Teaching guidelines

Including linguistic knowledge in the communication strategy instruction

There were mixed levels of oral communication performance in the research setting, ranging from medium to low levels. One of the reasons for teaching linguistic knowledge (e.g., vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar that play roles in oral communication) in the CS instruction was that the lower level group seemed to use CSs ineffectively because of their limited linguistic knowledge. For example, without a wide range of lexical knowledge, they were not able to use circumlocution and approximation appropriately. Linguistic knowledge is also important to support students to use a wide

134 range of appropriate expressions and phrases to fill pauses, to ask the interlocutors for repetition, and to seek help from them(Lam, 2006).

Based on the findings from the pre-assessment, some achievement strategies such as all-purpose words, code switching, similar sounding words, and literal translation could contribute to successful communication when accompanied by other context clues such as English descriptions and additional information. Therefore, it seemed vital to teach students linguistic knowledge to support the use of these CSs. Teaching students linguistic knowledge would also help raise their awareness of their own language mistakes and errors and therefore feel confident to correct and rephrase their messages properly and effectively (Kongsom, 2009).

Utilising diverse communicative tasks to promote the use of communication strategies

Based on the findings in the pre-assessment, achievement strategies were employed extensively by both groups of students. This finding suggested that describing Thai culture-specific situations and terminology was a useful task to stimulate the use of this category of CSs (Wongsawang, 2001). More task types, requiring two way communication and relevant to the tourism context in Thailand, should be included in the instruction phase of the action research process. These additional tasks should encourage students to use other categories of CSs, particularly interactional strategies which were found to be seldom used by either group. These tasks should also promote practising CS use in an authentic tourism context so that they are found to be useful for tourism students. Therefore, it is important to include a variety of communicative tasks in the CS instruction to promote the use of a variety of CSs (Rossiter, 2003).

135

4.5 Chapter summary

Data collection and analysis of Phase One was undertaken to explore the needs of students in order to plan the CS instruction. Focusing on students’ oral communication performances from the pre-assessment, data were analysed in two ways. Firstly, to explore students’ existing oral proficiencies, all participating students’ speaking band scores were ranked and grouped into medium and lower levels of oral communication performance. Secondly, for in-depth investigation of the use of individual CSs, seven oral samples of the focus group selected from the previous process were analysed for CS use. The results from these processes, summarised in Figure 4.2, were used to plan the CS instruction in Phase Two of this action research project.

Based on the findings, initial reflection was made for planning the CS instruction. Key CSs were selected for the initial plan of the CS instruction. They were circumlocution, approximation, lexicalised fillers, direct appeal for help, and modified interaction strategies. These have different features and distinctive roles in communication. Circumlocution and approximation would be useful to compensate linguistic gaps and lexicalised fillers would help keep a communication channel open. Direct appeals for help and modified interaction strategies would assist establish mutual understanding. Teaching undergraduate tourism students to use these strategies could accommodate them to communicate in English effectively with any tourists who have different linguistic, cultural, and educational background. To teach these CSs effectively, linguistic features (e.g., vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar for oral communication) and diverse communicative tasks were recommended to be included in the CS instruction. Details of the development and implementation of the CS instruction will be discussed in the next chapter.

136 1) Levels of oral communication performance of all participants

x Of all 22 participants, half were ranked at the medium level group, others were ranked at the lower level group. There were no students ranked at the higher level.

2) The frequency of CSs used by the focus group

x Both groups most commonly used achievement strategies, followed by time- stalling strategies and interactional strategies, respectively.

x Circumlocutions, lexicalised fillers and approximation were commonly used by the medium level group.

x Repetitions, circumlocutions, lexicalised fillers, and code switching were commonly used by the lower level group.

3) The analysis of utterances representing each CS

x Circumlocution, approximation, lexicalised fillers, and direct appeals for help often contributed to successful communication.

x Linguistic expressions helped increase effective use of CSs.

x Both groups used a narrow range of lexicalised fillers, direct appeal for help, and modified interaction strategies.

137

CHAPTER FIVE

PHASE TWO

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION

5.1 Introduction

A common aim of action research in education is to improve student learning by introducing more effective teaching strategies based on the results as they emerge in the study (Henning et al., 2009). In Phase One, data from the pre-assessment were collected and analysed to identify students’ needs to learn CSs and this was then used to plan the CS instruction. Phase Two comprised the cyclical and ongoing process of planning, action, observation, and reflection. This process aimed to gain insights into introducing the CS instruction and ways to develop the instruction to help students learn and improve their oral communication performance. Phase Two was guided by Research Question 2: What CSs should be taught to improve students’ oral communication performance?, and Research Question 3: How should CSs be taught to maximise the

improvement in students’ oral communication performance?

As shown in Figure 5.1, the development and implementation of the CS instruction was undertaken alongside data collection and analyses of students’ self- report questionnaires and my teaching journals. Firstly, in a) the planning stage, I developed each weekly lesson based primarily on initial reflections from Phase One and also reflections on the previous lessons for planning the next lessons. Secondly, in b) the action and observation stage, I taught the CS lesson, alongside collecting and

138

analysing data from students’ self-report questionnaires and my teaching journals. From these many processes, in c) the reflection stage, I reflected on the data from each lesson and made decisions on which CSs, tasks, and activities would be taught in the next lesson.

The chapter is structured into four sections. The overview of the development and implementation of the CS instruction is firstly described. This section includes teacher as researcher roles, the process of the development and implementation of the CS lessons, and the outline of the six CS lessons. Then, I address data collection from

the students’ self-report questionnaires, followed by data analysis and the findings from

139 the two parts of the self-report questionnaires. Next, I describe the process of data collection from my teaching journals, followed by data analysis. My reflections from my teaching journals are discussed and summarised in the last section.