ADAPTING
“
SMALL TALK
”
TO IMPROVE
COMMUNICATION SKILLS: A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH
VILLAGE PROGRAM IN KERALA
MUHAMAD HASBI
Roll No. : H
–
1507
SUPERVISOR
DR. MADHAVI GAYATHRI RAMAN
DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Second Language
(M.A. TESL)
SCHOOL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
THE ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY
ii
DECLARATION
In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
Hereby the writer fully declares that this is made by writer himself, and it
is not containing materials written or has been published by other people, and
other people’s ideas except the information from the references.
The writer in capable accounts for this thesis if in the future this can be
proved of containing others ideas or in fact writer imitates the others’ dissertation.
Likewise, the declaration is made by writer and writer hopes that this
declaration can be understood.
Hyderabad, April 2014
Writer
Muhamad Hasbi
Roll no.: H-1507
iii
This is to certify that the thesis entitled Adapting “Small Talk” To
Improve Communication Skills: A Case Study of English Village Program
in Kerala submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
M.A. TESL is an original piece of research work done by Mr. Muhamad Hasbi
under my supervision at the English and Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad.
Hyderabad, April 2014
Supervisor
Dr. Madhavi Gayathri Raman
Assistant Professor – Department Of Materials Development
iv
MOTTO
“I miss those times when I hadn’t a clue”
v
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to:
His parents and siblings who have been since
long the source of motivation and support in
undertaking English language teaching as his
field of interest and profession
English language teachers and trainers, for
their attempts and contributions in making
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, all praises
and thanks to Him, who has aroused the researcher’s interest in the area of research and made it possible to complete this thesis.
During the research planning, implementation, and report making, the
researcher has received a lot of support from many, hence, he would like to
express his gratitude to:
1. The Dean of the School of English Language Education for approving this
thesis.
2. Dr. Madhavi Gayathri Raman, the researcher’s supervisor for her excellent guidance.
3. Saifulla sir and Navi sir, the persons in charge as well as the trainers of the
English Village program who had helped during research implementation
and were partners of the trainer team.
4. Trainees of English Village program Batch June-July 2013, who have
vii
5. Big family at EFL University as well as STAIN Salatiga, two universities
where he learnt a lot about English language education.
6. His beloved parents and siblings for the love, support, and prayer night
and day.
7. His beloved fellows united in Indonesian Association in Hyderabad, for
sharing brotherhood-friendship and inspiring each other.
8. His fellows in the English and Foreign Languages University for the
harmony and the history made.
The writer realizes that this thesis is still far from perfect. Suggestions,
feedback, and comments are all welcome for the researcher to evaluate and to
conduct better work in the future. At last, researcher hopes that this thesis can add
to the research collection in the area of English language teaching and provide an
alternative reference to researchers in the same area of interest.
Hyderabad, April 2014
Writer
Muhamad Hasbi
viii
ABSTRACT
Being massively successful in connecting people across the world, English has
been continuously gaining prestigious recognition and this has made effective
communication skills in English a necessity in every walk of life. In this study, the
researcher investigated the use of Small Talk as a method to the improve oral
communication skills of 37 trainees in Kerala, by getting them involved in a series
of communicative activities namely group discussion, general discussion and
outside-classroom discussion.
The results of the study show that Small Talk has successfully improved their
speaking performance as measured periodically during the program, using two
scales of the CEFR framework, the Global Oral Assessment Scale and Oral
Assessment Criteria Grid. The finding suggests that language teachers and
trainers could either adapt or adopt Small Talk in the classroom to improve or
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE ... i
DECLARATION ... ii
CERTIFICATE ... iii
MOTTO ... iv
DEDICATION ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vi
ABSTRACT ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENT ... ix
LIST OF APPENDICIES ... xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.0 Introduction …………... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Research Questions and Objectives ……... 3
1.3 Research Hypothesis ... 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW... 5
2.0 Introduction …………... 5
2.1 Functions of Speaking ... 5
2.1.1 Talk as Interaction ………... 5
2.1.2 Talk as Transaction ……….……..…… 7
2.1.3 Talk as Performance ……….……… 9
x
2.3 The Role of Attitude in Language Learning ………..……… 12
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 14
3.0 Introduction ……... 14
3.1 Method of Data Collection and Data Analysis …..…...……... 15
3.2 Profile of English Village ….……….. 16
3.3 Profile of the Trainees ………..………..………. 18
3.4 The Program ……….………….. 18
3.4.1 Research Timetable ………..………… 19
3.4.2 Small Talk Activity Design and Timetable ………..…….... 20
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS………... 24
4.0 Introduction ... 24
4.1 Questionnaire I ... 24
4.2 Questionnaire II ... 25
4.2.1 Trainees Attitude towards the Small Talk Training ……... 26
4.2.2 Trainees’ Evaluation on the Topic Materials ..…..……..….. 28
4.2.3 How Each Sequence of Small Talk Activities Has Affected Trainees ………..………...……..…….. 31
4.3 Students’ Speaking Records ………....…..…… 35
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION………..…... 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY... 40
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Questionnaire I ……... 41 Appendix 2. Trainees’ Spoken Language Performance in Questionnaire I . 42 Appendix 3. Trainees’ Prior Exposure to English and Their English Spoken
Performance ………... 43 Appendix 4. Table of Statements in Questionnaire II ... 45
Appendix 5. Data Tabulation of Questionnaire II ……... 46 Appendix 6. Trainees’ Evaluation on the Topic Materials in Questionnaire
II ………. 48
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This introductory part provides the background the study. It also states the research
questions and objectives of this study.
1.1Background of the Study
English may have been defeated by Chinese in terms of the number of speakers, but it
continues to be the most widely used official language in most countries and a means
of communication across the globe. This means that people all over the world
consider English as an important mode of communication. Thanks to advancements in
information technology, English is now accessible to many in both the spoken and
written modalities. Exposure to it is no longer restricted to the classroom or to a
face-to-face mode; technology has made it possible to interact with the language in the
virtual or digital mode.
