Use of Communication Strategies by Thai EFL Learners
Use of Communication Strategies by Thai EFL Learners
Use of Communication Strategies by Thai EFL Learners
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Factors Affecting the Choice <strong>of</strong> Oral <strong>Communication</strong> <strong>Strategies</strong><br />
Previous studies indicated that the use <strong>of</strong> communication strategies was greatly affected <strong>by</strong><br />
English-speaking pr<strong>of</strong>iciency (e.g., Rost and Ross, 1991; Huang and Naerssen, 1987) and<br />
task type (e.g., Poulisse, 1990 ; Wongsawang, 2001 ;Weerarak, 2003 ; Nakatani, 2005) in<br />
communication process since the selection <strong>of</strong> CS types varies according to these factors.<br />
As suggested <strong>by</strong> Bialystock (1997), the most significant predictor <strong>of</strong> specific communication<br />
strategy use is language pr<strong>of</strong>iciency. In his longitudinal study, Ellis (1984) found that high<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>iciency learners were likely to employ language-based strategies or compensatory<br />
strategies e.g. word coinage, approximation and generalization and low pr<strong>of</strong>iciency learners<br />
resorted more to knowledge-based and repetition. However, some available studies suggest<br />
the contrastive findings that that less pr<strong>of</strong>iciency learners used more compensatory strategies<br />
than the advanced ones as the former ones have adequate linguistic competence to use oral<br />
communication strategies to overcome their communication deficiencies.<br />
Regarding task type, different task requirements need response with different communication<br />
strategies since certain strategies seem to fix specific communicative problems (Bialystok,<br />
1981). Moreover, the familiarity <strong>of</strong> the speaker with the tasks significantly influences the<br />
choice <strong>of</strong> communication strategies. Yule and Tarone (1997) also support this idea <strong>by</strong> saying<br />
that “The more abstract the prompt, the more likely that conceptually related analogies will<br />
be used. The more concrete and familiar the prompt, the more likely the simple names and<br />
everyday functions will be mentioned” (p. 26).<br />
Methodology<br />
Participant<br />
The participants consisted <strong>of</strong> 30 male and female students sampled from the total population<br />
<strong>of</strong> 36 students who are in the M.3 (grade 9) English Program in Joseph Upatham School. The<br />
researcher classified all students into high (H), middle (M) or low (L) groups on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
their scores <strong>of</strong> Key English Test (KET). The scoring criteria described learners’ abilities in a<br />
foreign language using five levels, from Fail to Pass with Distinction.<br />
Materials/Research tools<br />
Oral interview task<br />
In this study, the semi-structured one-to-one interview was conducted with two<br />
predetermined sets <strong>of</strong> questions. For the first part, students were asked 10 questions about<br />
personal information on general topics such as family, accommodations, school, free-time<br />
activities, and future career. The second part was about one topic concerning 2011 Big Flood<br />
in <strong>Thai</strong>land, which comprises 10 questions. Oral interview with two parts <strong>of</strong> questions lasted<br />
approximately 15-30 minutes.<br />
Picture story narrative<br />
After the interview session, students were asked to perform picture story narrative task,<br />
telling a story <strong>of</strong> two boys caught in the storm on a fishing boat within defined period <strong>of</strong> time<br />
at least 3 minutes.<br />
Procedures<br />
Both speaking tasks, oral interview and picture story narrative, were carried out after the end<br />
<strong>of</strong> each school day in a laboratory room to avoid disturbance. They were asked to perform<br />
each task individually. For the oral interview task, each participant was required to respond to<br />
805