The effects of meaning activities on young learners speaking activities and attitudes at ho van hue primary school a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in TESOL

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
----------------------------------

THE EFFECTS OF MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES
ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING
ACTIVITIES AND ATTITUDES
AT HO VAN HUE PRIMARY SCHOOL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

SUBMITTED BY: NGUYEN HUYNH DOAN THY

SUPERVISOR: ASSOC. PROF. DR. NGUYEN THANH TUNG

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2016


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “The effects of meaning-focused activities on
young learners’ speaking skill at Ho Van Hue Primary School” is my own
work.
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains
no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis
by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the
main text of the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in
any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 15th, 2016
Signature

Nguyen Huynh Doan Thy

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Nguyen Thanh Tung, my supervisor, for his encouragement and kind support for
my thesis. I highly appreciate his valuable insights in his feedback to me and I am
so grateful for all his guidance and confidence in my ability to accomplish the
thesis.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all students at Ho Van Hue
Primary School who have been active participants in both Control Group (CG) and
Experimental Group (EG).
I am especially grateful to all lecturers as well as my classmates at Ho Chi Minh
City Open University.
Also, I am so happy and proud of my beloved family including my mother, Mrs.
Huynh Thi My Le, and my husband, Mr. Nguyen Quang Khanh, for their kind
support given to me during the time I did the thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT
This thesis investigates the effects of meaning-focused activities on young learners’
speaking performance in English teaching and learning at Ho Van Hue Primary School.
Adopting Flavel’s (1963) theory of Piaget’s cognitive development as a basic

theoretical framework, young learners aged 7-11 belong to the third stage of development
in which they can operate concrete objects. Due to limited knowledge and experience,
children only have enough ability to focus on meaning when they learn English speaking
while adolescents in the fourth stage seem to be fully developed for formal operations.

Data on speaking lessons from a set of eight units in Fun for Movers (Robinson &
Saxby, 2015) were selected carefully by the researcher to form the basis for a teaching
program in which meaning-focused activities were employed to teach English speaking to
the 4th graders of age 10. An experimental study was carried out with three main
instruments of tests, questionnaires and interviews. As for the analytical framework,
independent samples t-tests for the pretest and posttest were run on SPSS of version 22.0
and descriptive statictics were employed for questionnaires and interviews.

The outcomes of the research show that meaning-focused activities have positive
effects on young learners’ speaking performance. Additionally, from participating in the
propgram, the students express their enthusiasm, engagement and motivation when they
learn speaking English with this intervention.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... II
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1
1.1.

1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................................................................. 4
AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 5
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 7
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE MEANING-FOCUSED APPROACH ......................... 7
A DESCRIPTION OF MEANING-FOCUSED AND FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH TEACHING 9
THEORY OF ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 11
POSITIONING MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES IN META-COGNITION ........................ 15
PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF MEANING-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES ON YOUNG
LEARNERS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCES .............................................................................. 22
2.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 30
3.1. RESEARCH SITE.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................ 31
3.2.1. Population .......................................................................................................... 31
3.2.2. Sample ................................................................................................................ 32

3.2.3. Experimental group ............................................................................................ 33
3.2.4. Control group ..................................................................................................... 35
3.3. METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................... 38
3.3.1. Overall approach................................................................................................ 38
3.3.2. Data collection process ...................................................................................... 47
3.4. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................ 49
3.4.1. Tests .................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.2. Questionnaires .................................................................................................... 51
3.4.3. Interviews ........................................................................................................... 51
3.5. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENTS .................................................... 52
3.5.1. Reliability and validity of tests ........................................................................... 52
3.5.2. Reliability and validity of questionnaires ........................................................... 53
3.5.3. Reliability and validity of interviews .................................................................. 54
3.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ............ 57
4.1. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 57
iv


4.1.1. Reliability and validity of tests ........................................................................... 57
4.1.2. Data analysis of tests .......................................................................................... 60
4.1.3. Data analysis of the questionnaires and interviews ........................................... 64
4.2. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS .................................................................................... 77
4.2.1. Discussion of the findings of the first research question “To what extend do
meaning-focused activities affect young learners’ speaking ability?” ........................ 77
4.2.2. Discussion of the findings of the second research question “What are young
learners’ attitudes towards meaning-focused activities in learning speaking?” ......... 79
4.3. CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 82
5.1.

