The Impact of Teaching Through ENGAGE Model on L2 Speaking of Iranian EFL Learners

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Department of English Language and Literature, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, English Language Department, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

ENGAGE model, as a unique brilliance learning system, has been proposed to help language teachers to revolutionize language learners’ experiences by transcending the limitations of conventional methodologies and addressing the whole being of the learners. The present study sought to investigate the impact of using ENGAGE model on the speaking skills of Iranian EFL learners. For this purpose, from the target population of students learning English in one of the language institutes in Iran, 100 female intermediate students with an age range of 18 to 25 were randomly selected out of 150 participants and assigned to three groups, receiving their instruction based on the principles of Audio Lingual Method (ALM), (n = 32), Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) (n = 33), and ENGAGE model (n = 35). Applying a tripartite cycle comprising pretesting, intervention, and post-testing, the obtained data were analyzed via SPSS. The outcome of the posttest data analysis revealed that the participants taught by ENGAGE model significantly outperformed those in other samples on target L2 speaking tasks.  Subsequently, the participants in the three groups were interviewed to see how they perceived the inherent merits of the ENGAGE model in real practice. The qualitative data drawn from the interviews with the students were analyzed through content analysis relying on open and axial coding forms and the results reflected that the ENGAGE model was the most pedagogically efficient method compared to TBLT and ALM. Notably, the findings could have interesting implications for ELT practitioners, program developers, and EFL teachers.
 

