THE PROBLEM OF TEACHING ORAL ENGLISH IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS: A CASE STUDY OF UVWIE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE By OTABOR BLESSING AIFUWA MAT. NO. 153704 ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY
THE PROBLEM OF TEACHING ORAL ENGLISH IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS: A CASE STUDY OF UVWIE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE
By
OTABOR BLESSING AIFUWA
OCTOBER, 2013
DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this work to God Almighty
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge the following persons who have positively affected my life in one way or the other: Mrs. Roseline Otabor, Mr. Bright Otabor, Dr and Mrs Hycinth Nduka, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Manawa, Mr. and Mrs Felix Lodio, Mr Lucky Ogierikhi, Mr. and Mrs. Austin Ovbiye, Miss Mabel Ohonba and so many others.
ABSTRACT
This research is aimed at examining the problems of teaching Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Areas of Delta State.
Chapter one is the introduction which comprises: the background of study, purpose of study, significance of study, research hypothesis and delimination of study.
Chapter two is the literature review in which literatures that talked about the problems of teaching Oral English in Schools were examined.
Chapter three focuses on methodology, that is, design, population, sample, and sampling procedure, instrument for data collection, method of data collection and method of data analysis.
Chapter four focuses on the analysis, discussions and findings.
Chapter five dwells on the conclusion, some useful recommendation, bibliography and appendix.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Table of content vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of study
Purpose of study
Significance of study
Research Hypotheses
Delimination of study
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Examination of related literature
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Design
3.2 Populations
3.4 Sample and sampling procedure
3.5 Method of data collection
3.6 Method of data analysis
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS DISCUSSION
4.1 Analysis
4.2 Discussion
4.3 Findings
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Summary
5.2 Recommendation
5.3 Bibliography
5.4 Appendix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
There are hundreds of languages spoken in Nigeria. The major languages are Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ibibio, Edo, Fulfulde, and Kanuri. The official language of Nigeria, English, the former colonial language, was chosen to facilitate the cultural and linguistic unity of the country. English, however, remains an exclusive preserve of the country’s urban elite, and is not widely spoken in the rural areas which comprise three quarters of the country’s population.
(Wikipedia 2013)
Uvwie Local Government Area, which is the focus of this research, is located in Delta State in Nigeria. A number of problems confront the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area. These problems which do not only include external factors such as lack of laboratory material but teacher’s incompetence, have negatively affected the teaching of Oral English.
One of the chief characteristics of the human is his ability to communicate to his fellows complicated messages concerning every aspect of his activity. A man possessing the normal human faculties achieves this exchange of information mainly by means of three types of sensory Stimulation, Auditory and Visual. This child will learn from a very early age to respond to the sounds and tunes which his elders habitually uses in talking to him; and in due course, from a need to communicate, he will himself begin to imitate the recurrent sound patterns with which he has become familiar. (Gimson 1980)
However, the teaching of Oral English presents particular difficulties. And of course, the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State has been an enigma over the years that students in Secondary Schools in the area complain bitterly. This has greatly contributed to the rampant poor performances if students in English Language both in internal and external examination.
According to Obriri (2007) , “Although many concerned pundits have charted numerous ways to simplify its teaching, many more problems are mounting and need to be thoroughly addressed urgently as they are alarming”.
According to Adio in an article: “Nigeria: Poor spoken English Necessitates Communication Development Skills” posted on the website of Nigerian Tribune in 2010, As part of the continued effort of the governments to sanitize education at primary and secondary levels, an independent three-day training: ‘The Trainers’ Workshop was organized for selected teachers for the Universal Basic Education Boards in Nigeria held in Lokoja, Kogi State, courtesy of the National Organizing Committee, President’s School Debate Programme And Development Planning And Management Consultants, Abuja.” Worried over the workshop looked into various strategies to boost Oral communication skills of Nigerian Students at all levels. One of the major strategies the workshop considered was the re-introduction of debate in school curriculum from primary school level.
I wish to maintain that though efforts have been put in place to improve Oral English, a good result is yet to be seen. Students in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State continue to perform below average in Oral English. The cause of this negative development is certainly because a lot of energy are being channeled only towards the learners problems, and not the problem of teaching. The problems confronting the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area range from teacher incompetence, inadequate instructional materials, disgust for the emphasis on the British accent, poor teaching skills, poor motivation for the students, to other problems which could have been caused by school proprietors or the government.
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State, and to provide practical ways of eliminating such problems.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This study will be beneficial to the following:
The Secondary School Students in Uvwie Local Government Area and other students in Delta State
Principals and proprietors of secondary schools within and outside Uvwie Local Government Area;
Teachers of Oral English in secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government;
Ministry of Education in Uvwie Local Government Area;
Delta State Universal Basic Education Board; and
Delta State Ministry of Education, and so on.
1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Can students perform well in Oral English when the teacher commits a lot of phonological errors?
Is there a significant relationship between good instructional materials and students performance in Oral English?
Are practical Oral Exercises necessary in the teaching of Oral English?
Is noise inimical to the teaching of Oral English?
1.5 DELIMINATION OF STUDY
First, the researcher will focus his inquiry on teaching problems of Oral English and Learning problems.
Secondly, the researcher will limit his work to ten selected secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. These include:
Sunshine Schools, Ekpan
Ekpan Secondary School, Ekpan
Kezina International Academy, Ekpan
Classical International Schools, Ekpan
Chinkelly Schools, Ekpan
Word of Faith Secondary School, Effurun
Edulyn College, Ekpan
Destiny Model School, Ekpan
Regent International School, Ekpan
Success International School, Ekpan
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTODUCTION
The main concern of this investigation is to identify those problems that are negatively affecting the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government of Delta. The inquiry will also look at the efforts that have been put in place to tackle the problem of teaching Oral English, which however have not yielded any practical solution. The work identifies workable solutions to the teaching of oral English in secondary school in Uvwie Local Government Area.
2.1 THE PROBLEM OF MODEL
While examining the problems confronting the teaching of Oral English, Bright and McGregor (1970) pointed out the problem of model. According to them:
“There is the question of the model. Suppose we could achieve complete success in making pupils speak precisely as we wish, what should we choose to do? What would they choose to do?
Sooner or later, all countries that use English as a first or second language develop variety of a accent. The United States did so long ago with the result that Americans model themselves on Americans and not on any British-English speakers. The same is true of New Zealanders and Australians.
Fortunately, the varieties of accents of all educated speakers of English ____ Indian, African, Malaysian, Chinese, Japanese, Scottish, Irish, Yorkshire or Somerset ____ have a great many common features which are far more important than their differences. Otherwise, the speakers would not find each other comprehensible. The distinctions that all educated speakers make are the important ones for our purposes; those that merely differentiate one educated speaker from another do not matter at all. We need no longer cherish quaint superstition about one variety being “better” than another” .
Bright and McGregor are of the view that the British accent should not be imposed on any teacher or any learner of English, they argue that just as the British speak with the British accent, other nationalities should speak with the kind of accents available in their own countries. They posit that the model to be adopted for teaching English in any country should be the model spoken by the highly educated in those countries. To them, “The distinctions that all educated speaker make are the important ones for our purpose”. Bright and McGregor believe that those distinctions that differentiate one educated speaker from another educated speaker do not matter at all. They make it clear that no variety of English is better than the other.
2.2 THE PROBLEM OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES
Bright and McGregor also talk about the problem of teaching techniques. They maintain that “An area that may be taught directly concerns the pronunciation of numerous structural words in unstressed position. Numerous decisions are involved about just what to include in careful colloquial speech and what is casual and need not be presented for active use”. They go further to illustrate as follows:
We would teach, for example, [Its ∂ ' p I t I]
We would not teach, [s∂ ' p I t I]
We would teach have = [h∂v] , [∂v] and [v]
We would teach he = [hI] but not [I]
We would teach and = [∂nd] , [nd] but not [n]
They add that we start with teaching and practice in not overstressing weak syllables because in our experience this is the commonest error. The point emphasized here is that there are often complications or confusions surrounding most teaching techniques.
2.3 NON – AVIALIBILITY SPECIALISTS
Wellman (1978) has another problem to talk about. In his view, “The teaching of English as a second language is a highly specialized field. It is not simply a matter of knowing English and teaching it to non-native speaker. In order to qualify for a teacher’s license, a candidate must be well versed in phonetics”.
There are number of salient points raised in Wellman Laurie’s argument. First, he points out that the teaching of English as a second language is a highly specialized field. This means that as we need specialist in the field of medicine to do the work of a medical practitioner, and a lawyer, and not a carpenter to do the work of a legal practitioner, teaching of Oral English which is no doubt a specialized field should be taught by a teacher who is a specialist in Oral English. He also points out that the teacher should not be certified until he shows evidence that he is versed in phonetics glaring that teacher who did not study Oral English have no business teaching Oral English. When they teach Oral English, they would teach nothing but error.
Broughton et al (1980) on the part condemn a situation whereby Oral English is taught by people who have no specific training. Their position is in line with that of Wellman Laurie (1978). See what Broughton et al say:
“The increased teaching of English during recent years in both state and commercial educational institutions has produced a new cadre of professionals: teachers of EFL. Some have moved across from teaching English modern languages; many have been drawn into service for no other reason than that their own spoken English is good, or perhaps because they are native English Speakers. Many have started without specific training, others feel they need to rethink the basis of their teaching”.
It is obvious that Broughton et al frown at a situation whereby somebody begins to teach English merely because he is a native of the English Language. They argue that it is not enough to be a native speaker, but to be trained in order to become a professional teacher of English.
Hook et al (1970) talk about the issue of knowledge and skill on the part of the teacher. According to them, “We teachers need to know more than most of us do. We need, especially, to know more about children than most of us do, so that, when each child comes to us in this place called a school, we can help to become the utmost that he is capable of becoming. We do not always do that”. They go further to explain that.
“A specialized methods course and carefully supervised student teaching can contribute extensively to the prospective teacher’s knowledge and skill. A general methods course, still the only one available in many small Colleges, is likely to be of less value, since it must cater to the varied needs of the teacher of Music, Physical Education, History, Chemistry, English, and other subjects and necessarily can go only into slight detail in any single field”.
The argument of Hook et al is that the teacher should be versed in his subject, study the students to know more about them and their needs they believe that knowing the subject very well, and knowing the students very well would help the teacher to be very skillful in teaching them.
2.4 THE PROBLEM OF EXPERTISE
One important variable in the learning situation is the teacher himself. His skill and his personality are instrumental in creating the conditions for learning. His skill is dependent on two factors, his own proficiency in the language and his knowledge of and expertise in methods and techniques of language teaching. The language proficiency of teachers cannot be taken for granted. There are countries where the teachers themselves have been relatively ill taught, where resources are lacking, so that will never have the opportunity to visit the country where they teach is spoken, where the education itself is relatively undeveloped and where teachers consequently are hardly able themselves to use language for real communication.(Wilkins 1982)
Different points have been highlighted by Wilkins he maintains that the skill and personality of the teacher are very vital in the teaching /learning situation. He stresses that the skill of the teacher is dependent on his knowledge of and expertise in methods and techniques. He also decried the situation whereby the teachers themselves have been relatively ill taught, and the problem of lack of resources.
According to a report published by Chen and Goh in 2011 about difficulties that teachers encounter in teaching Oral English in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the findings showed that apart from external constraints such as language class sizes and a lack of teaching resources, EFL teachers are frustrated by their low self-efficacy with regard to Oral English proficiency and inadequate pedagogical knowledge. Most teachers expressed eagerness to receive training in how to design and implement effective tasks to motivate students’ engagement in Oral English activities. The implications of these concerns for teacher education are highlighted in the call for training programmes that strengthen teachers’ knowledge for effective Oral English instruction in the EFL context. (Taylor and Francis 2003)
2.5 THE PROBLEM OF LARGE CLASS AND INADEQUATE TEACHHING RESOURCES
Chen and Goh in their research, the problem which the teachers encounter in teaching Oral English in the English as a foreign language context to include external constraints such as large class sizes and a lack of teaching resources: and teachers’ low self-efficacy with regard to Oral English proficiency and inadequate pedagogical knowledge. They believe that teachers should receive training in how to design and implement effective tasks to motivate students’ engagement in Oral activities.
2.6 LACK OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS
According to the British council (2013), a lack of communication skills is one of the problems bedeviling the effective teaching of Oral English. They maintain that:
“Communication skills include many things ____ using the target language effectively, the way in which we speak to the person we are speaking to, our body language including facial expressions, pitch and tone of your voice, interpersonal skills and a lot of other things. Effective communication skills are now required in each and every aspect of our life. Teachers of English are expected to have good command over the language and possess excellent communication skills. For a teacher, it is not just important to give a quality lecture but it is more important for the presentation of a lesson or lecture in class. A teacher with communication skills can enhance the learning process of students. Teachers of English must possess the following the following communication skills: Proficiency in English, positive motivation, effective body language, sense of humor, interpersonal skills and so on”.
The British council posits that communication skills include using the target language effectively, the way we speak our body language, facial expressions, pitch and tone of voice and so on. They go further to talk about proficiency in English, positive motivation and sense of humor as those things which should not be lacking in the teaching of Oral English.
2.7 THE PROBLEM OF POOR TEACHING PRODURES
Bright and McGregor (1970) talk about what most teachers do to enhance effectiveness in the teaching of Oral English. In their words, “The majority of teachers still use reading aloud as their main weapon in the battle to improve their pupils’ Oral English and take the material to be read from the class reader. They then listen for mistakes and “correct” them as they arise by interrupting the reader and requiring him to repeat a word or phrase in accordance with the model they provide”. Bright and McGregor argue that this procedure is objective is objectionable on a number of counts which include the fact that:
It interferes with the proper business of the reading lesson, which is to create imaginative response in the mind from the visual stimulates of black marks on the paper.
Where it is used frequently, it slows down reading speed whereas the objective is to increase it.
It provides a small amount of practice for a few individuals and bores everybody else.
It is highly productive of embarrassment to the reader. Indeed it is not unusual for a large number of corrections to lead to a deterioration of performance.
The pupils’ practice, such as it is, is random instead of specific. Nobody knows whether the next thunder bolt will fall on an error of pronunciation, stress, intonation or phrasing. After fifty interruptions in a paragraph, teachers have even been known to complain about lack of fluency and urge pupils to read with more expression.
The exercise of reading unprepared literary material aloud is too difficult for all but the best pupils.
Unless students are going to be teachers or announcers, the ability to read aloud is of little practical value compared with the ability to play an effective part in conversations, discussions and committee meetings.
Reading aloud of this kind is purposeless. Nobody listens because everybody has the text.
In the opinion of Bright and McGregor, “reading aloud” is not a solution but a problem to the effective teaching of Oral English. They point out that it could interfere with the reading process, slow down the reading speed, bores the student, and so on.