This rapid spread of English in several countries hassled to the growth of indigenous
local varieties of English in many countries particularly in those where English is a
second language. Thus, we have varieties such as Singapore English, Indian English,
Nigerian English existing alongside the log-established British, American and
2
Global Language, Lingua Franca, World English or English as an International
Language.
This has made English one of the most popular foreign languages taught in schools.
The four skills of the language, i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing are taught
in school though the amount of importance given to each of these varies. In an ESL
context, Reading and writing are always taught from the earliest grades. In fact, the
language is acquired through these literacy skills. Listening and speaking have not
received much importance until recently. In a world where oral communication plays
a key role, these skills are now rightly perceived as indicators of a person’s language
proficiency.
Proficiency in oral language skills are a must in order to be able to communicate in
English be it in educational settings, at the work place or for social purposes. In
education, a wide range of resources are available for someone who wants to widen
their knowledge base. According to Tuzlukova and Al-Mahrooqi (2010) “English
functions as a bridge that synchronically and diachronically connects students as
individuals with an enormous knowledge base and resource of information. The
amount of information stored in English is huge, but it is not readily accessible to
those who do not know the language.” As Wickramasinghe & Perera (2010) note,
English is a prerequisite for the handling of complex information and communicating
3
Nowadays, the teaching of spoken English, has gained widespread popularity due to
the expansion of the IT industry which requires personnel with good communication
skills. With a shift in language teaching paradigms over the years, and the emergence
of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, the importance of using
real-time communicative tasks to teach language has gained importance and this is
reflected in the teaching of speaking. Teachers and students have realized the
importance of using those activities in the classroom that simulate actual language use
outside it. Spoken English classes and training centers today, make use of a variety of
teaching approaches such as CLT, and task-based language teaching, so that the
teaching of speaking in the classroom has greater relevance to real-life, natural and
spontaneous spoken language.
Of the many methods used to teach speaking, one that attracted the researcher’s
interest is James Hunter’s proposal of Small Talk (2012). The researcher was
interested in finding out whether the use of Small Talk would be effective in
improving the communication skills of adult learners enrolled in a language program
in Malappuram district, Kerala, India.
1.2Research questions and objectives
The research questions addressed in this project are:
1. How effective is Small Talk in promoting English communication skills in
the classroom and outside it?
2. How effective were the materials used in improving the communication
4
3. What is the attitude of the trainees towards Small Talk as a methodology
for improving their communication skills?
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To ascertain the effectiveness of Small Talk in promoting English
communication skills in the classroom and outside it.
2. To ascertain the effectiveness of the materials used in this methodology.
3. To determine the attitude of the trainees towards Small Talk as a
methodology for improving their communication skills.
1.3Research Hypothesis
The basic hypotheses of this research are:
1. Small Talk will help to improve trainees’ oral communication skills.
2. The themes and topics chosen for Small Talk activities in the classroom and
outside will contribute for improving their communication skills as these are
related to real-life language use.
3. Trainees will find Small Talk an interesting and useful method to improve
5
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the functions of speaking. It then explains
in detail what is meant by Small Talk. The chapter also touches upon the role of attitude
in language learning.
2.1 Functions of Speaking
There are several functions of speaking. Brown and Yule (1983) distinguish between the
interactional functions of speaking, which serve to establish and maintain social relations,
and the transactional functions, which focus on the exchange of information. Jack C.
Richards (2008) adds another function that he called performance functions. The three
are as follows:
2.1.1 Talk as interaction
Talk as interaction refers to what we normally mean by “conversation” and describes
interaction that serves a primarily social function. When people meet, they exchange
greetings, engage in small talk, recount recent experiences, and so on because they wish
to be friendly and to establish a comfortable zone of interaction with others. The focus is
more on the speakers and how they wish to present themselves to each other than on the
6 on the circumstances and their nature.
The main features of talk as interaction can be summarized as follows:
- has a primarily social function
- reflects role relationships
- reflects speaker‟s identity
- may be formal or casual
- uses conversational conventions
- reflects degrees of politeness
- employs many generic words
- uses conversational register
- is jointly constructed
Several skills to be taught in order to develop talk as interaction include opening and
closing conversations, choosing topics, making small-talk, joking, recounting personal
incidents and experiences, turn-taking, using adjacency pairs(a sequence of two related
utterances by two different speakers. The second utterance is always a response to the
first such as complain–apologize, compliment–accept, etc), interrupting, reacting to
others, and using an appropriate style of speaking.
Talk as interaction is perhaps the most difficult skill to teach since interactional talk is a
very complex and subtle phenomenon that takes place under the control of unspoken
rules. These are best taught by providing examples embedded in naturalistic dialogs that
7
personal incidents and experiences, and reacting to what others say. One rule for making
small talk is to initiate interactions with a comment concerning something in the
immediate vicinity or that both participants have knowledge of. The comment should
elicit agreement, since agreement is non-threatening. Hence, safe topics, such as the
weather, traffic, and so on, must be chosen. Students can initially be given particular
models as practice.
2.1.2 Talk as transaction
Talk as transaction refers to situations where the focus is on what is said or done. The
message and making oneself understood clearly and accurately is the central focus, rather
than the participants and how they interact socially with each other. In such transactions,
. . . talk is associated with other activities. For example, students may be
engaged in hands-on activities (e.g., in a science lesson) to explore concepts
associated with floating and sinking. In this type of spoken language
students and teachers usually focus on meaning or on talking their way to
understanding. (Jones 1996:14)
The main features of talk as transaction are:
- it has a primarily information focus.
- the main focus is on the message and not the participants.
- participants employ communication strategies to make themselves
understood.
- there may be frequent questions, repetitions, and comprehension checks, as
8 - there may be negotiation and digression.
- linguistic accuracy is not always important.
Several skills to be taught in order to develop talk as transactions involve explaining a
need or intention, describing something, asking questions, asking for clarification,
confirming information, justifying an opinion, making suggestions, clarifying
understanding, making comparisons, and agreeing and disagreeing.
