The Effect of Integrating15 ways of Personalization Technique in Teaching English on the Iraqi EFL 1st Intermediate Students’ Oral Performance
Lecturer, Faris Kadhim Te’ema Al-Atabi, Ph.D.
University of Wassit / College of Education
مقال نشر في مجلة جيل الدراسات الأدبية والفكرية العدد 43 الصفحة 127.
إن القدرة على التواصل باستعمال اللغة الانكليزية هو هدف كل المدرسين, وإن تمكّن المتعلم من اللغة هي الأخرى تظهر في قدرته على استعمال تلك اللغة, وهذا هو السبب في أن مهارة الكلام هي الأساس الذي يتقدّم كل المهارات الأخرى من ناحية الأهمية. ويظهر أن الأساليب التقليدية وضعف المادة الدراسية التي تفتقر الى الضروريات المهمة للمتعلم تجعل الطلبة العراقيين غير قادرين على استعمال مهارة الكلام في مختلف المراحل الدراسية على الرغم من طول فترة التعلم, وهنا تظهر الحاجة الى طرائق وتقنيات واستراتيجيات حديثة تمكنهم من الكلام؛ لذلك عنيت الدراسة الحالية في أن تجد تأثير دمج خمس عشرة طريقة من تقنية التعلّم الشخصي في تدريس مادة اللغة الانكليزية على الأداء الشفوي للطلبة, وتتميز هذه الخمس عشرة طريقة بكونها مؤثرة, وحديثة, وقوية تناسب الأعمار الصغيرة, وتتميز بسهولة تطبيقها على معظم دروس اللغة الانكليزية. وكذلك بكونها ترتكز على الطلبة حتى الخجول والضعيف منهم؛ ولتحقيق هدف الدراسة اُختيرت مجموعتان من طلبة الصف الأول متوسط: أحدهما تمثل التجريبية التي درّست بواسطة دمج الخمسة عشر طريقة من تقنية التعلم الشخصي, أما الأخرى فتدرس باتباع الطريقة التقليدية, وبعد معادلة المجموعتين ببعض العوامل التي من شانها أن تؤثر على نتائج التجربة أثبتت نتائج الامتحان الشفوي البعدي أن الوسط الحسابي للمجموعة التجريبية يفوق المجموعة الضابطة, وخلصت النتائج الاحصائية إلى أن المجموعة التجريبية التي درست اللغة الانكليزية بدمج الخمس عشرة طريقة من تقنية التعلم الشخصي كانت النتائج لصالحها.
The ability to communicate using English language is the goal of most English language teachers . Learners’ mastery of the language is parallel with his/her ability to speak that language that is why peaking skill is a prominent skill to which all other language skills are subordinated . Due to the traditional techniques and poor materials that lack most of the language contents necessary for EFL learners to practice the language in use, Iraqi EFL young students are seen unable to speak and in needs to new ; methods , techniques and strategies to teaching English .Therefore , the present study is intended to find out the effect of integrating 15 ways of personalization technique on their oral performance .These 15 ways of personalization technique are proved to be effective in teaching since it is ; a recent technique , powerful ones , fits young learners , applicable to all language lessons ,etc. They are also students-centered in terms of enabling all the students to take part even the shy and the low level ones . To achieve the aim of the study two groups have been chosen randomly from 1st intermediate school students ; one stands for the experimental and the other for the control group after equalizing them in some factors that may affect the experiment outcomes .The results of the speaking post-test reveal that the mean scores of the experimental group who are taught English by integrating 15 ways of personalization exceed that of the control one who are taught English by following the conventional way. Therefore, the hypothesis posed in advance is verified since there is a significant difference between the two mean scores in favour of the experimental group .
Keywords: integrating , personalization , and oral performance
Section One :Introduction
The problem of the Study
It is quite clear to everyone that language is commonly defined as a means of communication and it is unique to human beings, by which one can express his feelings , thoughts , attitudes, moods , complex processes , etc. Speaking plays an essential role among the other main language four skills and occupies an important place in the process of teaching and learning English . For most people , the capacity to speak a language is the same as knowing that target language since speech is the most basic tool of human communication (Lazaraton, 2001).
According to Richards & Renandya (2008) the efficiency of speaking in English is a target aim for many second language or foreign language learners. Consequently, learners are often evaluated in their progress in language learning as well as the mastery of their English course on the basis of how much they have got improved in their spoken language ability .
Richards and Renandya (2002) are of identical views when they claim that , a large percentage of the world’s language learners study English in order to get an ability in the speaking proficiency . Recently, Nowicka and Wilczyńska (2011,p.24) admit this fact through stating that speaking is extensively considered to be the principal skill that stands on the whole of knowledge of an FL. People may often form judgments about one’s language competence from his speaking rather than from any other language skills.
It has been found that after a very long period of English language teaching , Iraqi learners, in all stages of English language teaching , are unable to speak the language .This fact is much confirmed by Iraqi EFL teachers who attribute the learners’ failure or inability to speak the language to many factors from which ; the traditional methods of teaching English which are mainly teacher-centered that look at students as passive recipients and ignore the learners’ needs , preferences , likes and dislikes , hobbies and the like .The challenges faced in academic speaking practice are believed to hinder students’ oral communication that include communicating ideas fluently, speaking accurately(grammar), communicating ideas confidently, speaking clearly (pronunciation) and participating actively in discussions(Al- Fatlawi, 2008p.4).Personalization is considered as a powerful technique for encouraging the learners’ oral interaction and participation by giving the learners ample opportunities to share with others aspects of themselves as people regarding their likes and dislikes, feelings, personal experiences, knowledge, opinions, and so on.(www.rosesenior.com)
Feldstein and Hill (2016) add that Personalization is powerful because it enables learners to make connection between the lesson they have and their own lives thereby making the language they have more meaningful and relevant. Learners are also provided with multiple opportunities to use English in unique ways making statements that no one has heard before and that can, therefore, be highly memorable (and sometimes amusing). Moreover , they show that they value the unique statements made by individual students (rather than ignoring them or indicating disapproval), teachers say that personalization makes their classes more alert and alive. Therefore the following research is an attempt to experiment the effect of integrating15 ways of personalization technique in teaching English language on the students’ oral performance
The present study aims at finding out the effect of integrating 15 ways of personalization technique in teaching English on the Iraqi EFL Intermediate students’ oral performance .
The present study hypothesizes that there is no statistical significant difference between the mean scores of the students’ oral performance who are taught English by integrating 15 ways of personalization technique and that of the students who are taught according to the conventional way .
The present study is limited to :
- Iraqi EFL 1st intermediate school students
- The prescribed textbook ” English for Iraq”
- First course during the academic year (2016-2017)
- Choosing two groups from the 1st intermediate school students randomly ; one stands for the experimental group and the other one stands for the control group ;
- Equalizing the two groups;
- Teaching the two groups for about one course ;
- Designing an oral test ;
- Analyzing and discussing the obtained results .
Section Two :Theoretical Background
The term ”personalization ” is recent term used by many methodologists and specialists in the field of language learning and teaching . In this respect the following are the most popular definitions of the this term , for example Kerr (2016)defines personalization as a powerful technique for encouraging oral interaction by giving students the opportunity to share with others aspects of themselves as people; their likes and dislikes, feelings, personal experiences, knowledge, opinions, and so on .
Personalization is a technique that is also thought as a part from the communicative language teaching as asserted many communicative language teaching adopters who claim that Communicative language teaching is all about helping students to develop their speaking skills by giving them a range of opportunities to interact in English with fellow students during class time and this can be achieved by A powerful technique for encouraging oral interaction is that of personalization. (Alex ; 2008; https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/personalisation)
On the other hand “Personalization” as a techniques is ascribed to be a vital way of language learning and teaching especially for the low level classes or in the cases in which the students are far away from the teacher in age .This will result in chatting and talking freely about themselves is not an easy task if not impossible . This technique is convenient for low level and very young classes in which what the students most need is the motivation, enhancements , rewarding ,and the like . Moreover , students need the feeling of the realization that they can use English to talk about themselves for different topics .They also need to eliminate the feelings of they are unable in which they are most impressed by the teacher . (Kerr ,2016)
Personalized learning is also understood as the teaching and learning that is centered on the prior knowledge and background , preferences , potential and perception of the learner. It is also seen as a learner-centered education that place the learner at the front and not left behind. Personalization technique is a philosophical way that bases on definite strategies that need to be developed consciously and carefully.
It is not only a way but it has principles that make it an approach for teaching and learning .It exceeds what we could call “teacher talk” (where lessons only consist of a lecture with little , if not any , interaction between the students and the teacher or among the students themselves) or the material where the teacher is merely there to do exercises from a textbook and/or to tell student to read it. Personalization is a powerful way in which the students take the ownership of the learning process to be able a lifelong learner.( Feldstein & Hill , 2016)
What is most distinctive about personalization as a learning and teaching technique it has an origin from the personalized learning theory which is centered on two pillars . Alex(2008) states that Personalized learning theory is based on the twin pillars of; 1) differentiated learning pathways for learners and 2) provide feedback that enables learners to make informed judgments about what they’ve learned, how well they’ve learned it, and what to learn next . The importance of these two pillars for effective teaching is well formed despite that there many school which ignore these two essential pillars .
Fifteen Ways of Personalization
The core part of the study is based on integrating the following 15ways of personalization technique to teaching English lessons. To accomplish the aim of the study and to verify its hypothesis , these fifteen ways of personalization are applied to teach most of the topics found in ” English for Iraq” for 1st intermediate grade . Allex (2008) asserts that there are 15 ways which are game like and other ideas that will allow even very low level students and young learners to say something about the language they study and take roles to express who they are in a very simplified English right from the very first moment they step into an English class . Here are the 15 ways as they presented by Alex ( 2008 );
1.The Make Me Say Yes Game
In this game, students ‘ role is to ask the teacher Yes/ No questions and wait to get a point if the teacher’s (true) answer is “Yes”. Possible language points with low level and young classes include multiple verb usages including (can , have and verb to be ) that are used daily in our life expressions like can (Can you swim? ), ( can you camping ) have (Do you have a pet? , Do you have a pen in your bag? ), to be (Are you British? , Are you 37?, and like (Do you like pizza? ).
2.Likes and Wants
Another way by which the students use the language easily to talk about daily routine or habits is by asking questions Do you like…? which is part of the request of the Make Me Say Yes game but with extension that include almost any language point such as , asking students to respond to different topics and things on each flashcard presents , for example colours It’s red . Do you like red ? No ! No? Do boys like red colour ? , food , animals, sports, school subjects, and household jobs and other daily routines. You can also use this language or the more suitable(Do you want..?) when you are giving out flashcards or realia for the next game or activity. Having an emotional reaction to the materials and the vocabulary will help the students remember and expressing their opinions and choosing which they want can help them become more independent in their learning and more likely to speak out.
Using ”Have ” as another way to talk about so many ideas as ( Do you have…? Have you got…?) which is another piece of grammar you can use to personalize lots of other language points even before you have formally introduced it, e.g. with family members ( Do you have four sisters? ), clothes ( Do you have black socks? ), and toys.
Another piece of grammar is ”Can ” you can use to personalize lots of other language points is “can”, e.g. with sports (“Can you swim?”) or body parts (“Can you your nose with your toe?”).
Another fun way by which the students are likely to be less shy about asking a puppet personal questions than they are about asking a teacher .This will remove the teacher from the center of the process of learning and keep the class funny and less tensed . Students can then take the puppet and ask each other the same questions (speaking through the puppet), making asking questions they already know the answer to seem less fake and making them less self-conscious speaking with a native speaker-like accent while they are putting on the voice of the puppet.
6.Storybooks with Personal questions
Another way to use fantasy and fiction to lead to talking about their own reality is to use storybooks where there is information about the characters that answers the kinds of personal questions you are practicing , such as names and ages. The students can then ask the questions to or about the storybook character (e.g. “What’s your/ his name?” “My/ his name is Spot the Dog”). The teacher or character in the book can then ask the same questions to the students.
7.Make False Statements
Students most likely love funs and humor by which the teacher says “Your name is Blblblblblblbl” or “You are 1 year old/ zero” to students is good for a laugh, makes them listen to everything you say from then on in case it is also false, gives them a feeling of power and the ability to speak out in the classroom (they can correct the teacher!), and is a useful way of eliciting the answers to different type questions .
8.Remember each other
One way to provide the students with confidence and sharing each other even the weak students is by after they have got used to correcting you on their own personal details, you can get the whole class to correct you on what you say about the one student you pick on , e.g. “His pet is a spider” “No! His pet is a cat!”. This can then be then be extended to students remembering or guessing the answers to questions about other students, e.g. “What is his favourite colour?” They can then test each other, e.g. “What’s my favourite food?” or “How many bedrooms does Jose’s house have?” A variation on this is to get them to close their eyes and test them on what other people are wearing.
A great way of keeping the students alert and in touch with the teacher is by showing students that you are really listening to what they say is to let them see you writing it down. This can be something as simple as changing what you have written down when they tell you “I am 5” instead of “I am 4” for the first time. Just jotting it down in your notepad is enough, but having a profile card for each student on the wall that you add to and change information on is even better.
Ways of adding a language point to this include drawing them pictures of presents they would like, counting and correcting the number of candles on a picture of a birthday cake, and singing the Happy Birthday song.
11.Projects , photos and drawings
Arts and crafts work should be a standard part of any pre-school syllabus, but you can add to its language content and how much it helps students remember the language by making sure they put as much personal content into it as possible. For example, make sure they are actually drawing something that looks like their own family by asking “(Does your) father (really have a) beard?” (maybe with mimes), “Wow, your brother’s nose is BIG!” or “How long is your mother’s hair? (To her) ears? Shoulders?”
12.Comment on what is different today
Small children have a cute but English-free habit of stopping the whole class to show their teacher the cut on their finger or the pink socks that they didn’t have in the last lesson. You can try to exploit this natural personalization by asking them questions about anything you notice is different, e.g. “Whose is the new poster with an elephant on it?” or “I see Noriko is wearing pink socks. How many people are wearing pink socks today/ have pink socks (at home)?”
13.Please Mr Crocodile
In this traditional English playground game, students stand against the back wall and chant together “Please Mr Crocodile, may we cross the water?” and the crocodile (teacher or good student) says “Only if you are wearing a skirt/ are three years old/ have the letter Y in your name” etc. The students who meet the criteria can cross the classroom to the opposite side of the room, and then when the teacher says “Go” all the others have to try and run across without being eaten by the crocodile. You can play the game either so people who are eaten are out of the game or so they have to become the crocodile.
14.A regular personal questions stage
The fact that young learners of the language quickly forget what they are learned from time to time. This fact means that they need revision of even basic stuff almost every week. One way of doing this is to start every class with them answering and (later) asking personal questions about name, age, favourites , clothes etc. There are many games suitable for these questions and this age group to make sure they don’t get bored with asking the same questions all the time. Games include throwing a ball back and forth as they ask and answer, passing balls along lines of students as a race, and asking and answering whole chains of questions without making a mistake.
15.Talk about their other teachers
Once you have run out of things to say about yourself and all the students in the class, a few questions and answers about their other teachers is a great way of getting their interest, using English for real communication (telling them something they didn’t know such as their Maths teacher’s favourite food) and of making them remember what they learnt when they are outside English class. (https://www.tefl.net/elt/articles/teacher-technique/15-stages-of-using-pre-school-english-songs)
Section Three :Procedures
This section attempts at surveying the procedures adopted in carrying out the experimental part of the present research . More specifically, it highlights the following :
- the design of the experiment;
- the population and sample selection,
- the research instrument, i.e. the post test,
- ascertaining the validity and reliability of the post test,
- the teaching materials and lesson plans that are used in teaching the two groups, and finally
- the statistical tools employed for data analysis.
The whole experiment is conducted according to some plan which is called” the Experimental Design “. Best and Kahn (2006,P.177) define the experimental design as” the blueprint of the procedures that enable the researcher to test hypotheses by reaching valid conclusions about the relationship between independent and dependent variables”.
Keeping in view the above stated design decisions, the researcher has chosen the non-randomized Pre-Posttest Equivalent-Groups Design to achieve the aim of this study and to test its hypothesis. This design requires two groups of equivalent standing in terms of a criterion measure i.e. the independent variable (Padua and Santos, 1998:31). The first group is the control group whereas the second is the experimental group. Both groups are given the same pretest . The experimental group is given the independent variable i.e. integrating 15 ways of personalization, while the control group is taught according to the traditional way . At the end of the experimental period, both groups are given the same posttest .To provide a clear picture of the experimental design, consider Table(1 )below.
Table (1) The Experimental Design
|The Groups||The Test||Independent Variable||The Test|
|EG||Pre Test||15 ways of personalization||Post Test|
|CG||Pre Test||Traditional way||Post Test|
Population and Sample Selection
The whole population of the present study includes 1st grade intermediate school students in the city of Wasit province. From Al-Hai 1st class students at Al-Hai Intermediate School for boys has been chosen to be the representative sample of the present study. The total number of those students is 165 who are grouped into four sections, namely: A, B, C and D. Two sections have randomly been selected out of the four sections; namely: B and E. Section B represents the control group which includes forty-three students. Section E represents the experimental group which contains forty-two students. The total number of the students in the two groups is eighty-five . Four repeaters have been excluded from the two sections to avoid their past experience. The final number of the selected sample is eighty and each group has forty students see table (2).
Table (2)The Sample of the Study
|Group||Number of students|
|Before Exclusion||After Exclusion|
Equivalence of Groups
To achieve equalization between the two groups, the following variables are controlled. Information concerning these variables is taken from the students themselves and their personal records.
Age of Testees
Using the t-test formula for two independent samples, it is found that the computed t-value is 0.086; whereas the tabulated t-value is 2.000. So, the difference between the two groups is not statistically significant where the level of significance is 0.05 and the degree of freedom is 58 see table(3).
Table (3) Equalization in Age of Participants
|Level of significance||d.f.||Tabulated|
Academic Level of the Father
There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the academic level of father variable since the computed X2 value which is 2.26 is found to be lower than the tabulated X2 value which is 5.99 at a degree of freedom of 2 and a level of significance of 0.05 see table (4).
Table(4)Equalization in Academic Level of Father
Academic Level of the Mother
By applying the Chi- square formula, it is found that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the academic level of mother variable since the computed X2 value which is 0.42 is lower than the tabulated X2 value which is 5.99 at a degree of freedom of 2 and 0.05 level of significance see table (5).
Table (5)Equalization in Academic Level of Mother
|Group||No.||Illiterate + reads and writes + primary||Intermediate|
The Pre-Post Test
In order to achieve the aims of the study, an interview as speaking pre-posttest has been used. The pretest is conducted to ensure the equalization of the groups involved in the study and the posttest is used to measure the effectiveness of the experimental procedures.
The Choice of The Test Topics
Concerning the test , a structured interview has been constructed by the researcher himself . Fulcher (2010:24) claims that the most common format of testing speaking is the interview in which the test takers converse with an interviewer and his performance is evaluated . The criteria followed in selecting the topics are authenticity of the topic, modernity of the idea, and suitability to the sample interest and level of the students .Ten topics and the list of guiding questions have been exposed to the jury members mentioned in (Appendix 1 ) to select the most suitable ones for the pretest and the post test.
Accordingly, the jurors approve ten conversation topics with their lists of guiding questions. Most of the Jurors agree on the (1,2,4,11,6) topics for the pretest and the(3,5,7,8,9,10) for the posttest .
An analytic scoring scheme has been adopted and modified from Brown (2004p.244) for scoring the speaking test . Classroom evaluation of learning is best served through analytic scoring , in which as many as five major elements is best served through analytic scoring (ibid:243). The idea of giving a number of scores makes scoring more reliable, because this usually involves balancing perceptions of a set of different aspects of the text (McNamara, 2000,p.44).
To assess the performance of the subjects’ responses to each item of the speaking test, the following scoring scheme has been adopted from Brown (2001,p.406-407) with some modification: (the last component “task” has been deleted in accordance with the jury member suggestions). This scoring scheme consists of five components to be rated and a rating scale(1-5) . Accordingly, the highest score of the test is 25 whereas the lowest score is 5 see table (6).
Table ( 6 )Components and Scores of the Speaking Scoring Scheme
Face validity of the pre-test is achieved by exposing it to a number of jurors . The agreement percentage of the suitability of the test items is 100%. As far as reliability is concerned, the Alpha-Cronbach formula is applied where it is found out to be 0.78.
Applying the two independent samples t-test formula, it is shown that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of two groups on the pre test at 0.05 level of significance and 58 degree of freedom, since the calculated t-value which is 1.249 is less than the tabulated t-value which is 1.641 as shown in table (7).
Table (7) The Pre Test
|Group||No.||Mean||SD.||Computed t- value||Tabulated t- value||Df||Level of Significant|
The Instructional Material
Five units have been taught from which five topics have been selected from “English for Iraq” for 1st intermediate students , to be the instructional material of the present study. Here are the topics and their pages are presented in table (8) :
1-Unit one “My spare time” ; (the holidays , spare-time activities , hobbies and routine activities ) P.5 –10
2-Unit two “Dates and seasons “; (weather words , months , seasons and ordinals ) p.15-18
3-Unit three “What have you done today ” ; (adjective and adverbs describing moods and feelings and activities )P.21-29
4-Unit four “lazy days , birthday “
5-Unit five “Other countries” ( have you been to , where have you been )
Table (8)The Teaching Material and the pages of the Study
Pilot Administration of the Post Test
It is a common practice that data collection instruments should be tried out before they are finally administered (Klein, 1970: 129). Therefore, the test has been administered to a sample of one hundred students randomly drawn from the population and from different intermediate school . The aim of this application is to:
- estimate the appropriateness of the test to the students’ ability;
- secure the clarity of the test instructions to the testees;
- analyze the test items in the light of the students’ responses to determine their effectiveness in terms of difficulty level and discriminatory power; and
- calculate the reliability coefficient of the test.
The pilot study was carried out on 23rd December 2012 on 100 female students. The findings of the pilot administration have indicated that the test items are appropriate to the respondents, and the time which all the students took to answer ranges between 40 to 45 minutes. The average time is then 42.5 minutes.
Madsen (1983:180) states that “to ensure a good test, it is not enough to select appropriate language items. Each item in the question needs to function properly; otherwise, it can weaken the test. Therefore,” item analysis” is used for checking individual items“. It is the process of examining the students’ responses to each test item to judge the quality of the item, specifically, the difficulty and discriminating ability of the items (Mehrens and Lehmann, 1991: 161).
After scoring the testees’ papers, the researcher arranged them in order of scores from the highest to the lowest. Then she separated two groups of test papers: an upper group consisting of the highest 27% of the scores and a lower group consisting of the lowest 27% of the scores.
One of the aims of the pilot study is to determine the difficulty level (henceforth DL) of the test items. However, if the test items are too difficult or too easy, they will lack the necessary power of discrimination; indiscriminative tests are misleading (Madsen 1983: 180). DL should range from 0.20 to 0.80 (Ebel, 1972: 200). The item whose DL ranks among the above ranges is acceptable (Bloom et al., 1971:66). The DL of all the test items ranges between 0.42 to 0.78 .
According to Ebel (1972,202) the item is considered acceptable if its discriminating power, DP for short, is 0.30 and above. The results of applying the DP formula to the test items are demonstrated. The DP of the present study test items ranges between 0.31 and 0.54.Therefore; all the test items are acceptable.
The Post Test Reliability
Jackson (2012:66) states that one means of determining whether the measure the researcher is using is effective is to assess its reliability. “It is the extent to which a test is consistent in its assessment of what is says it is measured”(Carducci, 2009:43).
As believed by Harmer (2001:322), “Reliability is enhanced by making the test instructions absolutely clear, restricting the scope for variety in the answers, and making sure the test conditions remain constant”. The reliability coefficient of the post- test has been computed by Alpha- Cronbach formula, where the reliability coefficient is found out to be 0.82. Such high reliability is considered acceptable since it is above 0.50 and reaches more than 0.68 (Nunnaly and Ator, 1972:226).
The Application of the Experiment
The experiment started on the 22nd of October, 2017 and ended on the 7th of January, 2018. That is, it has lasted for twelve weeks, five lessons per week .One requirement for conducting the proposed experiment is lesson plan which contains the detailed information about the objectives, teaching techniques, steps and assessment procedures that can be followed in teaching the two groups. Two typical lesson plans are set for the two groups; the first is for the experimental group which is based on integrating the 15 ways of personalization technique , while the second is for the control group which is based on the traditional technique.
Final Administration of the Post Test and the Scoring Scheme
After achieving the post-test face validity and reliability, it has been administered to both groups, the experimental and the control, on the same day, 7th of January 2018. The allocated time for answering the test is 15 minutes. The testees are instructed to choose a card from the container which includes different card questions .The researcher record the students’ answer to mark them according to the scoring scheme . After the testees have answered the questions and recorded them by the researcher scored , tabulated and analyzed statistically in order to find the final result.
Results and Discussions
To achieve the aim of the present study which is ” the effect of integrating 15 ways of personalization technique in teaching English on Iraqi EFL students’ oral performance , it is hypothesized that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the oral performance of student of both the control group and the experimental one. In verifying the above hypothesis, the mean scores as well as standard deviations are calculated for the two groups as shown in table (9) below.
Table(9)The Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and t-test Value
For the Two Groups in the Post Test
|Group||No.||Mean||SD||Computed t- value||Tabulated t- value||Df||Level of significance|
Using the t-test for two independent samples, it is found that the computed t-value is 4.567 which is greater than the tabulated t-value which is 2.000 at 58 degree of freedom and 0.05 level of significance. This reveals a statistically significant difference between the mean scores in favor of the experimental group which is taught English by the personalization technique .
Discussion of Results
Depending on the results of the present study , the technique adopted by the researcher in his experiment has proved to be effective since the oral performance of the experimental group subjects in the post test administered at the end of the experiment has surpassed that of the control group subjects.
This success is due to certain aspects concerning personalization technique. For example, using the 15 ways of personalization have effected a great deal in proving and promoting the students’ ability in expressing themselves using the English language.
Also, Krashen (1985:34) shows that being well- trained in provides students with fun which lowers their affective filter, making them more ‘affectively’ open to the language. If students are trained well in using the above mentioned technique, they would be more able . might analyze this technique components with more details and wider comprehension of questions based on the given narration.
The present study conforms to Krashen’s (1985) in that Iraqi EFL students have fun using personalization technique as they start using the language to talk about different topics .
Most of Iraqi EFL students struggle with talking and speaking using the language because of their shyness and scared of failure . Therefore, a solution for such problems would be adopting techniques and strategies that might be used to support the classroom curriculum, and the type of technique that seemed to best fit the situation personalization technique .
According to the results of the present study, it has been found worth to explore the impact of Personalization technique on the conventional one followed in teaching English lessons for 1st intermediate students .The following are the main conclusions :
- Teaching English via personalization technique helps students express themselves as active participants even for low level and shy students .
- Students seem to benefit from personalization technique insofar it helps them organize their ideas , thoughts , attitudes etc. when they speak.
- The results also show that students could answer main idea questions which require inferential rather than literal comprehension.
- personalization technique encourages the competition among students who become active and able to reach their best performance.
- It also breaks the boredom on the side of the students since using personalization technique and filling it is regarded an interesting activity to do.
- By using personalization technique, students were capable of talking as good language speakers .
- It has been noticed that students’ interest in these 15 ways has increased and this is due to these ways . Consequently, their motivation for understanding and comprehension has also increased.
1.Do you go away in the holiday ? 2.Where do you go ? 5.what do you do there ?(visiting , fishing, swimming 4.What do you do all the time ?5.Do you go with or without a friend ?
2.Spare time :
1.What do you do in your spare time ? 2.What do you like to do ?3.Do you like (pictures , watch t.v , animals ,etc. ?4.Tell me about the things you do in your spare time .
3-How often :
1.How often do you play (football ,tennis , basketball , etc.) 2.Do you always have a rest after (homework , dinner …3.When do you usually do your homework ? 4.Do you sometime play a game ?5.Do you always visit your grandparents’ ?
4-The seasons of the year :
1.How many seasons are in the year ? 2.Is winter cold ? 3.When does it rain in the year ? 4.when is it cold in the year? 5.When is it sunny in the year ? 6.How is it in the spring ? 7.Is it hot or cold in summer ?
5-Months of the year:
1.How many months are there in the year ? 2.How many days are there in one year ?
3.How many days are there in a leap year ? 4.What is the longest month in the year
5.What is the shortest month in the year? 6.Which is the first moth ? 7.Which is the last month ? 8.Which is the coldest month ? 9.Which is the hottest ? 10.When does it snow ? 11.When does it rain ? 12.When is it cloudy ? 13.When is it windy ?
14.What ‘s the date to day ?
6-When is your birth day:
1.Do you enjoy birth days ? 2.What do you do in birth days ? 3.How old will you be on your next birth day ? 4.What do you get in your birthday ? 5.Whom do you invite for your birthday ?
7-New year’s day :
1.When is the new year’s day? 2.What do you want to do in the new year’s day
3.Do you go to the park to play 4-Do you sing , play , eat …?
8-Once upon a time
1.Do you tell lies ? 2.Do you laugh at people 3.Do you tell the truth ?
9-What’s the matter
What do you say to someone in the following situations
1.your friend is worried . 2.your sister is upset 3.your father is sad 4.Your brother is excited 5.Your mother is happy 6.Your friend is frightened
10-Have you ever been (have you ever done )
1.Have you ever been to turkey ,Iran , Sudia , etc. 2.have you ever ridden a horse 3.have you ever been to Basrah 4.have you ever driven a car
1-does India have a big population? 2.what animals do people ride in India? 3-what do people do in India ? 4-Is Oman big or small country
5-what do people do in Oman? 6-Does Oman have small population?
7-Is Iraq a big or a small country ? 8-What do people work in Iraq?
- Alex Case for TEFL.net June (2008)Field under Teacher Technique,
- Al-Fatlawi, M. (2008).The effect of employing the “community language learning method” in teaching EFL on pupils’ oral achievement. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Baghdad.
- Best, J. W. and J. N. Kahn (2006). Research in Education. 10th New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
- Bloom, B.; G. F. Madaus, and J. T. Hastings. (1971). Evaluation to Improve Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Brown , H. D. (2004) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. San Francisco State University: Longman.
- Carducci, B. J. (2009). The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications, 2nd New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Ebel , R . L. (1972). Essentials of Educational Measurement. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Feldstein, M. & Hill, P. (2016). Personalized learning: what it really is and why it really matters. EduCause Review [online] March / April 2016, pp. 25–35. Retrieved 18 September 2016 from http://er.educause.edu/ articles/2016/3/personalizedlearning-what-it-really-isand-why-it-really-matter
- Fulcher, G. ( 2010 ). Practical Language Testing. London Hodder Education.
- Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd London: Longman.
- Jackson, S. L. (2012). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach. 4th Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
- Kerr, P. (2016). Personalization of language learning through adaptive technology: Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Klein, L. R. (1970). A Textbook of Econometrics. New York: Prentice-Hall.
- Krashen, S. (1985) Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
- Lazaraton , A.(2001). “Teaching Oral Skills”. In M. Celce- Murcia (ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,(3rd ed). Boston: Heinle &Heinle, pp. 103-115.
- Madsen, H. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
- McNamara, Tim. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mehrens, W. A. and I. J. Lehmann. (1991). Measurement and Evaluation in Education. 4th New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
- Nowicka, A. and Wilczyn´ska, W.(2011).“Authenticity in Oral Communication of Instructed L2 Learners”. In M. Pawlak ,E. Klimczak and J. Majer (eds.),Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition. Bristol: MPG Books Group,pp.24-41.
- Nunnally J. C. & N. A. Ator (1972). Educational Measurement and Evaluation. 2nd ed, New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Padua, R. N. and R. G. Santos (1998). Fundamental Educational Research and Data Analysis. Quezon: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
- Richards, j. and Renandya ,W. (2002): Methodology in language teaching: An Anthology of Current practice. Cambridge: CUP.
- (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice. retrieved 15 November- 2011.[ Available Online]:http://www.fltrp.com/DOWNLOAD/0804010001.pdf