2019 4th Annual International Conference on Education Science and Education Management (ESEM 2019)

ISBN: 978-1-60595-623-7

A Study of Factors Affecting the Oral English Proficiency of English Majors

Shanshan Cheng
School of Foreign Languages, Nanyang Institute of Technology, Nanyang, Henan, China
cssguo@163.com

Keywords: English teaching; English majors’ oral proficiency; classroom activities; factors

Abstract: This is an empirical study of the factors which affect English majors’ oral proficiency. The
research methodologies include: questionnaire, classroom observation and interviews. Based on
theoretical and practical analysis, the author tried to investigate factors which affected English majors’
oral proficiency. 100 sophomores from English major of a college as well as 5 English teachers
participated in the investigation. The questionnaire covered the variable factors, such as teaching
setting, teaching methods, teaching materials, attitudes and motivation, anxiety and self-esteem etc.,
aiming to find what influenced language learners’ oral proficiency. The interviews offered the detailed
information concerning both teachers’ and students’ viewpoints on oral English teaching and learning.
And the data obtained from the questionnaire as well as the perceptions and suggestions from the
students and teachers were analyzed with the Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS Statistical
Package, Version 13.0). The author used the descriptive statistics, basically mean and standard
deviation, to describe the correlation between factors and language learners’ oral proficiency. By using
the bivariate correlate, the author made a survey of whether the factors affecting the students’ oral
proficiency were significantly different at a 0.05 probability level. By having a qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire, the author found that teaching and
learning environment and students’ motivation wielded the most significant influence upon learners’
oral proficiency, and some other factors were also affecting their spoken English at different degrees.

Introduction
With the integration of world economy, English, as an international language, is wielding an
increasingly significant influence upon global communication. Thus the requirement of individuals’
oral proficiency is becoming higher and higher. Even though it has been a long period for college
students to learn English, and most of them have mastered approximately 3,000 words, however, many
of them usually “keep silent” in English classes and only a minority can speak a little of the language.
It is a pity that so much time has been spent on English learning but so little is achieved in students’
oral English performance. Hence, there still remains a major problem in foreign language teaching
especially in English teaching and learning: time-consuming but with low efficiency. Taking Henan
province as an example, a host of students, though having learnt English for approximately ten years,
are still quite poor in practical use of English, that is to say, ‘dumb English’ is still quite common
among them. A report on Shanghai Education TV said that about 70% enterprises were dissatisfied
with college graduates’ English level. And it often happens that many graduates with certificates of
College English Test Band 4 or even Band 6 are rejected owing to their poor oral English competence.
In fact, spoken English teaching and learning, the most difficult process in English teaching and
learning, tends to bear the poorest result.
After long period’s painstaking work, the author finds the following aspects have been greatly
affecting the students’ oral proficiency:
(1) Shortage of vocabulary and the lack of sound learning environment prevent students from
expressing their viewpoints.

96
 (2) Lack of confidence and motivation also hinder students’ spoken English.
(3) Traditional testing systems and teaching syllabus (Hutchinson and Waters define syllabus as
“at its simplest level a syllabus can be described as a statement of what is to be learnt reflecting
language and linguistic performance”) have been paying little attention to students’ oral English ability.
Among the above aspects, item one can be regarded as extrinsic factors, such as teaching
materials, teaching approaches and methodologies, teaching syllabus, etc; item two is regarded as
intrinsic factors, namely, personality, motivation, self-esteem, learning attitudes, etc; item three
strengthens the backwash effect of tests. Therefore, there must be some factors which have greatly
affected English majors’ oral proficiency. But what are they? And to what extent have these factors
influenced students’ oral improvement? Are there any correlation between those factors themselves and
how to lessen the negative effects wielded by these factors? The author devoted herself heart and soul
to finding the answers to these questions, hoping to greatly better college students’ spoken English
output.
Relevant research in this area starts from 1960s, and there are fruitful achievements concerned
with this topic. In this section, the author merely talks about the main aspects of it. This sort of survey
usually focuses on the classroom teacher talk’s function (Shapiro, 1979), quantity (Legrreta, 1977),
simplification (the simplification of phonetic, vocabulary, syntax and communication) (Wesche &
Ready, 1985; Pica & Long, 1986), along with vocabulary and grammatical explanation.
This research focuses on the teacher-student and student-student communication in classroom.
And the teacher-student communication can be subdivided into 4 parts: teacher’s treatment of the
students’ English use; teacher’s English proficiency; teacher’s questioning forms (such as variety of
questions, simplification); and teacher’s correction of students’ errors. Furthermore, the student-student
communication can be subdivided into 2 parts, namely, the influence of classroom organization on
communication and the influence of task types on communication.
From the discussion above it can be seen that the classroom factors have been investigated by
many researchers. But classroom is not the only place for students to use the target language, so their
activities after class and other related factors should all arouse our attention.

Methodology
For the objectives of this paper, the following questions are put forward:
(1) What are the related factors that influence non-English majors’ oral proficiency?
(2) To what degree do these factors affect the non-English majors’ oral proficiency?
(3) Are there any interrelations existing within the factors themselves and how to decrease the
negative effects produced by these factors mentioned in the essay?
And then the author put forward the following hypotheses:
(1) The null hypothesis postulated and tested to determine the 9 factors: teaching environment
(Morgan strengthened “the significance of the general ambience of content presentation in a foreign
language classroom”), teaching materials, teaching syllabus, motivation, self-esteem, personality,
culture, anxiety and self-esteem would wield influence upon non-English majors’ oral proficiency.
Based on these 9 factors and former researchers’ survey, a questionnaire which covered 35 questions
concerning the 9 factors was constructed.
(2) These factors would wield different influence upon students’ oral proficiency.
(3) There are correlations between some of the factors themselves.
The instruments employed in this dissertation include: questionnaire, classroom observation,
interview and SPSS (13.0) software.
Four-stage procedures were adopted in the study. Firstly, 100 questionnaires were prepared,
handed out and collected at the beginning of the class. Secondly, all the data collected from the

97
participants were input into the computer for further statistical analysis by using SPSS 13.0.
Furthermore, interviews with 5 teachers and the randomly selected students were carried out. Lastly,
the author did her utmost to find out the correlation between the language learners’ spoken English
proficiency and the related factors, pointed out the problems existing in current English learning and
teaching process and made some related suggestions to improve students’ English learning and
speaking.

Results and Analysis

The long-term classroom observation could be divided into 4 aspects, the linguistic knowledge
taught by teachers; teaching approaches; students’ performance in class and classroom communication.

Table 1. Classroom activities.

Class
1 2 3 4 5
Exercises
Brief revision seldom no no no yes
yes (about 5-10
Warm-up part seldom seldom seldom seldom
minutes)
Listening to always (about
seldom no no no
news; discussion 5-10 minutes)
Sometimes Sometimes
Vocabulary
yes yes; yes; yes yes
exercise
sometimes no sometimes no
Grammar practice yes yes yes yes yes
Analysis of the
sometimes seldom seldom sometimes always
texts
Asking
questions
sometimes yes sometimes seldom yes
relating to texts
comprehension
Language students both Chinese both Chinese half in some in most in
used in their talk and English and English Chinese English English
Duty report sometimes sometimes sometimes always yes
Average
numbers of 15 22 18 15 40
participants

From the above table we can see that: first, most of the exercises focused on strengthening the
linguistic knowledge. Second, even if there were some oral practices, they were always arranged in a
mechanical way, like reading the texts, or answering the reading comprehension part. Thirdly, most of
the students had no opportunity to practice oral English, owing to the very large classes. Lastly,
teachers’ talk in the target language in class was also limited.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the 100 subjects’ responses to the questionnaire,
which contains 35 items. The author directly made a comparison between these 9 factors by inputting
the questions contained in each item.

98
 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the following nine factors influencing
learners’ oral proficiency respectively.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
teaching methods 100 1.856 3.286 3.441 2.021
motivation 100 2.167 5.0 3.86 2.335
environment 100 2.2 4.7 3.84 2.333
teaching materials 100 1.5 5.0 3.375 1.431
teaching syllabus 100 1.5 5.0 3.66 1.614
anxiety 100 1.5 4.25 3.794 2.263
cultural factors 100 1.2 3.216 3.476 2.290
self-esteem 100 1.5 5.0 3.685 1.253
personality 100 1.5 4.5 3.669 1.087
Valid N (list wise) 100

From this table, we can infer that all the nine factors analyzed respectively played different roles
in influencing language learners’ speech practice with the mean scores ranging from 3.441 to 3.86. The
highest mean of 3.86 shows that the factor of motivation wielded the most significant impact upon
students’ spoken English performance, following by the factor of learning environment with the mean
score of 3.84, which indicates students’ oral proficiency would also be greatly influenced by it. This
also complies with the idea that student’ motivation and sound learning environment would play a vital
part in their oral English practice.
In table 3, by using the bivariate correlate software the author tried to figure out the correlation
between the 9 fixed variables and the dependent variable, oral proficiency.

Table 3. Correlations among the 9 factors and spoken English.

Teaching
Motivation
methods
Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
N N
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Teaching
1 100 -0.009 0.928 100
methods
Motivation -0.009 0.928 100 1 100
Environment -0.002 0.988 100 0.033 0.044 100
Teaching
0.068 0.045 100 -0.006 0.954 100
materials
Teaching
0.007 0.048 100 0.069 0.495 100
syllabus
Anxiety -0.144 0.039 100 0.016 0.039 100
Cultural factors 0.105 0.296 100 0.095 0.345 100
Self-esteem -0.097 0.336 100 -0.027 0.79 100
Personality -0.073 0.473 100 -0.117 0.247 100
Spoken English .342(**) 0.003 100 .444(**) 0.001 100
Teaching
Environment
materials
Pearson Sig. N Pearson Sig. N

99
 Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Teaching
-0.002 0.988 100 0.068 0.045 100
methods
Motivation 0.033 0.746 100 -0.006 0.954 100
Environment 1 100 -0.061 0.547 100
Teaching
-0.061 0.547 100 1 100
materials
Teaching
-0.11 0.275 100 0.099 0.328 100
syllabus
Anxiety -0.055 0.585 100 -0.022 0.824 100
Cultural factors -0.191 0.037 100 .220(*) 0.028 100
Self-esteem -0.065 0.519 100 -0.023 0.817 100
Personality -0.105 0.297 100 0.167 0.098 100
Spoken English .258(**) 0.002 100 .410(**) 0.003 100
Teaching
Anxiety
syllabus
Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
N N
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Teaching
0.007 0.048 100 -0.144 0.039 100
methods
Motivation 0.069 0.495 100 0.016 0.039 100
Environment -0.11 0.275 100 -0.055 0.585 100
Teaching
0.099 0.328 100 -0.022 0.824 100
materials
Teaching
1 100 0.046 0.652 100
syllabus
Anxiety 0.046 0.652 100 1 100
Cultural factors -0.119 0.237 100 -0.015 0.881 100
Self-esteem -0.184 0.067 100 0.002 0.981 100
Personality 0.052 0.607 100 0.004 0.97 100
Spoken English .247(*) 0.023 100 .355(**) 0.017 100
Cultural
Self-esteem
factors
Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
N N
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Teaching
0.105 0.296 100 -0.097 0.336 100
methods
Motivation 0.095 0.345 100 -0.027 0.79 100
Environment -0.191 0.037 100 -0.065 0.519 100
Teaching
.220(*) 0.028 100 -0.023 0.817 100
materials
Teaching
-0.119 0.237 100 -0.184 0.067 100
syllabus
Anxiety -0.015 0.881 100 0.002 0.981 100
Cultural factors 1 100 0.042 0.679 100
Self-esteem 0.042 0.679 100 1 100
Personality -0.004 0.971 100 -0.056 0.047 100

100
 Spoken English .450(**) 0.005 100 0.105 0.034 100
Spoken
Personality
English
Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
N N
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Teaching
-0.073 0.473 100 .342(**) 0.003 100
methods
Motivation -0.117 0.247 100 .444(**) 0.001 100
Environment -0.105 0.297 100 .258(**) 0.001 100
Teaching
0.167 0.098 100 .410(**) 0.003 100
materials
Teaching
0.052 0.607 100 .247(*) 0.023 100
syllabus
Anxiety 0.004 0.97 100 .355(**) 0.017 100
Cultural factors -0.004 0.971 100 .450(**) 0.051 100
Self-esteem -0.056 0.047 100 0.105 0.034 100
Personality 1 100 0.132 0.045 100
Spoken English 0.132 0.045 100 1 100

From this table, we can find that the correlation coefficient between those nine fixed factors and
spoken English dependent factor are all lower than 0.05, indicating that all the factors mentioned in the
essay wielded direct influence upon learners’ oral proficiency. In social sciences, statistical studies
commonly set p = 0.05 as the criterion significance level. When p< 0.05, the difference is significant. If
p< 0.01, the difference is highly significant. When p< 0.001, the difference is very highly significant.
The current investigation followed this practice.
To conclude, according to the statistical analysis, for improving oral English ability, both teachers
and language learners should do their utmost to create better environment in which the learning results
could be improved increasingly. To achieve this aim, both students and related teachers should not only
pay attention to the relationship between factors which influence language learners’ oral proficiency
but also should not neglect the subtle connection existing between those factors, that all the language
learners could obtain a higher level of oral English proficiency.

Discussion
According to social sciences, the criterion significance level, when p< 0.01, the difference is
highly significant. From the previous analysis, we know that teaching and learning environment play
the most significant influence (with p= 0.001) upon English majors’ oral proficiency. According to the
questionnaire, a considerable majority, 91% of the subjects claim that they have not got sound learning
environment for oral production: the language input that students get in class is primarily connected
with textbooks. Since texts and new words or phrases are carefully selected and are expected to be
carefully learnt, they should belong to the finely-tuned input. Hence, teachers are believed to be busy
with the finely-tuned input in class: explaining new words, introducing grammar rules, analyzing
sentence patterns. Consequently, limited time is left in class for students to practice oral English, let
alone the communication between students. Therefore, lack of sound teaching and learning
environment and lack of motivation in learning the target language may create huge hindrance in
improving learners’ speech production.
For any sort of education, there must be three kinds of basic elements: teaching syllabus, teaching
materials and teaching approaches. In table 3, we analyzed the influence upon students’ oral
101
proficiency produced by teaching approaches, syllabus and teaching materials (with p= 0.003, 0.023
and 0.003 respectively). In social sciences, when p<0.05, the difference is significant, and this indicates
that all of these three elements affect students’ oral practice.
In table 3, the p value between the factor of anxiety and oral proficiency is 0.017, and p value
equals to 0.034 between the factor of self-esteem and students’ oral proficiency. Both of the p values
are lower than 0.05, which indicates the first two factors are playing significant part upon learners’
speech output. Usually, there are three factors which will lead to language learners’ anxiety, namely,
communication apprehension, poor performance, fear of negative evaluation and bad learning
experience. If teachers play the role of expert advisers, then students will be less worried about being
promptly asked to answer a question that they do not fully understand.
Table 3 shows that students’ oral practice is also affected by their different personalities, with p
value =0.045. According to the classroom observation and interviews with students, it seems that
students who are extroverted display better performance in speaking. The main reason for this
phenomenon probably lies in that extroverted students grasp more opportunities of oral practice both in
and after class. A majority of such kind of students expressed that it would be a great thing to make
friends with different people.
We can find in table 3 the p value between cultural effect and students’ speech production is
0.005, showing a close relationship between them. And the results will also tell us how the Chinese
culture is affecting the students’ oral practice. For instance, 55% of the subjects express the idea that
whether in speaking or writing, they do not try new sentence patterns voluntarily; 39% of the students
state that before putting a word into practice, they will firstly make clear the exact meaning and the
usage of it. It seems that students who have more traditional Chinese cultural values tend to be more
conscious about others’ views on them; thus they are likely to be more passive in class. So in talking
about the ways to improve learners’ speech output, the influence of social culture should not be
ignored.
In table 3, the p value between motivation and oral proficiency is 0.001, which shows that
learners’ oral practice is greatly influenced by their different motivation. So, when teachers are trying
to figure out how to improve students’ oral proficiency, the factor of motivation should be taken into
consideration.

Conclusion
Based on the findings above, some recommendations are listed below.
(1) Take part in as many social activities as possible concerning the use of English. Talk as much
as possible with native speakers, since the time for oral English practice is quite limited in class. (2)
Read as many interesting materials as possible to collect more topics for the speech practice. (3) Do
preview the texts before class so as to be more self-confident in class, and do not be afraid of losing
face or making mistakes when speaking English. And it is necessary to listen to various audio-visual
products and imitate the pronunciation, or consult teachers to correct your errors in pronunciation so as
to increase self-confidence in speaking English. (4) Keep in mind that teachers are facilitators rather
than authority, who are always ready to give you a hand in learning English. Therefore, it is desirable
to grasp every opportunity to interact with them for guidance. (5) Keep aware of the importance of
spoken English in contemporary society to further stimulate the motivation of language learning and
practicing.
Recommendations for teachers of English: (1) Be enthusiastic in teaching and try to make the
lectures as vivid as possible to arouse students’ interests; try to help students change the traditional
middle-school learning mode, to develop a learner-centered approach instead of teacher-centered one in
foreign language teaching and create sound learning environment. (2) Spare some time in class for
students to practice spoken English. Teachers should allow errors in the process of speech production
102
to help students build their self-esteem, and decrease their anxiety. (3) Teachers should try to balance
the process of input-output, offering students as many chances as possible to practice their oral English.
(4) Our contemporary society is in great need of the talents who are with high oral English ability, so
teachers should realize that it is their responsibility to create more chances for students to improve their
oral English proficiency. (5) Try to create an easy atmosphere for the students and allow errors in their
practice of oral English, so that students’ anxiety may be reduced and their self-esteem may be raised.
(6) Teachers should also shoulder the responsibility to introduce more suitable learning materials to
students. This can not only increase their learning interests but also stimulate their motivation to speak
English.
In order to reach these goals, college administrators are also expected to offer their support to
accelerate the innovation of oral English teaching and learning. For instance, students’ spoken English
ability should be stressed in the teaching syllabus, so that the testing papers should not only include
traditional written form but also listening and speaking parts in them. Some other measures should also
be taken, like dividing large classes into small ones, building more language labs and providing more
sound campus environment for students to practice their oral English.

References
[1] Alderson, J. C. and Clapham, C. 1992. Applied Linguistics and Language Testing: A Case Study of
the ELTS Test. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
[2] Ellis, R. 1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
[3] Hutchinson, T. and Water, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[4] Morgan, C. 1993. Attitude Change and Foreign Language Culture Learning. Language Teaching.
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[5] Pica, T. and Long, M. 1986. Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
[6] Shapiro, F. 1979. What do Teachers Actually do in Language Classrooms? Paper presented at the
13th annual TESOL Convention, Boston.
[7] Wesche, M. and Ready, D. 1985. Foreign talk in the university classroom. In S.M. Gass and C.G.
Madden (Eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Mass: Newbury House.

103