Việc sử dụng các thủ thuật gợi mở của giáo viên để dạy kĩ năng nói cho sinh viên năm thứ nhất, trường ĐH Công nghệ, ĐH Quốc Gia Hà Nội

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
---***---

CHU THỊ HUYỀN MI

TEACHERS’ USE OF ELICITATION TECHNIQUES TO
TEACH SPEAKING SKILL TO FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS OF
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÁC THỦ THUẬT GỢI MỞ CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỂ DẠY
KĨ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC
CÔNG NGHỆ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10

HANOI, 2012


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
---***---

CHU THỊ HUYỀN MI

TEACHERS’ USE OF ELICITATION TECHNIQUES TO

TEACH SPEAKING SKILL TO FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS OF
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÁC THỦ THUẬT GỢI MỞ CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỂ DẠY
KĨ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC
CÔNG NGHỆ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor: Nguyễn Minh Tuấn, M.A.

HANOI, 2012


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Candidate‟s statement .......................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... iii
Table of contents ................................................................................................................. iv
List of figures and tables ..................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims and objectives ................................................................................................ 3
1.3. Scope of the study ................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Significance of the study......................................................................................... 3
1.5. Overview of the rest of the paper............................................................................ 4

Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................ 5
2. 1. Key concepts and relevant knowledge .................................................................. 5
2.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching ............................................................ 5
2.1.2. Elicitation ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2.1. Definition of elicitation ........................................................................ 6
2.1.2.2. Types of elicitation .............................................................................. 6
2.1.2.3. Advantages of elicitation techniques ................................................... 9
2.1.2.4. Disadvantages of elicitation techniques ...............................................11
2.1.2.5. Considerations ....................................................................................11
2.2. Related studies ......................................................................................................12
Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................15
3.1. Research settings and participants ........................................................................15
3.1.1. Research settings ..........................................................................................15
3.1.2. Participants ...................................................................................................16
3.2. Research Instruments ............................................................................................17
3.2.1. Teacher and Student Questionnaire .............................................................18
3.2.2. Teacher interview ........................................................................................19
3.2.3. Classroom observation .................................................................................19
3.3. Data collection procedure .....................................................................................19


v

3.3.1. Preparation ...................................................................................................19
3.3.2. Implementation ............................................................................................20
3.4. Data analysis procedure ........................................................................................20
Chapter 4: RESULTS ......................................................................................................21
4.1. Data analysis and discussion .................................................................................21
Research question 1 ................................................................................................21
Research question 2 ................................................................................................26

Research question 3 ...............................................................................................30
4.2. Implications ..........................................................................................................34
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................36
5.1. Summary of findings ............................................................................................36
5.2. Contributions of the research .................................................................................37
5.3. Limitations of the research ....................................................................................37
5.4. Suggestions for future research ............................................................................. 37
References .........................................................................................................................39
Appendices ........................................................................................................................I
Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................I
Appendix ......................................................................................................................IX
Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................... X
Appendix 4 ...................................................................................................................XIII


vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Frequency of elicitation teaching

Figure 2: Shortcomings of elicitation teaching

Figure 3: Frequency of using elicitation techniques
Figure 4: Degree of students‟ confidence to talk
Figure 5: Activation of students‟ background knowledge
Figure 6: Increasing students‟ talk time
Figure 7: Students‟ embarrassment to listen to their peers‟ talk
Figure 8: Students‟ memorization of the lesson

Table 1: Categorization of selected students

Table 2: Benefits of elicitation teaching
Table 3: Teachers‟ elicitation manners


1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims at stating the rationale, objectives, scope and significance of the
research. An overview of the rest of the study is also provided in this chapter.
1.1. Rationale
According to an article posted on www.vietbao.vn on 9 December 2009, a large
number of Vietnamese fresh graduates are complained about their limited English
proficiency at workplace settings, especially their weaknesses in English communication
despite their acceptable ability in their own specializations. This problem may stem from
some deficiency in English teaching and learning at university and lower academic levels.
Therefore, it is about time to take a closer look at the current use of teaching methods
which are designed to develop students‟ speaking competence.
For the last few years, communicative language teaching (CLT) has remarkably
emerged as an innovative teaching approach to the teaching of second and foreign
languages throughout the world. According to Nunan (1991), CLT features interaction as
both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. This emphasis involves that
students are required to construct a habit of enthusiastically participating in classroom
exchanges and real communication to enhance their speaking skill. The new learning
strategy can only be enabled when there is a shift between teachers‟ and students‟ roles.
Learner-centered learning has reigned in modern classrooms where students are given
more autonomy while teachers take the roles of controllers, assessors, organizers,
prompters, participants and so forth (Harmer, 2001) who facilitate students‟ participation
in a variety of interactive activities. In an attempt to reverse that dominant status between

the two parties, elicitation teaching has been spread into English classrooms on an
international scale.
On the way of educational integration, the communicative approach has been
adapted to Vietnam‟s national curriculums of almost every academic level, ranging from
elementary, middle, secondary to post-secondary levels. Although the interest in and
development of communicative-style teaching developed statistically worldwide, the
adoption in Vietnam has been obstructed by the inherent dominance of grammartranslation approach. It is commonly seen that Vietnamese students are typically passive
and shy in language classrooms while teachers tend to embrace the role of "expert" who
would impart his or her knowledge or "expertise" to unknowing students, who in turn