Teaching spoken English to the non-native students is a herculean task. Most of the students habituated to speak in their regional languages because they learn many words in their home, while they are at home. Lack of motivation throws the students from the school. The rural medium background students are not motivated by the teachers towards the communication in English and in most of the cases, they are trying to finish the syllabus. Unlike the other the teachers should talk less and listen more to the students. The teacher must step back and observe, sometimes acting as referee or monitor. Motivating students towards speaking in English is a half success. This is done using various techniques such as discussions, debates, prepared speeches and presentations, participating in situational dialogues, and many more exercises. (Babu 2010)
Shobomehin in a journal published by the school of Languages, College of Education, Warri in 2007 identified some complexities of teaching English Language to include:
a) Lack of a conducive Teaching/Learning environment.
b) Inadequacy of teaching resources.
c) Use of mixed varieties of English Language in the media and public offices.
d) Teachers of content areas subjects as poor models of English speaking.
e) Large and linguistically diverse classes.
She goes further to make some suggestion about how a teacher can overcome the problems highlighted above. In her words:
“There is no doubt that teaching English Language in difficult circumstances can present challenges to the language teacher. These challenges should however, not discourage the teacher but rather make him or her more creative and resourceful, knowing that the goal of teaching the language is to produce students with an appreciable level of competence in the language. A teacher’s strict adherence to a particular method of teaching will also not be of much help. His or her ability to introduce innovations and employ combined strategies might just spice up his or her arduous task and remove the frustration and boredom of teaching linguistically diverse large classes with limited resources, and provide opportunity for his or her learners to learn and use English in real world context”.
Gimson (1980) while attesting to the fact that the teaching of pronunciation presents particular difficulties, and that pronunciation does not permit progressive treatment since all phonetic/phonological features are potentially present from the very first lesson, explained that: “the teacher must deal systematically with the teaching of pronunciation, even though he may be forced to postpone the correction of some mistakes which occur in the early stages”.
The rapidity with which learn language is accounted for by the degree of motivation the child has. This is the view of Skinner and Bloom Field as cited by Arhagba and Atonuje (2011). Arhagba and Atonuje advocate the use of motivation because:
It increases the learning outcomes
It provides the desire for learners to learn.
It encourages students to listen.
It results in students getting better grades.
It encourages healthy competition in students
It stimulates students to higher achievements.
It helps to establish cordial relationship between teacher and students.
One of the most difficult challenges in teaching oral English is finding effective ways to help students improve their discourse fluency. Large mixed-ability classes, little exposure to the English Language after class and tongue-tied students inevitably form obstacles to teaching.
How to arouse students’ interest, increase students’ commitment to speak English fluently and get the maximum participation has long been a headache for teachers who want to get the students involved in class activities, and keep the class lively and dynamic. This article describes an experimental but practical way to enhance students’ oral fluency. In this activity students will be expected to interact and communicate in a comfortable way. This activity mainly based on movies which are a rich resource for idiomatic expressions. It will enable the students to discuss a certain topic in various ways. It will not only offer students an opportunity to speak the target language for at least ten to fifteen minutes, but it will also make tongue- tied students want to try. The main progression of this activity is from invitation to repetition to creative use of English.
2.8 SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THE TEACHING OF ORAL ENGLISH
PRE-ACTIVITY WORK
Before class, the teacher has to make two different sets of cards. (Card A1, Card A2, Card A3… ; Card B1, Card B2, Card B3…). On the first sets of cards, there will be some crucial, humorous or thought-provoking lines taken from the scripts of various movies; while on the set of cards, there will be a brief introduction to the movies and if possible, movie reviews that are brief bi\but to the point.
On the back of each card, the teacher should prepare a glossary of new words and expressions so that the activity will flow smoothly without language interference.
THE APPROACH
Step one:
In class, divide the students into groups with an equal number of members, then give Group 1, Card A1 in the first set and Card B1 in the second set, and correspondingly Group 2, Card A2 and Card B2… Have one student in each group, play the tape with the dialogues. These authentic English monologues or dialogues will put the students in the right mood for this classroom activity. Also, it will create an atmosphere that makes it easier for reserved students to try. The students are supposed to recite the lines using correct pronunciation and intonation. In other words, the students are playing different “audible” roles by repeating after the tape to imitate what they have heard with the help of the scripts. In this step, the teacher should make sure that all the students in the group
Understand the conversation and the setting with the help of the glossary. In this step, imitation and repetition are blended with each other, laying a good foundation for the effectiveness of the conversation tasks to be constructed afterwards. Students will not have time to chat in their native language or to read aloud mechanically if in this setting. They will begin to participate in this activity willingly. It might seem hard for the students to practice English in a classroom context, but this all changes so long as their interest is aroused and they truly want to speak English and improve their Oral English. This step will take about fifteen minutes.
Step two:
Next, the groups will be given several minutes to read the corresponding cards (Card B1, Card B2…). After they have a general knowledge of the movie, they will have a better understanding of the movie and have their ideas of different roles, the lines, the plots and even the ending. Now it is time for a group discussion. At this time, students are expected to make creative use of the English language.
The teacher must see that communication takes place, and should interfere when there is lack of communication. The teacher should pay attention to mistakes repeated by many students.
Point them out after the discussion and have the students correct the mistakes themselves. If students happen to make some witty or effective remarks, the teacher can make a comment on this to encourage this type of thing.
CONCLUSION
This activity may sound complicated to organize, but if the material is well chosen and well prepared, it keeps the student either speaking or listening in his or her group, and most importantly the students are able to speak. (Yuchi 2013)
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The main aim of this study as mentioned earlier is to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta state and to provide practical ways of eliminating such problems.
This chapter will examine the following subheadings as part of the research methodology.
i) Design
ii) Population
iii) Sample and sampling procedure
iv) Instrument for data collection
v) Method of data collection
vi) Method of data analysis
3.1 DESIGN
The design used in this study is the descriptive survey. It employs ex-post factor design. It is designed essentially to investigate the problem militating against the effective teaching of Oral in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
3.2 POPULATION
The target population of this study is the teachers of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
3.3 SAMPLE AND SAMPLE PROCEDURE
Ten secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area have been selected as sample for this research. They include:
Sunshine Schools, Ekpan
Ekpan Secondary School, Ekpan
Kezina International Academy, Ekpan
Classical International Schools, Ekpan
Chinkelly Schools, Ekpan
Word of Faith Secondary School, Effurun
7) Edulyn College, Ekpan
8) Destiny Model School, Ekpan
9) Regent International School, Ekpan
10) Success International School, Ekpan
Ten schools were randomly selected from the local government. In each of secondary schools selected two teachers were chosen as subjects.
3.4 INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION
The researcher in order to collect data for this research made use of questionnaire, interview and personal observations.
3.5 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
This empirical survey to find out the problems of teaching Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area was carried out by administering questionnaire to teachers of Oral English in selected secondary schools in the area. In each of schools, the researcher gave out questionnaire to two teacher to respond to. When they had finish responding, the research collects the questionnaire for analysis.
3.6 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
The method of data analysis to be used for this study is the simple percentage method. This would enable the researcher to investigate the problem militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools.
Two teacher were chosen as subject in each of selected schools. From the ten school selected, the researcher had twenty teachers as subjects.
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 ANALYSIS
This inquiry is carried out to investigate the problems of teaching Oral English in secondary schools is Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. For the purpose of clarity and logical presentation, the analysis is organized around the hypothesis and purpose of study. Ten questionnaires were organized into tables and discussed.
Yes
No
I don’t know
S/N
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
1
Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?
12
60%
8
40%
0
0%
2
Do you have a language laboratory in the school where you teach?
0
0%
20
100%
0
0%
3
Do you make use of the laboratory if any?
0
0%
20
100%
0
0%
4
Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?
14
70%
2
10%
20
20%
5
Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?
6
30%
10
50%
4
20%
6
Do you have any certificate in Education?
18
90%
2
10%
0
0%
7
Did you study English in school?
20
100%
0
0%
0
0%
8
Did you motivate your students to learn Oral English?
20
100%
0
0%
0
0%
9
Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the university?
8
40%
12
60%
0
0%
10
Do you have mother tongue interference?
16
80%
2
10%
2
10%
4.2 Discussion:
From the table, it is obvious that 6 respondents representing 60% answered “Yes”, 8 respondents representing 40% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know” to question one which says “Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?. The above percentage shows that more teachers are in support of the British accent. However, they are hardly able to speak with the British accent.
To question two which is “Do you have a language laboratory in the school where you teach?”, no respondent answered “Yes”, 20 respondents representing 100% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know”. This clearly shows that lack of language laboratory is a major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools.
Question three which is “Do you make use of the laboratory if any?” has 20 respondents representing 100 answering “No” while none answered “Yes” or “I do not know”. They can certainly not use a language laboratory since they have none.
It was found that 14 respondents representing 70% answered “Yes”, 2 respondents representing 10% answered “No” while 4 respondents representing 20% answered “I do not know” to the question “Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?” This indicates that the personal difficulties which teachers have constitute a major challenge to the teaching of Oral English.
To the question “Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?”, 6 respondents representing 30% said “Yes”, 10 respondents representing 50% said “No” while 4 respondents representing 20% said “I do not know”. The above percentage shows the majority of Oral English teachers in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area do not have enough skills required to teach Oral English.
Question six which is “Do you have any Certificate in Education?” has 18 respondents representing 90% answering “Yes”. While 2 respondents representing 10% answered “No”, no respondent answered. This shows that the majority of Oral English teachers in Secondary Schools in Uvwie had teacher education.
While 20 respondents representing 100% said “Yes” to question seven ______ “Did you study English in school?”, none said “No” or “I do not know”. This percentage shows that all the respondents studied English in school.
20 respondents representing 100% responded “Yes” while none responded “No” or “I do not know” to the question “Do you motivate your students to learn Oral English?” This percentage shows that lack of motivation is not a problem of confronting the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government of Delta State.
To the question “Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the University?”, 8 respondents representing 40% answered “Yes” 12 respondents representing 60% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know”. This percentage shows that majority of teachers themselves did not do a practical Oral English training. This would affect their ability to teach Oral English.
To the last question ______ “Do you have mother tongue interference?”, 16 respondents representing 80% said “Yes”, 2 respondents representing 10% said “No”, and 2 respondents representing 10% said “I do not know”. This percentage shows that mother tongue interference on the part of the Oral English teacher is a major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
Questions 4 and 10 prove hypothesis 1 correct. Hypothesis 1 asks whether students can perform well in Oral English when the teacher commits a lot of phonological errors.
Questions 2 and 3 prove hypothesis 2 right. Hypothesis 2 asks whether there is a significant relationship between good instructional materials and students performance in Oral English.
4.3 Findings:
The data gathered from the respondents were put into a table showing the number of respondents and percentage. From the table presented in this study a number of findings has emerged.
i) It was discovered that emphasis and preference for the British accent by most schools do not positively affect the teaching of Oral English.
ii) Secondly, there is a lack of language laboratories in secondary schools.
iii) In addition, most teachers do not have enough skills required to teach Oral English.
iv) Again, majority of teachers who teach Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State have mother tongue interference.
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
5.1 SUMMARY
The aim of this research work was to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State, and to provide ways of eliminating such problems.
Teachers of Oral English in ten different Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State were used as the sampled population. And, to obtain information for this research, the researcher consulted library materials like textbooks, journals and the internet; and relied on responses from the questionnaire administered to teachers of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area.
The data collected from the respondents were put into tables showing the number of respondents and percentages. From the table, it was discovered that there was: unnecessary emphasis and preference for the British accent; a lack of language laboratories in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area; not enough skills required of the teacher who teaches Oral English; and the problem of mother tongue interference among teachers of Oral English.
From the data collected, it is obvious that the major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State is the lack of language laboratories.
5.2 Recommendation:
In the light of the knowledge of the result gathered from the study, the following recommendations were made:
i) The model of Oral English to be taught in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State and in Nigeria at large should be that which is spoken by the highly educated Nigerian, and not that of the British.
ii) The Ministry of Education ______ at the State and Federal levels should prevail on Secondary School proprietors (and the government in the case of Government Schools) to set up functional language laboratories.
iii) Only teachers who have the required skills to teach Oral English should be hired to do so.
iv) Teachers who have personal difficulties and mother tongue interference must go training and re-training.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adio K. (2010): “Nigeria: Poor spoken English
Necessitates Communication Development skills”. Tribune.com.ng 2013 July, 16, 6:44am
Arhagba D. and Atonuje A. (2011): Basics of Applied
Linguistics. Ughelli: Eregha Publishers.
Bright J.A. and McGregor G. (1970):Teaching English as a
second Language. Essex: Longman.
British Council (2013): Communication Skills for Teachers of
English. www.teachingenglish.org 2013 August, 20, 8.38am
Broughton G. et al (1980): Teaching English as a
Foreign Language. London Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gimson A.C. (1980): An introduction to the Pronunciation of
English London: The English Language Book Society.
Hook J.N. et al (1970): What Every English Teacher Should
Know. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English
Obriri I.S. (2007): Oral English for Colleges. Warri: Cotigo
Creative Media Publishers Limited.
Taylor and Francis Online (2011): Teaching in Higher
Education www.tandfonline.com 2013 August, 20, 6.58am.
Wellman L. (1978): Teacher of English as a second
Language. New York: Acro Publishing Company, Inc.
Wilkins D.A. (1982): Second-Language Learning and
Teaching. Great Britain: Richard Clay.
Delta State (2012): Uvwie Local Government.
www.deltastate.com.ng/local- government/ uvwie 2013
September, 9, 11:17am
Babu R. (2010): “Teaching spoken English for Non-native
Students:Problems, solution and techniques
www.eltweekly.com 2013 September, 10, 4.46pm.
Yichu Q. (2013): A Practical way to enhance oral competence.
http://iteslj.org 2013 September, 11, 3:17am.
APPENDIX
A QUESTIONAIRE ON THE PROBLEMS ON TEACHING ORAL ENGLISH IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN UVWIE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE
Dear Sir/ Madam
I am conducting a research on the problems of teaching Oral Language in Secondary School in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. Your Answers to the questions will help the investigation, and your answers will be treated confidentially. Kindly answer the questions by ticking the answers.
NAME:
SCHOOL:
SUBJECT TAUGHT:
S/N
Yes
No
I don’t know
1
Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?
2
Do you have a language laboratory the school where you teach?
3
Do you make use of the language laboratory if any?
4
Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?
5
Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?
6
Do you have any certificate in education?
7
Did you study English in School?
8
Do you motivate your student to learn Oral English?
9
Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the university?
10
Do you have mother tongue interference?
By
OTABOR BLESSING AIFUWA
OCTOBER, 2013
DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this work to God Almighty
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge the following persons who have positively affected my life in one way or the other: Mrs. Roseline Otabor, Mr. Bright Otabor, Dr and Mrs Hycinth Nduka, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Manawa, Mr. and Mrs Felix Lodio, Mr Lucky Ogierikhi, Mr. and Mrs. Austin Ovbiye, Miss Mabel Ohonba and so many others.
ABSTRACT
This research is aimed at examining the problems of teaching Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Areas of Delta State.
Chapter one is the introduction which comprises: the background of study, purpose of study, significance of study, research hypothesis and delimination of study.
Chapter two is the literature review in which literatures that talked about the problems of teaching Oral English in Schools were examined.
Chapter three focuses on methodology, that is, design, population, sample, and sampling procedure, instrument for data collection, method of data collection and method of data analysis.
Chapter four focuses on the analysis, discussions and findings.
Chapter five dwells on the conclusion, some useful recommendation, bibliography and appendix.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Table of content vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of study
Purpose of study
Significance of study
Research Hypotheses
Delimination of study
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Examination of related literature
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Design
3.2 Populations
3.4 Sample and sampling procedure
3.5 Method of data collection
3.6 Method of data analysis
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS DISCUSSION
4.1 Analysis
4.2 Discussion
4.3 Findings
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Summary
5.2 Recommendation
5.3 Bibliography
5.4 Appendix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
There are hundreds of languages spoken in Nigeria. The major languages are Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ibibio, Edo, Fulfulde, and Kanuri. The official language of Nigeria, English, the former colonial language, was chosen to facilitate the cultural and linguistic unity of the country. English, however, remains an exclusive preserve of the country’s urban elite, and is not widely spoken in the rural areas which comprise three quarters of the country’s population.
(Wikipedia 2013)
Uvwie Local Government Area, which is the focus of this research, is located in Delta State in Nigeria. A number of problems confront the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area. These problems which do not only include external factors such as lack of laboratory material but teacher’s incompetence, have negatively affected the teaching of Oral English.
One of the chief characteristics of the human is his ability to communicate to his fellows complicated messages concerning every aspect of his activity. A man possessing the normal human faculties achieves this exchange of information mainly by means of three types of sensory Stimulation, Auditory and Visual. This child will learn from a very early age to respond to the sounds and tunes which his elders habitually uses in talking to him; and in due course, from a need to communicate, he will himself begin to imitate the recurrent sound patterns with which he has become familiar. (Gimson 1980)
However, the teaching of Oral English presents particular difficulties. And of course, the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State has been an enigma over the years that students in Secondary Schools in the area complain bitterly. This has greatly contributed to the rampant poor performances if students in English Language both in internal and external examination.
According to Obriri (2007) , “Although many concerned pundits have charted numerous ways to simplify its teaching, many more problems are mounting and need to be thoroughly addressed urgently as they are alarming”.
According to Adio in an article: “Nigeria: Poor spoken English Necessitates Communication Development Skills” posted on the website of Nigerian Tribune in 2010, As part of the continued effort of the governments to sanitize education at primary and secondary levels, an independent three-day training: ‘The Trainers’ Workshop was organized for selected teachers for the Universal Basic Education Boards in Nigeria held in Lokoja, Kogi State, courtesy of the National Organizing Committee, President’s School Debate Programme And Development Planning And Management Consultants, Abuja.” Worried over the workshop looked into various strategies to boost Oral communication skills of Nigerian Students at all levels. One of the major strategies the workshop considered was the re-introduction of debate in school curriculum from primary school level.
I wish to maintain that though efforts have been put in place to improve Oral English, a good result is yet to be seen. Students in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State continue to perform below average in Oral English. The cause of this negative development is certainly because a lot of energy are being channeled only towards the learners problems, and not the problem of teaching. The problems confronting the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area range from teacher incompetence, inadequate instructional materials, disgust for the emphasis on the British accent, poor teaching skills, poor motivation for the students, to other problems which could have been caused by school proprietors or the government.
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State, and to provide practical ways of eliminating such problems.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This study will be beneficial to the following:
The Secondary School Students in Uvwie Local Government Area and other students in Delta State
Principals and proprietors of secondary schools within and outside Uvwie Local Government Area;
Teachers of Oral English in secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government;
Ministry of Education in Uvwie Local Government Area;
Delta State Universal Basic Education Board; and
Delta State Ministry of Education, and so on.
1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Can students perform well in Oral English when the teacher commits a lot of phonological errors?
Is there a significant relationship between good instructional materials and students performance in Oral English?
Are practical Oral Exercises necessary in the teaching of Oral English?
Is noise inimical to the teaching of Oral English?
1.5 DELIMINATION OF STUDY
First, the researcher will focus his inquiry on teaching problems of Oral English and Learning problems.
Secondly, the researcher will limit his work to ten selected secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. These include:
Sunshine Schools, Ekpan
Ekpan Secondary School, Ekpan
Kezina International Academy, Ekpan
Classical International Schools, Ekpan
Chinkelly Schools, Ekpan
Word of Faith Secondary School, Effurun
Edulyn College, Ekpan
Destiny Model School, Ekpan
Regent International School, Ekpan
Success International School, Ekpan
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTODUCTION
The main concern of this investigation is to identify those problems that are negatively affecting the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government of Delta. The inquiry will also look at the efforts that have been put in place to tackle the problem of teaching Oral English, which however have not yielded any practical solution. The work identifies workable solutions to the teaching of oral English in secondary school in Uvwie Local Government Area.
2.1 THE PROBLEM OF MODEL
While examining the problems confronting the teaching of Oral English, Bright and McGregor (1970) pointed out the problem of model. According to them:
“There is the question of the model. Suppose we could achieve complete success in making pupils speak precisely as we wish, what should we choose to do? What would they choose to do?
Sooner or later, all countries that use English as a first or second language develop variety of a accent. The United States did so long ago with the result that Americans model themselves on Americans and not on any British-English speakers. The same is true of New Zealanders and Australians.
Fortunately, the varieties of accents of all educated speakers of English ____ Indian, African, Malaysian, Chinese, Japanese, Scottish, Irish, Yorkshire or Somerset ____ have a great many common features which are far more important than their differences. Otherwise, the speakers would not find each other comprehensible. The distinctions that all educated speakers make are the important ones for our purposes; those that merely differentiate one educated speaker from another do not matter at all. We need no longer cherish quaint superstition about one variety being “better” than another” .
Bright and McGregor are of the view that the British accent should not be imposed on any teacher or any learner of English, they argue that just as the British speak with the British accent, other nationalities should speak with the kind of accents available in their own countries. They posit that the model to be adopted for teaching English in any country should be the model spoken by the highly educated in those countries. To them, “The distinctions that all educated speaker make are the important ones for our purpose”. Bright and McGregor believe that those distinctions that differentiate one educated speaker from another educated speaker do not matter at all. They make it clear that no variety of English is better than the other.
2.2 THE PROBLEM OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES
Bright and McGregor also talk about the problem of teaching techniques. They maintain that “An area that may be taught directly concerns the pronunciation of numerous structural words in unstressed position. Numerous decisions are involved about just what to include in careful colloquial speech and what is casual and need not be presented for active use”. They go further to illustrate as follows:
We would teach, for example, [Its ∂ ' p I t I]
We would not teach, [s∂ ' p I t I]
We would teach have = [h∂v] , [∂v] and [v]
We would teach he = [hI] but not [I]
We would teach and = [∂nd] , [nd] but not [n]
They add that we start with teaching and practice in not overstressing weak syllables because in our experience this is the commonest error. The point emphasized here is that there are often complications or confusions surrounding most teaching techniques.
2.3 NON – AVIALIBILITY SPECIALISTS
Wellman (1978) has another problem to talk about. In his view, “The teaching of English as a second language is a highly specialized field. It is not simply a matter of knowing English and teaching it to non-native speaker. In order to qualify for a teacher’s license, a candidate must be well versed in phonetics”.
There are number of salient points raised in Wellman Laurie’s argument. First, he points out that the teaching of English as a second language is a highly specialized field. This means that as we need specialist in the field of medicine to do the work of a medical practitioner, and a lawyer, and not a carpenter to do the work of a legal practitioner, teaching of Oral English which is no doubt a specialized field should be taught by a teacher who is a specialist in Oral English. He also points out that the teacher should not be certified until he shows evidence that he is versed in phonetics glaring that teacher who did not study Oral English have no business teaching Oral English. When they teach Oral English, they would teach nothing but error.
Broughton et al (1980) on the part condemn a situation whereby Oral English is taught by people who have no specific training. Their position is in line with that of Wellman Laurie (1978). See what Broughton et al say:
“The increased teaching of English during recent years in both state and commercial educational institutions has produced a new cadre of professionals: teachers of EFL. Some have moved across from teaching English modern languages; many have been drawn into service for no other reason than that their own spoken English is good, or perhaps because they are native English Speakers. Many have started without specific training, others feel they need to rethink the basis of their teaching”.
It is obvious that Broughton et al frown at a situation whereby somebody begins to teach English merely because he is a native of the English Language. They argue that it is not enough to be a native speaker, but to be trained in order to become a professional teacher of English.
Hook et al (1970) talk about the issue of knowledge and skill on the part of the teacher. According to them, “We teachers need to know more than most of us do. We need, especially, to know more about children than most of us do, so that, when each child comes to us in this place called a school, we can help to become the utmost that he is capable of becoming. We do not always do that”. They go further to explain that.
“A specialized methods course and carefully supervised student teaching can contribute extensively to the prospective teacher’s knowledge and skill. A general methods course, still the only one available in many small Colleges, is likely to be of less value, since it must cater to the varied needs of the teacher of Music, Physical Education, History, Chemistry, English, and other subjects and necessarily can go only into slight detail in any single field”.
The argument of Hook et al is that the teacher should be versed in his subject, study the students to know more about them and their needs they believe that knowing the subject very well, and knowing the students very well would help the teacher to be very skillful in teaching them.
2.4 THE PROBLEM OF EXPERTISE
One important variable in the learning situation is the teacher himself. His skill and his personality are instrumental in creating the conditions for learning. His skill is dependent on two factors, his own proficiency in the language and his knowledge of and expertise in methods and techniques of language teaching. The language proficiency of teachers cannot be taken for granted. There are countries where the teachers themselves have been relatively ill taught, where resources are lacking, so that will never have the opportunity to visit the country where they teach is spoken, where the education itself is relatively undeveloped and where teachers consequently are hardly able themselves to use language for real communication.(Wilkins 1982)
Different points have been highlighted by Wilkins he maintains that the skill and personality of the teacher are very vital in the teaching /learning situation. He stresses that the skill of the teacher is dependent on his knowledge of and expertise in methods and techniques. He also decried the situation whereby the teachers themselves have been relatively ill taught, and the problem of lack of resources.
According to a report published by Chen and Goh in 2011 about difficulties that teachers encounter in teaching Oral English in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the findings showed that apart from external constraints such as language class sizes and a lack of teaching resources, EFL teachers are frustrated by their low self-efficacy with regard to Oral English proficiency and inadequate pedagogical knowledge. Most teachers expressed eagerness to receive training in how to design and implement effective tasks to motivate students’ engagement in Oral English activities. The implications of these concerns for teacher education are highlighted in the call for training programmes that strengthen teachers’ knowledge for effective Oral English instruction in the EFL context. (Taylor and Francis 2003)
2.5 THE PROBLEM OF LARGE CLASS AND INADEQUATE TEACHHING RESOURCES
Chen and Goh in their research, the problem which the teachers encounter in teaching Oral English in the English as a foreign language context to include external constraints such as large class sizes and a lack of teaching resources: and teachers’ low self-efficacy with regard to Oral English proficiency and inadequate pedagogical knowledge. They believe that teachers should receive training in how to design and implement effective tasks to motivate students’ engagement in Oral activities.
2.6 LACK OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS
According to the British council (2013), a lack of communication skills is one of the problems bedeviling the effective teaching of Oral English. They maintain that:
“Communication skills include many things ____ using the target language effectively, the way in which we speak to the person we are speaking to, our body language including facial expressions, pitch and tone of your voice, interpersonal skills and a lot of other things. Effective communication skills are now required in each and every aspect of our life. Teachers of English are expected to have good command over the language and possess excellent communication skills. For a teacher, it is not just important to give a quality lecture but it is more important for the presentation of a lesson or lecture in class. A teacher with communication skills can enhance the learning process of students. Teachers of English must possess the following the following communication skills: Proficiency in English, positive motivation, effective body language, sense of humor, interpersonal skills and so on”.
The British council posits that communication skills include using the target language effectively, the way we speak our body language, facial expressions, pitch and tone of voice and so on. They go further to talk about proficiency in English, positive motivation and sense of humor as those things which should not be lacking in the teaching of Oral English.
2.7 THE PROBLEM OF POOR TEACHING PRODURES
Bright and McGregor (1970) talk about what most teachers do to enhance effectiveness in the teaching of Oral English. In their words, “The majority of teachers still use reading aloud as their main weapon in the battle to improve their pupils’ Oral English and take the material to be read from the class reader. They then listen for mistakes and “correct” them as they arise by interrupting the reader and requiring him to repeat a word or phrase in accordance with the model they provide”. Bright and McGregor argue that this procedure is objective is objectionable on a number of counts which include the fact that:
It interferes with the proper business of the reading lesson, which is to create imaginative response in the mind from the visual stimulates of black marks on the paper.
Where it is used frequently, it slows down reading speed whereas the objective is to increase it.
It provides a small amount of practice for a few individuals and bores everybody else.
It is highly productive of embarrassment to the reader. Indeed it is not unusual for a large number of corrections to lead to a deterioration of performance.
The pupils’ practice, such as it is, is random instead of specific. Nobody knows whether the next thunder bolt will fall on an error of pronunciation, stress, intonation or phrasing. After fifty interruptions in a paragraph, teachers have even been known to complain about lack of fluency and urge pupils to read with more expression.
The exercise of reading unprepared literary material aloud is too difficult for all but the best pupils.
Unless students are going to be teachers or announcers, the ability to read aloud is of little practical value compared with the ability to play an effective part in conversations, discussions and committee meetings.
Reading aloud of this kind is purposeless. Nobody listens because everybody has the text.
In the opinion of Bright and McGregor, “reading aloud” is not a solution but a problem to the effective teaching of Oral English. They point out that it could interfere with the reading process, slow down the reading speed, bores the student, and so on.
Teaching spoken English to the non-native students is a herculean task. Most of the students habituated to speak in their regional languages because they learn many words in their home, while they are at home. Lack of motivation throws the students from the school. The rural medium background students are not motivated by the teachers towards the communication in English and in most of the cases, they are trying to finish the syllabus. Unlike the other the teachers should talk less and listen more to the students. The teacher must step back and observe, sometimes acting as referee or monitor. Motivating students towards speaking in English is a half success. This is done using various techniques such as discussions, debates, prepared speeches and presentations, participating in situational dialogues, and many more exercises. (Babu 2010)
Shobomehin in a journal published by the school of Languages, College of Education, Warri in 2007 identified some complexities of teaching English Language to include:
a) Lack of a conducive Teaching/Learning environment.
b) Inadequacy of teaching resources.
c) Use of mixed varieties of English Language in the media and public offices.
d) Teachers of content areas subjects as poor models of English speaking.
e) Large and linguistically diverse classes.
She goes further to make some suggestion about how a teacher can overcome the problems highlighted above. In her words:
“There is no doubt that teaching English Language in difficult circumstances can present challenges to the language teacher. These challenges should however, not discourage the teacher but rather make him or her more creative and resourceful, knowing that the goal of teaching the language is to produce students with an appreciable level of competence in the language. A teacher’s strict adherence to a particular method of teaching will also not be of much help. His or her ability to introduce innovations and employ combined strategies might just spice up his or her arduous task and remove the frustration and boredom of teaching linguistically diverse large classes with limited resources, and provide opportunity for his or her learners to learn and use English in real world context”.
Gimson (1980) while attesting to the fact that the teaching of pronunciation presents particular difficulties, and that pronunciation does not permit progressive treatment since all phonetic/phonological features are potentially present from the very first lesson, explained that: “the teacher must deal systematically with the teaching of pronunciation, even though he may be forced to postpone the correction of some mistakes which occur in the early stages”.
The rapidity with which learn language is accounted for by the degree of motivation the child has. This is the view of Skinner and Bloom Field as cited by Arhagba and Atonuje (2011). Arhagba and Atonuje advocate the use of motivation because:
It increases the learning outcomes
It provides the desire for learners to learn.
It encourages students to listen.
It results in students getting better grades.
It encourages healthy competition in students
It stimulates students to higher achievements.
It helps to establish cordial relationship between teacher and students.
One of the most difficult challenges in teaching oral English is finding effective ways to help students improve their discourse fluency. Large mixed-ability classes, little exposure to the English Language after class and tongue-tied students inevitably form obstacles to teaching.
How to arouse students’ interest, increase students’ commitment to speak English fluently and get the maximum participation has long been a headache for teachers who want to get the students involved in class activities, and keep the class lively and dynamic. This article describes an experimental but practical way to enhance students’ oral fluency. In this activity students will be expected to interact and communicate in a comfortable way. This activity mainly based on movies which are a rich resource for idiomatic expressions. It will enable the students to discuss a certain topic in various ways. It will not only offer students an opportunity to speak the target language for at least ten to fifteen minutes, but it will also make tongue- tied students want to try. The main progression of this activity is from invitation to repetition to creative use of English.
2.8 SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THE TEACHING OF ORAL ENGLISH
PRE-ACTIVITY WORK
Before class, the teacher has to make two different sets of cards. (Card A1, Card A2, Card A3… ; Card B1, Card B2, Card B3…). On the first sets of cards, there will be some crucial, humorous or thought-provoking lines taken from the scripts of various movies; while on the set of cards, there will be a brief introduction to the movies and if possible, movie reviews that are brief bi\but to the point.
On the back of each card, the teacher should prepare a glossary of new words and expressions so that the activity will flow smoothly without language interference.
THE APPROACH
Step one:
In class, divide the students into groups with an equal number of members, then give Group 1, Card A1 in the first set and Card B1 in the second set, and correspondingly Group 2, Card A2 and Card B2… Have one student in each group, play the tape with the dialogues. These authentic English monologues or dialogues will put the students in the right mood for this classroom activity. Also, it will create an atmosphere that makes it easier for reserved students to try. The students are supposed to recite the lines using correct pronunciation and intonation. In other words, the students are playing different “audible” roles by repeating after the tape to imitate what they have heard with the help of the scripts. In this step, the teacher should make sure that all the students in the group
Understand the conversation and the setting with the help of the glossary. In this step, imitation and repetition are blended with each other, laying a good foundation for the effectiveness of the conversation tasks to be constructed afterwards. Students will not have time to chat in their native language or to read aloud mechanically if in this setting. They will begin to participate in this activity willingly. It might seem hard for the students to practice English in a classroom context, but this all changes so long as their interest is aroused and they truly want to speak English and improve their Oral English. This step will take about fifteen minutes.
Step two:
Next, the groups will be given several minutes to read the corresponding cards (Card B1, Card B2…). After they have a general knowledge of the movie, they will have a better understanding of the movie and have their ideas of different roles, the lines, the plots and even the ending. Now it is time for a group discussion. At this time, students are expected to make creative use of the English language.
The teacher must see that communication takes place, and should interfere when there is lack of communication. The teacher should pay attention to mistakes repeated by many students.
Point them out after the discussion and have the students correct the mistakes themselves. If students happen to make some witty or effective remarks, the teacher can make a comment on this to encourage this type of thing.
CONCLUSION
This activity may sound complicated to organize, but if the material is well chosen and well prepared, it keeps the student either speaking or listening in his or her group, and most importantly the students are able to speak. (Yuchi 2013)
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The main aim of this study as mentioned earlier is to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta state and to provide practical ways of eliminating such problems.
This chapter will examine the following subheadings as part of the research methodology.
i) Design
ii) Population
iii) Sample and sampling procedure
iv) Instrument for data collection
v) Method of data collection
vi) Method of data analysis
3.1 DESIGN
The design used in this study is the descriptive survey. It employs ex-post factor design. It is designed essentially to investigate the problem militating against the effective teaching of Oral in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
3.2 POPULATION
The target population of this study is the teachers of Oral English in secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
3.3 SAMPLE AND SAMPLE PROCEDURE
Ten secondary schools in Uvwie Local Government Area have been selected as sample for this research. They include:
Sunshine Schools, Ekpan
Ekpan Secondary School, Ekpan
Kezina International Academy, Ekpan
Classical International Schools, Ekpan
Chinkelly Schools, Ekpan
Word of Faith Secondary School, Effurun
7) Edulyn College, Ekpan
8) Destiny Model School, Ekpan
9) Regent International School, Ekpan
10) Success International School, Ekpan
Ten schools were randomly selected from the local government. In each of secondary schools selected two teachers were chosen as subjects.
3.4 INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION
The researcher in order to collect data for this research made use of questionnaire, interview and personal observations.
3.5 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
This empirical survey to find out the problems of teaching Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area was carried out by administering questionnaire to teachers of Oral English in selected secondary schools in the area. In each of schools, the researcher gave out questionnaire to two teacher to respond to. When they had finish responding, the research collects the questionnaire for analysis.
3.6 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
The method of data analysis to be used for this study is the simple percentage method. This would enable the researcher to investigate the problem militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools.
Two teacher were chosen as subject in each of selected schools. From the ten school selected, the researcher had twenty teachers as subjects.
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 ANALYSIS
This inquiry is carried out to investigate the problems of teaching Oral English in secondary schools is Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. For the purpose of clarity and logical presentation, the analysis is organized around the hypothesis and purpose of study. Ten questionnaires were organized into tables and discussed.
Yes
No
I don’t know
S/N
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
1
Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?
12
60%
8
40%
0
0%
2
Do you have a language laboratory in the school where you teach?
0
0%
20
100%
0
0%
3
Do you make use of the laboratory if any?
0
0%
20
100%
0
0%
4
Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?
14
70%
2
10%
20
20%
5
Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?
6
30%
10
50%
4
20%
6
Do you have any certificate in Education?
18
90%
2
10%
0
0%
7
Did you study English in school?
20
100%
0
0%
0
0%
8
Did you motivate your students to learn Oral English?
20
100%
0
0%
0
0%
9
Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the university?
8
40%
12
60%
0
0%
10
Do you have mother tongue interference?
16
80%
2
10%
2
10%
4.2 Discussion:
From the table, it is obvious that 6 respondents representing 60% answered “Yes”, 8 respondents representing 40% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know” to question one which says “Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?. The above percentage shows that more teachers are in support of the British accent. However, they are hardly able to speak with the British accent.
To question two which is “Do you have a language laboratory in the school where you teach?”, no respondent answered “Yes”, 20 respondents representing 100% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know”. This clearly shows that lack of language laboratory is a major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in secondary schools.
Question three which is “Do you make use of the laboratory if any?” has 20 respondents representing 100 answering “No” while none answered “Yes” or “I do not know”. They can certainly not use a language laboratory since they have none.
It was found that 14 respondents representing 70% answered “Yes”, 2 respondents representing 10% answered “No” while 4 respondents representing 20% answered “I do not know” to the question “Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?” This indicates that the personal difficulties which teachers have constitute a major challenge to the teaching of Oral English.
To the question “Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?”, 6 respondents representing 30% said “Yes”, 10 respondents representing 50% said “No” while 4 respondents representing 20% said “I do not know”. The above percentage shows the majority of Oral English teachers in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area do not have enough skills required to teach Oral English.
Question six which is “Do you have any Certificate in Education?” has 18 respondents representing 90% answering “Yes”. While 2 respondents representing 10% answered “No”, no respondent answered. This shows that the majority of Oral English teachers in Secondary Schools in Uvwie had teacher education.
While 20 respondents representing 100% said “Yes” to question seven ______ “Did you study English in school?”, none said “No” or “I do not know”. This percentage shows that all the respondents studied English in school.
20 respondents representing 100% responded “Yes” while none responded “No” or “I do not know” to the question “Do you motivate your students to learn Oral English?” This percentage shows that lack of motivation is not a problem of confronting the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government of Delta State.
To the question “Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the University?”, 8 respondents representing 40% answered “Yes” 12 respondents representing 60% answered “No” while no respondent answered “I do not know”. This percentage shows that majority of teachers themselves did not do a practical Oral English training. This would affect their ability to teach Oral English.
To the last question ______ “Do you have mother tongue interference?”, 16 respondents representing 80% said “Yes”, 2 respondents representing 10% said “No”, and 2 respondents representing 10% said “I do not know”. This percentage shows that mother tongue interference on the part of the Oral English teacher is a major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State.
Questions 4 and 10 prove hypothesis 1 correct. Hypothesis 1 asks whether students can perform well in Oral English when the teacher commits a lot of phonological errors.
Questions 2 and 3 prove hypothesis 2 right. Hypothesis 2 asks whether there is a significant relationship between good instructional materials and students performance in Oral English.
4.3 Findings:
The data gathered from the respondents were put into a table showing the number of respondents and percentage. From the table presented in this study a number of findings has emerged.
i) It was discovered that emphasis and preference for the British accent by most schools do not positively affect the teaching of Oral English.
ii) Secondly, there is a lack of language laboratories in secondary schools.
iii) In addition, most teachers do not have enough skills required to teach Oral English.
iv) Again, majority of teachers who teach Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State have mother tongue interference.
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
5.1 SUMMARY
The aim of this research work was to identify the problems militating against the teaching of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State, and to provide ways of eliminating such problems.
Teachers of Oral English in ten different Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State were used as the sampled population. And, to obtain information for this research, the researcher consulted library materials like textbooks, journals and the internet; and relied on responses from the questionnaire administered to teachers of Oral English in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area.
The data collected from the respondents were put into tables showing the number of respondents and percentages. From the table, it was discovered that there was: unnecessary emphasis and preference for the British accent; a lack of language laboratories in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area; not enough skills required of the teacher who teaches Oral English; and the problem of mother tongue interference among teachers of Oral English.
From the data collected, it is obvious that the major problem confronting the teaching of Oral English in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State is the lack of language laboratories.
5.2 Recommendation:
In the light of the knowledge of the result gathered from the study, the following recommendations were made:
i) The model of Oral English to be taught in Secondary Schools in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State and in Nigeria at large should be that which is spoken by the highly educated Nigerian, and not that of the British.
ii) The Ministry of Education ______ at the State and Federal levels should prevail on Secondary School proprietors (and the government in the case of Government Schools) to set up functional language laboratories.
iii) Only teachers who have the required skills to teach Oral English should be hired to do so.
iv) Teachers who have personal difficulties and mother tongue interference must go training and re-training.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adio K. (2010): “Nigeria: Poor spoken English
Necessitates Communication Development skills”. Tribune.com.ng 2013 July, 16, 6:44am
Arhagba D. and Atonuje A. (2011): Basics of Applied
Linguistics. Ughelli: Eregha Publishers.
Bright J.A. and McGregor G. (1970):Teaching English as a
second Language. Essex: Longman.
British Council (2013): Communication Skills for Teachers of
English. www.teachingenglish.org 2013 August, 20, 8.38am
Broughton G. et al (1980): Teaching English as a
Foreign Language. London Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gimson A.C. (1980): An introduction to the Pronunciation of
English London: The English Language Book Society.
Hook J.N. et al (1970): What Every English Teacher Should
Know. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English
Obriri I.S. (2007): Oral English for Colleges. Warri: Cotigo
Creative Media Publishers Limited.
Taylor and Francis Online (2011): Teaching in Higher
Education www.tandfonline.com 2013 August, 20, 6.58am.
Wellman L. (1978): Teacher of English as a second
Language. New York: Acro Publishing Company, Inc.
Wilkins D.A. (1982): Second-Language Learning and
Teaching. Great Britain: Richard Clay.
Delta State (2012): Uvwie Local Government.
www.deltastate.com.ng/local- government/ uvwie 2013
September, 9, 11:17am
Babu R. (2010): “Teaching spoken English for Non-native
Students:Problems, solution and techniques
www.eltweekly.com 2013 September, 10, 4.46pm.
Yichu Q. (2013): A Practical way to enhance oral competence.
http://iteslj.org 2013 September, 11, 3:17am.
APPENDIX
A QUESTIONAIRE ON THE PROBLEMS ON TEACHING ORAL ENGLISH IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN UVWIE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE
Dear Sir/ Madam
I am conducting a research on the problems of teaching Oral Language in Secondary School in Uvwie Local Government Area of Delta State. Your Answers to the questions will help the investigation, and your answers will be treated confidentially. Kindly answer the questions by ticking the answers.
NAME:
SCHOOL:
SUBJECT TAUGHT:
S/N
Yes
No
I don’t know
1
Do you think Oral English should be modeled after the British accent?
2
Do you have a language laboratory the school where you teach?
3
Do you make use of the language laboratory if any?
4
Do you have any personal difficulty teaching Oral English?
5
Do you have enough skills required to teach Oral English?
6
Do you have any certificate in education?
7
Did you study English in School?
8
Do you motivate your student to learn Oral English?
9
Did you do any practical Oral English training in your days in the university?
10
Do you have mother tongue interference?
Comments
Post a Comment