Talk as transaction is more easily planned since current communicative materials are a
rich resource of group activities, information-gap activities, and role-plays that can
provide a source for practicing how to use talk for sharing and obtaining information, as
well as for carrying out real-world transactions. These activities include ranking, values
clarification, brainstorming, and simulations. Group discussion activities can be initiated
by having students work in groups to prepare a short list of controversial statements for
others to think about. Groups exchange statements and discuss them, for example:
“Schools should do away with exams.” “Vegetarianism is the only healthy lifestyle.”
“The Olympic games are a waste of money.”
Role-play activities are another familiar technique for practicing real-world transactions
and typically involve the following steps:
Preparing: reviewing vocabulary, real-world knowledge related to the content, and
context of the role play (e.g., returning a faulty item to a store),
modeling and eliciting: demonstrating the stages that are typically involved in the
9 functional language needed for each stage), and
practicing and reviewing: assigning students roles and practicing a role play using cue
cards or realia to provide language and other support.
2.1.3 Talk as performance
The third type of talk that can usefully be distinguished has been called talk as
performance. This refers to public talk, i.e., talk that transmits information before an
audience, such as classroom presentations, public announcements, and speeches.
The main features of talk as performance are:
- a focus on both message and audience
- predictable organization and sequencing
- importance of both form and accuracy
- language is more like written language
- is often a monologue
Several skills to be taught in order to develop talk as performance are using an
appropriate format, presenting information in an appropriate sequence, maintaining
audience engagement, using correct pronunciation and grammar, creating an effect on the
audience, using appropriate vocabulary, and using an appropriate opening and closing.
Teaching talk as performance requires a different teaching strategy. Jones (1996:17)
commented that “initially, talk as performance needs to be prepared for and scaffolded in
10
understanding of written text accessible can be applied to the formal uses of spoken
language.” This approach involves providing examples or models of speeches, oral
presentations, stories, etc., through video or audio recordings or written examples. These
are then analyzed or “deconstructed” to understand how such texts work and what their
linguistic and other organizational features are.
2.2 Small Talk Methodology
Small talk is a methodology in English language teaching initiated under communicative
language teaching (CLT) approach aiming primarily at achieving fluency, accuracy, and
complexity in speaking. It is a learner-centered approach, allotting almost the entire
duration of the class for students‟ spoken activity. Hunter (2011) notes that:
„Small Talk‟ began as an experiment in learner-centred, reflective teaching
of oral communication over 20 years ago (Harris 1998) and has developed
into a comprehensive approach to developing accuracy, fluency, and
complexity in oral production. In a „Small Talk‟ session, students use their
communicative ability in conversation without intervention by the teacher,
and then receive feedback. Each session has a pre-appointed student leader,
who is responsible for choosing the topic, providing questions and relevant
vocabulary to further the discussion, putting classmates into small groups,
timing the conversation, and leading a „check-in‟ session at the end, in
which each group reports to the whole class on their conversation.
The teacher, having no role in or responsibility for the conversations, is able
11
be improved. In a typical 50-minute class, there are usually ten minutes at
the end for „coaching‟, when the teacher comments on the interaction and
dynamics of the „Small Talk‟ session. For instance, I often teach or remind
quiet or non-fluent students ways to get their point across; I remind
dominating talkers to be patient and to invite others to participate; and we
practise how to „listen actively‟, to show interlocutors our comprehension
(or lack of it) and to interrupt for clarification whenever necessary.
The steps undertaken in the small talk method along with the time allotted for each
step are as follows:
1. The day before the session, the leader announces the topic.
2. At the beginning of the session, the leader writes discussion questions and
vocabulary on the board, re-introduces the topic, and clarifies any confusion;
the leader also puts the students into groups of three to four and tells the
students to begin. (3-5 minutes)
3. Groups discuss the topic. (15-20 minutes)
4. The leader asks the groups to bring the conversation to a close and prepare for
check-in; the groups decide what to report to the class and who will do it. (5
minutes)
5. The leader invites each group to check in with the class about the highlights
of their conversation. (5 minutes)
6. The leader thanks the class and reminds them of the next „Small Talk‟ date
and the leader for that session. (1 minute)
12
classroom and these changes along with the reasons for doing so are discussed in the
next chapter.
2.3 The role of attitude in language learning
Studies have shown that attitude is one of the key factors for success in language learning
(Alhmali, 2007; Ghazali et al., 2009). According to Gardner (1985) attitude is an
evaluative reaction to some referent or attitude object, inferred on the basis of the
individual‟s beliefs or opinions about the referent. “Attitude is thus linked to a person‟s
values and beliefs and promotes or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity,
whether academic or informal” (Gardner, 1985). Attitude is also defined as a disposition
or tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain thing such as an idea,
object, person, or situation. Students have positive or negative attitudes towards the
language they want to learn or the people who speak it.
Attitude is crucial in bringing motivation and achievement in learning process including
language learning. As Reid (2003) declared, “Attitudes are important to us because they
cannot be neatly separated from study.” Attitude is therefore an essential factor
influencing language performance. A positive attitude might spur learners to interact with
native speakers, which in turn increases the amount of input that learners receive. A
positive attitude often leads learners to use a variety of learning strategies that can
facilitate skill development in language learning. A positive attitude leads to a greater
13
terms of overall language proficiency and competence in specific language skills such as
listening, speaking, reading and writing. A positive attitude also helps learners maintain
their language skills after classroom instruction is over (Gardner, 1985).
In the next chapter, we present a discussion of the tools used to collect information from
the trainees. We also present (i) a profile of the English Village and the trainees, and (ii)
details of the Small Talk sessions.
14
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.0Introduction
According to Yoseph and Yoseph (1979, in Sukardi, 2005), research is the art and
science of looking for the answer to a problem. This classroom action based research
substantially investigates the reliability of Small Talk activity in developing English
communication using a qualitative approach, as its research problem fulfills a
quantitative research tendency as follows (Creswell, John W, 2012):
1. Measures variables: Here, the two variables as have been mentioned earlier are
“the teaching of Small Talk Activity” and “the impact on trainees’ English
communication”.
2. Assesses the impact of these variables on an outcome: Here, the outcome is drawn
by analyzing their communication performance using CEFR rubrics.
3. Tests theories or broad explanations: This research, in a way, tests the reliability
of Small Talk activity in developing English communication which was also
researched by Hunter (2011) in a formal classroom situation.
4. Applies results to a large number of people: Taking 6 samples, the result predicts
the progress of all the trainees and reflects real proof of the activity being tested.
As it is conducted in a training format, this finding proposes new formats of
English communication teaching in all English communication training programs,
adaptable or adoptable for teaching speaking skills in classroom settings.
15
3.1 Method of Data Collection and Data Analysis
In this study, the data along with their mode of collection and analysis are described as
follows:
1. Questionnaire 1
Given on the first day of the meeting, this questionnaire was used to determine
students’ English speaking level prior to training. It contained 12 questions. The
responses were to be marked on a frequency scale from Always Often, Sometimes,
Seldom and Never, carrying 5 to 1 point respectively. This was used to identify
students’ exposure to English (Question 1 – 4) and their speaking performance
(Question 5 – 12) to determine if their exposure to English had contributed to a
better performance in their spoken production.
2. Classroom Small Talk notes
The researcher took notes during classroom group and general discussion in every
meeting (to be used later for evaluation or recommendations for the program).
3. Group-Outside Classroom Small Talk voice records
Conducted on Day 5, Day 10, and Day 15, discussion sessions of 3 groups (those
including 6 sample students) were recorded (total: 9 records) to keep track of the
progress of speaking performance of the sample-students periodicallythroughout
the program. These were later analyzed using the CEFR rubrics.
4. Individual-Outside Classroom Small Talk voice records
These records were to investigate students’ English communication level
16
outside classroom small talk the discussion of which was recorded (total: 37
records), to be analyzed using the CEFR rubrics.
5. Questionnaire 2
Given on the last day of the meeting, Questionnaire 2 was designed (a) to find out
the correlation betweenstudents’ attitude towards English during the program and
the progress of their English after training by counting the sum of the points for
the attitude towards Small Talk activity (classroom and outside classroom) and
the progress of their English after training. It was also used to (b) evaluate the
effectiveness of the materials through assessing trainees’ satisfaction levels using
5 criteria, i.e., whether they were interesting, culturally matched, psychologically
matched, linguistically rich and stimulating speaking, i.e., whether that materials
motivated or stimulated them to speak about certain with others.
3.2Profile of English Village
The English Village is a monthly English training program conducted since 2005. It is
organized by Ma’din Academy, located in Swalath Nagar, Melmuri, Malapppuram
district of Kerala state, India. The aim of behind its establishment is to equip people,
especially those living in the area, with good communication skills and competence in
English, since globalization continues to demand that people speak English in order to be
able to perform well in different spheres of life be it academics, work, or simply daily
communication with people around the world. This innovative program has been
reasonably helpful to the people, as it has created an awareness of the importance of
17
Designed to train students in communication skills, English Village offers a residential
training program in which the participants are required to stay in a comfortable
house-complex for 17 days where classes and daily activities take place. These are supported
with good facilities promoting the learning process. The facilities included are as follows:
1. Multimedia Classroom: this classroom, furnished with audible sound system,
projector, lighting and fans, is used regularly for the learning process. It allows
trainers to make the class as creative and pleasant as possible. Trainers are also
free to use another hall available or the open space available outside.
2. Hall: this hall can be used whenever a class session needs more space for a
certain activity. The researcher personally found this helpful each time he had to
conduct classroom warm-up activities like games or quizzes.
3. Homestay: a two-storey house where the trainees and trainers stay during the
program. It has three rooms meant for the three trainers and six rooms shared by
the participants. A CCTV is provided in each trainee room to monitor their
activities.
4. Other facilities include adequate number of bathrooms and toilets, and a dining
room.
In this English Village complex, the students are compelled to communicate only in
English, though in the first two days they were allowed to use Malayalam. Any trainee
who broke this rule was charged Rs. 500 per case as per the rules. This made the
18
3.3Profile of The Trainees
At the beginning of the program, there were 40 participants. However, three of them
dropped out of the program leaving a total number of 37 participants (see Appendix II for
the complete list of the participants together with their spoken language performance).
They shared diverse backgrounds in terms of age (ranging from 18 to 36), spoken
language (Malayalam majorly, English, Kannada, Tamil, Urdu, Arabic, and Hindi for
several), culture, native-place (Kerala majorly, and Karnataka for several), and
qualification (college students to professional workers). These diverse backgrounds of
trainees created no issues for them to learn during the program. Instead, it helped
establish more engaging interactions inside and outside the classroom amongst. To note,
a quarter of them considered their English ability as being poor, whereas the remaining
three fourth felt they had average ability.
3.4The Program
Lasting for 17 days, the research program spanned 15 days of effective training. The
schedule was as given below:
Table 1. The program schedule
Time Program Note
7.00 a.m. – 9.00 a.m. Session I Each teacher specializes one
concern of the subject teaching,
i.e., (i) grammar and structure,
(ii) personality building 9.00 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. Break I
10.30 a.m. – 12.30 p.m. Session II
19
2.30 p.m. – 4.30 p.m. Session III (involving attitude, manner,
motivation, personal
development, career guidance,
future planning, etc), and (iii) the
communication class, with
flexible sessions shifting time to
keep trainees’ mood good 4.30 p.m. – 5.00 p.m. Break III
5.00 p.m. – 6.30 p.m. Session IV
6.30 p.m. – 7.30 p.m. Break IV
7.30 p.m. – 9.30 p.m. Session V
9.30 p.m. – 7.00 a.m. Break V
3.4.1 Research Timetable
The research was carried out for 17 days, i.e., 1 day for Introduction and administration
of Questionnaire I, 15 days for the action research class, and 1 day for the administration
of Questionnaire II and concluding the program. The table below presents the schedule in
detail.