2

would be assessed by evaluation instruments intended to measure the amount of
transferred "expertise" (Rudder, 2000). Similarly, while elicitation has been considered an
essential tool to teach speaking skill in modern classrooms worldwide, the use of it in
Vietnam has turned out not to be as effective as expected. Therefore, the present study saw
a need to learn about teachers‟ perception of elicitation teaching and their actual
employment to better understand the matter.
In addition, the issue of using elicitation techniques in teaching speaking skill has
not been extensively studied in Vietnam. The three studies that should be highlighted so
far are Pham (2006) which is using elicitation to teach vocabulary to 11th form students in
Hanoi, Tran (2007) which is eliciting techniques to teach speaking skill to grade-10
students in Hanoi Foreign Languages Specializing School (HFLSS) and Nguyen (2011)
the exploitation of eliciting techniques by fourth-year students in their teaching practicum
at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University.
Despite their thorough investigation into the same issue, there is still room for the current
study to bridge. To be more specific, the two first researchers worked on the issue of
applying elicitation techniques to teach high school students whose learning behaviors and
goals are remarkably different from university students‟. The most recent one worked on

the use of eliciting techniques by student-teachers among students who major in English,
which is totally different from the context of this study. In addition, Pham (2006)‟s study
zoomed into the context of vocabulary teaching, thereby excluding other language
components and skills. With a desire to both fill these gaps to a certain extent and follow a
different research implementation approach, the present researcher investigated the
employment of elicitation in teaching speaking skill to first year non-English-major
students. In sum, filling the gaps made by the two earlier studies is another impetus for the
researcher to conduct the present one.
Lastly, the subject of the current study is really worth taking into consideration. In
the status of newcomers to university, first-year students had notable difficulties in
adapting to a new academic environment and getting accustomed to new learning
strategies. Also, as English is not their major, these obstacles tend to affect them much
worse. If those problems are not completely solved, they may leave long-term bad effects
on students‟ academic achievements. Meanwhile, for the past few years, University of
Engineering and Technology (UET) has tremendously enforced a number of policies to


3

enhance the quality of graduates, one of which is the fulfillment of English proficiency
standard as a prerequisite for graduation. Therefore, an investigation into teachers‟ current
employment of elicitation in teaching English speaking skill to this population plays a
more significant role than ever.
1.2. Aims and objectives
In doing the research, the author attempted to address three main aspects. Firstly,
the study investigated how teachers conceived about elicitation in teaching speaking skill.
In addition to the concepts, their actual employment was also closely looked at. Last but
not least was students‟ evaluation on the effects of elicitation teaching on their
performance. These objectives were accomplished by answering the following questions:
1.

What is teachers‟ concept of elicitation in teaching English speaking

skill to first-year students of UET, VNU, Hanoi?
2.

How do they employ elicitation in teaching English speaking skill to

first-year students of UET, VNU, Hanoi?
3.

What effects does the employment have on students?

1.3. Scope of the study
First and foremost, the research focused on teachers‟ application of elicitation
techniques in speaking lessons only in order to foster students‟ talk. Therefore, application
into other kinds of lessons and the outcomes of the teaching on other linguistic skills are
not taken into consideration.
Also, as stated in the earlier part, the research targeted at freshmen of UET, VNU
only, which excluded those from other academic levels and institutions.
1.4. Significance of the study
It should be noted that the research was a great attempt to approach an issue which
is no longer new but still needs more profound research. Therefore, once finished, it can
bring various benefits to involved parties namely students, teachers, educational
administrators and researchers of the relevant fields.
Firstly, students and teachers of UET, VNU, Hanoi are those who directly benefit
from the information the research provides. Teachers will have a comprehensive look at
the situation of their own application of elicitation teaching to increase students‟ talk,
realize obstacles that they themselves and their colleagues have encountered and work out

4

solutions to amend their teaching practice. Students are likely to be well aware of their
rights and responsibilities to raise voice in class. Also, they will be offered more speaking
chance during lessons.
Educational administrators may be provided with a close and comprehensive view
into the current situation before implementing necessary amendments in terms of
curriculum, facility provision and other policies.
Researchers of the relevant fields can also refer to the present work for literature
review.
In general, students, teachers, educational administrators and researchers are those
who are likely to benefit from the study in different ways.
1.5. Overview of the rest of the paper
The rest of the paper consists of four following chapters.
Chapter 2 provides background theories underlying the issue including definition
of key concepts and relevant knowledge in accordance with a review of related studies of
the same field.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology of the research including features of
participants, research setting, research instruments, data collection and data analysis
procedure.
Chapter 4 reports and discusses findings which answer the four research questions.
It also offers recommendations to relevant parties so as to accomplish a higher
effectiveness of elicitation teaching.
Chapter 5 summarizes major findings, highlights contributions of the research, puts
forward practical suggestions for future research as well as addresses noted limitations of
the study.
In conclusion, the initial chapter has presented basic understanding of the research
including rationales for doing the research, objectives, scope, significance and overview of
the rest of the paper.

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter means to review background theories related to the issue including
definitions of key concepts and relevant knowledge. Several related studies of the same
field are also brought to discussion.
2.1. Key concepts and relevant knowledge
Elicitation teaching is a typical execution of communicative teaching approach and
has been extensively employed by teachers who are committed to Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT). This fact shows a tight relationship between CLT and
elicitation teaching. Therefore, before digging deeper into the major concept, it is
significant to review the theory of the underlying approach.
2.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching
CLT has emerged as by far the most popular teaching approach defaulted in almost
every English language classroom worldwide. Kumaravadivelu (1993: 12) affirmed the
influential power of CLT that “CLT which started in the early 1970s has become the
driving force that shapes the planning, implementation and evaluation of English language
teaching programs (ELT) in most parts of the world”. Richard (2005: 6) also gave a full
account of what language teachers mean by “communicative”:
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can be understood as a set of principles
about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn the language, the kinds of
classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and students in
the classroom.
CLT includes a complete code of laws that should be strictly complied with in
order to develop learners‟ communicative competence as the ultimate goal, which collides
with what Harmer (2001: 86) believes: “CLT features learning sequences which aim to
improve the students‟ ability to communicate”. In addition, Rudder (2000) claimed that
“the essence is language for communication and self-expression”. It can be inferred from

these views that teaching students how to use the language and to communicate in a
language is considered to be at least as important as learning the language itself. To
maximize learning potential in a communicative classroom, teachers are instructed to make
use of various tools which help to create genuine communication, one of which is the use
of elicitation techniques.
2.1.2. Elicitation


6

2.1.2.1. Definition of elicitation
The majority of CLT teachers tend to mention elicitation as their familiar teaching
practice but the explanations of this term vary broadly. This diversity may stem from a fact
that elicitation hardly gets any specific clarifications in academic literature. The nature of it
can be roughly understood via the word “elicit” which means “draw facts, responses,
answers, etc. from somebody, sometimes with difficulty” (Oxford Advanced Dictionary,
2008).
Elicitation techniques are widely used in numerous sciences. In English language
classrooms, teachers are supposed to master these elicitation techniques to draw out
answers or responses from students. As defined by Darn and Cetin (2009), “elicitation is a
technique by which the teacher gets the learners to give information rather than giving it to
them”. The definition in Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics
„Techniques or procedures which a teacher uses to get learners to actively produce speech
or writing' suggests that there may be wide applications of elicitation into the field of
language teaching. The current research is to adopt the former definition as it directly
demonstrates the nature of English teaching procedure in the light of CLT. Regarding
elicitation techniques, they can be considered effective tools that teachers should benefit
from to accelerate their students‟ speaking capacity in class.
2.1.2.2. Types of elicitation
Teachers are given five main kinds of tools to elicit students‟ talk and thereby

making their classrooms genuinely communicative as follows. An earlier research of the
same field (Chu, 2009) made a detailed account of eliciting tools used in CLT classes.
2.1.2.2.1. Making questions
Asking questions is the leading technique employed to elicit student-talk or, to be
more specific, ideas and opinions from students. Questioning offers a number of benefits.
According to Darn, (2008), asking questions is a natural feature of communication, but
also one of the most important tools which teachers have at their disposal. Questioning is
crucial to the way teachers manage the class, engage students with content, encourage
participation and increase understanding. Also, according to the writer, while questioning
can be an effective tool, there is both an art and science to asking questions. Some of the
rules teachers should take into account are to consider the quantity of questions to raise in
appropriate time and place to keep teacher talking time to the minimum while maximizing


7

students‟ contributions and what questions to ask students. The latter is shared by Doff
(1988:23) as: “The focus of eliciting techniques is what questions to ask to elicit the
expected target language”.
Regarding question types, scholars had numerous different ways of classification.
Grammatically, Doff (1988:23-24) gave quite a basic categorization including: Yes/no
question, Or question and Wh-question. Firstly, Yes/no question helps teachers to see
whether students understand any point related to the lesson and keep them focused. By
being asked to select one option among some available ones in Or question, students are
made to think carefully for the right answer. Wh-questions, or questions beginning with
what, who, where, when, which, etc., can be asked to obtain specific information. These
kinds of questions tremendously exploit students‟ existing knowledge or check their
comprehension of the new knowledge. Henceforth, wh-questions are by far most favored
to elicit student-talk in class time.
Darn (2008) also made a thorough review on types of questions. As discovered,

there have been a number of typologies and taxonomies of questions. Socratic questioning
forms the basis of eliciting (Ur, 1996: 53). Meanwhile, Darn (2008) found out that
Bloom‟s taxonomy identifies six types of questions by which thinking skills may be
developed and tested. In the context of language teaching and learning, Bloom himself
maintained that "The major purpose in constructing a taxonomy of educational objectives
is to facilitate communication…” According to the author, classroom questions can fall
into two main types:


Display questions: these questions help elicit learners‟ prior knowledge

and to check their comprehension of the knowledge that has been taught. Display questions
often focus on the form or meaning of language structures and items, the answers of which
are already known by teachers.


Referential questions. These questions are used to foster students‟ skills of

providing further information, giving an opinion, explaining or clarifying. They often
focus on content rather than language, require „follow-up‟ or „probe‟ questions, and the
answer is not necessarily known by the teacher.
(cited in Chu, 2009: 11-13)


8

Mehan (1979) proposed four major types of elicitations or questions (the two terms
are interchangeable by many scholars) including choice, product, process and metaprocess.
The first one seeks for learners‟ agreement or disagreement with the teacher‟s statement or
choose a yes/no response. The second type asks them to provide a factual response such as

a name, a place, etc. while the third asks for students‟ opinions or interpretation. The last
one is the most challenging when it requires students‟ formulation of grounds for their
reasoning or an explanation for the procedure by which they arrived at the answers.
Those taxonomies of questions, especially the one by Doff (1998) and the other by
Mehan (1979) share some common features. The difference may result from their different
angles of views and focuses. However, all of them agree on the fact that questions are used
for the main purpose of checking students‟ comprehension of the new knowledge and
provoke their prior knowledge.
2.1.2.2.2. Using pictures
Darn and Cetin (2006) raised the importance of offering input in association with
elicitation; and pictures are always a good source of such input. Using pictures is addressed
by Doff (1988) as one of the easiest ways to elicit new vocabulary (or structure). In
practice, CLT teachers often choose to use pictures mostly in warm-up stage to excite
students and catch their attention to the lesson. Doff (1988: 166) stated basic principles of
using pictures: “the teacher uses pictures to set the scene and asks questions about what
they see, why they think it happens, what they think will happen next and how they feel or
what they think about it”. Apart from being highly useful in provoking students‟ speaking,
pictures are not cost- and time- consuming since they can be directly taken from students‟
textbook or from supplementary sources. Another consideration for using pictures is that a
good combination of visual materials and proper questions can maximize the outcomes.
2.1.2.2.3. Using games or activities
Chu (2009: 15) emphasized that this tool is strongly advocated by many ELT
experts. Traditionally, there used to be a common conception that all learning should be
serious and solemn in nature. This is a mere misconception as it is possible to learn a
language and enjoy oneself at the same time (Lee, 1995: 35). Wright, Betteridge and
Buckby (1984:1) believed that “language learning is hard work ... Effort is required at
every moment and must be maintained over a long period of time. Games help and
encourage many learners to sustain their interest and work”. Therefore, it is clearly seen

9

that good games can be used during a burdensome lesson. Games help teachers to create
contexts in which the language is useful and meaningful. If games are well-chosen and
appropriately used, they can give students a break and simultaneously create chances for
them to practice new skills in a highly amusing and motivating way (Ersoz, 2000). In order
to fully obtain these benefits, one thing teachers should take into consideration is that
“whenever a game is to be conducted, the number of students, proficiency level, cultural
context, timing, learning topic, and the classroom settings are factors that should be taken
into account (Nguyen and Khuat, 2003).
2.1.2.2.4. Using texts and dialogues
According to Darn and Cetin (2006), eliciting ideas and background information
also requires input which may come from a teacher's anecdote or story, a text, pictures, or a
video, and involves the sharing of knowledge between teacher and learners. Doff
(1988:168) suggested that “teacher may also consider using texts and dialogues to guide
students to respond to the language use and context of use presented in those texts and
dialogues”. They play the role of providing students with illustrative language samples
based on which students can produce ones of their own. Particularly, authentic texts and
dialogues, when introduced into language classrooms, can bridge the gap between
classroom knowledge and “a student‟s capacities to participate in real world events”
(Wilkins, 1976: 79, as cited in To and Nguyen, 2008).

As texts and dialogues function as

standard samples for students to imitate, they require a careful selection of materials
subject to the syllabus, students‟ learning styles, interests, tastes and other factors.
2.1.2.2.5. Using non-verbal language
This tool is quite handy as it requires little prior preparation from teachers. It
includes numerous forms like miming, gestures, facial expression, body language, etc.
which are used mainly to elicit new vocabulary or structure (Doff, 1988). This technique

partly provokes students‟ curiosity and uttering of expected language items.
2.1.2.3. Advantages of elicitation techniques
As highlighted earlier, elicitation teaching helps develop a leaner-center learning
atmosphere. Therefore, learners are those who get the most benefits and teachers are not
excluded.
The first and foremost advantage of elicitation teaching is to increase students‟
speaking time and reducing teachers‟ unnecessary speaking. These two benefits can be


10

acquired from the fact that students are made to give responses to their teachers‟ questions
and other sources of input. An appropriate use of elicitation techniques at the production
stage, for example, can eliminate the chance that “the lesson is dominated by the teacherhe or she is using English to introduce new materials” (Doff, 1988: 159).
In addition, eliciting involves the class by focusing students‟ attention and making
them think. Teachers can activate students‟ minds more by asking questions, by pushing
them to think and encouraging them to contribute; they will be more engrossed in the
lesson. In so doing, students‟ motivation is also ignited and maintained throughout the
lesson.
Next, on the premises that the teaching of new knowledge is often based on what
the learners already know (Darn & Cetin, 2006), elicitation encourages students to draw on
what they already know or partly know (Doff, 1988: 161).

Before introducing new

knowledge, teachers tend to remind students of the old one or ask them about personal
experience. By attempting to answer teachers‟ questions, students have opportunities to
scan their background knowledge system, checking what they have or partly have already
in their minds.
One minor advantage of using elicitation techniques is that students can learn or be

exposed to useful incidental language during elicitation. That is the language which is not
explicitly taught but students still pick up during their interaction in classrooms. As a
result, what students can learn is far beyond the primary objectives of the lesson.
Obviously, elicitation directly and mainly benefits students. However, in the
meantime, teachers are at a great advantage. First, “elicitation can be used by teachers for
presenting new language as well as reviewing what was taught earlier” (Doff, 1988:161).
Moreover, as a diagnostic tool, eliciting gives teachers a chance to see what students know
and what they do not and hence to adapt their presentation to the level of the class.
Therefore, it is clearly seen that elicitation plays the role as testing tools that teachers can
use to measure the level of the class.
Eliciting is a powerful diagnostic tool, providing key information about what the
learners know or don't know, and therefore a starting point for lesson planning. Eliciting
also encourages teachers to be flexible and to move on rather than dwell on information
which is already known.
( cited in Darn & Cetin, 2006)


11

In short, eliciting is beneficial to both students and teachers.
2.1.2.4. Disadvantages of elicitation techniques
While eliciting clearly contributes to students‟ involvement and teachers‟
evaluation of their performance, it does not always produce the desired or expected results
for the following reasons.
Despite his strong approval of the use of this technique in classrooms, Doff (1988:
161) still had to admit that eliciting takes more time than straightforward presentation of
new knowledge. The first reason is that, sometimes, trying to elicit a word or explanation
can take ten times as long as just explaining it. This problem then may negatively affect
class time budget. The burden is much greater when they have to manage a large-sized
class within a given amount of time. Another reason is that a replacement of

straightforward presentation with elicitation means teachers‟ spending more time and
effort preparing essential materials, structuring their lesson and delivering it in a way that
students can raise more voice, become more active and responsive in class. The conflict
between the limitation of time and the acquisition of desired quality somehow discourages
teacher from attempting to use elicitation for their students‟.
In likelihood, there are cases where students are too passive or not cooperative
enough to respond to teachers. As such, early elicitation may be greeted with stony silence
and teachers‟ attempt for elicitation at this beginning stage may end in failure.
2.1.2.5. Considerations
In order to get the highest results of elicitation techniques, teachers then should
take certain strategies into account.
It is essential that teachers must consider when and how much elicitation takes
place during a lesson. Darn & Cetin (2006) claimed that “eliciting is a basic technique and
should be used regularly, not only at the beginning of a lesson but whenever it is necessary
and appropriate”. On the other hand, “there should be a mixture of eliciting and immediate
presentation rather than using the first all the time” (Doff, 1988: 161). Any improper
application or overuse of the technique can be counterproductive to students.
With respect to questioning which is the leading technique of elicitation, teachers
should pay attention to some of the following points, as reviewed by Chu (2009).
Firstly, “teachers should vary his/her questioning technique according to the
difficulty of the question” (Doff, 1988:166). They are advised to go from easy questions


12

concerning most common knowledge to more difficult and expertise ones as well as types
of questions to be used. Moreover, to involve the whole class, difficult questions should be
targeted to competent students while easy ones are spared for the weaker side of the class.
In a mixed-level class, teachers can enable learners to elicit from each other.
The second rule worth considering is that after delivering each question, teachers

should leave time for students to digest or to think of the answer. However, it is not
advised by Darn & Cetin (2009) to “pull teeth” or wait for “prolonged answers”.
Next is teachers‟ response after students give their answer. A minor gesture or
quick comments can be delivered to show teachers‟ acknowledgement which turns out to
be a very significant source of encouragement to their learners.
Lastly, “the teacher should elicit onto the blackboard” to make it easier for students
to follow and get maximum attention from them (Doff, 1988: 167).
2.2. Related studies
As stressed previously, eliciting technique is a powerful tool frequently employed
in the process of teaching English, especially under communicative approach. Therefore,
there is no question why the issue has been brought into research field by some scholars,
both overseas and domestic involved.
One of the pioneering studies on the application of eliciting techniques into English
lessons is “Eliciting spontaneous speech in bilingual students: Methods and techniques” by
Cornejo, Ricardo and Najar (1983). In this research, the three researchers first presented an
overview of studies using traditional techniques to elicit language from students before
recommending the use of interviews as a way to elicit students‟ talk.

Some other

innovative techniques were put forward to foster students‟ spontaneous conversations, both
with their teachers and students. While the study could provide significant background
theory and practical recommendations, it still had two perceivable limitations. Since it was
conducted outside Vietnam, the scope of the study did not reach Vietnamese language
teaching and learning context. Also, the subjects of the study were bilingual students
whose culture, education and other conditions were totally different from Vietnamese EFL
students‟. The gap that no specifications for Vietnamese students were made can be partly
bridged by domestic researchers.
In another research named “Maximizing learning potential in the communicative
classroom” by Kumaravadivelu (1993), elicitation teaching was also brought into

13

examination to see what effects it bore on learning potential in CLT classes. The
observational study conducted in two contrastive episodes came to a conclusion that the
appropriate use of elicitation techniques contributes to making English classes genuinely
communicative and maximizing learning potential. Generally speaking, the findings of this
research were extremely significant in strengthening the faith in the effectiveness of
elicitation teaching. However, the study was conducted on a small scale, which may
weaken the generalizability of the results.
As CLT became the most prevailing approach implemented in almost every uppersecondary school in Vietnam, there have been several researches on the field. The first one
is “Using elicitation techniques to teach Vocabulary to 11th form students in Hanoi” by
Pham (2006). On shedding light on the issue, the author attempted to investigate three
aspects: the situation of teaching vocabulary to 11th form students in Hanoi, the application
of elicitation techniques to teach vocabulary to these subjects and pedagogical
recommendations to make a better use of elicitation techniques in teaching vocabulary.
Given that his effort in conducting this study was praiseworthy and the findings had a
significant contribution to the field, there were still some limitations that should be
addressed. Firstly, the study centered around the teaching vocabulary. Although this was
one of three core teaching components where the employment of elicitation techniques
could be considered a must in modern EFL classrooms, the results of a thorough
investigation into this field only could not represent that of the others namely grammar,
pronunciation and four macro skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Secondly, the
classroom settings where the survey of this research was conducted were not yet
introduced the new textbook which still followed the old teaching methods.
One year later, another research on elicitation was carried out by Tran (2007)
named “eliciting technique to teach speaking skill to grade-10 students in HFLSS”.
Firstly, she investigated the real situation of teachers‟ using eliciting techniques to teach
grade-10 students in HFLSS in Hanoi. Then, outstanding advantages of this practice could

be drawn out. Hindrances to the employment process of this technique were diagnosed for
timely and necessary pedagogical adjustments. Notably, the author gave a close look at the
speaking skill as the focus. One perceivable limitation is that the subjects of the study were
students from FLSS only, which could hardly be generalized into a wider population of
other institutions across the city and country.


14

Most recently, Nguyen (2011) worked on “the exploitation of eliciting techniques
by fourth-year students in their teaching practicum at University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University” (ULIS, VNU). The author looked into
how eliciting techniques were used by student-teachers in teaching English to first-year
students at English Division 1, Faculty of Teacher Education, ULIS, VNU. The study was
a praiseworthy attempt to evaluate the frequency of using eliciting techniques, the
effectiveness, difficulties and solutions to enhance the effects of elicitation teaching.
However, the different teaching context in Nguyen (2011) made the present researcher
decide to do further work on the same issue.
These listed gaps intensify the significance of the current study which targets at
elicitation techniques teachers use to teach speaking skill to non-major university students.
To sum up, in this chapter, the researcher has briefly defined important terms and
reviewed relevant background theories. The employment of elicitation techniques
demonstrates teachers‟ attempt in implementing communicative approach with a view to
increasing students‟ talk in class. As elicitation teaching has both benefits and drawbacks,
teachers need to take several principles into consideration when practicing it. Supported
and developed from formerly conducted studies of the same field, the current one
examined the application of elicitation in a different approach and context.


15

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter is to elaborate the methodology of the research including research
settings, participants, data collection instruments and analysis together with data analysis
procedure.
3.1. Research settings and participants
3.1.1. Research settings
Syllabus
In the first academic year, students are to reach levels A1 and A2 (according to
Common European Framework of Reference, now referred to as CEFR) in two initial
semesters. The number of credit hours each week is 6 which is halved into two class
contacts. In the light of Communicative Approach aiming to develop students‟
communicative competence alongside with linguistic ability, textbooks applied to levels
A1 and A2 are New English File Elementary and Pre-intermediate respectively, by Clive
Oxenden, Christina Latham-Konig and Paul Seligson. Moreover, students can self-study
with the workbooks of this series and other recommended material sources. Pronunciation
section is particularly intensified with the utilization of Pronunciation in use Elementary
by Jonathan Marks.
With regard to testing and evaluation, there are two mid-term tests and one final
exam. The former consists of one written and one oral test scheduled in Week 9 and 13
respectively. The latter is conducted at the end of every semester in the integrative form
but with the absence of the oral skill. The grade proportion for these three tests is 25% 15% - 50%, with the other 10% devoted to the checking of students‟ attendance and
participation.
Students
Firstly, one of the most important features of students of UET, VNU is that they
major in technical sciences. Hence, English is not always their strength. Students‟ English
proficiency ranges widely, depending on their living and high school education
background. Students are supposed to achieve level B1 of CEFR by the time they
graduate. The number of first-year students each year is approximately 400 who are
equally divided into 15 classes, i.e. about 25 to 30 per class. Last but not least, UET

students had been placed into appropriate classes corresponding to their English


16

proficiency until academic year 2010-2011 when the credit program began to take effects.
At present, students of different levels are randomly put into one class.
Teachers
There are 14 teachers in the Department of English. On average, each teacher is in
charge of two class contacts in two different classes. The majority of teachers are quite
young, aged from 24 to 34. The number of teaching years ranges from 2 to 12. Although
their working experience seems limited, 80% of them achieved Master Degree and the
rest are to complete Master courses shortly. In addition, they regularly attend training
workshops as well as actively participating in annual scientific research activity.
3.1.2. Participants
Since this study investigated the use of elicitation in real classroom settings, both
teachers and students were involved as subjects of the research.
Although the research focuses on teachers‟ application of elicitation teaching,
students play an equivalent role as direct beneficiaries, observers and evaluators of the
process. They were primarily selected for the questionnaire to obtain answers to Research
Question 3. The total number was approximately 80, which constituted nearly one fifth of
the entire population.
The selection of students taking part in the survey primarily complied with the
principle of random sampling. This sampling method is useful if the researcher wishes to
be able to make generalization, because it seeks representativeness of the wider
population (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000: 100). Every student has chance to be
selected. The selection of one may not eliminate the likelihood of the others. Therefore,
this sampling method could ensure high diversity and, thus, validity for the study. On
applying the mentioned theory, the researcher did hand-pick four out of given 15 classes.
In these four chosen classes, the researcher selected 20 students from each to approach.

However, to intensify the representativeness of the study, another method namely
stratified sampling was also employed to choose these 20 students properly. The
researcher divided the whole population of each class into sub-groups, each of which
“contains subjects with similar characteristics” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000:
101). Their A1 scores are the only criterion for different categories which serve the later
selection.


17

Score range

Number of students selected

>=8.5

5

7.0 < 8.5

5

5.5  < 7.0

5

< 5.5

5
Table 1: Categorization of selected students

Students from different groups may demonstrate different viewpoints on the same
issue. Due to several external obstacles, the researcher could penetrate into only two
classes but tried her best to choose students of highest diversity as a compensation.
Teachers:
Because teachers are the target of this research, they underwent a careful selection
procedure for both the questionnaire and interview session. 10 out of 14 teachers of the
Department were invited to share their opinion and experience on the investigated issue
within the questionnaire. It needs to note that eight out of this 10 were intentionally taken
from four earlier-selected classes, which might be useful for the comparison between
their own responses and their students‟ evaluation. From those 10 teachers, six of them
were invited to the interview session.
3.2. Research Instruments
As a survey research, it fully employed all three fundamental tools namely
questionnaire, semi-structured interview and classroom observation. The combination of
these three instruments was believed to generate valid and reliable data.
3.2.1. Teacher and Student Questionnaire
The first data collection method, the questionnaires, was delivered to both
teachers and students. This tool was popularly used in almost every primary research.
According to Wilson and Mc Lean (1994), questionnaire was highly regarded for its
outstanding merits including providing structured, numerical data, being able to be
administered without the presence of the researcher, and often straightforward to be
analyzed (cited by Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000: 245). Also, from reality, the
researcher found it time- and effort- saving to conduct questionnaire survey among a


18

relatively large number of UET freshmen and teachers. These advantages are already
recognized by Milne (1999) when he stated:

Questionnaires come in many different forms from factual to opinion based, from
tick boxes to free text responses. Whatever their form, questionnaires are often viewed as
quick and easy to do.
In this research context, both teacher and student question included two main
sections: the first sought respondents‟ personal information which was collected and
presented earlier in 3.1.1 and the second was the main content. The teacher questionnaire
was to deliberately find the answers to the two first research questions: teachers‟ concept
of elicitation in teaching English speaking skill and their actual employment. Meanwhile,
the student question was targeted to the effects of that employment on students. In order
to get sincere opinions and objective assessment, the questionnaire was carefully
designed: it began with a brief statement of the research title, the purpose of conducting
questionnaire survey and a desire for cooperation from respondents. The researcher also
affirmed the confidentiality of the shared information. In the main part, questions were
mostly in two main types namely multiple choice and table grading. Open-ended
questions were minimized to avoid fatigue effect, especially for first year students. As for
the language, to make it easy for students to understand, the questionnaire for students
was translated into Vietnamese and did not consist of too specialized terms whereas the
teacher questionnaire was still kept in the original version of English language.
In general, the questionnaire was carefully designed in terms of both appearance
and content for the highest return rates as well as the usefulness of the responses.
3.2.2. Teacher interview
Effective as the questionnaire can be, this is not always the case. In fact, there are
several disadvantages in using questionnaire as a data collection instrument, one of which
is the limited depth of the answers obtained. The interview then appears as a no-lessimportant tool as it served the purpose of obtaining in-depth information far beyond the
results initially collected from questionnaires. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison
(2000: 268), interview is a common research tool used to collect data, as in surveys or
experimental situations. In the current research, semi-structured interview was employed
to probe for details.

19

Six semi-structured interviews were face-to-face interaction between the
researcher and selected teachers. Like questionnaires, every interview was started with a
session of sharing personal information. To avoid possible misunderstanding and
confusion, the interviews were done in Vietnamese. Under the interviewees‟ permission,
the responses were noted and tape-recorded so as not to miss any important details. At
times, unclear points were further explained, which partly enriched the quantity and
quality of collected data.
3.2.3. Classroom observation
In the light of a primary research, classroom observation was regarded as a must
for a maximum degree of objectivity. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 305) claimed
that observational data are attractive as they afford the researcher the opportunity to
gather „live‟ data from „live‟ situations. On doing lesson observation, the researcher
could verify the results collected earlier from questionnaires and interviews and
particularly examined the teacher‟s actual employment of elicitation (Research Question
2).
Before the date of observation, a checklist was drafted to orientate the
observation. Due to several external obstacles, the researcher was admitted into only two
lessons: One was File 1D in Group 2 and the other was File 3 Practical English in
Group 10. The lessons were also filmed so that the analysis work became more favorable
and accurate.
In conclusion, the combination of the three most common tools namely
questionnaire, interview and classroom observation brought to the researcher a rich
amount of valid and reliable data, the analysis of which would be presented in the next
chapter.

3.3. Data collection procedure
The data collection procedure can be divided into two main stages including the
preparation and actual implementation.

3.3.1. Preparation
First of all, a research design was constructed with a selection of participants,
consideration of data collection instruments and data analysis methods. Not long later,
first drafts of questionnaires and interview schedules were written up. After that, the


20

piloting of the questionnaire survey was carried out over a small group of students within
the targeted population. After the piloting session, important amendments were made to
have better editions of questionnaire. With a consideration of research objectives and the
nature of observed lessons, the researcher constructed the classroom observation
framework. The last preparatory step was to send written consents to the interviewees and
arrange the interview dates.
3.3.2. Implementation
This stage consisted of three steps related to activities carried out both outside and
inside classrooms.
Step 1: Teacher questionnaires and students were issued to get initial responses.
Step 2: Classroom observation was conducted in two lessons, the choice of which
could not be determined by the researcher herself but on permission.
Step 3: Teacher interview was done right after the observed classes were finished.
It was the suitable time for the interviewer to clarify any points that she found ambiguous
or worth asking about the observed lessons as well as about the questionnaires.
3.4. Data analysis procedure
Based on questionnaire results, the researcher began to classify, synthesize and
report data. To make the analysis comprehensible, answers to every question in the form
of words were transferred into charts first, followed by a detailed explanation. Semistructured interviews were transcribed, analyzed and integrated into the presentation of
questionnaire results so that readers could have a deeper understanding of the situations.
Regarding classroom observation, the researcher made a thorough analysis on the
observation details videoed from the two lessons. The results then were double-checked

with those of questionnaires and interviews.
To sum up, the research did involve a considerable number of 80 freshmen and 10
teachers of English from UET, VNU in questionnaire survey, interview and classroom
observation. The results, after that, were synthesized, analyzed as well as reported in the
most reader-friendly way and would be clearly presented in the next chapter.