Improving Vocational School Students’ Ability of Speaking English by the PPP Model

燕玉琪

【Abstract】Speaking is the most important aspect of the communication， fluent and accurate speaking can convey your ideas to the others more effectively. However， speaking is the most difficult part in the English learning for students， the paper is based on a project which aims to help students to solve this problem. In this project， 20 students of the second Grade vocational school were analyzed. The author used the analysis method， from two perspectives of students and teachers. The author followed the PPP model and the textbook designed four weeks speaking lessons in order to enhance the students positive and ability of speaking.

【Key words】English speaking； PPP model； role-play； group comparison

1. Introduction

As a teacher， the researcher has many opportunities to get close to the students and teach the ability of speaking in class. A serious problem surfaced when the researcher was teaching the vocational school English lessons. It seemed that the traditional speaking method most low-level learners used in speaking practice was not effective. A careful analysis showed that their problems in speaking were caused by the lack of motivation， accumulation of vocabulary， practice and standard pronunciation. To solve this problem， a four-week experiment followed PPP model was designed and carried out with two groups of vocational school students. All students in this project were senior two students in the vocational school in Beijing and their major is computer. Students in Class 1 comprised the Target Group and were taught speaking by PPP model. While the students in Class 2 were served as the Control Group and continued to be use the traditional method.

A range of research methods were employed in the project， which were pre-test and post-test scores， the researchers reflection notes， and the student interview， so that more objective and comprehensive research result can be recorded throughout the implementation period.

2. Problem Identification and Analysis

2.1 Problem Identification

The researcher has been teaching English in vocational school for two years. There are about 20 students in a class， their age are 15 or 16. The students in vocational school have low-level English and the researcher found her students seem to have many problems of speaking English especially communicating with others in English. They cannot use words， phrases and sentences which were taught in the class in appropriate situations and have worse pronunciation，intonation， rhythm when communicate with others.

2.2 Description of Project Problem

The researcher found that although some new words， phrases and sentences had been taught in the classroom， most students still cannot use them in appropriate situations and cannot pronounce them well. Moreover， most of the students had no will to learn them. Therefore， the research problem of this project is that teacher didnt teach them how to use them in different situations and students had few chances to practice.

2.3 Problem Analysis

This analysis starts with some factors that may contribute to the cause： the teachers side， as well as the students side.

a） Teachers side

i. For a long time， teachers major job was to teach the reading， writing and listening which can help students get a high score in the examination. They ignored the ability of communicating by use English.

ii. The teacher spent few time to teach and correct students pronunciation， intonation and rhythm.

iii. The teacher seldom provided opportunities and situations to students for practicing their speaking.

b） Students side

i. Their English speaking level was low.

ii. Some of them were not interested in learning English especially speaking.

iii. Some of them remember poor words of English.

2.4 Results of problem analysis

After making the above analysis， the researcher came to know the cause for the problem in the students speaking learning. It was due to the teachers ineffective design of speaking activities. Based on the above analysis， the researcher was determined to design a project that can render more effective speaking learning activities to solve the problem.

3. Project Rationale

3.1 The research about PPP model of speaking

The PPP model includes Presentation， Practice， and Production three stages in the class.

PPP model advocates that the teachers should provide a series of tasks for the learner while the learners should communicate， cooperate， negotiate and interact with other learners to complete the assigned tasks with certain goals， so that the learners skills and the ability of speaking can be fostered and be developed.

3.2 The stage of PPP model

3.2.1 In the presentation stage：

In this stage， material input is the first step. It refers to the data that form the point of departure for the speaking task. Yu Mingyao （2007） said input for speaking tasks can be derived from a range of sources， such as the pictures， movies， dramas， talk shows， songs and so on. Niu （2010） points out if we want learners to comprehend aural texts in the real world， then the learners need opportunities for engaging in these real-world texts in class.

In this stage， the researcher introduces the new language items to be learned. The researcher focuses the students attention on model sentences， dialogues or other types of texts and checks their understanding of the new language items.

The presentation can be accepted more easily and effectively by watching the American soap opera. There are many situations and experiences of daily life and full of funny or excited things with key points of language in the opera， so students will have more interesting about learning speaking.

Then students should follow the researcher to collect the words， phrases and sentences around the topic and make the mind map.

3.2.2 In the practice stage：

This is a teacher-controlled stage. The researcher provides many drill practices based on the presentation stage to students. This stage can be treated as the basic of the speaking activities. The different situations， model dialogues， patterns of sentence and single choice are the best choice.

3.2.3 In the production stage：

About the activities in speaking class， role-play is a better choice for teachers and students. Widdowson provided a form is role-play， he called it “rehearsal”； he believed that “what is wanted is a methodology which will … provide communicative competence by functional investment.” Harmer. J （2000） claims that it would engage the learners in problem-solving tasks as purposeful activities but without the rehearsal requirement that they should be realistic or ‘authentic as natural social behavior.

There are many advantages of role-play， such as：

a） In the role-play， students will have more controlled. That means he/she chooses what to say and how to say it. Students will have more motivation to speak English in this activity.

b） The different situations in role-play are rich in language experience. Students could express what they want to say and what they want to do， so they communicate with others in English easily.

c） Role-play is more concentrate the fluency than accuracy. When students do this activity， there is a positive attitude to fail express accuracy.

d） Different situations can help students adapt to the communicative environment so that they can feel well when they communicate with others in English.

3.3 The PPP model in the class

There are three stages： presentation stage， practice stage and production stage.

In the presentation stage： the researcher controls the procedure， provides dialogue from the American soap opera—Friends. Students are asked to similar it， translate it and analysis it. Collecting the expressions from the dialogue and making the mind map， adding up the expressions form.

In the practice stage： the researcher controls the rhythm， students should do the drill practices and speak out the answers， speak the dialogue with their partners. Teacher corrects students pronunciation， intonation and rhythm.

In the production stage： students do the role-play activity followed the role cards and different situations. They control the stage. The researcher acts as the monitor and provider. According to the performances of students the researcher gives the points to them as the mark of the final test.

4. Project Implementation

4.1 Week I

Presentation：

Week I was the beginning of the project implementation. Motivation was very important at this stage. Changing the mind of speaking lesson is the main task of this lesson. The first week involved two periods of the preparing for speaking：

The first period was to make students adapt to the English conversation by provide an episode of an American soap opera—Friends. And become aware of the general “feel” of the English and moreover， to create an English environment for students who have few chances to hear and speak English.

Task 1 was to motivate the students by watching the episode of interview in Friends with Chinese and English subtitles and build up the general “feel” of the English for about 3 times.

Task 2 was to help students know the general idea of the story by watching drama and translating it again.

Task 3 was to collect some expressions about interview which were used in the drama by playing it and stopping it when necessary.

Task 4 was guide students to watch the opera again without any subtitles for at least three times. And then show the English dialogue to them.

The second period was to help students to collect and accumulate more expressions about the topic—interview. And also providing more times and chances to practice and correct the pronunciation of expressions to students. There are about 4 tasks in this phase.

Task 1 was the additional of the expressions list on the blackboard or PPT by the researcher for the situation in drama. Students should write them down on the collection note books.

Task 2 was the procedure of correcting students pronunciation. Students should read the expressions followed the American soap opera or the research loudly again and again. The researcher should emphasis the intonation and rhythm during this procedure. That is the one of the most important drill practice for speaking.

Task 3 was the imitation step. Students should try their best to pronounce these expressions with their partners.

Task 4 was the following and stimulating time. Students in this step should open their mouths to speak the dialogue and follow the drama.

4.2 Week II

Week II was a collection week. After knowing some expressions of interview and how to speak them during the drama which was played last lesson， students began to collect expressions and situations about the interview as much as they can via the brainstorm or mind map.

Because of their major is computer， the situations should be about their major. In the third period， task 1： students could show one topic or situation as the key words in the mind map. Task 2： students were asked to brainstorm connection words based on the key word. Task 3： students task is to complete sentences which include the words as questions which may be asked by the interviewers. Task 4： based on these questions students should provide their own answers. All these procedures should be written on the handout. Last task： students change their handout to partners to check and share their ideas.

4.3 Week III

Practice：

Week III was a drill week. It was the improving step in this speaking lesson， so there was only one period left in this week. The purpose was to help the students to practice all expressions about interview in different situations correctly with the researchs help.

And of course the intonation and rhythm and pronunciation should be focused too.

Task 1： the researcher helped students to answer all questions. Providing the patterns to students and they were asked to complete these dialogues by using their collections.

Task 2： show their own dialogue with their partners by using correct pronunciation， intonation and rhythm as much as they can.

Task 3： groups showed their dialogues with the whole class and the researcher corrected them.

4.4 Week IV

Product：

Week IV was the show time. There were two groups of students act as interviewer and interviewee by random. They should practice with the group members and share the different expressions and ideas in different situations. Then the researcher picked up two students from different groups to have a dialogue in one situation for the whole class. After at least 3 couples， the situation was changed， and other couples should start their dialogues. According to their performances the researcher gave their points and evaluations.

4.5 Grouping

The sample groups consisted of two classes of senior 2 students， who were about the same English level at the beginning of the project. They were taught by the same teacher， but in different ways. Students of Class 2， comprised the Target Group and used for speaking practice. They were asked to do exercises based on the PPP model—role-play in different situations. Students of Class 1 served as the Control Group and continued to use traditional method， namely， stimulating the dialogue. At last， all the students should evaluate the productions of each student in different couples on the evaluation papers. And also evaluate themselves on the self-evaluation papers.

4.6 Data collection

As planned， the students of both groups were pre-tested and post-tested， with papers of the similar level， at the beginning and end of the project.

The post-questionnaire was distributed to the students of the Target Group during break time in the last week and all the questionnaires were retrieved.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Comparing the result of exercises in the two groups

In the four weeks of teaching， both the target group and the control group practiced the exercises of speaking during the whole class. However， the requirements for the two groups were different. The teacher always gave the control group feedback when they finished the exercises. On the other hand， students in the target group were asked to evaluate themselves after they finished exercises， so they learned from the speaking on their own. And the points of students in the final test are nearly the same as the self-evaluation. Table 1 reflects the evaluating of speaking results of the two groups.

Table 1： Result of self-evaluation in two groups

Level The target group （No. of Ss） The control group （No. of Ss）

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Level A 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Level B 0 1 3 3 0 1 1 1

Level C 4 5 5 6 5 6 6 6

Level D 6 8 8 8 5 6 6 7

Level E 10 6 4 2 10 7 6 5

（Level： A： can use the right expressions in different situations， perfect pronunciation， intonation and rhythm， fluency； B： can use the right expressions in different situations， below 5 mistakes of pronunciation， intonation and rhythm， fluency； C： can use the right expressions in different situations，5-10 mistakes of pronunciation， intonation and rhythm， fluency； D： below 5 mistakes of expressing， 10-12 mistakes of pronunciation， intonation and rhythm， not fluency； E： cannot express themselves well， not fluency， terrible pronunciation. ）

According to the table， the number of higher achievers in the target group grew slightly — the number of students increased from 0-1 in Level A and from 0 to 3 in Level B. The medium-level students did not change much， fluctuating between 10 and 14 irregularly. Whats more， the number of lower-achievers decreased greatly from 10 to 2.

However， the number of students in the control group made little change during the four weeks. The number was not fluctuating a lot—no more than 3 students， so the result of the control group did not show any significant tendency.

After the four-week speaking classes， the students had an oral test—talk about “interview”. During this test， the researcher acted as an interviewer who should offer some questions about the job and the students acted as an interviewee who should answer these questions.

In the target class， the researcher found that over half of student use the different kinds of patterns to answer the question， the expressions were variety and their pronunciation was improved. On the other hand， in the control class， almost all students answered the question by the same pattern from the example model and make several mistakes. There were some problems of their pronunciation and intonation. They spoke English negatively.

5.2 Discussion

Table 1 show that during the four weeks of teaching， students in the target group formed a solid foundation and improve their willing and ability of speaking English. They got the key points of how to practice speaking English. They were willing to speak English because they knew or collected expressions as much as they can. They were corrected pronunciation， intonation and rhythm； therefore， they had more confidence， when they practiced in drill exercises and role-play. The activity of role-play offered more chances to practice speaking so that students could be more relax and use proper expression in different situations.

To sum up， the PPP model and role-play activity is helpful to improve their English speaking.

It was researched that students in the target group improve the ability of speaking or oral accordingly had higher study interests， and obviously they benefited from the drill exercises and role-play activity. It was observed that about 40% students were used to speaking English or practicing the sentences， dialogues after class. Students were quite interested in that the researcher designed for them—both the American dramas， drill exercises and role-play activity.

Moreover， it was proved from quantitative analysis that students profited from these speaking practice activities through the teaching procedure of “presentation—practice—production”.

Therefore， through collecting expressions， doing drill practices， being corrected pronunciation， and being provided chances to take part in role-play， students may have more interesting and confidence about speaking English， and become more fluency.

It was testified that the researchers new teaching method was quite efficient， hypothesis was proved， and objectives was achieved.

6. Conclusion

The present study is chiefly based on the project that the researcher conducted within four weeks time. It aimed to enhance the students ability in speaking English. In the study， several activities especially， the role-play for speaking were designed according to the result of problem analysis. The project was implemented and the students in the Target Group got much improvement in English speaking. After implementing the four-week project， a post-test were carried out to see the result.

The comparison of the post-questionnaire and post-test results of the Control and Target Groups reveals that the Target Group performed much better than the Control Group. Most of students in the Target Group have more interesting and confidence about speaking English and indeed enhance their ability of speaking. This proved that the activities carried out during 4 weeks for English speaking were more effective than the traditional ones.

As shown by the students answers to the post-questionnaire and the improvement of the Target Group resulted from the application of specific techniques used to teach vocabulary. The questionnaire answers showed that no one in the Target Group disliked the activities for English speaking after the implementation. Nearly 85% of the students liked the activities and 100% of them thought those activities were more practical than before. 100% of them said they had learned some methods of how to speak English effectively and 80% said they could speak English more fluently. It can be seen that the new teaching methods are effective in helping students improving the ability of speaking， and hence the research hypothesis is justified.

On the other hand， some problems were not solved in the project. For example：

1） There were still two students in Target Group who only had pass scores. This may be because of some factors， and the researcher should try the best to find the factors to help him.

2） The study had a very small sample of research subjects and that is probably a limitation. The researcher plans to try with more students to confirm the hypothesis. The question of whether the effects of the PPP model may be testified favorably in a much bigger sample size as 50 students in a class needs our further study.

References：

[1]Harmer.J.（2000）How to Teach English.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[2]Ur.P.（2000）.A Course in Language Teaching：Practice and Theory.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Cambridge University Press.

[3]Niu（2010）.An Application of Language Learning Strategies to Speaking in Chinese Middle School.Beijing：Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics.

[4]Xu.Heng（2008）.Application of Task-based Learning in Speaking Class for English Teaching.Beijing：Teaching English in China.

[5]蔣祖康.第二語言習得研究[M].北京：外語教學與研究出版社，1999.