Table 2. Research timetable
Dates Days Topics for the day
June 16 Pre-training (Introduction + Questionnaire I)
June 17 Day 1 Taking Foreign Guest into Kerala Tour
June 18 Day 2 Traditional Lifestyle vs Modern Lifestyle
June 19 Day 3 Tour de India
June 20 Day 4 At the Restaurant
June 21 Day 5 Flatmates
20
June 23 Day 7 Students’ Suicide: Whose Fault?
June 24 Day 8 The Great Indian Persons
June 25 Day 9 A Wife for My Son
June 26 Day 10 Planning My Future: Marriage, Work, Study
June 27 Day 11 Living in a City
June 28 Day 12 Who Should be Sacrificed?
June 29 Day 13 The Elixir of Life
June 30 Day 14 An Expedition to Himachal Pradesh
July 1 Day 15 The New Capital City of Kerala
July 2 Post-training (Conclusion + Questionnaire II)
3.4.2 Small Talk Activity Design and Timetable
The Small Talk activity was administered in 15 sessions over 15 days. The format used in
this study was adapted from the Hunter (2011) version to suit our requirements. The
rationale for doing so is given below. The following table presents the comparison of the
small talk program before and after adaptation:
Table 3. Comparison between Small Talk before and after adaption
Before Adaptation After Adaptation
Sub-activities duration Sub-activities duration
introduction, questions,
discussion on the topic of the
day
3-5 min Language games, quizzes,
ice-breaking, topic introduction
15 min
group discussion 15-20
min
21
preparation for class-report 5 min General discussion (debate,
role-play, drama, talk-show)
45 min
class-report per group
(check-in)
10 min Evaluation, feedback,
comment
5 min
leader’s closure 1 min
Total time 45 min Total time 90 min
1. Topic:
Topic was not given the previous day as in the Hunter’s version to elicit natural
and spontaneous production from the trainees, as in real life people engage in
unprepared, real-time conversation. Topics and materials were prepared
exclusively by researcher to meet the standard and the expected training outcomes
instead of being chosen by the learners.
2. Leader
The leader role was deleted. All trainees played the role of learners thus all got
equal chances to actively speak. In the leader-role positions, the trainee had to be
passive and not involved in any discussion. This would tend to create a gap
between the leader and the others and they could feel inferior to the chosen
leader.
3. The benefit of time
The available allotment of 90 minutes made it possible for the researcher to add
pre-discussion activities as well as to lengthen the duration of each activity and
22 4. Pre-discussion activity
The researcher always opened the class with fun and motivating activities such as
languages games, quizzes, ice-breaking, etc which worked well in bringing the
attention of the trainees to the class.
5. Group discussion
Group discussions and peer-discussions were used whenever it was felt that either
one suited the purpose or outcome better.
6. Check-in vs general discussion
The check-in offers learners the chance to report what have they discussed with
their group but gives no room for interaction. Thus, the general discussion format
was chosen. A variety of activities such as meeting, debate, role-play, drama,
talk-show, etc. can be used as these different formats allow trainees to improve
their speaking skills (fluency, accuracy, self-confidence, expression, timing, etc).
7. Teacher-learner role
This is still learner-centered small talk program. However, unlike Hunter’s
format, the teacher can sometimes interrupt or manage the class if necessary to
meet its program goal to help them speak better and faster.
Having made these adaptations, all Small Talk activities ran as follows:
- Each session was led by the trainer starting with ice-breaking/ quizzes/
language games, and introduction of the topic. The topics were not given
before the class so as to elicit spontaneous or more natural production of
23
- The trainees engage in peer/ group discussion soon after the topic is
introduced. The trainer will not to interrupt their discussion and joined in
only if they asked for confirmation or explanation (vary between 20-40
minutes).
- The groups in turn reported their discussion to the class led by the trainer in
the forms of debate, role-play, drama, or talk-show. The direct
communicative feedbacks from all trainees are encouraged. The trainer
mediated and prompted their communication (vary between 20-40 minutes)
- The trainer gave his comments, feedback, or evaluation. The trainees were
invited to get involved to comment (5 minutes).
24
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter looks at the analysis of data obtained from all the research instruments
including Questionnaire I, Questionnaire II and Students’ Speaking Records.
4.1 Questionnaire 1
Questionnaire 1 (see Appendix 1), a rating scale based on frequency, was administered
on the first day of the program, prior to the training sessions to determine students’ prior
exposure to English and their English spoken performance. The data was compiled and
analyzed to find out whether greater exposure contributed to better speaking skill. First,
trainees’ responses were tabulated in a scoring format in which each answer carried a
score between 1 and 5 - 5 for always, 4 for often, 3 for sometimes, 2 for seldom, 1 for
never. The total amount of exposure category and speaking state category were
separately counted to find out the ability level they belonged to, namely:
- poor (if it scores below one third of total amount, i.e., x ≤ 7/20 in exposure and ≤
13/40 in speaking state),
- average (if it scores above the poor and below two third of total amount, i.e., x ≤
25
- excellent (if it scores above the average, i.e., x ≥ 15/20 in exposure and x ≥ 27/40
in speaking state)
Thus, each trainee obtained a particular score on exposure and speaking state which
identified him as being at a particular ability level, such as average in both (later to
be called relevant1) or possibly different, such as average in exposure but poor in speaking state (to be called irrelevant).
The result (see Appendix 3 for the students’ scores) shows that out of 372 trainees, 23 (59%) had relevant and 16 (41%) irrelevant correlation implying that
more of them benefited better speaking skill from exposure to English, yet not that
much showing significant deviance as almost the other half deserve an irrelevant
status. However, all of those irrelevances show rational gap leaping only from poor
to average (or vice versa) or average to excellent (or vice versa) only, and not
jumping far from poor and excellent. In conclusion, there is positive tendency that
exposure to English helps people to gain better speaking; though several may have
not that strong impact due to various personal factors.
4.2Questionnaire 2
Questionnaire 2 was given to trainees at the end of the program, i.e., after 15 days to find
out (1) trainees attitude towards the Small Talk training program, (2) trainees evaluation
of the topic material, and (3) personal opinion about how each sequence of Small Talk
activities had affected them.
1
The terms relevant and irrelevant are employed by the researcher to figure out whether there is positive implication of exposure towards their speaking performance
2
The number of students at the very beginning of the program was 39, but 2 of them decided to leave the
26
4.2.1 Trainees attitude towards the Small Talk training
This set of 10 statements (see Appendix 4) was to find out students’ fondness for Small
Talk activities in the classroom and outside-classroom and their personal observations on
the effectiveness of both types in improving their English. Using the Likert format,
trainees had to indicate using a tick mark (√) whether they SA (strongly agree), A
(agree), N (neutral), DA (disagree), or SDA (strongly disagree) with the statement in
each column.
The data obtained was then transformed into a table format (see Appendix 5) with SA
scores 5, A 4, N 3, D 2, and SDA 1. Statement 1 to Statement 8 were about classroom
small talk (S1 and S2-S8 average score to be compared later to get its matchness degree,
i.e., whether students’ attitude/ fondness on the program bring about improvement at a
later stage), while Statement 9 and statement 10 were about outside classroom small talk
(of which scores to be compared to get its matchness degree).
As mentioned before, Statement 1 and Statement 9 were to know trainees’ interest in
classroom and outside classroom activity, scoring 4.19 and 4.81 for the final average
comparatively. Then it can be said that OCST (Outside Classroom Small Talk) works
more effectively than CST (Classroom Small Talk), though both have considerable
influence on them. Throughout my observation (my note and students’ recording), I
found that OCST attracted most of them as they could share their personal feelings,
expectation, problems, etc (which CST could not fully provide) giving rise to their
27
greater openness between me and them, for example, they started and continued talking
with me outside class, such as in the dining hall and the dorm. They became friendlier
and more natural. From my observations, I can say that OCST has helped the CST
program to succeed, in the sense that it created a sense of well-being in the trainess
outside the classroom causing them to become more active in the class and make use of
expressive language while giving opinions, opposing others, or defending their
arguments.
Generally, CST helped them improve their speaking. This is seen in the overall average
scores obtained on the rating scale on measures such as confidence (4.78), hesitation
reduction (4.43), pronunciation (4.40), knowledge of the world (4.40), listening (4.32),
vocabulary (4.24). it however, had a lesser impact in reducing grammar mistakes while
speaking (3.84). It is very interesting to know that trainees felt equally confident about
their speaking ability in both CST and OCST. This is reflected in their identical scores on
CT and OCST, i.e., 4.78 out of 5.
In addition, researcher also wanted to see the relationship between trainees’ attitude to
the program with the benefit they gained from it. The data show very good compatibility3 both in CST and OCST (18 + 26 excellent, 8 + 5 strong (+), and 11 + 6 strong (-))
3
The compatibility degree is displayed in the matchness column of the table, classifying them into three
categories excellent, strong (+), and strong (-). Excellent includes those who have same score in both CST
and OCST such as 5 and 5 or a score close to 5 such as 5 and 4.71 or 4 and 4. 23. Those in the strong (+) category have close scores (exactly or with its rounding) with the product factors (Q2-Q8 or Q10) scoring more than the fondness factor (Q1 or Q9) as in the CST case of trainee 22. Meanwhile, the strong (-) is for those who have scores where the fondness factors (Q1 or Q9) are more than the product factors (Q2-Q8 or Q10) such as in the OCST case of trainee 3. However, say that there found wider score gap in the data,
28
leaving no weak matchness at all. This number implies that trainees fondness factor on
the activity design contributes for the successfulness of their learning.
4.2.2 Trainees’ evaluation on the topic material
In every session, activities related to a particular topic were provided to the trainees.
These topics were either designed by the researcher himself or adapted from existing
sources. As in the Small Talk program, the selection of the topic or material is an
important criteria. The researcher requested trainees to evaluate the materials too with a
view to seeing how efficient they were. The materials were to be evaluated using five
criteria: interesting, culturally matched, psychologically matched, stimulating speaking,
and linguistically rich, so as to help trainers or educators to be more sensitive to choice of
materials in future teaching. Trainees were to rate each criteria with a number between 1
to 5, in which the higher the number, the better quality (see Appendix 6). Fig. 1 presents
29
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
The New Capital City of Kerala Expedition to Himachal Pradesh
Figure. 1 Students' Satisfaction Level on Topic Materials
30
The final average point is derived by dividing the total mark of all factors with the total
number of the trainees attending the session. As the total number of the trainees was 37,
the formula was N/37.
APx: average point X NIN : interesting’s score
APx = NIN + NCM + NPM + NSS + NLR NCM :culturally match’s score
NT NPM :psychologically match’s score NSS : stimulating speaking’s score
NLR :linguistically rich’s score
NT : total number of trainees
However, twice there were only 36 trainees attending the sessions (Session At The
Restaurant and Session Planning My Future) due to personal duty, thus the NT adjusts
into 36 only for those two sessions.
From the data above, it can be seen that generally all topics had very high degree of
interest (above 4) implying that trainees were very satisfied with the materials. The
interesting criteria gets highest average score, followed by culturally matched,
psychologically matched, stimulating speaking, and linguistically rich. When broken
down into criteria, we can see clearly that irrespective of the average score, each criteria
contributes differently to different topics. Thus, the interesting criteria is highest in the
topic Tour de India, while psychologically matched makes the highest contribution in
Expedition to Himachal Pradesh and culturally matched makes the highest contribution
in The Great Indian Personality. Yet they are not to be compared since here they
31
In conclusion, the data has shown that the materials contribute to the success of Small
Talk program. Thus, English teachers or trainers interested in using Small Talk as a
model, could consider selecting similar topics and materials for trainees in their future
teaching.
4.2.3 How each sequence of Small Talk activities has affected trainee
This third part of Questionnaire 2, aimed at collecting trainees’ evaluation of the
activities and had five questions for them to fill in as follows:
- How have the classroom games affected you personally?
- How has the classroom group discussion affected you personally?
- How has the classroom general discussion affected you personally?
- How has the outside classroom discussionaffected you personally?
- How have the topic and materialsof discussion affected you personally?
Before analyzing their feedback, it is important to provide an overview about the nature
and the purpose of that set of activities. The game part, got students involved in physical
and verbal activity inspired mainly by TPR (Total Physical Response) approach. It
successfully fulfilled its goal, i.e., to get the trainees involved physically and mentally in
the class with enjoyment, relaxation, S-S and S-T interaction, as well providing rich
language input. The group discussion has its primary purpose, which was to facilitate
language production and interaction among the trainees and to improve their
communicative speaking strategies. The general discussion gives them chance to face
32
confidence, stage fear, vocabulary and sentence making, body of language, etc) and
external factors (taking turn, defending, convincing others, etc). Outside classroom
discussion was designed for them to practice more natural production of English; dealing
with language in daily life. Finally, the topic materials were prepared such that they
would encourage trainees to use the language and improve their communication skills.
Unlike the other first two parts of Questionnaire 2, this part requires descriptive answers
from students. Presented below is the summary of all their responses which in their own
language.
Table 4. Summary of responses
GAM
E
S
very good/ I like all games and strongly interesting/ enjoy/ increase
our knowledge/ good relationship/ changing from introvert to
extrovert personality/ improve vocabulary/ more happiness/ very
effective/ more entertaining/ improve confidence/ mind relaxing/
some funny and happy/ performed outstanding/ some freshness/
catching attention of students/ improving motivation
GROUP
DI
S
CU
S
S
ION
very interesting/ so many knowledge/ improve my English
language/ speaking chance given/ good relationship/ courage and
decrease stage fear/ improve vocabulary and increase speaking/
argue power/ improve thinking pattern/ a good experience/ express
ideas with friends/ increase listening and disputing skill/ learn
leadership quality/ something good something not bad/ no more
33
program/ very enjoy/ like this I got new vocabulary words/ create
friendly relationship/ very interest to hear/ good feeling/ got many
opportunity to speak English/ change communication style,
improve grammar, structure, how to argue with other/ not bad/
increase debating capacity the shame is goned/ speak more loudly/
don’t like coz I had no sufficient vocabulary/ I can speak in front
OUT
good/ I got attachment you/ my communication improved/ increase
vocabulary and speaking skills/ most effective, I understood my
capacity and capability/ improve speaking skill/ improve
pronunciation confidence courage/ got more ideas more cultures/
improve fluency and get phonetics/ a motivation activity/ handover
thinking in the speech/ understand original or meaningful English
T
participate this type of topic/ increased vocabulary decreased stage
fear/ very interesting topic/ very effective, create new creation and
got new knowledge/ increase my thinking power create more ideas/
satisfied/ excellent selection/ affected better/ professional
preparation/ very knowledgeable/ catchy sounds and animation/
informative/ very helpful
Given below are some samples of students’ comments from the transcripts (kept
34
Games
- I have lot off improvement and I Really Enjoying All Games expesialy “peel
banana.. peel banana” (Trainee 12)
- It gave me opportunity for making friendly relationship with others and some
games are interesting and some games are not suitable for our age (Trainee
21)
Group Discussion
- I got some leadership quality, how to consider members and how to come into
a common opinion – one of the important quality of leader to take initiate to
that (Trainee 27)
- It was good, but you conducted group discussion every day. I think this
continues discuss made some laziness and sleeping (Trainee 37)
General Discussion
- In my opinion, group discussion is better than general discussion. It will be
help to introduce new ideas between us (Trainee 5)
- I could change communication style, improve grammar, structure, how to
argue with other (Trainee 11)
Outside Classroom Discussion
- This is the most important one, b’coz this feature of your class is most
effective. Actually this is my first time with foreigner. So it has gave a lot of
confidence. Now only I understood my capacity and capability in this field
35
- Very very filing improve the prononsiation and confidence and coreage
(Trainee 9)
Topic Materials
- Material was superb. Really there was a professional touch in every material
preparation. It was very knowledgeable. Sounds and animation was too catchy
(Trainee 27)
- I think your topic and materials are too excellent. I am too happy for
participated in this method. It helps to obtained a lot of knowledge from
various kinds of place. I will give you full mark for teaching!!! (Trainee 25)
The data shows that generally trainees gave positive feedback for these five activity types
and enjoyed working collaboratively. On the other hand, there were several evaluation
comments such as (a) some games are not suitable for their age, (b) the repetitive format
of discussion in all session brings laziness and sleepiness, and (c) personal dislike of a
trainee during the discussion activity due to (his) lack vocabulary. These comments can
be used as constructive feedback to bear in mind while designing materials for further
programs.
4.2 Students’ Speaking Records
To track the progress in students’ speaking performance, they were audio taped. The
researcher referred to two tables in the CEFR Framework namely Global Oral
Assessment Scale (see Appendix 8) and Oral Assessment Criteria Grid (see Appendix 7)
36
fluency, interaction, and coherence. They were assessed periodically on Day 3, Day 9,
and Day 15. Based on their performance, they were classified into A1, A2, B1, B2, C1,
and C2 ability levels. However, it is possible to add an intermediate stage, i.e., A1+, A2+,
B1+, B2+, and C1+, in order to show that a trainee’s progress is in between two stages,
i.e., (s)he is above A1 but below A2.
In order to investigate trainees’ improvement, samples from six trainees were chosen.
Two were selected from A1 group, two from B1 group, and the other two from C2 group
per their basal level. The improvement in their performance is shown below:
Table 5. The level movement of students’ spoken language performance
Trainees’
Range Accuracy Fluency Interaction Coherence
37
As is evident from the table above, all students have made progress, though in different
degrees - a slight improvement was witnessed in Sadiq Ali MP, followed by moderate by
improvement in Iqbal KP, Thousif Ahammed and Shibil K. Shameer and Irshad P
showed impressive progress at the end of the training sessions. This result is in
consonance with student feedback during the interview and Questionnaire II, where they
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
This study was carried out with the aim to find out whether the use of Small Talk
would be effective in improving the communication skills of adult learners enrolled
in a language program in Malappuram district, Kerala, India. A fifteen-day program
using an adapted version of Hunter’s (2011) Small Talk method with 37 trainees set
out to test three hypotheses:
The first hypothesis was that Small Talk would help to improve trainees’ oral
communication skills. An assessment of students’ spoken interactions using the
CEFR Global Oral Assessment Scale and Oral Assessment Criteria Grid has shown
that the small talk method can improve trainees’ performance in spoken
communication across a wide range of aspects such as range, accuracy, fluency,
interaction, and coherence. The second hypothesis was that the themes and topics
chosen for Small Talk activities in the classroom and outside it will contribute to
improving their communication skills as these are related to real-life language use.
Responses from the trainees indicated that the teaching materials were effective
because they were not only interesting, but were also culturally matched,
39
and final hypothesis was that the trainees would find Small Talk an interesting and
useful method to improve their communication skills and so will respond to it
positively. This hypothesis is supported once again by their responses, which suggest
that it has a positive effect on them.
In conclusion, it appears that Small Talk is an effective method to improve
communication skills of students of various ages and language proficiency levels. It
is also imperative for teachers to make choose the right kind of materials make the
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Banciu, V. and Angela J. 2012. Communicative Language Teaching. The Public Administration and Social Policies Review IV Year, No. 1, 8: 94-98.
Bogdan, C. R. and Biklen, S. K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Breen, M., and Candlin, C. N. 1980. The essentials of communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1, 2: 89-112.
Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative research (fourth edition). Boston: Pearson.
Hunter, James. 2011. ‘Small Talk’: Developing Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity in Speaking (ELT Journal volume 66/1). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Karahan, F. 2007. Language Attitudes of Turkish Students towards the English Language and Its Use in Turkish Context. Journal of Arts and Sciences Say, 7 May, 73-87.
Littlewood, W. 2013. Developing a Context-Sensitive Pedagogy for Communication-Oriented Language Teaching. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. London: Cambridge University Press.
Piepho, H.-E. 1981. Establishing objectives in the teaching of English. In C. Candlin (ed.), The Communicative Teaching of English: Principles and an Exercise Typology. London: Longman
Rejecky, D. W. 1982. Attitude Themes and Advances. Sunderland Snouer Associates Incl.
Reid, N. 2003. Getting started in pedagogical research in the physical sciences. LTSN Physical Sciences Centre, University of Hull, Hull.
41
Richards, J. C. and Theodore S. Rodgers. 2009. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Smit, V. 1996. A New English for a New South Africa: Language Attitudes Planning and Education. Vienna: Braumuller.
Sukardi. 2005. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.
The Council of Europe. The Common European Framework (CEFR). London: Cambridge University Press.
Timmis, I. 2005. Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal, 59/2.
Tomlinson, B. 2011. Materials Development in Language Teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.
Tuzlukova, V., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2010). Culture-based curriculum dimensions. In R. Al-Mahrooqi & V. Tuzlukova (Eds.), The Omani ELT Symphony: Maintaining Linguistic and Socio-cultural Equilibrium (pp. 33-70). Muscat: Sultan Qaboos University Academic Publication Board.
Wickramasinghe, V., & Perera, L. (2010). Graduates’, university lecturers’ and
employers’ perceptions towards employability skills. Education and
Training, 52(3), 226-244. [Online] Available: www.emeralinsight.com/0040-0912.htm (April 1, 2014)
Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.
42
APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE I
No. Statements A O SO SE N
1. I read books in English
2. I read English newspapers
3. I watch English movies/ videos
4. I listen to English songs
5. I have problem with grammar while speaking
6. I have problem with pronunciation while speaking
7. I have enough vocabulary while speaking
8. I can understand others when they speak English
9. I do not hesitate to speak in English
10. I speak English daily
11. I speak in English with my friends, relatives
12. I speak in English with my superiors (teachers,
43
APPENDIX 2
TRAINEES‟ SPOKEN LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE IN QUESTIONNAIRE I No. Trainee names Age Spoken Languages’ Performance
44
APPENDIX 3
TRAINEES‟ PRIOR EXPOSURE TO ENGLISH AND THEIR ENGLISH SPOKEN PERFORMANCE
Names Exposure Speaking State Total Number Category Relevancy
(E & SS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TE TSS EC SSC
1. IKP 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 10/20 18/40 avg avg relevant 2. SA 1 1 5 5 1 4 2 3 3 5 1 1 12/20 20/40 avg avg relevant 3. RP 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 8/20 11/40 avg poor irrelevant 4. J 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 4 5 3 1 1 11/20 21/40 avg avg relevant 5. IPT 2 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 12/20 15/40 avg avg relevant 6. SH 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 5 3 3 1 11/20 19/40 avg avg relevant 7. S1 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2 3 12/20 23/40 avg avg relevant 8. U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4/20 9/40 poor poor relevant MS 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 7/20 12/40 poor poor relevant 9. UKT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4/20 8/40 poor poor relevant 10. MAP 3 2 4 5 1 3 3 4 3 1 2 1 14/20 18/40 exl avg irrelevant 11. SK 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 9/20 16/40 avg avg relevant 12. MS 1 3 3 5 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 12/20 11/40 avg poor irrelevant 13. N 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 3 3 2 3 6/20 21/40 poor avg irrelevant 14. F 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 10/20 13/40 avg poor irrelevant 15. RM 2 2 5 1 2 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 10/20 21/40 avg avg relevant
45
46
APPENDIX 4
TABLE OF STATEMENTS IN QUESTIONNAIRE II
No. Statements SA A N DA SDA
1. I like both group and general discussion in
the classroom
2. Classroom Small Talk has enriched my
vocabulary in speaking
3. Classroom Small Talk has improved my
pronunciation
4. Classroom Small Talk has improved my
confidence in speaking
5. Classroom Small Talk has decreased my
hesitation and fear in speaking
6. Classroom Small Talk has decreased
grammar mistakes in my speech
7. Classroom Small Talk has made me
understand others‟ speaking faster and
better
8. Classroom Small Talk has improved not
only my English but also the knowledge of
the world
9. I like the Outside-Classroom Small Talk
10. Outside-Classroom Small Talk has