Keywords

References

  1. Akbari, Z. (2015). Current challenges in teaching/learning English for EFL learners: The case of junior high school and high school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19(9), 394-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.524
  2. Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluency in a task-based language teaching approach: The case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. SAGE Open, 7(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017691077
  3. Aljumah, F. H. (2011). Developing Saudi EEF students' oral skills: An integrative approach. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 84-89. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p84
  4. Baker, F. S. (2015). Emerging realities of text-to-speech software for nonnative English-speaking community college students in the freshman year. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(5), 423-441.          https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.835290
  5. Berthold, M. (2011). Reliability of quick placement tests: How much faith can we place on quick paper or internet based placement tests. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 674-698.
  6. Borich, G. D. (2016). Observation skills for effective teaching: Research-based practice. Routledge & CRC Press.
  7. Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design Part II. Language Teaching, 20(3), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480000450X
  8. Brown, A. (2006). An examination of the rating process in the revised IELTS speaking test. In B. O’Sullivan (Ed.), International English language testing system (IELTS) research reports (pp. 1-30). IELTS Australia and British Council.
  9. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Longman.
  10. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  11. Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar (Vol. 56). Walter de Gruyter.
  12. Clarke, D. F. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.1.13
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
  14. Csizér, K. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418-432). Routledge & CRC Press.
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597
  16. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 719-731). Springer.
  17. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford University Press.
  18. Ellis, R. W. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstanding. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231
  19. Ellis, R. W. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765315
  20. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. System, 1(48), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
  22. Fernandez, C. J. (2018). Behind a spoken performance: test takers’ strategic reactions in a simulated part 3 of the IELTS speaking test. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0073-4
  23. Ghaemi, F., & Hassannejad, E. (2015). Developing EFL students' speaking; brainstorming vs. role-play. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 211-221.
  24. Ghanizadeh, A., Razavi, A., & Hosseini, A. (2018). TELL (technology-enhanced language learning) in Iranian high schools: A panacea for emotional and motivational detriments. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(4), 92-100.
  25. Glance, D., Rhinehart, A., & Brown, A. (2018). Learn, expand, and engage: A model for teaching clinical skills in the helping professions. Adult Learning, 29(3), 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518761845
  26. Guchte, V. M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015).  Learning new grammatical structures in task‐based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12211
  27. Halsey, R. W. (2016). The first ten things I learned in the wilderness: Stop talking at me. Educational Management, 2(3), 21-32. http://www.californiachaparral.org/naturecenters.html
  28. Halsey, R. W., Halsey, V. W., & Gaudette, R. (2018). Connecting Californians with the chaparral. In E. C.  Underwood, H. D. Safford, N. A. Molinari, & J. E. Keeley (Eds.), Valuing chaparral (pp. 295-322). Springer.
  29. Halsey, V. W. (2011). Brilliance by design. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  30. Halsey, V. W., & Halsey, R. W. (2017). Connecting Californians with the Chaparral through the ENGAGE model. http://www.californiachaparral.org/naturecenters.html
  31. Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S. (2011). Task-based language teaching: What every EFL teacher should do. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.049
  32. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
  33. Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of ELT. Oxford University Press.
  34. Hughes, R. (2013). Teaching and researching: Speaking. Routledge & CRC Press.
  35. Jassem, Z. A. (1997). Towards better speaking in the English class: A sociolinguistic approach. The English Teacher, 2 (21), 41-52.
  36. Juffs, A. (2020). Aspects of language development in an intensive English program. Routledge & CRC Press.
  37. Kilbourne, C. (2011). Connect, inspire, and ENGAGE: A model for improving safety training. Educational Views, 2(3) 11-21.  https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com
  38. Kim, J., & Craig, D. A. (2012). Validation of a video-conferenced speaking test. Computer
  39. Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649482
  40. Kim, S. C. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency using digital storytelling. Language Learning and Technology, 18(2), 20-35. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action1.pdf
  41. Kim, S. C., Ecoff, L., Brown, C. E., Gallo, A. M., Stichler, J. F., & Davidson, J. E. (2017). Benefits of a regional evidence‐based practice fellowship program: A test of the ARCC Model. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 14(2), 90-98.  https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12199
  42. Kozulin, A. (2002). Sociocultural theory and the mediated learning experience. School Psychology International, 6(2), 125-136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001729
  43. Kuiken, F., &Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117-135). Multilingual Matters.
  44. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macro-strategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
  45. Kunnu, W., & Sukwises, A. (2014). Teaching speaking skills to adult English language learners through ALM. ALM, 7(3), 11-30.
  46. Lee, G. (2009). Speaking up: Six Korean students’ oral participation in class discussions in US graduate seminars. English for Specific Purposes, 2(28), 142-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.01.007
  47. Leki, I. (2017). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. Routledge & CRC Press.
  48. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Newbury House.
  49. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  50. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. Sage.
  51. Nair, R., Krishnasamy, R., & De Mello, G. (2017). Rethinking the teaching of pronunciation in the ESL classroom. The English Teacher, 1(14), 27-40.
  52. Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners' oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00987
  53. Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. John Wiley & Sons.
  54. Nodine, T. R. (2016). How did we get here? A brief history of competency‐based higher education in the United States. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 1(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1004
  55. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52.
  56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984
  57. Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. Routledge.
  58. O’Sullivan, B. (2018). Assessing speaking. In A. J. Kunnan & B. O' Sullivan (Eds.), The companion to language assessment publisher (58-64). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla084
  59. Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5
  60. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
  61. Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
  62. Rivers, W. M. (2018). Teaching foreign language skills revisited. University of Chicago Press.
  63. Rundel, P. W. (2018).  California chaparral and its global significance. In E. C. Underwood, H. D. Safford, N. A. Molinari, & J. E. Keeley (Eds.), Valuing chaparral (pp. 1-27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68303-4_1
  64. Sadeghi, B., & Maleki, M. (2015). Improving the ability of writing argumentative essays of Iranian EFL learners by raising awareness of rhetoric transfer. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 1541-1559.
  65. Safari, P., & Rashidi, N. (2015). Teacher education beyond transmission: Challenges and opportunities for Iranian teachers of English. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 187-198.
  66. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2016). Opening the window for L2 English development. In P. Sundqvist & L. K. Sylvén (Eds), Extramural English in teaching and learning (pp. 179-213). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46048-6_7
  67. Underwood, E. C., Safford, H. D., Molinari, N. A., & Keeley, J. E. (Eds.) (2018). Valuing Chaparral. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13513
  68. Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Beyond global English: Motivation to learn languages in a multicultural world: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 451-454. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12407
  69. Waddington, J. (2017, October). Competency-based ELT: Learning to learn through our storytelling circle. In M. Baker (Ed.), Proceedings of APAC-ELT Conference (pp. 16-28). McMillan. http://hdl.handle.net/10256/18422
  70. Yang, Y. T. C., Chuang, Y. C., Li, L. Y., & Tseng, S. S. (2013). A blended learning environment for individualized English listening and speaking integrating critical thinking. Computers & Education, 63(2), 285-305.     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.012

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics