able to understand or speak

2 Only catches part of normal speech and unable to produce continuous and

accurate discourse

3 Gist of dialogue is relevant and can be basically understood. Needs to ask for

repetition or clarification.

4 Present the case clearly and develop the dialogue coherently and

constructively. Some hesitation and repetition due to a measure of language

but interacts effectively.

5 Can initiate, expand and develop a theme; speaking proficiency equivalent to

that of an educated speaker. Express ideas clearly and relevant to the topic.

Score ( Fluency)

1 Speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually

impossible.

2 Usually hesitant; often forced into silence by language limitations.

3 Speed and fluency are rather strongly affected by language problem.

4 Speed of speech seems to be slightly affected by language problems.

5 Speed as fluent and effortless as that of a native speaker.

Score (Grammar &Vocabulary)

1 Error in grammar and word order so severe as to make speech virtually

unintelligible. Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation

 78

virtually impossible.

2 Grammar and word-order errors make comprehension difficult. Must often

rephrase sentences and/or restrict self to basic patterns. Misuse of words and

very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult.

3 Makes frequent errors of grammar or word order which occasionally obscure

meaning. Frequently uses wrong words; conversation somewhat limited

because of inadequate vocabulary.

4 Occasionally makes grammatical and/or word-order errors which do not

obscure meaning. Sometimes use inappropriate terms and/or must rephrase

ideas because of lexical inadequacies.

5 Makes few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar or word-order. Use of

vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of a native speaker.

 79

APPENDIX D

English Speaking Ability Evaluation

 80

English Speaking Ability Evaluation

 Pre-test  Post-test

Student ……………………………....Rater………………….……Date……………...

Score 1 2 3 4 5

Behavior

Communication

Fluency

Grammar and

vocabulary

 Pre-test  Post-test

Student …………………………...Rater………………….………Date…..………….

Score 1 2 3 4 5

Behavior

Communication

Fluency

Grammar and

vocabulary

Total Score………….………
 81

APPENDIX E

Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

 82

Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

of the English Speaking Test

Using Communicative Activities to Develop English Speaking Ability

of Matthayomsuksa Three Students

list Item Expert IOC Interpretation

1 2 3
Part 1 Interview Questions for Speaking Test

1. Could you tell me your name? 1 1 1 1.00 good

2. How many sisters or brothers do you have? 1 1 1 1.00 good

3. What does your sister/ brother look like? 1 1 1 1.00 good

4. What does your favorite actor / actress look like? 1 1 1 1.00 good

5. Where do you live? 1 1 1 1.00 good

6. How far is it from your house to school? 1 1 1 1.00 good

7. How do you come to school? 1 1 1 1.00 good

8. Tell me the way from school to your house? 1 1 1 1.00 good

9. What food do you like to eat? 1 1 1 1.00 good

10. What do you like to buy when you go shopping? 1 1 1 1.00 good

Part 2 Draw lots of situation to speak with their partners

1. Describing the picture 1 1 1 1.00 good

2. Ordering food and drink 1 1 1 1.00 good

3. Shopping 1 1 1 1.00 good

4. Asking and answering information 1 1 1 1.00 good

5. Describing people 1 1 1 1.00 good

 83

Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

of the Speaking Observation Form

Using Communicative Activities to Develop Speaking Ability

of Matthayomsuksa Three Students

list Item Expert IOC

1 2 3 Interpretation
1. Communicative activities are very interesting for me. 1 1 1 1.00 good

2. Communicative activities help me to speak English. 1 1 1 1.00 good

3. Communicative activities help me develop my English 1 1 1 1.00 good

pronunciation.

4. Communicative activities help me improve my English 0 1 1 0.67 good

speaking abilities.

5. Communicative activities help me improve my grammar 0 1 1 0.67 good

and vocabulary.

6. Communicative activities help me have fun in the class. 1 1 1 1.00 good

7. I have more confidence to speak English after I practice 1 1 1 1.00 good

communicative activities in class.

8. I have more chance to participate in class activities. 1 1 1 1.00 good

9. Communicative activities help me think more 1 1 1 1.00 good

analytically in English.

10. Communicative activities help me speak English more 1 1 1 1.00 good

fluently and correctly.

 84

Item Objective Congruence (IOC)

of the Students’ Opinion Form

Using Communicative Activities to Develop Speaking Ability

of Matthayomsuksa Three students

list Performance Expert IOC Interpretation

1 2 3
1. Learner is active to use English while 1 1 1 1.00 good

drilling.

2. Learner enjoys speaking 1 1 1 1.00 good

3. Learner is self-confident to make 1 1 1 1.00 good

conversation between their friends.

4. Learner provides idea in classroom. 1 1 1 1.00 good

5. Learner asks some questions about the task. 1 1 1 1.00 good

6. Learner tried to edit himself/herself during 1 1 1 1.00 good

using language.

7. Learner uses complete sentences while using 1 1 1 1.00 good

language.

8. The speed of learners seems to be slightly 1 1 1 1.00 good

affected by language problems.

9. Learner uses appropriate vocabulary and 1 1 1 1.00 good

idioms to make conversation.

10. Learner pronounces clear pronunciation. 1 1 1 1.00 good

 85

APPENDIX F

Speaking Observation Form

 86

Speaking Observation Form

Lesson plan ……….…….. Time………..…… Date………...…… Class…………….

Performance Excellent Good Fair Poor Very

5 4 3 2 poor

1. Learner is active to use English while

drilling.

2. Learner enjoys speaking.

3. Learner is self-confident to make

conversations among their friends.

4. Learner provides ideas in classroom.

5. Learner asks some questions about the task.

6. Learner tried to edit himself/herself while

using language.

7. Learner uses sentences while using language.

8. The speed of learner’s speed seems to be

slightly affected by language problems.

9. Learner uses appropriate vocabulary and

idioms to make conversations.

10. Learner pronounces clearly.

Total score
 87

APPENDIX G

Students’ Opinion Form

 88

Students’ Opinion Form

The researcher would like to ask for your cooperation in providing useful

information for the thesis, M.A. (Teaching English as a Foreign Language). Please be

ensured that your information will be kept strictly confidential.

Please check () the appropriate column according to your opinion. Thank you

for your cooperation.

5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree

Level of Opinion

Item 5 4 3 2 1

1. Communicative activities are very interesting for me.

2. Communicative activities help me to speak English.

3. Communicative activities help me develop my

English pronunciation.

4. Communicative activities help me improve my

English speaking abilities.

5. Communicative activities help me improve my

grammar and vocabulary.

6. Communicative activities help me have fun in the

class.

7. I have more confidence to speak English after I

practice communicative activities in class.

8. I have more chance to participate in class activities.

 89

9. Communicative activities help me think more

analytically in English.

10. Communicative activities help me speak English

more fluently and correctly.

Total score

(Adapted from Saezhong, 2005)

 90

APPENDIX H

Lesson Plan
 91

Lesson Plan

Ordering food (Mapped dialogue)

Topic : At the restaurant

Level : M. 3

Duration : 4 hours

Objective : Students are able to ask and answer correctly while ordering for food.

Vocabulary : chicken burger, vegetable salads, bill,

Language Focus : What would you like to….?

I’d like + N…

Materials :. Pictures, handout1,2,3

Procedures :

Warm up

- Teacher talks to students about their favorite food or famous food in some

local restaurant.

- Teacher shows the pictures of food from the internet and students

brainstorm the names of food.

Presentation

- Students study the dialogue (handout 1) and read as a whole class.

- Students are divided into 2 groups; waiter, customer and read the dialogue

together.

- Teacher points at the use of “would like” and lets them practice with their

partners.

What would you like to eat? I’d like to eat …………

 92

Practice

- Students are divided into 2 groups. Student A is a waiter and student B is a

customer and express the dialogue in handout 1

- Teacher walks around the class to observe them.

- Students study handout 2, express the dialogue in pairs

- Students role play (student A is a customer, student B is a waiter).

- Students study handout 3, make a dialogue in pairs, role play, and take

turns with the role play.

Production

- Students create the new dialogue with their partners.

- Students act out the conversation and express with their partner in front of

the class.

Evaluation : Observation Form (observe student’s English speaking behavior)

 93

Handout 1

Situation : Lisa goes to have lunch at the restaurant.

Waiter : Can I help you?

Lisa : A table for one please.

Waiter : This way.

Lisa : Thank you.

Waiter : Would you like to order now?

Lisa : Yes, I’ll have a chicken burger and vegetable salad.

Waiter : What would you like to drink?

Lisa : Yes, I’d like a glass of coke, please.

Waiter : Would you like ice cream ?

Lisa : No thanks.

Waiter : …(After Lisa has her lunch) Can I bring you anything else?

Lisa : No thank you, just the bill.

Waiter : Certainly.
 94

Handout 2

Waiter Lisa

help?

Thank you

?
Anything else? X

Certainly
 95

Handout 3

waiter Susan

Good
afternoon Good
afternoon

X
 96

APPENDIX I

Classroom Environment
 97

Classroom Environment
98
99
 100

Vitae
101
102
 103

VITAE
 104

VITAE

Name Mrs. Pranee Nanthaboot

Date of Birth June 19, 1970

Place of Birth Ratchaburi

Address 116 Moo 1 T. Arnghin, Paktho district, Ratchaburi 70140

Education Background:

1988 High school from Ratchaborikanukhroh School, Ratchaburi

1992 Bachelor of Education degree in English Major from

Mubanchombueng Rajabhat University, Ratchaburi

2012 Master of Arts degree in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language from Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok