DOI:
CC BY-NC 4.0 —Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
© 2023 Universidad Central del Ecuador
pISSN 12631-2840
eISSN 2631-2859
kronos.idiomas@uce.edu.ec
REVISTA KRONOS
INSITUTO ACADÉMICO DE IDIOMAS REVISTA KRONOS
UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DEL ECUADOR 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024, pp. 86-94
Evelyn Almeida | Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE (Ecuador)
Universidad Central del Ecuador (Ecuador)
Andrea Rosero | Universidad Central del Ecuador (Ecuador)
abstract This research study is an action research project carried out by two EFL teachers and a group of ten universi-
ty students who have taken English as a requirement in college. This project aimed to promote participation, accuracy,
and fluency in speaking ESL students. The researchers used four strategies: Collaborative Group Work, Input Strate-
gy, Interactive Activities, and Corrective Feedback in a seven-week course. In the end, students showed more confi-
dence and fluency when expressing their opinions and feelings as well as sharing their comments with their classmates
while interacting in class. The researchers also observed that they reduced their pronunciation mistakes when talking
about specific topics.
Key words Speaking, action research, collaborative work, input strategy, corrective feedback.
fecha de recepción 08/06/2023 fecha de aprobación 22/08/2023
Investigación-acción: motivando la expresión oral en estudiantes universitarios de inglés
como lengua extranjera
resumen Este estudio es un proyecto de investigación de acción realizado por dos maestros de inglés como idioma
extranjero y un grupo de diez estudiantes universitarios que han tomado inglés como requisito en la universidad. Este
proyecto tiene como objetivo promover la participación, precisión y fluidez al hablar inglés. Se usó cuatro estrategias:
trabajo grupal colaborativo, estrategia de entrada, actividades interactivas y retroalimentación correctiva en un curso de
siete semanas. Al final, los estudiantes mostraron más confianza y fluidez para expresar sus opiniones y sentimientos y
compartir sus comentarios con sus compañeros de clase. También se observó una disminución en sus errores de pro-
nunciación al hablar sobre temas específicos.
palabras clave Producción oral, investigación acción, trabajo colaborativo, estrategia de entrada, retroalimentación co-
rrectiva.
Action research: promoting speaking in EFL College students
87REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Almeida E., Rosero A.
INTRODUCTION
As English as Foreign Language (efl) teachers, the professors-researchers had the oppor-
tunity to work with a group of 10 university students after a short oral diagnostic assess-
ment inside the classroom. The teachers could see that most of the learners had difficulty
with speaking skills. All of them were at the A1.2 level according to the Common Europe-
an Framework of Reference (cefr), which means that students can understand sentences
and frequently used expressions related to fundamental personal and family information,
shopping, location, and food. Learners also manage to communicate in simple and routine
tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine mat-
ters. Students can describe in simple terms aspects of their background (Council of Eu-
rope, 2001).
Concerning their speaking ability, students can interact simply and directly. They can
exchange information with difficulty where they must repeat or rephrase words or phrases
and speak at a slow rate with some accuracy (Council of Europe, 2001).
The group of students, the researchers worked with, struggled the most with speaking
skills. Researchers found three significant weaknesses: fluency, shyness, and accuracy. After
a short interview with the students, they mentioned that other subskills or aspects than
learning grammar and vocabulary to be competent in the target language were needed.
Students felt that they needed to practice speaking to communicate. They mentioned that
after acquiring this skill, they would feel encouraged to learn more every day and be able
to use English for life. It means to have English in their long-term memories. So, after this
action research project, the teachers-researchers feel proud of their accomplishments with
the group they worked with.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The main research question is how to improve speaking skills in efl learner. The sub ques-
tions are:
a. How to promote participation in speaking activities in a foreign language learner?
b. How to promote accuracy in speaking in a foreign language learner?
c. How to promote fluency in speaking in a foreign language learner?
METHODOLOGY
Action research is a methodology that includes a learning cycle emphasizing logical reflec-
tion so that students can effectively learn. As Stringer (2013) mentions, action research
is a participative methodology that helps to develop an understanding between teachers
and students. For this research project, the teachers used action research as the method-
ology because it studies a social situation, in our case, a classroom problem, with the view
to improving students speaking skills. They decided to use this methodology because it
is a flexible approach that helps teachers look for solutions to their everyday classroom
problems. Additionally, working directly with their students encourages researchers to
be aware of what they are doing, how they are doing it, and how they can improve. This
flexible methodology helps teachers and students. In the first stage, the teachers-research-
ers used a diagnostic test and an interview to collect data. After using the strategies, they
used an observation checklist and a speaking rubric to assess the activities performed by
88 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Action research: promoting speaking in EFL College students
the students. After assessing the students using the different strategies, teachers analyzed
the information provided by students and made an improvement plan to be applied in the
next academic period.
iv. DISCUSSION
To improve students speaking skills in English, the researchers sed four types of strategies
with different activities. These strategies were used to foster oral communication consid-
ering our students’ weaknesses. Students needed to speak English more fluently, accurate-
ly, and confidently.
