Improving Communicative Competence Levels of Pre-Service Teachers Through Spoken-Based Reflection Instruction

Abstract

This study investigated the use of spoken-reflection instruction to improve the communicative competence level of English as Foreign Language learners in a second language acquisition classroom. A listening and speaking test was administered before and after the study to determine the participants’ level of speaking competence. A quantitative research design was adopted for the study. A 3-credit unit language course was designed and implemented for the study. The course was built on the core principles of reflective practice. Participants were taught using the normal language teaching method and spoken-based reflection instruction. Purposive sampling technique was used to select 65 English as Foreign Language learners who willingly participated in the study. At the end of the course, a questionnaire was used to obtain information from the participants about their perceptions of using spoken-based reflection instruction to improve their speaking skills. In addition, participants were administered a Reflection-Listening, and Speaking Skills Test before and after each experimental phase to determine whether their listening and speaking skills had improved. Most learners found the use of spoken reflections to be a fun way to learn. However, they expressed anxiety about doing teacher-student reflection because they felt intimidated by the presence of their language teacher, although sending recordings of their reflections to their teachers was more convenient than interacting with them on a one-to-one basis.

Keywords

reflection spoken-based reflection communicative competence English as a foreign language education North Cyprus

Introduction

One of the most popular ideas in the language literature is the notion that communicative competence in the second language acquisition classroom is becoming an important focus in language teaching and learning. The literature on language education has shown that important productive aspects/skills of language such as speaking and writing are of great importance to language learners. This has led to the communication, identity, and cultural functions of language being very important in language learning, although it is still challenging for language learners to use language for the above purposes. In this area of second language acquisition, a lot of research has been carried out and many more are ongoing to find the reasons for the low communicative competence of language learners (Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Muchnik-Rozanov & Tsybulsky, 2019). Research has shown that the problem of low communicative competence of EFL learners can be both learner-centered and teacher-centered (Diana, 2019; Dowker, 2019). Previous and recent studies have recognized that learners may not be motivated to learn a language and this may lead to a loss of eagerness to learn the language, which may inevitably affect communicative competence (Ghani & Azhar, 2017; Joe et al., 2017). Language teaching and learning literature also acknowledge that the teaching methods or strategies used in the language classroom can also determine the level of communicative competence and engagement of language learners (Farooq, 2015; Ironsi, 2020; Lukyanova et al., 2015; Vasilyevna & Georgievna, 2017). It is well documented in studies that various strategies are used to improve language learners’ communicative competence (Bakar et al., 2019; Yu & Ja Kang, 2017). In the broader literature, it has been demonstrated that the use of appropriate teaching materials, teaching methods, and proper instructional planning can support the goal of improving learners’ communicative competence in language acquisition classes (Castillo Losada et al., 2017; Elder et al., 2017; Savignon, 2018). Previous studies have shown the role of reflection in language teaching and learning. There are clear studies showing that reflection plays a prominent role in language teaching as reflective portfolios have been used to promote autonomous learning (Kayapinar, 2018; Lo, 2010). Moreover, both previous and current studies have found that video reflection systems and game-based learning can be helpful in developing learners’ communicative competence and writing skills (Bower et al., 2011). These approaches have been influential in the field of language education due to numerous successes in their adoption and implementation.

However, it is evident that although there are small successes in applying the relevant approaches to improve language learners’ communicative competence (Akkakoson, 2016; Mia, 2016), the problem of poor speaking skills among language learners remains. The main problem is that although various strategies and approaches have been used to improve communicative competence, the concept of teacher–learner interaction in the form of reflection has not been considered. The study hypothesizes that although reflection is useful in language teaching, language learners’ communicative competence can be improved by teaching based on oral reflection. Recently, reflective practices have been integrated into language teaching and implemented in language acquisition classrooms (Korucu-Kis & Demir, 2019; Playsted, 2019), but language learners are not yet encouraged to reflect on topics through speaking and active interactions during class. There are very few studies investigating the role of spoken-based reflection in improving communicative competence. This points to numerous deficiencies and gaps in the scholarly literature that could be addressed by thoroughly investigating the use of spoken-based reflection in improving language learners’ communicative competence. The present study hypothesizes that the use of spoken reflection could be a strategic approach to improving language learners’ communicative competence if implemented appropriately. While numerous approaches used to improve learners’ communicative competence have not yielded much success, the use and implementation of spoken form instruction based on reflection could lead to a different outcome when implemented in the second language acquisition classroom. This study hypothesizes that this could be the lasting solution to the problem of communicative competence in second language teaching and learning. As far as we know, little is known about the use of reflective practice to improve language learners’ communicative competence. There is little evidence to date that spoken reflection–based instruction could serve as a pedagogical strategy for improving language users’ communicative competence. One way to overcome these problems is to conduct an experimental investigation into the use of spoken reflection–based instruction as an approach to improving the communicative competence of pre-service teachers. The present study aims to investigate the current level of communicative competence of prospective teachers and the effectiveness of using spoken reflection–based teaching to improve the communicative competence of these teachers.

Background of the Study

There is numerous research on the use of reflection by EFL learners in language learning but little focuses on reflection through speaking, particularly in a classroom scenario. These researches assume that reflections help to achieve competencies in different areas of language learning (Akhmadjanovna et al., 2019; Chang, 2019). Studies suggest that reflection brings learners closer to the language by enabling learners to ask critical questions, analyze the content of what is being taught, and be able to critically evaluate the language and what they are learning in the language classroom (Branch & George, 2017; Hansen, 2019). This assertion is consistent with other literature that affirms that a more learner-centered language teaching approach should be redesigned to create platforms through which learners can enhance language learning either through reflection or other means (Hansen, 2019; Matsuo, 2019). Some of this research focused on the learner reflecting on language lessons and courses as the sole learner rather than in an interactive form of instructional delivery. Matsuo (2019) conducted a study that focused on critical reflection in the classroom. This study identified the role of critical reflection in re-learning and engagement. The study hypothesized that critical thinking was a means of connecting what is learned in the classroom to learners’ real-world experiences that include their core values, beliefs, and life norms. Although the study highlighted the role of using reflective thinking in unlearning and engagement, the study did not indicate how oral-based instruction can be used in improving the oral skills of language learners or whether reflection done in oral form can help in improving the spoken language of EFL learners This is an area of great importance for this study. Similar to other studies on reflection is a study that investigates reflective conversation in a virtual language classroom (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). The study questions the relevance of deliberate reflection in a language acquisition classroom; the authors believe that language learner should be encouraged to engage in reflection through the use of effective conventional teaching materials that would improve their use of spoken language (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). In this study, the researcher speculates that the use of these concepts in the language classroom can help learners to practice their speaking skills and improve their communicative competence.

Theoretical Framework

Experiential learning theory, as proposed by Piaget, relates to reflection in language teaching and learning as it focuses on the context and processes of learning, especially when a learning process begins with a problematic experience. The theory states that learning becomes most productive and beneficial to the learner when the learner is engaged in the learning process. This study draws on this theory and assumes that learners’ communicative skills can be improved when they are exposed to communication-based instruction in the form of classroom reflection. In constructivist learning spaces, exercises are designed to enable learners to access their encounters/experiences and beliefs so that they can reframe their current information or knowledge in light of the new course content (Knapp, 2019). This reflective ability is intended to help learners reflect on language learning as a whole and most importantly, to consider the gains they have made so far in the language course (Muchnik-Rozanov & Tsybulsky, 2019; Schedlitzki, 2019; Ullmann, 2019). The present study subscribes to this theory and assumes that active social interaction among language users creates a platform for practicing language use. Moreover, it is possible to turn the process of self-evaluation into a communicative exercise for language users in which they can freely exchange and share their expectations about the results of the lessons, constantly creating an atmosphere in which each language learner can interact with others. This study anticipates that communicative competence of language users can be improved through this strategy.

Literature Review

Reflections

From the literature, reflection is a process of examining and looking at ourselves, our points of view, characteristics, encounters, and activities. (Sifakis, 2019; Schedlitzki, 2019). It encourages us to gain understanding and recognize how we can move forward (Hansen, 2019). In any case, it can likewise appear as a discussion with a “basic companion,” guide, or tutor, who in most language classrooms would be the language teacher or other EFL learner (Chang, 2019; Schedlitzki, 2019). Previous research has shown that when we reflect, we think deeply about something we may not have normally thought about (Diane, 2019; Tavoosy & Jelveh, 2019; Wilson et al., 2019). Previous studies have emphasized that the key to reflecting is to recognize the examples and connections in the idea that arise as a result of our encounters in everyday life and learning (Helyer, 2015; Schedlitzki, 2019; Stavroulia & Lanitis, 2019). Several studies in broader literature suggest that the motivations for reflecting are to allow the speakers to “hear” their reasoning and focus on what they are saying and feeling, to show the speaker that the listener is trying to see the world from their perspective and that they are doing their best to understand their messages (Chan & Holbert, 2019; Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Diane, 2019). This constant communicative approach through reflection can help improve language learners’ communicative competence. It has already been reported in the literature that reflecting does not mean asking a lot of questions, presenting a different point, or pushing the discussion in a different direction, but speakers are supported by reflecting as it enables them to feel understood within the context of the discussion (Branch & George, 2017). It is evidenced in previous research that this aforementioned causes learners to coordinate their reflections and further drives them to continue communicating, especially in a language classroom (Lynch et al., 2019). Some authors have also noted that two main techniques of reflection are mirroring and paraphrasing (Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Stavroulia & Lanitis, 2019), and they believe that using these techniques will help in conducting effective reflection in the classroom. Recent literature emphasizes that the affective filter of language learners should be minimized to facilitate effective reflection, as this eliminates problems of anxiety in language learning especially while engaging in reflection (Ironsi, 2020)

Importantly, some evidence in studies has shown that reflection, whether student-centered or teacher-centered, plays a paramount role in teaching. Reflection has been used in various ways to enhance learning and is a common practice in language teaching and learning. A recent study investigates attitudes in spoken student-teacher reflection as an exploratory study to develop a reflection inventory (Munalim & Gonong, 2019). Some older studies on the use of reflection in language teaching examined reflection as a developmental tool in language teaching, while some focused on spoken discourse as an approach to teaching academic speaking (Basturkmen, 2002; Farr, 2006). A recent study documented that effective strategies in language teaching and learning are essential in the face of global crisis (Ironsi, 2020a). It is evident in the literature that reflection could be a strategy for developing language learners’ speaking skills, yet very few studies have investigated the use of spoken-based reflection teaching as an approach to improving language learners' communicative competence. A careful look at the literature on reflection and communicative competence reveals that very little has been studied concerning the use of spoken-based reflection in language teaching and learning. In other studies, learners are encouraged to reflect while learning (Lynch et al., 2019; Stavroulia & Lanitis, 2019). However, no instruction has yet been developed that incorporates oral-based reflection practices into language teaching, and this is the novelty of this study, which intends to investigate the use of spoken-based reflection to improve pre-service teachers’ communicative competence.

Normal Language Teaching Methods and SLA Classroom

Researchers have suggested that to achieve competence in the four language skills, the use of certain language teaching techniques in the language classroom should be considered, yet several questions remain to be addressed regarding the methods to be used. However, a closer look at the literature on language teaching methodology reveals some gaps and shortcomings that exist. It is evident that the use of a particular normal language teaching technique (NLT) has not yielded much in recent decades (Diane, 2019). Despite decades of research, this continues to be debated among scholars who point out that language teaching requires careful selection of materials and methods that meet learners’ needs to achieve the goal of language learning, which in most cases is not achieved if the focus is not on communication ( Akhmadjanovna et al., 2019; Chang, 2019; Hsia et al., 2019). These issues and gaps in the literature have not been addressed so far because most language teachers, especially in universities, approach language teaching from a normal lecture point of view where students are taught the rudiments of the language in terms of the four skills and other areas such as grammatical rules, vocabulary, etc., but speaking practice is neglected (Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Matsuo, 2019; Tavoosy & Jelveh, 2019; Wilson et al., 2019). Although research has illuminated the use of reflection in language teaching, previous studies have focused almost exclusively on reflection as good practice for teachers and learners or on reflection on language learning at a broader level (Coulson & Harvey, 2013; Diane, 2019; Stavroulia & Lanitis, 2019), while no study to date has investigated the use of spoken-based reflection teaching to improve learners' communicative competence in foreign language acquisition.

The Present Study

From the literatures above, it could be drawn that most reflection in academic settings is executed through writing essays and reports about how learners think about a particular learning experience or course content. None of these studies reported the use of oral/spoken-based reflection in language teaching and learning. This study assumes that instead of recordings and essays, language learners can do reflection on past, previous, and present language lessons by speaking and recording what they say and playing such recordings to listen to themselves. Students can be encouraged to reflect on topics, make contributions to any topic while other peers are debating about it, this could be an effective approach to improve foreign language learners’ communicative competence especially in recent times. In light of this thesis, this study intends to investigate the language proficiency level of prospective teachers in the department of English Language Teaching of a private university to determine whether oral reflection could be a useful approach to improve their communicative competence.

To achieve this, more specific research questions are posed to investigate the role of language teaching methods in improving learners' communicative competence, particularly the role of spoken-based reflection teaching in improving learners' communicative competence. The following research questions were investigated;

1. What is the communicative competence level of EFL learners?

2. Does normal language teaching improve the communicative competence of EFL learners?

3. Does spoken-based-reflective teaching enhance EFL learners’ communicative competence?

4. How do learners perceive the use of normal language teaching in improving learners’ spoken language?

5. What are students’ perceptions of the use of spoken-based reflective teaching in improving their spoken language?

Method

Research Design

This is an action research and this study used a quantitative research design. This research design was used to experimentally obtain information from the participants about their communicative competence levels through the use of pre-test/post-test, while questionnaires were used to obtain information from the participants about their perceptions of using spoken-based reflective teaching to improve their communicative competence. The use of this research design is considered appropriate as it will help to experimentally determine the extent to which participants’ communicative competence was improved through the use of spoken-based reflective instruction. Prior to the start of the study, participants were administered a pre-test to determine their level of communicative competence. A 3-credit unit language course was designed and used for this study. Participants were divided into two groups A and B, where group A was the experimental group and group B was the control group. The participants were randomly selected and assigned to the different groups, 33 participants were assigned to group A while 32 participants were assigned to group B. Group A was taught using spoken-based reflective instruction, while Group B was taught using normal language instruction. The core objectives of the course were focused on spoken reflective practice. The course was developed using themes and each theme was designed with exercises to encourage students to reflect on each theme. Other exercises were designed to ask students to analyze, critique, or comment on an idea or passage. This was to encourage oral reflection among students while the language teacher ensured that all students participated equally in the discussion of each unit. A post-test was then conducted to investigate whether there was a significant improvement in the communicative competence of the trainee teachers. The teaching duration was 2 hours three times a week for 14 weeks.

Participants

The participants in this study were undergraduate students from English Language Teaching Department a private university in North Cyprus. The participants comprised 65 pre-service teachers consisting of 50 males and 15 female EFL learners. A purposive sampling method was used to select the study participants. They gave their verbal consent to participate in the study as it was important for improving their speaking and listening skills.

Data Collection and Instrumentation

The study used a Reflection-Listening, and Speaking Skills Test (R-LST) and a questionnaire as instruments. The R-LST was structured, adapted, and modified from the International English Language Testing System test to meet the core intentions of the study. It was administered before and after each phase of instruction. This assessment included a listening test and a speaking test. The speaking test was used to assess the participants’ spoken English. They were assessed using 4 criteria, namely fluency and coherence, vocabulary use, grammatical accuracy, and pronunciation. The first criterion was used to assess the participants’ ability to use the language with normal continuity while coherently linking their ideas, the second criterion focused on the appropriate use of vocabulary while expressing themselves. The third criterion assessed the appropriate formation of sentence structure using relevant tenses and clauses when and where relevant. The fourth criterion emphasized the participants' ability to produce intelligible speech. Importantly, the test consisted of two sections, Parts 1 and 2. The first section focused on reflections about oneself, explaining characteristics, traits, and interests. It also included parts where participants were asked to reflect on their family, recounting pleasant and sad moments. For the second part, participants were also asked several questions on topics about “myself and my family.” They were asked to provide more detailed information about themselves and their family while discussing more abstract details about the topic (see Appendix 2). The second part of the test, a listening test, was used to assess the participants’ listening ability. The test assesses the participants’ ability to understand the main and factual ideas in an utterance. The listening portion consisted of two conversation recordings on the topic of “World Englishes” and a dialog between two people (see Appendix 1) The test was administered at the same time to avoid participants’ errors and biases. The reflection session was used to determine the participants’ level of communicative skills after using each teaching method. Prior to the administration of the test, the research conducted a pre-moderation activity supervised by another instructor to ensure that all questions were appropriate for participant level

The researcher then designed an assessment rubric that was face- and construct-validated by two Pearson-certified tutors who revisited the assessment criteria to ensure high internal consistency in scoring. Language tutors from two universities were used to administer the test and subsequently mark the answer sheets. Prior to the test, the external examiners were informed of the criteria and the assessment breakdown to avoid confusion. An average of 50% was set as the cut-off for the test, meaning that scores above the cut-off were considered proficient (P) in listening and speaking, while scores below the cut-off were considered as Not proficient. After the test, the answer sheets were collected and scored. After scoring, the researcher initiated a standardization process by reviewing the scores until a consensus was reached. This was to ensure that the examiners made a fair assessment of each student as this would improve the quality of the assessment process. The questionnaire was based on a 4-point Likert scale with scores of “strongly agree” (4), “agree” (3), “disagree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1). The instrument was validated by two experts to ensure that the correct format was used in the development of the instrument, while it was tested with a small group of 20 students to determine its reliability, achieving a Cronbach’s alpha index of 0.82, confirmed its reliability to measure the construct it was designed to measure. Subsequently, the data were collected and analyzed.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire was analyzed descriptively using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM) version 23 program. The descriptive analysis consists of the means and standard deviations which were used to interpret the questionnaire data while the percentile range was used for pre-test and post-test analysis (Figures 1 -3).

Figure 1.

shows the spoken competence level of participants before the commencement of the research.

Figure 2.

shows the spoken competence level of participants using the normal language teaching method.

Figure 3.

shows the spoken competence level of participants using the spoken reflective teaching method.

Result

RQ 1: What is the communicative competence level of EFL learners?

Table 1 presents the listening speaking test scores of EFL students before commencing the research. Results indicate that 4 out of 65 representing 6.1% of the participants obtained scores which were above 50% which indicates that only these participants had high levels of communicative competence among other participants. Also, 61 out of 65 representing 93.8% of the participants obtained scores below 50% which was a clear indication that the majority of the participants obtained a low score which reveals that their communicative competence level was at low levels. This shows that students’ level of proficiency in listening and speaking was below average which confirms that the level of their communicative competence at the beginning of the research.

RQ2: Does normal language teaching improve the spoken competence of EFL learners?

Table 1.

Pre-Test Scores of Communicative Competence Levels of Participants Before the Research.

Number of students	Number of Scores above 50%	Number of Scores below 50%	Percentage of scores above 50, %	Percentage of scores below 50, %	Remarks
65	4	61	6.1	93.8	NP

Key; NP (Not Proficient).

Table 2 presents the test scores of participants for the first academic year using NLT. Results indicate that participants 6 out of 65 representing 12% of the participants obtained test scores above 50%, whereas the scores of 59 participants were below 50%. This result reveals that there was a slight significant improvement in their listening and speaking skills comparing their results before the commencement of the research. The result indicates that though there was an improvement in the communicative competence level of participants while utilizing normal language teaching, the communicative competence of the entire participant based on their test scores was generally low.

RQ3: Does spoken reflective teaching assist in the spoken competence of EFL learners?

Table2.

Post-Test Scores of Communicative Competencies Level of Participants After the First Academic Semester Using NLT.

Number of students	Number of Scores above 50%	Number of Scores below 50%	Percentage of scores above 50, %	Percentage of scores below 50, %	Remarks
65	6	59	12	88	IP

Key; IP (Improved Proficient).

Table 3 presents the test scores of EFL students for using SRT. Results indicate that 46 participants representing 69.2% of the learners scored above 50%, whereas 19 participants representing 30.7% of the learners scored below 50%. This result reveals that there was a significant improvement in the communicative competence of the participants compared to their test scores before the commencement of the research.

RQ4: What is the perception of students on the use of normal language teaching in improving the spoken language of learners?

Table 3.

Post-Test Scores of Communicative Competencies Level of Participants After the Second Academic Semester Using SRT.

Number of students	Number of Scores above 50%	Number of Scores below 50%	Percentage of scores above 50, %	Percentage of scores below 50, %	Remarks
65	46	19	69.2	30.7	P

Key; P (Proficient).

Table 4 shows the mean responses of students on their perceptions of using NLT to improve spoken language according to the questionnaire items used in the study. When the participants were asked to indicate whether they liked the teaching method during class, a mean score of 3.51 (SD: 2.22) was obtained, which is a positive response. This shows that students were sure they liked the teaching method. For item 2, where participants were asked to indicate whether the teaching was learner-centered, a mean score of 3.33 (SD: 2.04) was obtained, indicating that students were affirmative on this item. Also, when the participants were asked if they gave an example to support the classroom discussion, a mean of 2.32 (SD: 1.45) was obtained, representing a negative response. The above results are similar to items 4 and 5 where learners were asked if they participated in classroom activities and interactions. A mean value of 2.51 (SD: 1.42), 2.36 (SD: 1.56) was obtained indicating that there was no interaction and participation in the classroom. A mean score of 3.03 (SD: 3.11) was obtained for the next item indicating that the class was interesting

Table 4.

Mean Response of Students’ Perception on the Use of NLT on Improving the Spoken Language.

Item	N	M	SD
1) I enjoy the teaching method used by my teacher	65	3.51	3.13
2) My lessons were learner-centered	65	3.33	2.04
3) I can give examples to support classroom discussions	65	2.32	1.45
4) I participated in classroom activities	65	2.51	1.42
5) I interacted more during the lessons	65	2.36	1.51
6) The lessons were interesting	65	3.03	3.11
7) The teachers used speaking drills during lessons	65	2.48	1.73
8) The teacher used listening drills during lessons	65	2.24	1.64
9) The teacher used chain drills during lessons	65	2.13	1.18
10) I understood the lesson content	65	2.44	1.73
11) My listening skill improved after the lessons as I reacted to topics during lessons	65	2.32	1.58
12) My speaking skills improved after the lessons as I reacted to comments during lessons	65	2.51	1.40
13) My understanding of language improved	65	3.30	2.03
14) I can retell the lesson in details	65	2.40	1.46
15) I can discuss the previous lessons in groups	65	2.54	1.44
16) I understand different discussions and opinions during lessons	65	3.17	2.08
17) I can use language to communicate with others	65	2.25	1.65
18) I can express my feelings on the lessons taught	65	2.65	1.85
19) I can express my views on areas of the lesson which I do not understand	65	2.63	1.82
20) I can state the personal reason for not being active in class	65	2.22	1.68

Key; N (no of participants), M (mean response), SD (standard deviation).

A mean value of 2.48 (SD: 1.74) was also obtained for item 7, indicating that speaking exercises were not part of the lesson plan in such a class. These results are also consistent with items 8 and 9, which refer to the use of listening and chain exercises in a lesson. Mean scores of 2.24 (SD: 1.64) and 2.13 (SD: 1.18) were obtained representing negative responses. These questions are explained by the next question item which was about understanding the lesson content. The participants obtained a mean score of 2.44 (SD: 1.73) which means that the lesson content was not understood. Items 11, 12, and 13 scored a mean of 2.32 (SD: 1.58), 2.51 (SD: 1.40), and 3.30 (SD: 2.03), respectively. For items 14 and 15, which asked participants if they could retell a lesson and discuss the previous lesson, a mean of 2.40 (SD: 1.46) and 2.54 (SD: 1.44) was obtained, representing another negative response. A mean of 3.17 (SD: 2.08) was obtained for item 16, indicating that learners understood various discussions. For Item 17, which asked participants if they used language to communicate, a mean score was 2.25 (SD: 1.65), representing a negative response. For item 18, which asked participants if they express their feelings about teaching, a mean of 2.65 (SD: 1.85) was obtained, representing a negative response. For the results of item 19, which asked participants if they could express their opinions about areas of the subject they did not understand, a mean of 2.63 (SD: 1.82) was obtained, indicating that students could not express their opinions about areas in which they had difficulty. Similarly, when asked if they could give personal reasons for their absence from class, a mean of 2.22 (SD: 1.68) was obtained, suggesting that they could not give any thoughts in this regard.

RQ5: What is the perception of students on the use of spoken reflective thinking towards improving their spoken languages?

Key; N (no of participants), M (mean response), SD (standard deviation)

Table 5 shows the mean responses of students on their perception of using SRT to improve spoken language according to the questionnaire items used. When the participants were asked if they enjoyed the teaching method during class, they showed a mean score of 3.50 (SD: 3.12), this was a positive response. When the participants were asked to indicate whether the teaching was learner-centered, they showed a mean of 3.22 (SD: 2.03), which was an affirmative response to the question asked. These results justify that students enjoyed spoken-based reflective teaching and they affirmed that this mode of instruction delivery was learner-centered. This is similar to the results of item 3 when the participants were asked to indicate whether they gave examples to support classroom discussion, a mean of 3.31 (SD: 2.41) was obtained indicating that the students participated in the instruction through interaction. The above findings also explain items 4 and 5 where learners were asked if they participated in classroom activities and if they interacted during class, a mean of 3.55 (SD: 3.46), 3.34 (SD: 3.53) was obtained which was in the affirmative to the question asked. When the participants were asked if the lessons were interesting, a mean of 3.04 (SD: 3.32) was obtained which was a positive response to the question.

Table 5.

Mean Response of Students’ Perception on the Use of SRT on Improving Spoken Language Levels.

Item	N	M	SD
1) I enjoy the teaching method used by my teacher	65	3.50	3.12
2) My lessons were learner-centered	65	3.22	2.03
3) I can give examples to support classroom discussions	65	3.31	2.41
4) I participated in classroom activities	65	3.55	3.46
5) I interacted more during the lessons	65	3.34	3.53
6) The lessons were interesting	65	3.04	3.32
7) The teachers used speaking drills during lessons	65	3.97	3.75
8) The teacher used listening drills during lessons	65	3.27	2.11
9) The teacher used chain drills during lessons	65	3.15	2.90
10) I understood the lesson content	65	3.46	3.52
11) My listening skill improved after the lessons as I reacted to topics during lessons	65	3.35	3.00
12) My speaking skills improved after the lessons as I reacted to comments during lessons	65	3.55	3.66
13) My understanding of language improved	65	3.32	3.07
14) I can retell the lesson in details	65	2.41	1.39
15) I can discuss the previous lessons in groups	65	3.50	3.17
16) I understand different discussions and opinions during lessons	65	3.16	3.92
17) I can use language to communicate with others	65	3.25	3.07
18) I can express my feelings on the lessons taught	65	3.65	3.15
19) I can express my views on areas of the lesson which I do not understand	65	3.67	3.82
20) I can state the personal reason for not being active in class	65	3.22	3.28

For item 7 which asked the participants if the teacher used speaking exercises during the lesson, a mean of 3.97 (SD: 3.75) was obtained indicating that speaking exercises were used in the lesson, this result is in agreement with the result of items 8 and 9 which refer to the use of listening and chain exercises in a lesson. Mean scores of 3.27 (SD: 2.11) and 3.15 (SD: 2.90) were obtained for these items which are positive responses. For items 11, 12, and 13, mean scores of 3.35 (SD: 3.00), 3.55 (SD: 3.66), and 3.32 (SD: 3.07) were obtained, confirming the other findings of the study that carefully planned language instruction improves the four language skills. In addition, items 14 to 20 received a positive mean score which was above the established cut-off point, indicating that the participants agreed with the items as they relate to the language teaching method.

Discussion

From the above brief review, these main findings emerge: The study found evidence of language learners with low communicative competence. At the very least, our findings suggest that despite the use of various language teaching methods for teaching second language acquisition, there are learners who have difficulties in language production and performance. This result is in good agreement with previous studies which showed that although some learners have high levels of spoken language proficiency, they also have difficulties in language use, which affects their communicative competence (Chang, 2019; Matsuo, 2019). Our findings further indicate that communicative competence is a problem among students of EFL as a similar pattern of results was obtained in a study on challenges in language teaching (Branch & George, 2017; Hansen, 2019; Ironsi, 2021). This is another confirmation of similar studies that argue that although communicative competence is often neglected among scholars, it is always surprising to find out that most students in SLA classrooms do not have high competence in using the language for communication regardless of long periods of English teaching (Diane, 2019; Hansen, 2019; Ironsi, 2021).

Moreover, the present study confirmed that normal language teaching does not improve learners’ communicative competence. This analysis found evidence to show that the normal language teaching approach in SLA classrooms does not have a positive impact on language learners' communicative competence in this context. In line with the reasoning of similar studies (Ironsi, 2020; Ironsi & Popescu, 2021b), it can be concluded that the normal teaching approach does not improve learners’ communicative competence contrary to the assumption of some studies (Diane, 2019; Sifakis, 2019; Schedlitzki, 2019; Tavoosy & Jelveh, 2019; Wilson et al., 2019). The results of the experiment clearly argue for the use of a different language teaching method that can inevitably improve language learners’ communicative competence. Our findings shed new light on the possibility of adopting a different approach to language teaching, which was in line with the aim of this study. It is important to note that the present findings are based on the empirical data analyzed in this context, as different results might be obtained in other contexts.

In addition, it could be concluded from the above findings that reflections play an important role in language teaching and learning and can be used to improve language learners’ communicative competence. This is an important finding for understanding the role of teacher-student reflection in promoting learners’ language use throughout the learning process. These findings are in line with similar studies in the wider literature which emphasize that reflection can be used positively to influence instruction in the language classroom (Chan & Holbert, 2019; Helyer, 2015). This study verified that the use of reflection-based instruction leads to similar outcomes as suggested by some studies (Chan & Holbert, 2019; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Munalim & Gonong, 2019). However, while our findings are compared to those of older studies, it is important to note that other studies have advocated the use of reflection in teaching; our findings provide evidence of the effectiveness of spoken reflection–based teaching in improving learners’ communicative competence. The results of this study provide robust empirical evidence for a new way of teaching based on the principles of reflection, both concerning the teacher and the learners. As we have shown, this mode of instruction could be used to improve language learners’ communicative competence and possibly other areas in which learners have difficulty

The results from the analysis of the questionnaire also point to some remarkable findings. The study was able to show that students enjoyed the lessons to some extent while using the normal language teaching method and they confirmed that the lessons were also student-centered. This is in contrast to some studies that conclude that normal language teaching is not learner-centered because the teacher teaches the language from a lecture perspective (Akhmadjanovna et al., 2019; Chang, 2019; Diana, 2019; Hsia, Hwang& Lin, 2019; Ironsi, 2021). However, it was evident that students did not participate or interact in classroom discussions. It was evident that this type of teaching was not perceived as interesting by the students as listening, speaking and chain exercises were not used during the lessons. The participants also showed that their listening and speaking skills did not improve at the end of the lessons as expected. Overall, it was evident that little was achieved with this form of teaching in this context. Interestingly, although students perceived the mode of instruction as learner-centered, none of their language skills improved, as similar studies found (Diana, 2019; Ironsi, 2021). However, this does not suggest that normal language teaching does not have a positive impact on learners or other aspects of language skills; rather, our results show that this teaching method does not seem to improve the aforementioned aspects of learners’ language skills in this context.

Our results clearly demonstrate that students perceive the use of reflection-based instruction as useful and effective in improving communicative competence. Most importantly, students liked this type of instructional design, which they perceived as learner-centered compared to regular language instruction. The findings confirm that this is a good choice for teaching learners with low communicative competence because the teachers used appropriate speaking, listening, and chain exercises during the lessons. During the lessons, learners are encouraged to participate, interact and use language meaningfully. These findings are in tandem with studies that support that appropriate method, language exercises, strategies and approaches must be used in a language classroom, they emphasize that these variables are essential for the success of teaching four language skills (Chang, 2019; Ironsi, 2020; Ironsi & Popescu, 2021b). Obviously, it is novel that students confirmed that this type of teaching improved their listening and speaking skills. This is consistent with previous findings suggesting that the use of reflections in the classroom can help improve language use (Korucu-Kis & Demir, 2019; Playsted, 2019). Moreover, these basic findings seem to be consistent with research showing that reflections play a prominent role in language teaching, especially in promoting autonomous learning, whether through video-based reflection systems or game-based learning (Bower et al., 2011; Kayapinar, 2018; Lo, 2010). Regardless of whether it is game-based or video-based reflection, evidence was found in this study that the use of spoken reflection–based instruction is effective in improving language learners’ communicative competence.

Conclusions

The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of normal language teaching and spoken-based-reflection teaching in improving learners’ communicative competence. In conclusion, normal language teaching does not seem to improve language learners’ communicative competence. In conclusion, this thesis argues that normal teaching methods could provide results in other aspects of language teaching, although this has not been investigated in this recent study. The main conclusion that can be drawn is that a better result was obtained when spoken-based reflective teaching was used to teach language learners. The present findings confirm that language learners’ communicative skills improved when spoken-based reflection teaching was used. Broadly translated, our findings suggest that this method of language teaching is learner-centered and improves language learners’ listening and speaking skills when used appropriately. Our data suggest that reflection can be integrated into language teaching and used to enhance specific areas of language learning, a finding that sheds new light on the importance of reflection in the pedagogy of teaching.

Moreover, the study concluded that students found NLT methods boring in some places and interesting in others. In general, these basic findings are consistent with the research in showing that language teachers need to be eclectic in their approach to language teaching to know appropriate techniques and strategies to use in the language classroom, which can help to achieve the core goal of language learning. Having established this, and as difficult as it may be to come to a valid conclusion, the study summarized that the use of spoken-based reflective teaching contributes to a greater extent in improving language learners’ communicative competence when compared to normal language teaching. Despite the limitations, these conclusions are valuable for planning and designing language instruction, especially for ELT pedagogy in the future.

Implication for Practice

This study acknowledges that there is considerable discussion among researchers about possible strategies and approaches that could be used to improve teaching, particularly in these unprecedented times of global crisis. In light of our study, there are reasons to doubt the efficacy of lecture-based instruction (similar to normal language teaching) in today’s world. This study has shown that novel strategies and approaches that could be applied and used by language teachers for online-based or hybrid-based teaching could be reflection-integrated teaching. It is interesting to note that recently it has proved difficult to engage students in online teaching or to encourage active learner participation; therefore, reflection-integrative teaching could be adopted where students are encouraged to participate through individual and group reflection exercises during and after class.

Recently, there have been calls for a redesign of our curriculum to bring it into line with today’s realities. Studies have shown that workplace literacy skills are no longer sufficient. Future and 21st-century skills are becoming more relevant and important in the workplace and 21st-century society, and this could be a call to redesign the curriculum, incorporating core elements of future and 21st-century skills into our curriculum. This study envisions that skills and dispositions such as critical thinking, reflection, problem-solving, analytical, and interpersonal skills should be necessary components of our curriculum that are consistent with the needs of our society. In this light, language teachers must begin to rethink language teaching from this perspective as we all search for better ways, approaches, strategies, and effective methods to apply in our language classroom to improve language teaching to serve our learners in different contexts.

Limitations of This Study

An important issue with the findings of this study was that we did not investigate the possible effectiveness of NLT and SRT on all four language skills, although due to the lack of volunteer examiners who would investigate all four language skills, the study decided to investigate only listening comprehension and speaking, which does not entirely justify the communicative competence or incompetence of the learners. Nevertheless, it could be argued that while NLT was not effective in improving language learners’ listening and speaking, the same method could improve reading and writing skills. Although, it is widely accepted that communicative competence can be assessed based on grammar, syntax, vocabulary, sentence morphology, etc. (Paulston, 1974; Ruiz-Madrid & Valeiras-Jurado, 2020; Whyte, 2019), which was indirectly assessed in this study by assessing listening comprehension and speaking. This study suffers from some limitations as the study was not able to assess all aspects of communicative competence to give a comprehensive conclusion on this topic. From this point of view, it can be said that although certain areas of communicative competence were neglected in this study, the empirical evidence showed that spoken-reflexive instruction was effective in improving certain language skills of the learners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chinaza Solomon Ironsi

References

Akhmadjanovna

N. R. N.

Abdukhalilovna

M. H.

Habibullaevna

M. B.

(2019). Integrating language skills into the process of English language teaching. Вестник науки и образования, 19(2), 73.

Akkakoson

(2016). Reflections from teachers and students on speaking anxiety in an EFL classroom. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 4(3), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/jolace-2016-0025.

Bakar

N. I. A.

Noordin

Razali

A. B.

(2019). Improving oral communicative competence in english using project-based learning activities. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p73.

Basturkmen

(2002). Learner observation of, and reflection on, spoken discourse: An approach for teaching academic speaking. TESOL Journal, 11(2), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00080.x.

Bower

Cavanagh

Moloney

Dao

(2011). Developing communication competence using an online Video Reflection system: Pre-service teachers’ experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.614685.

Branch

W. T.

Jr George

(2017). Reflection-based learning for professional ethical formation. AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(4), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.4.medu1-1704.

Castillo Losada

C. A.

Insuasty

E. A.

Jaime Osorio

M. F.

(2017). The impact of authentic materials and tasks on students’ communicative competence at a Colombian language school. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 19(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n1.56763.

Chang

(2019). Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 23(1), 95–110.

Chan

M. M.

Holbert

(2019). Exploring modalities of reflection using social online portfolios for maker-oriented project-based learning. Proceedings of FabLearn, 2019, 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311919.

10.

Coulson

Harvey

(2013). Scaffolding student reflection for experience-based learning: A framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752726.

11.

Diane

(2019). Techniques and principles in language teaching.

12.

Dowker

(2019). Individual differences in arithmetic: Implications for psychology, neuroscience, and education. Routledge.

13.

Elder

McNamara

Kim

Pill

Sato

(2017). Interrogating the construct of communicative competence in language assessment contexts: What the non-language specialist can tell us. Language & Communication, 57, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.005.

14.

Farooq

M. U.

(2015). Creating a communicative language teaching environment for improving students' communicative competence at EFL/EAP university level. International Education Studies, 8(4), 179–191. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5539/ies.v8n4p179.

15.

Farr

(2006). Reflecting on reflections: The spoken word as a professional development tool in language teacher education. In Spoken English, TESOL and Applied Linguistics (pp. 182–215). Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Ghani

Azhar

S. W.

(2017). Effect of motivation, willingness to communicate (WTC), self-perceived communicative competence (SPCC), and L2 anxiety on the frequency of use of English as L2. Journal of Educational Research, 20(1), 157.

17.

Hansen

S. L.

(2019). Using reflection to promote career‐based learning in student employment. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(162), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20334.

18.

Helyer

(2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management.

19.

Hsia

L.-H.

Hwang

G.-J.

Lin

C.-J.

(2019). A WSQ-based flipped learning approach to improving students’ dance performance through reflection and effort promotion. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1651744.

20.

Ironsi

C. S.

(2020a). Strategies for student engagement in remote online learning. A case study of Northern Cyprus. Journal of Education and Culture, 1(2), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.46652/runas.v1i2.19.

21.

Ironsi

C. S.

(2020). Impact of test anxiety on test scores of preservice teachers in Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 1(2), 19–36.

22.

Ironsi

C. S.

Popescu

(2021b). Enhancing communicative competence in a second language acquisition classroom: Investigation into blended teaching method and communicative language teaching. Worldwide Journal of Research, 2(1), 1–5. Retrieved from https://w-jr.com/index.php/wjr/article/view/57

23.

Joe

H.-K.

Hiver

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

(2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005.

24.

Kayapinar

(2018). Reflection in language teaching: A comparison between preservice and experienced teachers of english. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(23), 754–763. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2018.3619.

25.

Knapp

N. F.

(2019). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816181.

26.

Korucu-Kis

Demir

(2019). A review of graduate research on reflective practices in English language teacher education: Implications. Issues in Educational Research, 29(4), 1241–1261.

27.

Lamy

M. N.

Goodfellow

(1999). Reflective Conversation'in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61.

28.

Lin

Y.-T.

Wen

M.-L.

Jou

D.-W.

(2014). A cloud-based learning environment for developing student reflection abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.014.

29.

Y.-F.

(2010). Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346509.

30.

Lukyanova

Daneykin

Daneikina

(2015). Communicative competence management approaches in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.761.

31.

Lynch

Kamovich

Longva

K. K.

Steinert

(2019). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students' reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119689.

32.

Matsuo

(2019). Critical reflection, unlearning, and engagement. Management Learning, 50(4), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619859681.

33.

Mia

P. S.

(2016). Student's speaking anxiety factors (A Study at the second year Students of tourism Class at SMK N 1 Padang Panjang in academic year 2015/2016) . Doctoral dissertation. STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT.

34.

Muchnik-Rozanov

Tsybulsky

(2019). Towards understanding the language of student teachers’ reflections in the context of professional identity development. Reflective Practice, 20(4), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1642188.

35.

Munalim

L. O.

Gonong

G. O.

(2019). Stances in student-teachers spoken reflection: An exploratory linguistic study to enhance a reflection inventory. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 119–139.

36.

Paulston

C. B.

(1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 347–362.

37.

Playsted

(2019). Reflective practice to guide teacher learning: A practitioner's journey with beginner adult English language learners.

38.

Ruiz-Madrid

Valeiras-Jurado

(2020). Developing multimodal communicative competence in emerging academic and professional genres. International Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.401481.

39.

Savignon

S. J.

(2018). Communicative competence. In The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

40.

Schedlitzki

(2019). Developing apprentice leaders through critical reflection. In Higher education, skills, and work-based learning (2nd ed., 9, pp. 237-247). Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2018-0095.

41.

Sifakis

N. C.

(2019). ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and processes. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx034.

42.

Stavroulia

K. E.

Lanitis

(2019). Enhancing reflection and empathy skills via using a virtual reality-based learning framework. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(07), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9946.

43.

Tavoosy

Jelveh

(2019). Language teaching strategies and techniques used to support students learning in a language other than their mother tongue. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 77–88.

44.

Ullmann

T. D.

(2019). Automated analysis of reflection in writing: Validating machine learning approaches. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29(2), 217–257.

45.

Vasilyevna

Z. M.

Georgievna

S. N.

(2017). Interactive teaching methods in the process of foreign language communicative competence development. Азимут научных исследований: педагогика и психология, 6(3), 20.

46.

Whyte

(2019). Revisiting communicative competence in the teaching and assessment of language for specific purposes. Language Education and Assessment, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n1.33.

47.

Wilson

Warmington

Johansen

M. L.

(2019). Experience‐based learning: Junior medical students’ reflections on end‐of‐life care. Medical Education, 53(7), 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13907.

48.

Ja Kang

(2017). Effectiveness of a role-play simulation program involving the sbar technique: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 53, 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.04.002.