Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]
On: 14 October 2014, At: 03:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Understanding English speaking

difficulties: an investigation of two
Chinese populations
a
Zhengdong Gan
a
Department of English , The Hong Kong Institute of Education ,
Hong Kong , China
Published online: 28 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Zhengdong Gan (2013) Understanding English speaking difficulties: an
investigation of two Chinese populations, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
34:3, 231-248, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.768622
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2013
Vol. 34, No. 3, 231248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622
Understanding English speaking difficulties: an investigation of two

Chinese populations
Zhengdong Gan*
Department of English, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China
(Received 10 October 2012; final version received 16 January 2013)
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 03:47 14 October 2014
Compared with reading, writing and listening, there has been a paucity of
empirical data documenting learners’ experiences of speaking English as a second
language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) in different learning
contexts in spite of the fact that developing the ability to speak in a second or
foreign language is widely considered a daunting task for most language learners.
This paper reports on the findings of a questionnaire survey of the English
speaking difficulties experienced by two Chinese populations: one group of
university students from mainland China and one group of university students
from Hong Kong. Drawing on various theoretical perspectives, the students’
perceived difficulties are analysed in relation to linguistic deficiency, oral language
processes, conversational skills and academic speaking conventions, affective
influence as well as affordance of opportunities to use English for spoken
communication in the students’ learning contexts. Important implications of the
results for pedagogical practices that foster development of ESL or EFL speaking
skills are discussed.
Keywords: speaking; English speaking difficulties; language skill; Chinese learner
of English
Introduction
The ability to speak English as a second or foreign language well is an important
goal for many learners (Kawai 2008). Richards and Renandya (2002) write that a
large percentage of the world’s language learners study English in order to develop
proficiency in speaking. However, developing the ability to speak in a second or
foreign language is widely considered a daunting task for most language learners.
Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) point out that in some ways speaking can be
considered the most difficult skill to acquire as it requires command of speech
production sub-skills like vocabulary retrieval and choice of grammatical patterns,
and sociocultural competence. The challenge is often further compounded in a
situation in which learners have rather limited access to the target language both
inside and outside the classroom (Pawlak, Waniek-Klimczak, and Majer 2011).
Horwitz (2008) also maintains that speaking is the aspect of second or foreign
language learning most often associated with anxiety. Such language anxiety is not
limited to students. It is often reported in the English language teaching literature
that non-native teachers of English as a second language (ESL) or English as a
*Email: zdgan@ied.edu.hk
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

232 Z. Gan
foreign language (EFL) may also be anxious about speaking and may avoid
conversational activities and communicative teaching methods (Li 1998; Littlewood
2007). As Horwitz (2008) argues, second language acquisition theories have offered
very different explanations for oral language development. Although the psycho-
metric, ethnographic and discourse analysis research has revealed a lot about the
nature of language speaking in recent years, researchers have noted that there has
been no paradigm shift in practices in the teaching and learning of speaking skills,
and how best to instruct speaking skills remains the focus of methodological debates.
Meanwhile, compared with reading, writing and listening, there has been a paucity of
empirical data documenting learners’ perceptions and experiences of speaking ESL
or EFL in different learning contexts. This paper reports on the findings of a
questionnaire survey of the English speaking difficulties experienced by two Chinese
populations: one group of university students from mainland China (MC) and one
group of university students from Hong Kong (HK). The research is based on the
premise that the knowledge derived from this investigation will provide insights to
support development of ESL or EFL speaking skills.
Literature review
Various approaches have been adopted in investigating second or foreign language
speaking, with a view to informing learning and teaching of speaking skills. One
approach is a cognitive one, where underlying psycholinguistic processes such as
planning what to say, retrieving the necessary grammar and vocabulary and
articulating the words are highlighted (Bygate 1998; Levelt 1989). This psycholin-
guistic perspective suggests that the speech production processes of non-native
speakers in some ways resemble, and in other ways are distinct, from those of native
speakers. From this psycholinguistic perspective, if speech production needs to be
smooth, the underlying processes need to be automatic, which is obviously a
demanding task to most second or foreign language learners. Drawing on Levelt’s
(1989) model of speech production process, Skehan (2001, 2009) argues that
performing in an imperfectly learned L2 imposes a large burden on the learner’s
attention, as attending to one area may drain attention from other areas. In other
words, aspects of speech such as fluency, accuracy and complexity are qualities that
compete for processing capacity due to the inherent limited attentional and
reasoning resources that humans can invest in solving a task. Somewhat in contrast
to Skehan’s limited-attention model, Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework
(2001, 2007) specifies that language learners can access multiple attentional pools
that do not compete, and depletion of attention in one pool has no effect on the
amount remaining in another. This suggests that language learners can prioritise
different aspects of oral production, e.g. both accuracy and complexity.
Another approach to second or foreign language speaking research is what might
be called an ethnographic one. The aim here is to illustrate the impact of external
conditions on learners’ second or foreign language development. As Bygate (1998)
argues, oral second language development, like most human development, is socially
situated, and language that is learned must be both socially motivated and
cognitively managed. Studies taking an ethnographic approach see learning as a
socially situated process by which newcomers gradually move towards fuller
participation in a given community’s activities by interacting with more experienced
community members (Morita 2000). These studies are concerned with issues like how
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 233
social relations of power create the possibilities for language learners to speak, under
what conditions language learners speak and how pedagogic activities may help
language learners claim the right to speak (Norton and Toohey 2001). For example,
Norton (1995, 1997) argues that the personal investment of the speaker in role
relationships, in the use of the target language in general and in specific discourses
can either hinder or facilitate language acquisition. Morita (2000) conducted an
eight-month ethnographic study that investigated how students were expected to
speak in two graduate courses in an ESL programme and how they acquired the oral
academic discourses required to perform a successful oral academic presentation.
The findings of Morita’s study suggest that both non-native and native speakers
gradually became apprenticed into oral academic discourses through ongoing
negotiations with instructors and peers as they prepared for, observed, performed
and reviewed oral academic presentations.
The third approach to second or foreign language speaking research is a

discourse analysis. This proposition stems from emerging directions for the teaching
of spoken interactions that foreground the analysis of naturalistic native speaker data
and the further development of spoken as well as written grammars (Burns 2001).
This approach highlights the need to provide second or foreign language learners
with depictions of conversational data or with effective strategies for facilitating
spoken communication in English, and calls for materials that utilise authentic
spoken language data for the teaching and learning of speaking skills. Specifically,
the aim of the approach is to examine the features and structures of natural spoken
discourse, which range from single utterances to an extended monologue (Burns
2001; McCarthy and O’Keeffe 2004). This more contextualised perspective takes text
and function as a starting point and involves developing subtle and detailed
knowledge about how to say things and do things in appropriate ways, and macro-
skills for producing and managing interaction, conversational rules and structure
and functions and meaning in conversation (Burns and Seidlhofer 2010).
There are a number of empirical studies that investigated concerns and difficulties
that ESL students face, and willingness to communicate, while participating in oral
classroom activities (e.g. Cao 2011; Ferris 1998; Ferris and Tagg 1996; Kim 2006;
Kobayashi 2003; Yang 2010). These studies, however, have largely focused on
international students in an English-dominant academic and societal environment.
An important recent contribution is Evans and Green’s (2007) research into the
language-related problems that the first-year students encountered in the process of
adapting to an English-medium learning environment at a university in Hong Kong.
Also worthy of mention is Liu and Jackson’s (2008) study that examined anxiety in
undergraduate non-English majors in oral English classrooms in a key elite
university located in Beijing in China. The findings of Liu and Jackson’s study
indicate that anxiety seems to be a serious issue during oral English lessons, but
students with higher proficiency appear to be more confident when speaking in class.
In the light of their findings, Liu and Jackson suggest that anxiety-provoking causes
and effective strategies need to be researched to help students decrease anxiety levels
to achieve target language fluency, which is the final goal of classroom teaching and
learning. In both Evans and Morrison’s and Liu and Jackson’s studies, the
participants were university students studying mainly in science, engineering and
business and finance undergraduate programmes.
The present study reported in this article builds on and extends Evans and
Morrison’s and Liu and Jackson’s research. It focuses on one crucial skill in the use
234 Z. Gan
of a language, i.e. speaking, and includes study participants not only from Hong
Kong but also from mainland China, the country that possesses the largest number
of English language learners in the world. The study seeks to offer a focused analysis
of the causes of tertiary second-year students’ perceived English speaking difficulties
in contexts where Chinese has been the language of spoken general communication
and ethnic solidarity. Specifically, the study thus aims to investigate the English
speaking difficulties experienced by two Chinese populations: one group of
university students from mainland China and one group of university students
from Hong Kong.
Tertiary-level English teaching and learning in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, most universities offer a compulsory generic English for Academic
Purpose (EAP) course for first-year students, which focuses on academic writing
style and presentation skills, referencing and conventions. In the second year,
students take a more profession-oriented English course that aims to develop
students’ effective communication skills in spoken and written English in profes-
sional/workplace contexts. The major study method adopted in these courses is
primarily seminar-based. Following a blended delivery approach, activities in the
class consist of teacher input and group/pair work involving brainstorming,
information search, presentations, discussions and peer assessment. Each of the
two courses also has a component of self-access activities that encourage students to
make use of less structured and more relaxed language learning opportunities than
provided in the classroom. The assessment of students’ learning on these courses is
generally assignment-based and continuous, like essay writing and project work. In
addition to the EAP and profession-oriented courses, optional English language
enhancement modules are offered to cater for students who have shown special
weakness in areas of their English language proficiency to enable them to develop the
language skills they need at the university. Gan (2011) observes that university
students in Hong Kong appear to understand the practical benefits of English
learning and also wish to learn English well, yet there is almost no proactive
investment on their part that is essential for the fulfilment of their wishes. In their
spare time, these students are more enthusiastic about their part-time jobs or other
social activities than investment in their English language development.
With a view to motivating tertiary students to improve their English in Hong
Kong, the University Grants Committee (UGC) launched the Common English
Proficiency Assessment Scheme for graduating UGC-funded undergraduate
degree students in 2002. The UGC has selected the academic module of the
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) as the exit English
proficiency test, which has four major components: listening, reading, writing and
speaking. Hoping that their students should not be disadvantaged in the IELTS
test, almost all the tertiary institutions in Hong Kong offer IELTS preparation
courses that aim at familiarising students with the test, providing training in test-
taking strategies and giving quite a lot of practice with IELTS tasks under exam
conditions. IELTS preparation has thus expanded rapidly as an important
component of English language enhancement programme in each tertiary
institution in Hong Kong (Gan 2009b).
Tertiary-level English teaching and learning in mainland China

English is a compulsory subject for both English and non-English majors at
universities in China (Wette and Barkhuizen 2009). Given the government’s strategic
objective to have significant numbers of competent users of English in a whole range
of professions, businesses and workplaces, it is recognised that teaching and learning
of English at tertiary level is essential for achieving. As one of the exit requirements
for undergraduate studies for any major at universities in China, students have to
take an essentially generic English proficiency course widely known as College
English. Specifically, this College English programme, which is operating under the
guidance of the National College English Teaching Syllabuses (NCETS), is intended
to help students to achieve a required level of proficiency in such skills as listening,
speaking, reading, writing and translation. The programme is also characterised by
using a set of unified textbooks such as New Horizon College English, or New
College English. At the end of the programme, students are supposed to take the
unified College English Test (CET), which consists of three tests: Band 4 (CET-4),
Band 6 (CET-6) and the CET Spoken English Test (CET-SET; Zheng and Cheng
2008). Both CET-4 and CET-61 have similar components: reading, listening,
vocabulary, grammar and writing.
Although the NCETS is oriented towards communicative competence and
language skills, the College English textbooks and the way in which they have
been characteristically used focus heavily on grammar, translation and reading. Since
the results of the CET are regarded as the main indicator of the quality of teaching,
and the CET certificates have been one of the graduation requirements of
undergraduates in the majority of Chinese universities, the teaching methods are,
to a great extent, test-oriented and teacher-centred, and spoken practice is rare in
class (Gan, Humphreys, and Hamp-Lyons 2004). Consequently, the English taught
in universities in China has often been described as deaf-and-dumb English (Tsui
2007), although recent reforms have emphasised the benefits of communicative
approaches for developing learners’ confidence and ability to use language for
communicative purposes. According to Gan (2009a), there is a sense among the
mainland students that self-managed learning, especially individual learning after
class, is regarded as crucial for a pass or higher grade in the compulsory nationwide
language proficiency test. Such investment in English learning, however, is generally
characterised by use of learning strategies such as memorising vocabulary and
extensive reading on a regular basis.
This study
Participants
One hundred and forty-seven second-year students from a major teacher training
university in Beijing in mainland China and 143 second-year students from a major
teacher training university in Hong Kong participated in this survey study. Among
the mainland Chinese students, 17.3% were males, and 83.7% were females. The age
of the mainland Chinese students ranged from 19 to 21 years. Among the Hong
Kong students, 20.2% were males and 79.8% were females. The age of the Hong
Kong students ranged from 19 to 25 years. At the time of this study, the participants
were studying in education, humanities and social sciences undergraduate pro-
grammes, and they were chosen as representatives of a range of major disciplines in
236 Z. Gan
each university. The students from mainland China in this study were broadly
representative of tertiary students in China in that they were mainly mother-tongue
speakers of Mandarin and had entered the university after completing a six-year
course of studies in Chinese-medium secondary schools. The Hong Kong students
were also broadly representative of Hong Kong tertiary students in that they were
mainly mother-tongue speakers of Cantonese and had entered the university after
completing a seven-year course of studies mainly in Chinese-medium secondary
schools. The two groups of students in this study, however, are generally considered
to share the same Chinese (i.e. Confucian) cultural traditions (Gan 2009a;
Littlewood 2001).
Instrument
The survey questionnaire that was particularly developed for this study consisted of
20 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never (1) to always (5). Writing of
the questionnaire items was based on various theoretical perspectives on second
language speaking in the literature (e.g. Bygate 2008; Cummins 2000; Levelt 1989;
Liu and Jackson 2008; Norton and Toohey 2001; Skehan 2001; Tsui 2001). While
writing the questionnaire items, I also drew on recent research on academic speaking
(e.g. Evans and Green 2007; Ferris 1998; Kim 2006). Consequently, the 20 items in
the questionnaire were categorised into five subscales: (1) linguistic obstacles, (2)
speech processing difficulties, (3) academic and conversational English skills, (4)
negative affect and (5) access to speaking opportunities. The questionnaire was
initially formulated in English and thoroughly checked by a native English-speaking
colleague. It was then translated into Mandarin and Cantonese versions respectively
by colleagues from mainland China and Hong Kong. To further ensure the validity
of the questionnaire, the Chinese version was translated back into English to see
whether anything could be misinterpreted. The questionnaire was piloted in one
second-year class of students in a university both in mainland China and Hong
Kong. After minor changes suggested by the students and some colleagues, the
survey was finalised for larger-scale data collection.
Procedures
The questionnaire was presented bilingually through the Internet to seven classes of
students studying in the education, humanities and social sciences undergraduate
programmes in a major teacher training university in Hong Kong. These students
were told that they would have enough time to reflect on the questions in the
questionnaire and complete it. Due to Internet access problem in the university in
Beijing, the questionnaire was distributed to five classes of students by their English
teachers in normal class time. Before distribution of the questionnaire, the students
in Beijing were also told that they would have enough time to reflect on the questions
in the questionnaire and complete it. The university in Beijing is also a major
teacher-training university, and the students who completed the questionnaire there
were also studying in education, humanities and social sciences undergraduate
programmes. It needs to be pointed out that the questionnaire was anonymous so
that students from each of the two universities could not be identified from the
results, and they were also assured that their responses would not affect their status
in their English courses.
The survey data were analysed using SPSS to obtain descriptive statistics in terms
of the extent of the English speaking problems encountered by the students in the
five domains mentioned earlier.
Results and discussion

Table 1 summarises the study participants’ responses to the 20 items in the
questionnaire. All percentages in the table refer to the number of students who
selected Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Always for each of the items. To identify
the extent of the English speaking difficulties encountered by the two groups of
participants and also for the ease of analysis, only combined percentages of the
students selecting Always, Often or Sometimes for each statement are reported below.
Linguistic obstacles
As shown in Table 1, the respondents apparently endorsed the items indicative of
linguistic obstacles associated with English speaking in their learning contexts. For
example, 93.9% of the mainland Chinese students and 90.3% of the Hong Kong
students in this study reported a tendency to make grammatical errors (Item 2);
93.7% of the mainland Chinese students and 82.6% of the Hong Kong students also
appeared to have difficulty in producing elaborate language and complex structures
(Item 19). These results are further corroborated by the participants’ responses to the
item I get stuck with grammar or vocabulary when speaking English to my teachers
(Item 9: 93.8% and 73.5% of the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students,
respectively). In addition, the majority of the students within each group reported
experiencing pronunciation problems (Item 6: MC 70.1%, HK 61.6%). These results
thus point to the potential gaps in the participants’ grammatical, lexical and
phonological knowledge that could seriously compromise their spoken fluency and
accuracy, as an individual EFL speaker will find it hard to engage in the higher-level
aspects of meaning construction if his/her working memory is saturated by
imperfectly developed interlanguage system (Hilton 2007). In particular, these
results highlight the role of grammar and vocabulary in acquisition of speaking
skills in the Chinese context.
Table 1. Percentages of students selecting each of the five alternatives (i.e. Never, Seldom,
Sometimes, Often and Always) for items in the questionnaire suggesting linguistic obstacles.
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
MC HK MC HK MC HK MC HK MC HK
2. I make grammatical errors when speaking English

0 0 6.1 9.8 52.4 44.1 34.7 34.3 6.8 11.9
19. I am not good at using complex structures when speaking English
0 2.1 6.3 15.4 38.2 23.8 43.8 35 11.8 23.8
9. I get stuck with grammar or vocabulary when speaking English to my teachers
0.7 4.2 5.5 22.4 43.8 38.5 41.1 24.5 8.9 10.5
6. I encounter pronunciation problems when speaking English
2.7 7.0 27.2 31.5 44.2 36.4 21.1 16.1 4.8 9.1
Notes: MC stands for mainland China; HK stands for Hong Kong.
238 Z. Gan
Speech processing difficulties

While the various linguistic problems associated with different language skills are
frequently discussed in the literature, less attention has been given to the dynamic
cognitive processes involved in EFL or ESL oral production. Unlike writing and
reading, EFL or ESL speaking is characterised by online planning and production
under communication constraints such as time and capacity of human brain. In this
context, individual speakers are expected to produce a speaking performance that is
fluent and linguistically satisfactory and contains acceptable content (Swain 2005).
The participants’ responses to items related to speech processing reveal some
characteristics apparently unique to Chinese learners of English (see Table 2). For
example, 92.4% of the mainland Chinese students and 74.2% of the Hong Kong
students in this study reported the experience of thinking in Chinese when speaking
English (Item 17). This means that when these students speak in English, they tend
to first compose their thoughts in their mother tongue and then translate these
thoughts into English. In addition, the participants’ responses to the item I avoid
using difficult words and structures when speaking English (Item 8: MC 92.5%, HK
84.7%) show that they are not prepared yet or willing to use challenging and difficult
language. The participants’ responses to the item I struggle to communicate effectively
in English with my teachers (Item 5: MC 83%, HK 56.5%) also suggest that an
overwhelming majority of the mainland Chinese students and over half of the Hong
Kong students could find speaking in English a stressful and uncomfortable
experience. This is further corroborated by the fact that 89.1% of the mainland
Chinese students and 83.3% of the Hong Kong students reported that they
experienced difficulty attending to both fluency and accuracy when speaking English
(Item 4).
The reported difficulty in attending to both fluency and accuracy among both the
mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students appears to provide empirical support to
Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production, which views the speaker as a limited
information processor who experiences difficulty in attending to different aspects of
language production at the same time. This model proposes that there are three
major processes in speech production: conceptualisation that involves determining
what to say; formulation that involves translating the conceptual representation into
a linguistic form and that includes the sub-processes of lexicalisation, syntactic
Sometimes, Often and Always) for items in the questionnaire suggesting speech processing
difficulties.
17. I think in my mother tongue when speaking English

0.7 4.9 6.9 21 24.3 27.3 40.3 26.6 27.8 20.3
8. I avoid using difficult words and structures when speaking English
0.7 1.4 6.8 14.0 26.7 28.7 52.1 32.9 13.7 23.1
5. I struggle to communicate effectively in English with my teachers
0.7 8.4 16.3 25.2 48.3 38.5 30.6 18.9 4.1 9.1
4. I feel difficulty attending to both fluency and accuracy when speaking English
1.4 2.1 9.5 14.7 31.3 37.1 44.2 30.1 13.6 16.1
planning and phonological encoding; and articulation that involves retrieving

chunks of internal speech and executing the message (Skehan 2009). Given their
imperfectly learned target-language systems and their difficulty in regulating their
psycholinguistic processes (e.g. inability to attend to both fluency and accuracy)
underlying a speaking performance, it is most likely that the participants in this study
could experience problems with formulation and articulation.
Academic and conversational English skills

The participants’ feedback on items indicative of academic oral classroom activities
echoes previous research on academic oral communication skills (e.g. Evans and
Green 2007; Kim 2006). As can be seen in Table 3, both the mainland Chinese and
Hong Kong students appeared most concerned about leading class discussions (Item
13: MC 81.3%; HK 72.1%). The majority of the students within each group also
agreed with the statements: I feel difficulty giving speeches in English in front of the
whole class (Item 11: MC 73.8%; HK 66.5%); I feel difficulty participating in whole-
class English discussions (Item14: MC 71.7%; HK 60.9%). Although group-based
discussions appeared somewhat less demanding than class-based discussions and
presentations, over half of the students within each group reported feeling difficulty
participating in small-group English discussions during class (Item 1: MC 63.9%;
HK 54.6%). However, compared with these academic oral classroom activities, the
two groups of students in this study seemed even less confident about their ability to
carry on conversations on everyday topics as implicit in their responses to the item I
am not good at joking and chatting in English (Item 3: MC 90.4%; HK 81.9%).
Cummins (2000) argues that conversational and academic English are two distinct
components of language proficiency based on his observation that immigrant
English language learners develop their conversational fluency quickly, but they
perform poorly in their academic language skills. The results in this study suggest
that conversational English could even pose greater challenges to Chinese learners of
English. Apparently, this is because English textbooks and classes in mainland China
Sometimes, Often and Always) for items in the questionnaire suggesting academic and
conversational English skills.
13. I feel difficulty leading class discussions in English

2.8 6.3 15.9 21.7 46.2 32.2 29.0 26.6 6.2 13.3
11. I feel difficulty giving speeches in English in front of the whole class
4.1 9.1 22.1 24.5 45.5 40.6 22.8 15.4 5.5 10.5
14. I feel difficulty participating in whole-class English discussions
6.2 7.0 22.1 32.2 51.7 34.3 15.9 14.7 4.1 11.9
1. I feel difficulty participating in small-group English discussions during class
10.2 11.2 25.9 34.3 51.7 43.4 10.9 7.7 1.4 3.5
3. I am not good at joking and chatting in English
0.7 2.1 8.9 16.1 30.8 35.7 42.5 29.4 17.1 16.8
240 Z. Gan
and Hong Kong typically focus on academic type of English, and English generally
has no societal functions in the students’ daily lives.
Negative effect
There is a recognition in the literature that learning and using a second language can
be anxiety-provoking, and anxiety is most often associated with speaking the target
language (Horwitz 2008). Hortwitz notes that many students feel moderately to
strongly anxious about language learning, and that students with higher levels of
anxiety tend to do more poorly in their language classes. The results that 81.4% of
the mainland Chinese students and 70.6% of the Hong Kong students reported
experiencing anxiety when speaking English (Item 18), and that 82.7% of the
mainland Chinese students and 75.6% of the Hong Kong students reported worrying
about grammar when speaking English (Item 12), further confirm the common
perception of speaking as a typical anxiety-provoking language skill, and also point
to grammar as a major factor that contributes to students’ speech anxiety (see Table 4
below). One sweeping generalisation of Asian students’ silence in language class
widely cited in the language teaching literature is that Asian students tend to be
concerned to maintain harmony within their groups, and thus reluctant to ‘stand
out’ by expressing their views or raising questions. In this study, it is found that more
than half of the students from each population reported the experience of keeping
silent in class because of lack of confidence in speaking English (Item 15: MC 64.8%;
HK 56%). This may suggest that language ability, rather than the cultural
background, most likely leads to students’ silence in a language class (Gan 2009a;
Littlewood 2001, 2004, 2007). The less important role of cultural background
appears to be further confirmed by the two Chinese populations’ responses to the
statement resisting opportunities to speak English in class or outside class (Item 20:
MC 53.1%; HK 32.9%). The significantly lower percentage of the Hong Kong
students reporting the experience of resisting opportunities to speak English suggest
that Hong Kong students may be relatively more accustomed to interacting with
others in English as a result of a relatively greater socioeconomic role of English in
Hong Kong.
Sometimes, Often and Always) for items in the questionnaire suggesting negative affect.
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
MC HK MC HK MC MC HK MC HK MC
18. I am nervous when speaking English

1.4 8.4 17.2 21 46.9 40.6 28.3 19.6 6.2 10.5
12. I worry about grammar when speaking English
0.7 3.5 16.6 21 34.5 26.6 37.2 29.4 11.0 19.6
15. I keep silent in class because of lack of confidence in speaking English
5.5 15.4 29.7 28.7 35.2 28.7 21.4 16.8 8.3 10.5
20. I resist opportunities to speak English in class or outside class
17.9 28.7 29.0 38.5 36.6 24.5 12.4 5.6 4.1 2.8
Access to speaking opportunities

There is a growing awareness that language learning is not just an individual
psychological process but is also a social process. Built on Vygotskian (1978) theory
is the notion that language learning, like all other learning activities, should be
understood as a process of participation in communities of practice. In other words,
language learning occurs through apprenticing with others who are already part of a
particular community or culture (Lave and Wenger 1991). Acquisition of language
skills is thus a direct result of participation, which requires performance opportu-
nities. This means that access to the opportunities to use the target language is
essential for the development of speaking skills (Norton and Toohey 2001). Three
items in the questionnaire were intended to elicit the participants’ perceptions of how
their social world enables them to use the English language. Interestingly, these three
items elicited roughly identical perceived experiences among both the mainland
Chinese and Hong Kong students (see Table 5). For example, there was a general
awareness of lack of opportunities to speak English in or outside class among the
participants in this study (Item 16: MC 86.2%, HK 86.8%; Item 7: MC 73.4%, HK
77%). It can thus be seen that the two populations generally lamented lack of
adequate opportunities to use English for spoken communication in or outside class.
Also, 80.7% of the mainland Chinese students and 77% of the Hong Kong students
reported lack of things to say when speaking English. This could be related to a
limited range of discourse patterns these students were familiar with and able to
exploit for interpersonal use.
Tables 6 and 7 further present the 10 most frequently experienced problems
reported by each of the two populations. As can be seen in the two tables, eight of the
mainland Chinese students’ 10 most frequently experienced problems were also
mentioned in the 10 most frequently experienced problems reported by the Hong
Kong students. In the case of the mainland Chinese students, I think in my mother
tongue when speaking English elicits the highest mean score (3.88). This item obtained a
mean score of 3.36 among the Hong Kong students. In spite of the difference in the
mean score on this item across the two groups, the result here provides empirical
evidence for the hypothesis that second or foreign language speakers may undertake
psycholinguistic processes that are distinct from those of native speakers (Bygate
1998), which helps to explain why many ESL or EFL speakers struggle with speaking.
The item I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class elicits the highest
Sometimes, Often and Always) for items in the questionnaire suggesting access to speaking
opportunities.
Never Seldom Sometime Often Always
16. I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class

2.1 4.9 11.7 8.4 28.3 19.6 40.0 32.2 17.9 35
7. I feel lack of opportunities to speak English in class
4.8 5.6 21.8 17.5 36.7 24.5 29.3 25.2 7.5 27.3
10. I feel lack of things to say when speaking English in class or outside class
1.4 2.8 17.9 20.3 46.2 44.8 26.9 21.7 7.6 10.5
242 Z. Gan
Table 6. The mainland Chinese students’ 10 most frequently experienced difficulties in EFL
speaking in terms of mean scores (N147).
Mean SD
I think in my mother tongue when speaking English 3.88 0.923

I avoid using difficult words and structures when speaking English 3.71 0.810
I am not good at joking and chatting in English 3.66 0.889
I am not good at using complex structures when speaking English 3.61 0.777
I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class 3.60 0.982
I feel difficulty attending to both fluency and accuracy when speaking English 3.59 0.889
I get stuck with grammar or vocabulary when speaking English to my teachers 3.52 0.763
I make grammatical errors when speaking English 3.42 0.711
I worry about grammar when speaking English 3.41 0.917
I am nervous when speaking English 3.21 0.849
mean score (3.84) within the Hong Kong group and the fifth highest mean score (3.60)
within the mainland Chinese group. This result appears to echo the generalisation that
English in mainland China is often described as having an ‘input-poor environment’
where communication outside the English classroom is in Mandarin, and English is
little used in social intercourse. Although Hong Kong is a society built on international
trade and commerce, 98% of the population has Cantonese as its mother tongue
(Flowerdew, Li, and Miller 1998). While English is the medium of instruction in most
universities and professional training programmes in Hong Kong (Lin 1996):
ubiquity of Cantonese ensures that the official medium of instruction is often restricted
to the lecture hall, and academic-related communication outside class, such as project
and study-group discussions, is generally conducted in Cantonese, as, indeed, is much
seminar, tutorial, and laboratory work. (Evans and Morrison 2011b, 394)
Other items shown in Tables 6 and 7 such as I avoid using difficult words and
structures when speaking English, I am not good at using complex structures when
speaking English, I am not good at joking and chatting in English and I feel difficulty
attending to both fluency and accuracy when speaking English obtained considerably
to fairly high mean scores within both two groups, suggesting that they each pose
different kinds of challenges mainland Chinese and Hong Kong learners face in
learning speaking skills.
Table 7. Hong Kong students’ 10 most frequently experienced difficulties in EFL speaking in
terms of mean scores (N 143).
Mean SD
I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class 3.84 1.142

I am not good at using complex structures when speaking English 3.63 1.073
I avoid using difficult words and structures when speaking English 3.62 1.033
I feel lack of opportunities to speak English in class 3.51 1.221
I make grammatical errors when speaking English 3.48 0.830
I am not good at joking and chatting in English 3.43 1.017
I feel difficulty attending to both fluency and accuracy when speaking English 3.43 0.997
I worry about grammar when speaking English 3.41 1.127
I think in my mother tongue when speaking English 3.36 1.166
I feel difficulty leading class discussions in English 3.19 1.113
It can be seen that the items shown in Tables 6 and 7 point to two crucial issues
that apparently lie at the heart of EFL or ESL speaking difficulties not only for
Chinese speakers of English but also for non-Chinese learners: linguistic competence
and affordance of speaking opportunities. The first issue concerns mastery of the
lexico-grammatical and phonetic knowledge, i.e. the ‘typical language base which
oral communication draws on’ (Bygate 2008, 107). Littlewood (2004) also describes
two main kinds of previous language knowledge that second language learners can
use when they confront a problem in comprehending or producing in interaction
with target language speakers; the first is their knowledge of their mother tongue,
and the second is the knowledge they already possess about the second language
itself. In the case of lack of readily available linguistic repertoires in their second
language, speakers may have to think in their first language and translate the first
language repertoires into the target language, which usually leads to pauses, repair
sequences and disfluencies. Consequently, linguistic obstacles (i.e. grammatical,

lexical and phonological) would lead to performance that is non-fluent and/or
contains errors, which in turn can be the major source of learners’ speech anxiety and
communication apprehension. Such negative effects may further deprive learners of
the practice that they need to improve their speaking skills.
The second issue, affordance of opportunities to speak English, is built on the
notion that second or foreign language acquisition requires sustained contact with
the new language. The Conversation Theories in particular maintain that people
learn to speak a new language by participating in conversations using that language
(Horwitz 2008). ESL/EFL learners thus need opportunities for spoken communica-
tion. In other words, they need frequent occasions for producing language, or
comprehensible output (Swain 2005) as such opportunities can enable them to
receive feedback from their interlocutor(s) about the comprehensibility of their
language output, refine their linguistic knowledge and eventually increase their
confidence in their English language ability. The data here reveal that both mainland
Chinese and Hong Kong students lack opportunities to use conversational and
spoken academic English. The problem is further compounded by the fact that
currently the distinction between the importance of conversational and spoken
academic languages is not well understood in language education fields in mainland
China and Hong Kong. For example, students’ learning is judged primarily through
their performance in written assignments (Evans and Green 2007); some students
attend an English-medium class without saying a word in English so long as they
believe they have understood what is instructed. Consequently, one of the most
pressing issues that face English language learning at tertiary level is that students
need to develop a strong awareness that only through practice in sociocultural
engagement, and only through participating in classroom discussions and disciplin-
ary socialisation, can they develop the knowledge of conversational English (e.g.
what to talk about and how to converse with target language users), academic
conversations in particular, and acquire the registers of academic language needed to
understand and contribute to tertiary-level classroom talk.
Conclusions and implications

This study illuminates our understanding of the English speaking difficulties
experienced by tertiary students in mainland China and Hong Kong. Drawing on
various theoretical perspectives, the students’ perceived difficulties are analysed in
244 Z. Gan
relation to linguistic deficiency, oral language processes, conversational and

academic speaking skills, affective influence as well as affordance of opportunities
to use English for spoken communication in the students’ learning contexts. The data
indicate that most students could be trapped in a vicious cycle of inadequate
linguistic knowledge, negative effect and self-evaluations, reticence, failure to see
tangible progress and feeling of lack of confidence which in turn may further
demotivate their investment of effort. The data reveal that many Chinese learners of
English tend to experience a ‘mother tongue to the target language’ translation
process when speaking in English, which sheds light on why English speaking is
stressful to them, and which warrants further empirical research. The data also
support the notions of conversational and academic English as distinct components
of EFL or ESL speaking proficiency. In spite of the remarkably different social,
educational, and institutional environments in which the two populations are

located, they have apparently experienced generally similar kinds and range of
English speaking difficulties. The issues that emerged from the analysis of the data
and implications described in this article will thus be of interest not only to English
language educators in China and Hong Kong, but also those in other ESL contexts
around the world:
where the need to develop effective oral communication skills is particularly important
for international students in Anglophone territories and students in multilingual, post-
colonial states such as Singapore and India where English functions both as a campus
lingua franca and classroom medium. (Evans and Morrison 2011b, 394)
The results of this study further provide empirical evidence for the argument that
linguistic competence (i.e. knowledge of grammar, lexis and phonological system) is
at the core of the speaking skills (e.g. Biber 2007; Lightbown and Spada 2006;
Littlewood 2004). Speaking fluently and accurately means that ESL or EFL learners
need to acquire a sufficient knowledge of the language systems to the point that such
explicit linguistic knowledge can be quickly produced when they are needed in
spontaneous speech. Clearly, current English language teaching at secondary and
tertiary level in both mainland China and Hong Kong has not been successful in
helping majority of students achieve this goal, given the range of oral difficulties
reported in this study. In helping students to build up sufficient knowledge of the
language systems, it is important to understand that learned knowledge becomes
automatised through cycles of practice, use and feedback (DeKeyser 2007). For
example, research has revealed that grammar can be best learned subconsciously
after students have experienced repeated encounters with grammatical forms and
with opportunities to use them (Larsen-Freeman and DeCarrico 2010). Hence,
grammar learning can be facilitated by engaging students in communicative tasks
where it is necessary to use particular grammatical forms to complete the tasks.
Similarly, learning of vocabulary is also an organic and iterative process, and
vocabulary is learned best through exposure to meaningful language use. At the level
of phonological system, deliberate attention can be given to phonetically difficult
words given the fact that the outer manifestation of speech is sound, and that many
EFL or ESL learners regularly experience difficulties distinguishing between sounds
in English that do not exist in their first language.
Academic speaking skills tend to be easily neglected by tertiary students partly
because most of the assessment tasks are written assignments, and partly because of
students’ general discomfort with disciplinary socialisation in the target language

which might be linked to a cultural mindset that respect for the teacher and text often
predominate over the asking of questions and posing of doubts (Jin and Cortazzi
2006). To help tertiary students bridge the gap between the comparatively safe
interactions they experience in secondary classes and the academic speaking
activities they find challenging and threatening in tertiary classes, it is important
that university students realise that academic speaking skills constitute an important
component of EFL or ESL speaking proficiency. Researchers (Biber 2007; Cummins
2000) believe that some academic speaking skills such as giving an oral presentation
or participating in classroom discussions require a much broader range of
vocabulary knowledge, grammatical sophistication and discourse competence than
is the case with typical daily life conversation. These skills have much in common
with reading comprehension abilities in terms of the vocabulary required for
successful completion of the tasks. Seen in this light, extensive discipline-specific

reading is an essential means of developing the vocabulary they need for disciplinary
socialisation (Cummins and Man 2007). In addition, to equip students with the
language needed in oral academic interactions, both ESL/EFL and content-area
teachers may need to provide systematic scaffolding and instruction to deal with
structurally more complex sentences and more subject-specific new vocabulary.
The present study suggests a lack of substantial opportunities to use English for
oral communication in and outside class among the study participants involved in
this study. In the case of mainland Chinese students, this problem might have a lot to
do with the generally teacher-centred style of teaching that offers almost no
opportunities for students to use English for spoken communication in class. In other
words, the participatory norms in the current College English classes tend to mitigate
against the creation of opportunities for students to activate their language and gain
experience in using it for meaningful communication. There is thus an urgent need
for mainland tertiary students to gain more experience of active methods of learning
in which they adopt an active speech role through enjoying more opportunities for
authentic interaction and generating meaningful language input and output. In
Hong Kong, in spite of a rapid expansion of tertiary-level education in response to a
transfer from a small range of low-value-added, labour-intensive industries to a high-
tech, service-oriented economy in the past decade, concern has arisen about the
English proficiency of students and their ability to study through this medium (Lin
and Morrison 2010). In fact, the territory’s perennial preoccupation with ‘declining’
English standards has centred on apparent deficiencies in the secondary schools
(Evans and Green 2007). In around three quarters of the territory’s secondary
schools that adopt Cantonese as the medium of teacher instruction and campus
communication, students study English as a subject, and the spoon-feeding and
exam-oriented culture is deeply ingrained in the classroom. Consequently, inade-
quate basic language competence in speaking and writing results in lack of
confidence as students struggle to cope with their disciplinary acculturation at
university. In addition, although universities in Hong Kong have English as a
medium of instruction, there has been an increasing use of Cantonese by university
teachers to present and discuss English language instructional materials in lectures,
seminars and tutorials (Flowerdew and Miller 1995). Evans and Morrison’s studies
(2011a, 2011b) also show that the need for spoken English is less pronounced in
Hong Kong universities compared with other post-colonial states such as Singapore
and India where English functions both as a campus lingua franca and classroom
246 Z. Gan
medium. As a result, there has been scepticism about the usefulness, relevance and
efficacy of the generic EAP courses that are offered to first- or second-year university
students in Hong Kong (Evans and Morrison 2011a; Gan 2011).
Given the above discussion, an important role for a tertiary institution in either
mainland China or Hong Kong that is committed to developing students’ English
language ability is to find ways to create an effective English language environment
on campus. The university can organise extra-curricular activities using English such
as dramas or shows performed in English, English camps and English corner and
other social events in English so that students have ample opportunities to encounter
and use conversational English. Meanwhile, students are also encouraged to
participate in exchange or internship programmes in English-speaking countries
where they have opportunities to immerse themselves fully in the target language
environment.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank professor John Edwards, the Editor, and the reviewers for their
constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. I am also grateful to professor
Elizabeth Walker and professor Liz Hamp-Lyons who read earlier drafts and offered me
advice and encouragement.
Note
1. Both IELTS and CET scores are accepted by universities in the Hong Kong when
mainland Chinese students apply for postgraduate studies in Hong Kong. Some
programmes further specify that applicants should obtain an overall IELTS score of 7
or a pass grade in the CET-6.
References
Biber, D. 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Burns, A. 2001. ‘‘Analysing Spoken Discourse: Implications for TESOL.’’ In Analysing English
in a Global Context: A Reader, edited by A. Burns and C. Coffin, 123148. London:
Routledge.
Burns, A., and B. Seidlhofer. 2010. ‘‘Speaking and Pronunciation.’’ In An Introduction to
Applied Linguistics, edited by N. Schmitt, 197214. London: Hodder Education.
Bygate, M. 1998. ‘‘Theoretical Perspectives on Speaking.’’ Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 18: 2042. doi:10.1017/S0267190500003469.
Bygate, M. 2008. ‘‘Oral Second Language Abilities as Expertise.’’ In Expertise in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, edited by K. Johnson, 104127. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cao, Y. 2011. ‘‘Investigating Situational Willingness to Communicate within Second Language
Classrooms from an Ecological Perspective.’’ System 39: 468479. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2011.10.016.
Celce-Murcia, M., and E. Olshtain. 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., and E. Y. Man. 2007. ‘‘Academic Language: What Is It and How Do We Acquire
It?’’ In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited by J. Cummins and
C. Davison, 797810. New York: Springer.
DeKeyser, R. 2007. Practicing in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and
Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, S., and C. Green. 2007. ‘‘Why EAP is Necessary: A Survey of Hong Kong Tertiary
Students.’’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 317. doi:10.1016/
j.jeap.2006.11.005.
Evans, S., and B. Morrison. 2011a. ‘‘Meeting the Challenges of English-medium Higher
Education: The First-year Experience in Hong Kong.’’ English for Specific Purposes 30:
198208. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.01.001.
Evans, S., and B. Morrison. 2011b. ‘‘The First Term at University: Implications for EAP.’’
ELT Journal 65: 387397. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq072.
Ferris, D. 1998. ‘‘Students Views of Academic Aural/Oral Skills: A Comparative Needs
Analysis.’’ TESOL Quarterly 32: 289318. doi:10.2307/3587585.
Ferris, D., and T. Tagg. 1996. ‘‘Academic Oral Communication Needs for EAP Learners: What
Subject-matter Instructors Actually Require.’’ TESOL Quarterly 30: 3158. doi:10.2307/
3587606.
Flowerdew, J., and L. Miller. 1995. ‘‘On the Notion of Culture in L2 Lectures.’’ TESOL
Quarterly 29: 345373. doi:10.2307/3587628.
Flowerdew, J., D. Li, and L. Miller. 1998. ‘‘Attitudes towards English and Cantonese among
Hong Kong Chinese University Lecturers.’’ TESOL Quarterly 32: 201231. doi:10.2307/
3587582.
Gan, Z. 2009a. ‘‘Asian Learners’ Re-examined: An Empirical Study of Language Learning
Attitudes, Strategies and Motivation among Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong
Students.’’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30 (1): 4158.
doi:10.1080/01434630802307890.
Gan, Z. 2009b. ‘‘IELTS Preparation Course and Student IELTS Performance: A Case Study in
Hong Kong.’’ RELC Journal 40: 2341. http://rel.sagepub.com/content/40/1/23.short.
Gan, Z. 2011. ‘‘L2 Learner Individual Differences: An Integrative and Contextualist
Perspective.’’ Reflections on English Language Teaching 10: 6788. http://www.nus.edu.
sg/celc/research/books/relt/vol10/67to88-gan.pdf.
Gan, Z., G. Humphreys, and L. Hamp-Lyons. 2004. ‘‘Understanding Successful and
Unsuccessful EFL Students in Chinese Universities.’’ Modern Language Journal 88:
229244. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00227.x.
Hilton, H. 2007. ‘‘Review of Expertise in Second Language Learning and Teaching by
K. Johnson (ed.).’’ System 35: 112117. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.12.002.
Horwitz, E. K. 2008. Becoming a Language Teacher: A Practical Guide to Second Language
Learning and Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Jin, L., and M. Cortazzi. 2006. ‘‘Changing Practices in Chinese Cultures of Learning.’’
Language, Culture and Curriculum 19: 520. doi:10.1080/07908310608668751.
Kawai, Y. 2008. ‘‘Speaking and Good Language Learners.’’ In Lessons from Good Language
Learners, edited by C. Griffiths, 218230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, S. 2006. ‘‘Academic Oral Communication Needs of East Asian International Graduate
Students in Non-science and Non-engineering Fields.’’ English for Specific Purposes 25:
479489. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.10.001.
Kobayashi, M. 2003. ‘‘The Role of Peer Support in ESL Students’ Accomplishment of Oral
Academic Tasks.’’ Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes 59: 337368. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.3.337.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and J. DeCarrico. 2010. ‘‘Grammar.’’ In An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics, edited by N. Schmitt, 1833. London: Hodder Education.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Li, D. F. 1998. ‘‘It’s Always More Difficult than You Plan and Imagine: Teachers’ Perceived
Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea.’’ TESOL
Quarterly 32: 677703. doi:10.2307/3588000.
Lightbown, P. M., and N. Spada. 2006. How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lin, A. M. Y. 1996. ‘‘Bilingualism or Linguistic Segregation? Symbolic Domination,
Resistance and Code Switching in Hong Kong Schools.’’ Linguistics and Education 8:
4984. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90006-6.
248 Z. Gan
Lin, L. H. F., and B. Morrison. 2010. ‘‘The Impact of the Medium of Instruction in Hong
Kong Secondary Schools on Tertiary Students’ Vocabulary.’’ Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 9: 255266. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.002.
Littlewood, W. 2001. ‘‘Students’ Attitudes to Classroom English Learning: A Cross-cultural
Study.’’ Language Teaching Research 5: 328. http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/5/1/3.
abstract.
Littlewood, W. 2004. ‘‘Second Language Learning.’’ In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics,
edited by A. Davies and C. Elder, 501524. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Littlewood, W. 2007. ‘‘Communicative and Task-based Language Teaching in East Asian
Classrooms.’’ Language Teaching 40: 243249. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004363.
Liu, M., and J. Jackson. 2008. ‘‘An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learners’ Unwillingness to
Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety.’’ Modern Language Journal 92: 7186.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x.
McCarthy, M., and A. O’Keeffe. 2004. ‘‘Research in the Teaching of Speaking.’’ Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 2643. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000029.
Morita, N. 2000. ‘‘Discourse Socialization through Oral Classroom Activities in a TESL

Graduate Program.’’ TESOL Quarterly 4: 279310. doi:10.2307/3587953.
Norton, B. 1995. ‘‘Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning.’’ TESOL Quarterly
29: 931. doi:10.2307/3587803.
Norton, B. 1997. ‘‘Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English.’’ TESOL Quarterly 31:
409429. doi:10.2307/3587831.
Norton, B., and K. Toohey. 2001. ‘‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners.’’
TESOL Quarterly 35: 307332. doi:10.2307/3587650.
Pawlak, M., E. Waniek-Klimczak, and J. Majer. 2011. Speaking and Instructed Foreign
Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J. C., and W. A. Renandya. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. 2001. ‘‘Task Complexity, Task Difficulty and Task Production: Exploring
Interactions in a Componential Framework.’’ Applied Linguistics 21: 2757. doi:10.1093/
applin/22.1.27.
Robinson, P. 2007. ‘‘Task Complexity, Theory of Mind, and Intentional Reasoning: Effects on
L2 Speech Production, Interaction, Uptake, and Perceptions of Task Difficulty.’’
International Review of Applied Linguistics 45: 193213. http://www.degruyter.com/view/
j/iral.2007.45.issue-3/iral.2007.009/iral.2007.009.xml.
Skehan, P. 2001. ‘‘Tasks and Language Performance Assessment.’’ In Researching Pedagogic
Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, edited by M. Bygate, P. Skehan,
and M. Swain, 167185. Harlow: Longman.
Skehan, P. 2009. ‘‘Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity,
Accuracy, Fluency, and Lexis.’’ Applied Linguistics 30: 510. doi:10.1093/applin/amp047.
Swain, M. 2005. ‘‘The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research.’’ In Handbook on Research
in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 471484. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsui, A. 2001. ‘‘Classroom Interaction.’’ In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages, edited by R. Carter and D. Nunan, 120125. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. 2007. ‘‘Complexities of Identity Formation: A Narrative Inquiry of an EFL Teacher.’’
TESOL Quarterly 41: 657680. http://www.fe.hku.hk/curric/amytsui/bk_reviews/docs/
The_complexities_of_identity_formation.pdf.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wette, R., and G. Barkhuizen. 2009. ‘‘Teaching the Book and Educating the Person:
Challenges for University English Language Teachers in China.’’ Asia Pacific Journal of
Education 29: 195112. doi:10.1080/02188790902857180.
Yang, L. 2010. ‘‘Doing a Group Presentation: Negotiations and Challenges Experienced by
Five Chinese ESL Students of Commerce at a Canadian University.’’ Language Teaching
Research 14: 141160. doi:10.1177/1362168809353872.
Zheng, Y., and L. Cheng. 2008. ‘‘Test Review: College English Test (CET) in China.’’
Language Testing 25: 408117. doi:10.1177/0265532208092433.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]

On: 14 October 2014, At: 03:47

Journal of Multilingual and

Understanding English speaking

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Understanding English speaking difficulties: an investigation of two

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

The third approach to second or foreign language speaking research is a

Tertiary-level English teaching and learning in Hong Kong

Tertiary-level English teaching and learning in mainland China

Results and discussion

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

2. I make grammatical errors when speaking English

Speech processing difficulties

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

17. I think in my mother tongue when speaking English

planning and phonological encoding; and articulation that involves retrieving

Academic and conversational English skills

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

13. I feel difficulty leading class discussions in English

18. I am nervous when speaking English

Access to speaking opportunities

Never Seldom Sometime Often Always

16. I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class

I think in my mother tongue when speaking English 3.88 0.923

I feel lack of opportunities to speak English outside class 3.84 1.142

sequences and disfluencies. Consequently, linguistic obstacles (i.e. grammatical,

Conclusions and implications

relation to linguistic deficiency, oral language processes, conversational and

educational, and institutional environments in which the two populations are

students’ general discomfort with disciplinary socialisation in the target language

successful completion of the tasks. Seen in this light, extensive discipline-specific

Morita, N. 2000. ‘‘Discourse Socialization through Oral Classroom Activities in a TESL

You might also like