1. STRATEGY ONE: COLLABORATIVE GROUP WORK
Collaborative group work is a teaching strategy that offers a supportive and secure learn-
ing environment where students can become active participants. They learn cooperative
working, respecting each other, their ideas, and their weaknesses (Gödek, 2004). In this
action research study, the teachers used collaborative group work to promote participa-
tion and fluency in the students. Learners were asked to get together in pairs or groups
of three. The task was to create a recipe and make an oral presentation, including ingre-
dients, steps, and the final recipe. For this activity, the researchers already introduced new
vocabulary and expressions using mind maps and input charts. Additionally, they mod-
eled some examples of recipes.
The main activity in this strategy was jigsaw groups with a minor modification. Each
group became an expert on each recipe. As each group had a different recipe. The stu-
dents did not regroup; however, they had to present their own recipes to the whole class.
Students became experts on their recipes, had to report on how to prepare a typical dish
from different parts of Ecuador, presented to the class and answered questions from the
professors and their classmates. Teachers used some techniques suggested by Gibbons
(2015) to make group work effective: Clear and explicit instructions were provided as in
the aspects described below.
a. Talk was necessary for the task.
b. There was a clear outcome for the group work.
c. The task was cognitively appropriate to the learners.
d. The task was integrated with a broader curriculum topic.
e. All students in the group were involved.
f. Students had enough time to complete the task.
To evaluate this strategy with the students an observation check list was developed as
shown in table (see Table 1).
Students’ response
Students were enthusiastic about working together to create a recipe they liked eating or
enjoyed making. They spent some time trying to choose the perfect recipe. Students shared
information about ingredients, quantities, recipients, measurements, and ways of cooking.
They also debated the correct way of preparing the recipes. It was interesting to see that
89REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Almeida E., Rosero A.
each student had their own way of making things depending on where they lived and the
food type they ate.
Students could create their own recipes with poster papers, markers, and magazine
pictures. They finally presented each recipe, and the teachers and the rest of the class asked
questions about it. They thought it was a fun activity for everyone, and the most relevant
task, while students had the opportunity to participate in the oral presentation and practice
English (see Figure 1).
2. STRATEGY TWO: INPUT STRATEGY
The teachers-researchers’ input was an input chart (see Figure 2) related to restaurants
and menus to improve participation and accuracy. With the information provided in the
input chart, students were required to talk about their favorite restaurant. They also had
to use word cards to recycle information and practice using the vocabulary and expres-
sions related to the «at the restaurant» input chart.
Learners were also encouraged to talk and connect with what they acquired in class
and heard from their classmates by using talK moves. Chapin, O’Connor, and Anderson
(2003) stated that there are five productive talk moves:
1. Revoicing: So, you are saying that …
2. Asking students to restate one else’s reasoning: What you repeat what he just said in your
own words?
3. Asking students to apply their own reasoning to some else’s reasoning: Do you agree or disa-
gree and why?
4. Prompting students for further participation: Would someone like to add one?
5. Using wait time: Take your tie… we’ll wait.
Table 1. Observation checklist
n.º parameters yes no not observed
1 Students have enthusiasm to participate in discussion
2 Students can pronounce English well
3 Students can identify new vocabularies and use a lot of
vocabularies when they speak English
4 Students become active in the classroom
5 Students ask and answer the question bravely
6 Students respond to talk moves
7 Students ask and answer the question bravely
8 Students work in group
9 Students participate actively in the group
10 Students speak accurately
11 Students complete the task
12 Students can be confident to speak in front of class
Adapted from Gödek, Y. (2004). Research on group Work and Collaborative Work and its Implications for
primary School teachers.
90 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Action research: promoting speaking in EFL College students
Figure 1. Students group presentations
Figure 2. Input chart
Data: Students presentations about different menus.
Chart data: restaurant vocabulary and menu.
In this action research study, the teachers asked: What did your partner say? Who can re-
phrase what ____ said? Why do you think that? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
were approached in class. As the project for that week, students had to role-play a restau-
rant event, in which they had to include the information provided in the input chart they
had been working on for several weeks. A speaking rubric was used to grade this activity,
as shown in table (see Table 2).
Students’ response
With these activities, students could practice pronunciation and accuracy, using the vocab-
ulary and expressions related to restaurants. Learns enjoy this activity because they can
use authentic material and for a real purpose, which was to communicate in a restaurant.
The students usually go to restaurants; therefore, vocabulary, expressions, and conversa-
tions were beneficial to them. Additionally, all the learners in the class had the opportunity
to interact and become familiar with the topic and discussion. Talk moves were a conve-
nient tool to develop participation among the students. Their final task was to role-play
a restaurant situation where students performed an excellent job using and recycling the
vocabulary, expressions, and structures used in class.
3. STRATEGY THREE: INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES
Different interactive activities were used in class to promote speaking among the students.
Learners could express their feelings, emotions, and opinions in groups and in front of the
91REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Almeida E., Rosero A.
whole class. One of the activities used in class was donut circles to promote fluency and
participation. The participants gather in two circles. The outer circle faces inward, and
the inner circle faces outward, so each student faces someone in front of the other circle.
The pairs talk in turns to each other for a minute or two about a specific topic (Gibbons,
2015). Each pair of learners was asked to discuss a particular question: What is your fa-
vorite food? Where do you like to go when you eat out? Which is your favorite restaurant?
For this strategy students had the opportunity to interact with their peers in the target lan-
guage, take turns and speak freely and fluently.
Table 2. Speaking rubric
4. Distinguished 3. Proficient 2. Apprentice 1. Novice
Fluency:
Clarity
and
volume.
Appropriate
volume throughout
presentation.Varied
volume when
appropiate. Proper
inflection throughout
presentation.
Spoke clearly and
understandably.
Spoke at an
appropriate
volume for most
of presentation.
Good inflection
and enunciation.
Occasionally
sounded monotone.
Spoke quietly.
Increased volume
briefly after being
asked. Spoke with
little inflection.
Barely audible,
even after requests
to speak up.
No inflection.
Sounded bored
or uninterested.
Paid little attention
to proper
pronunctiation.
accuracy:
Related
to topic,
detailed,and
accurate.
All content direclty
related to topic.
Content was throughly
developed and
demonstrated detailed
knowledge of the
topic. Options were
supported by fact
wherever possible.
Content directly
related to topic.
Included many
details that
demonstrated
knowledge of the
topic. Most opinions
were supported by
facts.
Hardly difficulty
explaining how
the content and
topic relate. Many
opinions were not
factually supported.
Presentation did
not relate to topic.
Included few details
and relied heavily
upon unsupported
opinion.
Vocabulary:
Relevant to the
topic
Entire presentation
focused on the topic.
Able to answer
audience questions
without straying from
subject.
Majority of
presentation was on-
topic. Made effort to
return to topic when
presentation or
audience questions
strayed.
Some material was
unrelated to the
topic, or presenter
used unrelated
material to pad the
presentation.
More than half of
the presentation did
not direclty address
the topic.
Oral
Presentation-
Pauses: Pauses to
collect thoughts
or organize
materials.
Used pauses to
emphasize points
or to elicit audience
response. Did not need
to pause to shuffle
papers, organize
materials or gather
thoughts.
Did not pause for
more than a couple
of seconds to adjust
notes or materials.
Pauses between
sentences and topics
were occasional and
very brief.
Paused one or
more times to
find place in
presentation or
to look through
notes. Paused two
or more times to
gather thoughts
while speaking.
Repeatedly stopped
to look through
notes. Paused
repeatedly to form
sentences.
Adapted from rubric-maker.com (2019).
92 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Action research: promoting speaking in EFL College students
Students’ response
Interactive activities in the class develop intrinsic motivation in students. This activity «al-
lows for practice and rehearsal of an idea or a sentence structure since the student can re-
peat the same thing to each of the new partners as the circle moves on. It allows for peer
scaffolding». Gibbons, 2015, p. 67). Students repeatedly practiced questions and answers
until, at one point, they were fluent and accurate when speaking about specific topics relat-
ed to restaurants and food choices. Finally, they were aware of their improvement, which
was their intrinsic motivation (see Figures 3, 4).
4. STRATEGY FOUR: CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Corrective feedback is one of the options for improving accuracy in ESL students. Teach-
ers-researchers used recasting as a way of corrective feedback to help students develop
their accuracy in speaking. «Recasts involve the teacher’s implicit provision of a correct
reformulation of all or part of a student’s ill-formed utterance» (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.
46). Using recast, the teachers can correct grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation mistakes
only when necessary, trying not to affect the students’ confidence in speaking English. Re-
cast was very casual by correctly rephrasing words, words, or phrases. It is imperative to
mention that recasting was carried out in class in several instances and with all the stu-
dents during the entire course. For this strategy to be evaluated, a Can-do checklist was
used (see Table 3).
Students’ response
Students respond to corrective feedback positively. They corrected their mistakes when
they noticed them with the help of the teachers by using recasting. As Scrivener (2005)
stated, «If the objective is accuracy, then an immediate correction is likely to be useful; if
the aim is fluency, then lengthy, immediate correction that divers from the flow of speak-
ing is less appropriate» (as cited in Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 251). Students corrected
themselves on multiple occasions with the help of recast. Teachers rephrased the words,
expressions, or sentences that needed correction, and then students repeated them cor-
rectly. Corrective feedback is an ongoing process, and not because the instructors correct
it once, students will automatically remember it again. Teachers had to repeatedly correct
the same error until students no longer made the same mistakes.
CONCLUSIONS
By carrying out this action research project, the teachers-researchers learned that the best
ways of learning are by combining several strategies. This action research project used col-
laborative group work and interactive activities, working with input strategies, talk moves,
and appropriate feedback. Students had more opportunities to interact with other speakers,
so they increased their use of the English language. Another benefit was that the learners
improved their English language comprehension because they could ask, answer, clarify,
and exchange information to accomplish their tasks. In addition, as Gibbons (2015) says,
«Learners who are not confident in English often feel more comfortable working with peers
than performing in a whole-class situation» (p. 50). The teachers-researchers believe this
is one of the strengths of this study because, in the process, students helped and support-
ed each other to complete the task and improve their English language.
93REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Almeida E., Rosero A.
Table 3. Oral examination
n.º question corresponding «can do» statement yes/no observations
1 What’s your name? How do
you spell your surname?
I can spell my name
2 Where are you from? I can say countries and nationalities.
3 Did you learn English at
school? For how many years?
I can talk about things that
happened in my life.
4 What do you do now? Do you
work or are you a student?
I can talk about jobs.
5 What do you do in your free
time?
I can talk about my free-time
activities and say when I do them.
6 Do you like football? What
sports do you like?
I can say what I like and don’t like
7 What do you do every day?
What time do you get up/start
work?
I can describe my daily routine.
8 What subjects did you study at
school? What exams did you
take?
I can talk about exams and studying.
9 Tell me something you
could do well at school. And
something you can do well
now
I can talk about things I can do in
the present and could do in the past.
10 Tell me about your favorite
food
I can talk about food and describe
what I like and what I don’t
11 Tell me about the weather in
your country.
I can talk about the weather.
Adapted from Cambridge University press, face2face (2013).
Figure 3. Flash cards
Figure 4. Donut circle
94 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Action research: promoting speaking in EFL College students
As Ellis & Shintani (2014) mentioned, «group-work is a means of increasing students’
participation and self-reliance in the classroom» (p. 22) because there are more oppor-
tunities for language practice, there is a range of language functions, and learners are en-
gaged in self- corrections. Additionally, students can negotiate meaning, which is one of
the most crucial communication skills. In this regard, it was evident that students im-
proved their speaking skills. In the last activities students performed in class, they were
more confident when expressing their opinions and feelings. Additionally, they are not as
shy as they used to be, they are not afraid of speaking or making mistakes either. They
also speak more fluently and accurately at beginning level. However, students must con-
tinue practicing becoming even more fluent in English. Finally, this action research study
helps teachers identify our students’ weaknesses and understand their needs so that teach-
ers can work with them to develop their speaking language skills.
REFERENCES
Cambridge University Press (2013). Face2face oral placement test. Retrieved October 29,
2020 from https://vdocuments.mx/oral-placement-test-cambridge-university-press-
2013-face2face-oral-placement.html
Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions using math
talk in elementary classrooms. Math Solutions, 11.
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern
Languages Division. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acqui-
sition research. Routledge.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language
learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Gödek, Y. (2004). Research on group Work and Collaborative Work and its Implications
for primary School teachers. Gazi Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültes, 5(2), 27-34.
Khosidah, I. W. (2017). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Focus Group Discus-
sion (fgd) Technique (A Classroom Action Research for the Second Grade Students
of smpn 2 mertoyudan in the Academic Year of 2017/2018) (Doctoral dissertation,
iain salatiga).
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk Science Primer. terc.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task
effects. In Researching pedagogic tasks (pp.109-128). Routledge.
Tech4Learning, Inc. (2019), Rubric maker. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from: https://
rubric-maker.com/