5.2.
5.3.
5.4.

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 82
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF METHODOLOGY ................................................ 83
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 84
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................. 85

REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 86
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX 1 ...................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX 2 ...................................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX 3 ...................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX 4 .................................................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX 5 .................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX 6 .................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX 7 .................................................................................................................... 107
APPENDIX 8 .................................................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX 9 .................................................................................................................... 112
APPENDIX 10 .................................................................................................................. 113
APPENDIX 11 .................................................................................................................. 117
APPENDIX 12 .................................................................................................................. 120
APPENDIX 13 .................................................................................................................. 121
APPENDIX 14 .................................................................................................................. 124
APPENDIX 15 .................................................................................................................. 128
APPENDIX 16 .................................................................................................................. 130

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of the schedule of real observations from the textbook of Fun
for Movers
Table 2.4: Previous studies on meaning-focused activities on young learners’
speaking ability
Table 3.3.1a: Components of a Cambridge Test for Young Learners (YLs)
Table 3.3.1b: Three-point Likert scale of the questionnaire
Table 3.3.1c: Schedule of the focus group interview in week 7 on April 15th, 2016
Table 3.3.2: The process of collecting questionnaire, interview and tests
Table 4.1.1.1a: Reliability of pretest for the CG and EG
Table 4.1.1.1b: Reliability of posttest for CG and EG
Table 4.1.1.2a: Inter-reliability of pretest for CG and EG
Table 4.1.1.2b: Mean and SD of pretest for CG and EG
Table 4.1.1.2c.: Inter-reliability of the posttest for the CG and EG
Table 4.1.1.2d.: Mean and SD of the posttest for CG and EG
Table 4.1.2.1a. Comparison of mean and Std. Deviation of the CG and EG in the
pretest
Table 4.1.2.1b. Independent-Samples Test of levels between the CG and EG in the
pretest
Table 4.1.2.2a: Comparison of mean and std. deviation of the CG and EG in the
posttest
Table 4.1.2.2b. Independent Samples Test of levels between the CG and EG in the
posttest
Table 4.1.2.2c. Report on the difference of levels between the CG and EG in the
posttest
Table 4.1.3.1a. Frequency and percentage of students’ general attitudes towards
learning English speaking
Table 4.1.3.1b: Students’ perceptions on the benefits of meaning-focused activities

vi


Table 4.1.3.2b: Students’ feelings towards meaning-focused activities in learning
English speaking
Table 4.1.3.1c: Desire to learn speaking with meaning-focused activities
Table 4.1.3.2: Three-point Likert scale of the questionnaire

vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2: A model of the Zone of Proximal Development.

viii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CG

Control group

EG

Experimental group

ELLiE

Early Language Learning in Europe

HVH PS

Ho Van Hue Primary School

MOET

Ministry of Education and Training

PSs

Primary Students

YLs

Young Learners

ZPD

Zone of Proximal Development

ix


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Background of the study
Within the constraints of the form-focused instruction, the teaching and

learning of English speaking has faced some problems refraining fluent speech. One

of the most common challenges is that a majority of English teachers tend to use the
traditional method in speaking lessons. Based on real observations in some primary
classes at Ho Van Hue Primary School, the author of this study could identify some
common activities in a speaking period: using Vietnamese to explain the new
lessons, writing sample structures on the board, asking students to copy sentences in
their notebooks, and forcing students to learn model utterances by heart. As a
consequence, students become passive learners when they learn English speaking
with this instruction because they do not have many opportunities to express their
ideas freely and share their feelings in pair or group work. They tend to be like
parrots listening to the teacher’s explanation and repeating after him/her the
utterances as required. Not only does the teacher talk more than students, but he/she
also often interrupts them to correct grammatical mistakes when they practice
speaking English. A speaking period turns out to be a reading and writing lesson
including formal operations in terms of accuracy.
The author of this study spent time observing some classes in various levels
from grade three to grade five at Ho Van Hue Primary School to draw out the
instruction which teachers often used in teaching English speaking. The popular
approach is summarized in the table on the next page.
As can be seen from this table, most of teachers use form-focused instruction
to guide their students to learn English speaking in terms of speaking part one about
find the differences, speaking part two about a picture story, speaking part three
about odd one out, and speaking part four about personal information. Instead of
adopting a learner-centred approach and taking their role as coordinators or
facilitators, a majority of the teachers at this primary school still use a traditional
approach in speaking lessons. For example, first, instead of giving time for students
to work in groups to brainstorm what they could see in the pictures, these teachers
wrote the sample structures on the board: “In picture A, there is …, but in picture B,

1

there are…”, or “Here, the boy is laughing, but there, the girl is crying…” Second,
the
Table 1.1: Summary of the schedule of real observations from the textbook Fun for
Movers
Teacher

Session

Methodology

Date

Time

Place

1st
teacher

1) Unit 41:

Form-focused
instruction

March
4th, 2016

7:30 a.m.
–

Class
3/1

Saying yes or no

8:05 a.m.

(Speaking Part 1)

2nd
teacher

3rd
teacher

2) Unit 34:
Form-focused
What’s in
instruction
Mary’s kitchen?
(Speaking Part 2)

March
11th,
2016

15:00
p.m. –

3) Unit 33: On
Form-focused
your feet and on instruction
your head
(Speaking Part 3)

March
18th,
2016

9:00 a.m.
–

4) Unit 9: My
family

Form-focused
instruction +
(Speaking Part 4) Meaning-focused
instruction

March
25th,
2016

15:35
p.m. –
16:05
p.m.

5) Unit 13:
Different homes

April 1st, 9:35 a.m.
2016
–

Form-focused
instruction

(Speaking Part 1)
6) Unit 32: Why
is Sally crying?

7) Unit 25:
Which one is
different?

15:35
p.m.
Class
4/3

9:35 a.m.
Class
4/4

Class
5/1

10:05
a.m.
Form-focused
instruction

April 8st, 13:45
2016
p.m. –

(Speaking Part 2)
4th
teacher

Class
3/2

Class
5/2

14:20
p.m.
Form-focused
instruction

April
15th,
2016

10:05
a.m. –

April
22nd,
2016

15:35
p.m. –

(Speaking Part 3)
8) Unit 11:
Things we eat
and drink

Form-focused
instruction +
Meaning-focused
(Speaking Part 4) instruction
2

Class
5/3

10:35
a.m.

16:05
p.m.

Class
5/4

teachers often ask their students to listen to their explanations and repeat these
structures after them and some representative students are called on to take turns to
say the structures aloud in front of the class. Third, teachers give them from five to
seven minutes to copy down the sample structures into their notebooks. The last
step is that the teachers let their students to work individually from four to six
minutes to practice speaking English and present in front of the class.
This way of teaching and learning English speaking leads to lots of problems
refraining students from fluent speech. Because a period at a primary school lasts
only 35 minutes, students are too young to copy the content on the board into their
notebooks quickly. Furthermore, as the class size in a public school is often over 40
students, they have few chances to focus on practicing speaking English. Therefore,
a period of learning English speaking tends to become a kind of doing grammar
exercises as required by the teacher.
Although current guidelines from such publishers as Cambridge, Oxford and
Macmillan encourage teachers to innovate their ways of teaching by applying the
new method of communicative language teaching in a speaking lesson, a minority
of Vietnamese teachers follow this recommendation because of the class facilities in
public schools. The class size is usually more than 40 students per class with
different levels from excellent to less able ones. This leads to the difficulty for the
teacher to divide the class into small groups for them to have more chances to
develop their speaking skill inside the classroom. Additionally, owing to a 35minute period at a primary school, the teacher has less time to help his/her students
to practice speaking as compared to a private class in an international school where
the class size is smaller with 15-20 students in each room.
Apart from her real observations of several English teachers at Ho Van Hue
Primary School, the author of this study identifies some more reasons why teachers
tend to use the conventional method to teach English speaking and limit group
work’s activities. In their answers, they pay attention to the safety in the classroom,
which means that it is hard for them to manage the class well when students are

asked to sit in groups of four or six in a speaking lesson. Children are active
learners, love talking to one another and are likely to chat irrelevant things, which
3


makes the class noisier and noisier. Another inconvenient thing is that a team leader
in every group prefers to talk the most while the rest seem to be quiet as they only
listen

to

his/her

presentation.

Despite

the

communicative

method,

the

encouragement of methodological innovations by the principals and the goal of
national foreign language project 2020, few teachers have enough confidence to
apply new approaches for the fear of classroom management and the burden of
completing the syllabus within the fixed amount of short time. Another
disadvantage of trying to implement creative ways of teaching and learning English

speaking in a public school is the anxiety of students’ getting lower scores and this
may influence the teacher’s performance at the end of the school year.
These challenges, regarding children’s sacrifice of meaning for form as usually
instructed by the teacher, the school facilities and the burden of achieving high
scores on the exams motivate the researcher to find out an alternative to the
currently used method of teaching and learning English speaking at a primary
school with the hope of increasing young learners’ speaking ability. Based on
Flavel’s (1963) theory of Piaget’s cognitive development, meaning-focused
activities are proposed as a better way to enhance young learners’ speaking skill.
1.2.

Statement of the problem
Based on her real observations of different classes at Ho Van Hue Primary

School and in accordance with more than five years of teaching experience for
children from grade one to grade five, the researcher can draw out some main points
for the current instruction and learning of English speaking. Even though the aim of
the national foreign language project 2020 is to encourage teachers to motivate
students to develop their speaking skill via the application of the new method –
communicative language teaching – that focuses more on meaning than form, a
majority of English teachers tend to use a traditional approach owing to several
reasons: the difficulty in applying the new method at a primary school, big class
size of 40 students or more, classroom management, and the problem with equal
support.
Additionally, the intensive program is considered to be overloaded for both
teachers and students because they not only learn four periods of the textbook
Family and Friends but they also study extra books, such as Math, Science and Get
4

it up. That the duration of a period in primary classes lasts for only 35 minutes is
another reason forcing teachers to try to complete all tasks required by the school.
All the aforementioned main reasons prevent the teacher from having enough
time and resources to study an innovative way to teach English speaking to young
learners effectively. Furthermore, results from the final exams of the previous years
and her practical experience of teaching English speaking to primary students of
different levels pay the way for the author of this thesis to explore the topic about
whether students’ speaking performance is satisfactory as expected from the goal of
the school.
1.3.

Aim and Research questions
This study aims at investigating the influence of meaning-focused activities on

young learners’ speaking ability and their attitudes towards this new approach. To
achieve this goal, it addresses the following two research questions:
1. To what extent do meaning-focused activities affect young learners’ speaking
ability?
2. What are young learners’ attitudes towards meaning-focused activities in
learning speaking?
1.4.

Significance of the study
The study plays an important role in improving young learners’ speaking

performance through meaning-focused activities within the context of Ho Van Hue
Primary School. The positive findings can help teachers to apply this new treatment
to the whole school with the purpose of developing better communication as well as
the balance of scores among other skills of listening, reading and writing. Also,
meaning-focused instruction makes learners become much engaged in the

classroom once they express their positive attitudes towards the new methodology.
Motivation plays a vital role in acquiring a second language as it can make learners
feel comfortable to interact as fluently as possible during speaking lessons. As such,
the significance of this study can be shown clearly with regard to students’ speaking
ability, motivation, interaction, and positive attitudes towards meaning-focused
activities.

5


1.5.

Organization of the study
This study consists of five chapters which are introduction, literature review of

meaning-focused activities, methodology, results and discussion of the findings, and
conclusions of the study.
The first chapter called introduction provides the background of the study,
statement of the problem, aim and research questions, significance of the study, and
organization of the study. The second chapter for literature review deals with
historical background to the meaning-focused approach, theory of Zone of Proximal
Development, positioning meaning-focused activities in meta-cognition, and
previous studies on the effects of meaning-focused activities on young learners’
speaking performance. The third chapter for methodology justifies research site,
participants, methodology of data collection, analytical framework, and reliability
and validity of the instruments. The fourth chapter presents research results and
discussion of the findings from three sources of data: tests, questionnaires and the
interviews. The last chapter consists of main conclusions, strengths and weaknesses
of methodology, recommendations and suggestions for further research.

6


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter depicts a theoretical framework of the influence of meaningfocused activities on young learners’ speaking performance. It consists of four main
parts which are historical background to the meaning-focused approach, theory of
Zone of Proximal Development, positioning meaning-focused activities in metacognition, and previous studies on the effects of meaning-focused activities on
young learners’ speaking performance.
2.1.

Historical background to the meaning-focused approach
First of all, it is important to refer to the historical background to the meaning-

focused approach so that the researcher can base herself on it to conduct a study on
the effects of meaning-focused activities on young learners’ speaking performance.
As the Grammar Translation Method is shown not to have positive effects on the
process of teaching and learning English speaking, the researcher tries intervening
with a new method to help her students improve their speaking ability. On the one
hand, the form-focused instruction helps students master reading and writing skills
in terms of using conscious memorization of grammar rules, learning vocabulary by
heart and speaking mainly in mother-tongue; on the other hand, the traditional
method refrains speaking English fluently (Asl, 2015). That is to say, there is a
mismatch between successful grammatical rules and effective communication.
Bishop (2000), one of the most famous methodologists, finds out that there is
not any direct link between accuracy and fluency in the activitiy of speaking. To put
it another way, a person who masters grammatical rules is not able to produce
accurate sentences. Undoubtedly, children cannot pay attention to two things at the
same time to ensure both fluency and accuracy. Admittedly, in quantitative and
qualitative studies, such famous methodologists as Spada and Lightbown (1993)
and Johnson and Swain (1997) point out that that the form-focused instruction is

problematic because students achieve high scores in grammar tests but have
difficulty in producing easy and smooth speech in conversations. Obviously, the
most important goal of speaking a foreign language is language fluency rather than
accuracy.
Under those cicumstances, educators use the form-focused instruction to teach
English speaking to learners at different levels for many decades. Nonetheless, the
7


application of the conventional method is shown to be ineffective in developing
communicative competence inside and outside the classroom. For this reason, other
modern methodologists discover the new method called meaning-focused approach
aiming at developing learners’ language proficiency (Asl, 2015). While Grammar
Translation Method fails in facilitating learners’ ability to use language for
communication, the meaning-focused instruction appears to help them achieve their
communicative competence in the target language (Richards & Rogers, 2014).
Importantly, this way of teaching includes learner-centred tasks which motivate
learners to focus on meaning rather than form when they learn English speaking.
Likewise, the primary function of learning a second language is the goal of creating
meaning in speech rather than merely controlling perfectly grammatical structures
(Hymes, 1972). In fact, learning with this new instruction, students are encouraged
to use the target language more than 90% and the mother tounge less than 10%. The
more they practice speaking in English lessons, the better they develop their
communication skill. For the purpose of enhancing fluent speech in meaningfocused instruction, learners have many benefits in the process of learning English
speaking.
The appearance of a modern method has remarkably changed the teaching and
learning of a foreign language with its ample advantages. Particularly, it enables
interaction among students in the classroom through the use of communicative tasks
which enhance second language acquisition by their negotiation of meaning. Pica,
Kanagy and Fadolun (1993) claim that “language learning is assisted through the

social interaction of their interlocutors, particularly when they negotiate toward
mutual comprehension of each other’s message meaning” (p. 9). Undoubtedly,
children are active learners and learn a second language differently from adults.
Especially, they learn by doing. Hence, pair or group work tends to be more suitable
with chidren than individual work. When they sit in groups, they have chances to
communicate with each other and exchange information. An additional advantage is
that meaning-focused activities have high impacts on self-confidence and
motivation for young learners at a primary school. Undoubtedly, from an early stage
of a primary school, children learn to negotiate the meaning of words to express
what they want for their own needs inside and beyond the classroom. In accordance
8


with a new treatment of meaning-focused activities, learners are given excellent
opportunities to experience speaking in the way of “friendly communication” which
enhances the quality of their speech. Equally important, the meaning-focused
approach is shown to be compatible with young learners aged 7-11 who belong to
the third stage of Piaget’s cognitive development (Kowal & Swain, 1997).
As has been noted, the form-focused instruction has been evaluated as not
having any positive effects on learners’ speaking performance because it refrains
them from speaking a second language fluently in conversations. Owing to some
obvious limitations of the traditional method of the Grammar Translation Method or
form-focused instruction, a number of famous methodologisits have explored the
new method called the meaning-focused approach in order to help students become
fluent speakers inside and beyond the classroom. The birth of a modern way of
teaching and learning speaking a foreign language motivates students to become
more active, confident and interactive in the activitity of working in pairs or small
groups. The existence of the meaning-focused approach not only boosts learners’
communicative competence but is also proved to be totally appropriate with young
learners aged seven to eleven who belong to the third stage of Piaget’s cognitive

development. Children at this stage are likely to operate concrete things like
meaning instead of form, especially in learning English speaking. Additionally,
children acquire a second language completely differently from adults who are
physically and psychologically grown-up. It is hard for them to focus on both form
and meaning in oral communication at the same time due to their small age,
limitations of cognitive development and knowledge as well as living experience.
The thing to be remembered is that the meaning-focused approach from the
previous years up to the present has been suggested as a better way to teach
speaking to young learners owing to its obvious benefits (Scheffler, 2011).
2.2.

A description of meaning-focused and form-focused approach teaching
As stated in Kowal and Swain (1997), fluency and accuracy both contribute to

learning speaking effectively but these two factors ought to be classified in order.
While learners complete communicative tasks in terms of meaning, they engage in
absorbing form-focused instruction implicitly. Equally important, Ellis (1994)
suggests that the combination of form and meaning focused input should be taught
9


simultaneously. Learners might be competent in solving grammatical rules but fail
into producing oral speeches fluently. By the same token, learners are likely to
make many morphological, syntactical and phonological errors if they learn English
speaking in meaning-focused classes. This approach is only appropriate with adults
who belong to the fourth stage of Piaget’s cognitive development because they are
old enough to acquire complex notions related to formal operations. In contrast, it is
impossible for young learners aged from seven to eleven to learn these two
approaches separately and chronologically. As a consequence, meaning-focused
instruction is the best choice for children to learn speaking explicitly because of the

suitability of ages and cognitive development. To put it another way, form-focused
instruction is implicitly taught after learners finish their oral tasks to help them
speak better in terms of accuracy.
In addition to the definition of meaning-focused and form-focused instruction,
qualitative and quantitative studies by Doughty (1991), Spa and Lightbown (1993),
Ellis (1994) and Kowal and Swain (1997) show that meaning-focused activities are
more suitable for young learners aged from seven to eleven than form-focused
instruction which underlines the importance of controlling grammatical rules. As
observed in primary classes at Ho Van Hue Primary School as well as other public
schools in different districts in Ho Chi Minh City, children were likely to develop
their speaking ability due to focusing on meaning while they produced their oral
speeches. This new intervention was compatible with both children’s age and
Piaget’s cognitive development. Furthermore, some form-focused speaking lessons
refrain learners speak fluently and made them feel anxious about making
grammatical errors. In reality, a few less able students who were interrupted by
corrective feedback in terms of form were not able to continue talking with each
other due to paid much attention on memorizing their mistakes. As an illustration,
Spada & Lightbown (1993) concluded that form-focused instruction was
problematic as students achieved high scores in grammar tests but they were not
likely to communicate with one another in conversations effectively. As far as I
concerned, grammar is necessary but it plays a subsidiary role as compared with
meaning in the realm of speaking English fluently.

10


Together with the description of meaning-focused and form-focused
instruction as well as the previous studies on the effects of meaning-focused
activities on young learners’ speaking performances, the researcher can draw a
general methodology of these two ways of teaching and learning English speaking.

As shown in a number of researchers in the past decades up to present, second
language learners especially adults focus on accuracy as well as meaning when they
produce oral speeches. For the adolescent, they tend to make accurate sentences
when they say something because they are old enough to acquire abstract things like
grammatical points. However, they still have difficulty in speaking English fluently
because they pay much attention on the structures of the sentences. It is totally
different from the objectives of speaking English fluently. As compared with the
form-focused instruction, the learners of foreign language focus on meaning when
they speak English. Fluency is considered to be the top priority for young learners
aged from seven to eleven because it is totally suitable with the small age as well as
the cognitive development of children at the third stage of Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development. As shown in Flavel (1963), children at this stage are able to
operate concrete things in terms of meaning. To put it differently, children focus on
meaning instead of form when they present something. The meaning-focused
instruction motivates students to speak English more and more in terms of fluency
or meaning of the speaking lessons. Children feel free to make form mistakes such
as the agreement of subject and verbs, singular or plural noun or the tenses. As a
consequence, they are eager to interact with each other through the collaborative
work including pair work and group work. To sum up, the form-focused teaching
focuses on the accuracy of the speeches but the meaning-focused instruction pays
much attention on the meaning of conversations. And children develop speaking
English due to the intervention of meaning-focused teaching which is seen as the
best choice for young learners aged from seven to eleven.
2.3.

Theory of Zone of Proximal Development
Coupled with the historical background to the meaning-focused approach is

the theory of Zone of Proximal Development. Among a variety of methodological
theories for teaching children, the theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

by Vygotsky (1930) is one of the most notable approaches. Generally, this theory
11


has appeared for many years since 1930s and it has profound effects on Russian,
American and Canadian education. Additionally, Vyotsky’s theory helps to shape a
method of teaching and learning a foreign language for young learners in various
countries all over the world. In the light of meaning of ZPD, it is defined as “the
distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”
(Vygotsky, 1930). As an illustration, children aged from seven to eleven are not
likely to be capable of learning by themselves but they learn a language with the
support from their adults including teachers and parents. In the same fashion,
children can know more good things from their capable peers or classmates when
they work together in speaking lessons as required by teachers in charge of the
class. That is to say, the theory of ZPD supports learners in building knowledge and
experience through the process of studying in the form of collaborative work.
Figure 2.2: A model of the Zone of Proximal Development (Nyikos & Hashimoto,
1997, p. 506)

As can be seen in Figure 2.2, the circle is divided into three small circles with
different colors. The yellow circle symbolizes “what I can do”, that is, the
background or existing knowledge and experience of each person. The next purple
circle represents “what I can do with help” and this circle is named Zone of
Proximal Development. The development of knowledge depends on the help from
the others such as older or better people. To put it differently, in terms of cognitive
12

development, Vygotsky states that children’s mental development should not be
assessed by what they can do independently – their “actual developmental level”
but rather by “what they can do with the assistance of the others – scaffolding”. In
this case, “what I can do with help” is also called as scaffolding” which is described
as as the role of adults or more knowledgeable peers in guiding children’s learning
or it is “a collaborative form of learning, with assistance from an adult, by which a
child can achieve her potential development” (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001, p.8).
Equally important, scaffolding plays a crucial part in enhancing cognitive
development because it is depicted as “the process that enables a child or novice to
solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his
unassisted efforts” (Wood, 1996, p. 5).
By the same token, scalfolding helps learners to engage in speaking lessons in
the form of collaborative work including pair or group work. Likewise, the support
from capable peers plays an important role in suggesting creative ideas or providing
some difficult words or explaining unclear events happening in the sequence of the
story. Indeed, children have difficulty in telling the picture story because there are
lots of things needed for describing the whole story from the beginning to the end
logically. The connecting ideas among four children creates an interesting story
with thrilling events happening through the sequence of the four pictures. This
friendly cooperation has ample benefits on developing speaking skills through the
frequent practice of different parts of a speaking test day after day (Wood, 1976, p.
89).
The combination of previous studies and real obseravtions about the benefits
of scaffolding on developing young learners’ speaking performance show that it can
improve their communicative competence. Additionally, with the support from
teachers and peers as the two basic scaffolders, students have positive feelings
towards collaborative speaking tasks such as the frequency and percentage of
raising their hands, engaging in speaking activities, and brainstorming more
imaginative speech. For the purpose of deepening the benefits of scaffolding on
enhancing learners’ speaking ability, there are some main types of scaffolding to

apply in teaching and learning speaking English to children. Markedly, scalfolding

13


is divided into modeling, contingency managing, feeding back, and instructing,
questioning and cognitive structuring (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990).
Regarding the first type of scaffolding, modelling is described as the activitiy
in which the teacher explains the lessons to learners through creating a copy of an
activity or a situation so that learners can study it before dealing with the real thing.
Together with modelling, the teacher has to be equipped with the ability to predict
possibilities of unexpected events happening inside the classroom to prepare the
solutions. Contingency managing is defined as the possibility to know something in
advance, which is vital for the teacher to manage unexpected situations that may
surprise him/her because it is not welcomed to appear during the process of teaching
and learning a foreign language. Another key point of scaffolding is that the way of
feeding back is extremely important in giving advice, criticism or information about
how good or useful something or somebody’s work is. That is to say, the teacher
had better be clever and flexible in giving comments on learners’ oral speech in
order not to make them become demotivated or lose face in front of their peers
when they are presenting something. The best way is to talk about common
mistakes focusing on grammar points regardless of individual students after they
finish their speech so that their fluency is not interrupted and hence their
communicative competence is enhanced. One more thing to remember is that young
learners should be given clear and simple instructions for them to follow the rules
easily and quickly. In fact, children are active learners and they do not like listening
to long and detailed information on how to do or use something. Henceforth, the
way of giving instructions is very essential in engaging learners in speaking lessons
in the realm of the classroom.
By the same token, questioning is vital to children because it provides both

cognitive and linguistic responses or enhances their potential learning within ZPD
(Gallimore & Tharp, 1990). Another thing to remember is that the content of the
lessons ought not to be designed complicatedly for the students to understand or do
easily. That is to say, cognitive structuring must be suitable with cognitive
development of young learners aged from seven to eleven. In a nutshell, referring to
some common types of scaffolding including modeling, contingency managing,
feeding back, and instructing, questioning and cognitive structuring, the teacher
14


should pay much attention on the benefits of them to design appropriate lesson
plans for children due to limited knowledge and experience in the process of second
language acquisition.
All things considered, the theory of Zone of Proximal Development has been
shown to have profound effects on building up people’s knowledge and experience
owing to the support from the others. It becomes one of the most popular theories of
teaching and learning a foreign language for children all over the world. What a
person can do is defined as the background knowledge and what a person can do
with help is described as the ZPD. This theory is indicated to have great effects on
developing young learners’ communicative competence due to the form of
collaborative work. Children tend to be more active and confident in working
together in pair and group work to complete different speaking activities which are
finding the differences between the two pictures, telling the picture story,
identifying the odd one out, giving reasons, and answering personal information. In
a word, children acquire a foreign language better owing to the support from the
two kinds of scaffolders who are the teacher and capable peers inside the classroom.
2.4.

Positioning meaning-focused activities in meta-cognition
The birth of the meaning-focused instruction helps educators to solve problems

related to limitations of the form-focused instruction. It gives learners lots of
benefits on developing their communicative competence through different kinds of
speaking activities. A main difference between the meaning-focused and formfocused instruction is the top priority of fluency for the first one and accuracy for
the second one. While meaning-focused activities aim at motivating students to
work in groups, activities focusing on form pay much attention to working
personally. It is important to realize that collaborative work plays a crucial part in
enhancing students’ motivation, interaction as well as confidence in the process of
producing speech. The support from others including teachers and capable peers are
very essential to develop their speaking ability. The history of meaning-focused
approach and the benefits of the scaffolding both boost students’ speaking skill
from what learners can do with the help from the other people. For this reason, the
stimuli of meaning-focused activities are shown to be suitable with young learners’
age and their cognitive development in the Piaget’s theory (Scheffle, 2011).
15