ESL Undergraduate Learners’ View of Virtual Speaking

ESL Undergraduate Learners’ View of Virtual Speaking

وجهة نظر طلاب المرحلة الجامعيّة الأولى في تعلّم اللّغة الإنجليزيّة كلغة ثانية في التّحدّث الافتراضيّ

Dr. Mohamed Hasan Al Kassem  [1]

د. محمد حسن القاسم

تاريخ الاستلام 1/7/2024                                                       تاريخ القبول 20/7/2024

Abstract

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic measures and frequent lockdowns, virtual learning emerged globally as an alternative to onsite learning. Hence, virtual learning of ESL skills has become a prevailing trend. This qualitative survey aimed to investigate ESL undergraduate learners’ perspectives on learning speaking skills virtually after the pandemic. The study involved forty-five students enrolled in an ESL foundation course during their first undergraduate semester at a franchise private university in Tyre district, South Lebanon. As a qualitative research project, the researcher utilized Google Forms questionnaires and interviews to gather data. The collected data were analyzed and interpreted using qualitative methods. The findings from the questionnaires and interviews indicated that most participants viewed virtual speaking lessons negatively. The results highlighted that virtual speaking lessons were less effective compared to face-to-face lessons. These lessons lacked communication and deliberation, with students often remaining silent and receiving inadequate feedback and weak interaction.

Keywords:

Virtual Learning: Cojocariu, V.-M., Lazar, I., Nedeff, V., Lazar, G. (2014) defined virtual learning, open learning, web-based learning, computer-mediated learning, blended learning, m-learning, etc. as the type of learning “having in common the ability to use a computer connected to a network, that offers the possibility to learn from anywhere, anytime, in any rhythm, with any means”.

E-learning:  It is the attainment of information through electronic technologies and media. It is “learning that is enabled electronically”. E-learning takes place on the internet, where learners can get learning materials virtual at any place and time. Often, it takes place in the form of virtual courses, virtual degrees, or virtual programs. Recently, it is conducted through various platforms as Microsoft Teams, Moodle, Classira, eSchool, etc.

Face-to-face/Onsite learning: As the most traditional educational method, face-to-face/onsite learning is an instructional approach where information and its subsequent requisites are delivered to learners onsite where both learners and instructors are involved in live interactions that in turn enhances better peer understanding and collective bonds.

Instructional Strategies: Instructional strategies are methods instructors practice to aid learners become independent, strategic learners. These strategies become learning strategies when learners independently choose the proper ones and employ them efficiently to accomplish tasks or meet goals (Alberta Learning, 2000).

الملخص

استجابةً لتدابير جائحة كوفيد-19 والإغلاقات المتكررة، ظهر التّعليم الافتراضيّ على مستوى العالم كبديل للتّعليم الحضوريّ. ومن ثم، أصبح تعلّم مهارات اللغة الإنجليزيّة كلغة ثانية (ESL) افتراضيًّا اتّجاهًا سائدًا. هدفت هذه الدّراسة النوعية إلى استقصاء وجهات نظر طلاب المرحلة الجامعية الأولى حول تعلم مهارات التّحدّث باللّغة الإنجليزيّة افتراضيًّا بعد الجائحة. شملت الدّراسة خمسة وأربعين طالبًا مسجلين في دورة تأسيسية للّغة الإنجليزيّة كلغة ثانية خلال فصلهم الجامعيّ الأوّل في جامعة خاصة فرعيّة في منطقة صور، جنوب لبنان. وكبحث نوعي، استخدم الباحث استبيانات عبر نماذج جوجل ومقابلات لجمع البيانات. تم تحليل وتفسير البيانات التي جُمعت باستخدام الأساليب النّوعيّة. أشارت النّتائج من الاستبيانات والمقابلات إلى أنّ معظم المشاركين كانوا ينظرون إلى دروس التّحدّث الافتراضية بشكل سلبيّ. وأظهرت النّتائج أنّ دروس التّحدّث الافتراضية كانت أقل فعالية مقارنة بالدّروس الحضوريّة. افتقرت هذه الدّروس إلى التّواصل والمناقشة، حيث غالبًا ما يلتزم الطّلاب الصّمت ويتلقون ردود فعل غير كافية وتفاعل ضعيف.

الكلمات المفتاحة: التّعليم الافتراضي، التّعلّم الإلكترونيّ، التّعلّم وجهًا لوجه/الحضوريّ، استراتيجيات التّدريس

 

1. Introduction

Speaking, as a human skill, is indispensable for everyday communication and interaction. Its function and range of communication has become limitless.  Nunan (1991) shows that human communication takes place when humans interact through speaking that is demonstrated in diverse situations and settings. However, Yusuf and Zuraini (2016) indicate that speaking is typically recognizable in the classroom through conducting learning activities. This is manifested through the illustrations and tools instructors employ and conduct while speaking and interacting with learners. In the ESL context, instructors use speaking to explain as it is part of their responsibility due to the fact that English is a second language (Paneerselvam & Mohamad, 2019). In this respect, it can be clearly noticed through little observation that speaking ESL is challengeable when it comes to make it comprehensible. Various researchers as Aleksandrzak, 2011; Musliadi, 2016; Nuraini, 2016; Ahmed, 2018; Paneerselvam & Mohamad, 2019 find that instructors are faced with numerous challenges while providing instructional strategies in speaking in their quest to meet the course primary notion, enhance learners’ concern, hold out class climate, and deal with issues that require further consideration and toil.  More encounters are illustrated by other researchers as Yusuf & Zuraini (2016) and Paneerselvam & Mohamad (2019) who report instructors’ strive to enable face-to-face speaking learners communicate properly with special emphasis on accuracy, fluency, pronunciation and content. This clarifies the prevailing challenges ESL speaking learners encounter in onsite (face-to-face) learning. With the emergence of virtual learning during the Corona Virus Pandemic, more challenges have come up to the surface. Instructors have started working hard with more emphasis on differentiated instructions due to the fact that they are providing speaking instructions to learners virtually, with no direct face-to-face instruction or interaction. Former research on ESL speaking show that numerous challenges further become actually significant throughout the implementation of teaching and learning tasks. In this respect, Chen & Sun (2016) describe teaching speaking virtual as one the toughest missions due to the lack of direct interaction with and among learners. On the other hand, Widiastuti et al. (2020) indicate that some encounters happened are leading to improve content, boost learner’s accuracy, provide media to make a fun learning climate, prevent errors in pronouncing words, etc. In the light of the current challenges and many others, this research is conducted to examine learners’ perceptions of the ESL speaking skill when delivered virtual during the Corona Virus Pandemic.

1. Review of the Related Literature

Speaking Instruction

In describing what speaking instruction is, Nunan (1991) indicates that an instructor provides instruction to listeners to achieve diverse purposes. According to Nunan (1991), one purpose is to produce the English speech sounds, sound patterns, use words and sentences, stress intonation pattern and the language rhythm. Another purpose is to choose suitable words and sentences based on the appropriate social setting, audience, situation and topic. Nunan (1991) adds that it aims to organize learners’ ideas in a meaningful and logical sequence as well as using language as a means of expressing values and judgments. This is in addition to use the target language fluently and assertively with few infrequent breaks. On the other hand, Thornbury (2005) views speaking as an interactive task that mandates “to cooperate in the management of speaking turns”, where it functions as a skill practiced and developed “independently of the grammar curriculum”. In a different context, Kayi (2006) describes speaking as a complex verbal “productive skill” that encompasses several mini skills beyond pronouncing words. As far as the Lebanese context is concerned, the National Center for Educational Research and Development in its General Education Curricula (1996) mandates ESL instruction in the basic educational stage (nine years) and the high school education stage (3 years) where speaking is regarded as one of the four basic skills in each class curriculum. However, speaking lessons are delivered differently in between public and private schools, basic and secondary levels, and even in the same context. To a certain extent, this skill is marginalized and regarded as secondary in the majority of cases. As a result, the majority of learners graduate from high schools with an apparent low proficiency level primarily in speaking which affects negatively on their performance and achievement in the undergraduate levels. According to Fulcher (2012), speaking is a productive skill employed as a means of expressing meaning in speech where it is learned consciously in L1 and unconsciously in L2. Yet, Sharma (2015) shows that speaking in both L1 and L2 is learned properly in the earlier school stages. As an L2 skill, speaking is often confronted by various impediments due to the fact that L2 learners are hesitant to speak and fear being involved in any authentic talk. Many researchers referred this to the shortage of implemented speaking lessons as well as to the instructors’ primitive methods in delivering such lessons. The majority of instructors primarily focus on writing and grammar skills. This makes it clear that L2 speaking is challenging.

 

Speaking Instruction Approaches

To meet classroom instructional diversity, differentiated instruction speaking methods are applied. Eggen, P., Kauchak, D., & Harder, R. (1979) speak about the question and answer as one of the speaking instruction methods. They show this approach as the most common among instructors where many speaking classrooms consume around half of the allotted time for question and answer exchange. Throughout this approach, learners receive speaking instruction in both ways directly and indirectly and they actualize their speaking abilities with more fluency.  Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001) adopt the presentation approach where individual learners give a talk on a specific theme area where each learner is given the appropriate and sufficient time to collect information about the assigned topic and organize it properly to present it in front of the class. During the individual presentation, Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001) add that other learners are listening and encouraged to provide feedback. On the other hand, Harmer (2001) and Thornbury (2005) discuss simulations as one of these speaking instructional methods. To Harmer (2001) and Thornbury (2005), simulations are tasks employed in a speaking classroom, where learners pretend to act in several social contexts and/or various social roles. Yet, Thornbury (2005) adopts drilling as a speaking instruction approach. Thornbury (2005) claims that drilling is an instructional approach where learners are asked to imitate and repeat words or sounds for the purpose of improving pronunciation. Through drilling, he indicates that learners will be given the opportunity to concentrate on “new materials and emphasize words, phrases, or utterances on students’ mind, move new items from working memory to long term memory, provide means of gaining articulatory control over language”. In another context, Thornbury (2005) introduces drama as a speaking approach where it is referred to as a task that produces conversation between two or more learners in a classroom, where they take roles and act them out.   Thornbury (2005) shows that this method is close to role playing but with more time consuming, and leaners are asked to record their talk while the instructor provides time for preparation and submission. However, Brown (2010) introduces the strategy of “show and tell” where an instructor asks a couple of learners to take turns in a prepared task of show and tell. Brown (2010) illustrates this through asking two students to stand before the class where one shows an object and the other describes it, then they take turns. Through drilling, Brown (2010) comments showing that learners can get the chance to repeat specific phonological and grammatical structures; hence, overcome linguistic problems. Solcova (2011), on the other hand, spoke about discussion as another speaking instructions approach. Solcova (2011) illustrates that discussions are tasks that look like real-life situations, where learners primarily focus on content production rather than language itself.

Virtual Learning

Recently, prior to the Corona Virus Pandemic, virtual learning has been introduced as an up-to-date tool for instruction and instructional issues delivery. Harandi (2015) reveals that technology has been used to deliver instruction using emails and e-books in the majority of universities but its extent varies from one place to another. Yet, it has not yet replaced face-to-face learning. Al-Asmari & Khan (2014) illustrated that Arab universities, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have adopted virtual learning in instruction and worked for the shift from face-to-face (onsite) learning to virtual learning (online) since 2005.   However, HEA & JISC (2009) describe virtual learning environments as an ideal tool for instruction where tasks are performed in the classroom. According to HEA & JISC (2009), virtual tasks transform learning and makes it “enjoyable and diverse” where technology aids in meeting learners’ needs and concerns. These tasks are valuable for they permit learners to work “at their pace and practice independently whist being supported by the lecturer and peers alike”. As for the instructor’s part, Merlin (2012) indicates that he/she should act as a facilitator who moves around learners to provide support, advice, guidance, praise, and answers. Also, HEA & JISC (2009) show that through virtual learning classrooms learners have the choice to learn by themselves which definitely boosts their learning experience and collaborate which is a key factor in the virtual learning process.  In this respect, HEA & JISC (2009) indicate that learners can publish their speaking products as videos, PowerPoint presentations, blogs, etc. This enables learners to stay intact with technological devices that they like as laptops or mobiles the thing that affects positively on their learning outcomes.

• Virtual Speaking Instruction Review

Throughout the last decade, academics conducted numerous research to investigate the effectiveness of teaching speaking skills virtually in the ESL context. Such research has covered various issues related to virtual speaking instructions such as its effectiveness, challenges, learners’ views, etc. This research reviewed the most recent ones for the purpose of attaining a comprehensive perception of the fundamental inferences in the field of virtual learning and speaking instruction. To start with, Paechter and Maier’s (2010) conducted a study for the purpose of comparing learners’ outlooks to onsite and online learning. The study was conducted on 2196 undergraduate learners, and a questionnaire was employed to collect data on those learners’ opinion. The questionnaire’s output revealed that those participant learners described virtual learning as “a clear and more organized” learning approach. Participants’ reflected their concern about onsite learning when communication is a requisite. In 2013, Anjaniputra A.G. investigated instructors’ strategies in teaching speaking at the secondary level. The study, which was conducted on 15 learners, examined cooperative tasks, creative tasks, role playing, and drilling as methods utilized by instructors to instruct speaking. Qualitative data findings showed that participant learners held a positive attitude toward these strategies and regarded them as useful methods that helped them learn to speak. The study recommended that instructors should rely on speaking approaches that meet with learners’ traits and proficiency level. Later, in 2016, Gorra and Bhati investigated the impacts of virtual learning and its significance on learning in general. Participants were 221 Philippines university learners who reflected in the questionnaires their positive attitude towards employing technology in learning and how it affected their learning experiences positively. Yet, data showed that participants held a negative attitude towards using social media in learning. It showed that using social media to chat and play music and games might have negative impacts on learning outcomes. In the study conducted to investigate instructors’ speaking approaches while acting virtually, Robert N. F. & Pane W. S. (2020) chose role playing, storytelling, social strategy, and discussion as speaking instruction strategies. One instructor was asked to implement the strategy of learning through playing followed by role playing, storytelling, and conversations. However, the other instructor worked through conversation where short and clear sentences were delivered to learners.  Results showed that there were various similarities mainly in implementing the use of opinion and discussion in speaking which enhanced learners’ vocabulary and self-confidence. Storytelling empowered learners to speak. A recent research was conducted by Fansury et al. (2020) who attempted to inspect virtual learning delivered during the Corona Virus Pandemic. The research sample were 20 Indonesian instructors and 50 learners. The research was qualitative where questionnaires and interviews were used as data collection tools. The research results revealed that virtual learning can replace face-to-face learning in delivering instructions to various types and levels of learners during lockdown periods and social distancing. Although instructors and learners reported technical problems as network frequent disconnections and costs, learners favored virtual learning on onsite learning and reflected a positive attitude toward it. Yet, the researchers showed that they were not certain that those learners favored virtual learning because they got bored with the traditional face-to-face approach or because they found an effective learning approach. A more recent research from Indonesia was piloted by Sinaga & Pustika (2021) to investigate Moodle as a virtual learning platform employed by many educational institutions around the world during the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.  It was a qualitative research that utilized both questionnaires and interviews. The sample were 30 learners studying ESL in a vocational high school. Sinaga & Pustika (2021) surveyed learners’ attitudes and analyzed the challenges they encountered throughout utilizing Moodle as a virtual platform. Sinaga & Pustika (2021) employed self-analysis and learners’ views to conclude the mark of consent built on how learners felt or performed. A number of 30 participants was questionnaire and 6 took part in semi-structured interview sessions. Findings showed participants’ positive attitude towards the implementation of Moodle platform in virtual instruction and the significance of learning ESL in vocational high schools as well. Yet, participants reported numerous “self-problem in learning English during the implementation of Learning from Home (LFH), where students sometimes lack self-management to follow the learning activities”. Prihatmi et al.  (2021) conducted a qualitative study to review the issue of virtual speaking instruction through the use of the ASSURE model from the perspective of two English instructors in the National Institute of Technology, Malang. The researchers utilized interviews of the two instructors to collect data. Finding reveled limited significance of the use ASSURE model in virtual speaking. However, research findings reflected the need for providing “insights in preparing and developing other online speaking classes to achieve better outcomes”. The last research in this review was piloted by Ghazwan & Saeed (2021) on 120 undergraduate EFL male and female learners from the University of Bish, KSA. The research aimed at investigating the virtual speaking instruction strategies implemented at the English department. To collect data, the researchers utilized the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Findings exhibited that learners held a positive view of the approaches implemented in improving speaking skills through virtual learning. It was also evident in the research results that there was no significant difference between male and female learners regarding their view of the methods employed to improve their speaking skills.  There was also a consensus on using methods to enhance speaking while being involved in virtual learning sessions.

 To sum up, the conducted research studies in the last decade have investigated the implementation of virtual speaking learning with special emphasis on the employed strategies and learners’ attitude. Some of these disclosed promising results as presented in the studies of Gorra & Bhati (2016); Fansury et al. (2020); Sinaga & Pustika (2021); Ghazwan & Saeed (2021). However, others as those conducted by Fansury et al. (2020) and Prihatmi et al.  (2021) held either uncertain results or limited significance of virtual speaking instruction, which necessitates the need for further investigation and research. This current qualitative research intends to provide further investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether virtual speaking instruction is viewed positively or negatively by ESL undergraduate learners. The researcher hopefully anticipates that this research could fill in the gap primarily in the undergraduate language instruction investigation and provide ESL speaking academics with beneficial recommendations.

1. Methodology
2. Research Method

This study adopted the qualitative research survey methodology. According to Cohen & Morrison (2000), this research type is expected to explain, describe, and interpret something where it is primarily concerned with existing conditions or relationship and the prevailing practices and beliefs. It also reflects samples’ point of view, attitude, and the “processes that are going on; effect that are being felt; or trends that are developing” (Cohen & Morrison, 2000).

1. Research Context

This qualitative research was conducted at a franchise private university in Tyre district, South Lebanon where English is communicated as a first foreign language of instruction in most majors. This private university adopts an international English language course designed primarily for learners studying English as a second language based on a validated placement test that determines learners’ proficiency levels.  The study took place during the spring semester of the academic year 2020-2021 and lasted for a period of 15 weeks.

 

1. Research Instruments

Adopting the qualitative design, this research relied on a Google Form Questionnaire to investigate the participants’ view of virtual speaking instruction provided to them via the Moodle and Google Meet platforms. Participants were asked by the researcher to submit the completed questionnaire on the due date and time. To verify participants’ answers and dig out their information, the interview approach was adopted where the interviewer followed a formalized list of questions. The interviewer used the English course requirements to generate questions and conversation starters to enhance mutual communication. The interviews with participants were headed by observations, informal and unstructured interviews to let the researcher have a profound understanding of the whole issue for the purpose of preparing the appropriate and significant semi-structured research questions. For an appropriate choice of participants, the researcher used purposive sampling as a non-probability sampling procedure where the researcher depended on his preference to choose variables for the sample population. Each interview took place around 15 minutes. The questions were open-ended and about the participants’ experience, outlooks of virtual speaking instruction amidst the pandemic.

 

1. Research Participants

The research participants were forty-five students who were studying ESL as a foundation course during their first undergraduate semester at a franchise private university in Tyre district, South Lebanon. The participants ages ranged from 18 to 21. Thirty-one participants were females and fourteen were males. Yet, Gender was not regarded as a variable in this research. All participants studied English as a second language since the primary educational stage in public and private schools. Participants were from the same socio-economic background.

1. Research Analysis and Discussion

Throughout the research interval, the researcher involved participants in questionnaire completion to collect data for the purpose of investigating their views regarding their perception of the implementation of virtual speaking in the undergraduate foundation ESL classrooms. However, the interviews with participants were conducted to collect additional data and more elaboration on their answers in the questionnaires.

1. Data Collected from the Questionnaire

In reference to the provided questionnaire and participants’ responses, it was centered around considering virtual speaking instruction effective and motivational, thus assisting them learn speaking better. Results showed that 35 participants (about 79%) disagreed, 3 participants (about 6%) strongly disagreed, 5 participants (about 11%) agreed, and 2 participants (about 4%) held a neutral opinion. To illustrate, 35 participants held a negative view toward virtual speaking. Those learners disagree with the statement that showed the beneficence of virtual speaking classes to them. They indicate that, through the online speaking classes, they were deprived of having the chance to observe whether their speaking was undergoing improvement or not. They believed that such virtual lessons were unable to determine needs as well as areas of improvement. Neither was it able to validate learners’ strong and weak speaking skills. Those 35 participants conveyed that relying on virtual speaking classes did not have a positive influence on their sense of motivation. They indicated that virtual learning did not help them comprehend and apply the speaking tasks properly. Three of the participants strongly disagreed with the assertion that virtual speaking classrooms were beneficial and effective for them. They claimed that these sessions were uninteresting and imposed too much efforts and work on their behalf. They said that they were showered with too much assignments to fulfill in addition to being unable to take part in pair or group interactions as used to be done before the pandemic.  On the other hand, five participants had a positive attitude toward virtual speaking. They agreed with the assertion that the delivered virtual speaking sessions were helpful and acted as good substitutes of face-to-face learning. They confirmed that the online speaking classes gave them the chance to practice with peers and interact. Yet, two of the questionnaires reflected that the participants’ had a neutral attitude towards virtual speaking. They viewed it neither positive nor negative showing that it was inefficiently performed with ESL learners, but it was the only available approach at the time being.

1. Data Collected from the Interview

To conduct the interviews, the researcher chose nine participants from the sample based on their language proficiency level, so three high achievers, three moderate achievers, and three low achievers were involved in the interviews. As previously mentioned, the aim of the interview was to collect more data and attain more elaborations and justifications from the participants concerning their view of the delivered virtual speaking lessons. The results of the questions were as follows:

Question 1: Do you think studying speaking virtually was a good choice? In response to this question, the bulk of responses was centered on responding negatively. The majority of the interviewed participants rejected to accept virtual speaking as an alternative to face-to-face speaking.

Question 2:  Were the accomplished virtual speaking sessions efficient? Seven of the interviewed participants described the online speaking sessions as unproductive. They did not feel that such sessions were as beneficial as those previously delivered before the outbreak of Corona Virus pandemic.

Question 3: Did virtual speaking provide you with full comprehension of the course including its content and materials?   In response to this question, participants complained about being unable to comprehend the course as a whole. They referred part of this to the frequent network disconnection and poor sound resulted from weak connectivity.

Question 4:  Were the implemented virtual speaking sessions capable to augment your speaking proficiency level? The majority of participants answered this question with a strong and confident NO. They spoke about the absence of the appropriate conditions that stimulated them to speak freely and reflectively. The issue was that they had no chance for proper drilling turns.

Question 5: Have the virtual speaking sessions activated your speaking skills and provided you with the appropriate training? More than 80% of the interviewed learners argued that they were only receiving instructions in a lecture form and because of the time issue the instructor was the principal speaker.

Question 6: Were the provided instructions during the virtual speaking classes satisfactory? A significant number of learners disclosed that the instructor was operating under time burden. The number of speaking sessions throughout the semester was limited, and he was obliged to perform the predetermined tasks on time. For that, many speaking materials were not explained and elaborated in depth.

Question 7: Were the virtual speaking sessions stimulating or monotonous? Many participants described the virtual speaking class environment as monotonous. The sessions were not stimulating to them where tasks and drills were performed in an unattractive procedure the thing that kept them less excited to the coming sessions.  Briefly, they blamed the course for the lack of motivation.

Question 8: Do you think that the general atmosphere of the classes was interactive? More than half of the participants (53%) complained about the lack of interaction. Due to the fact that virtual learning was new to them, they failed to interact. Speaking was delivered individually, and feedback was provided only by the instructor. Learners’ presentations were like recitations and primarily prepared for attaining grades. All of them disagreed to turn on cameras while presenting.

Question 9:  Would you describe the virtual speaking classes as genuine? Six participants described the speaking classes as not genuine. They attributed the lack of motivation and interaction with this. Almost all of the speaking tasks, they reported, were not authentic. They were far from reality and did not respond to realia.

Question 10:   Are you interested in having virtual speaking classes next semester? In response to this question, it was evident that all participants strongly rejected the idea of being involved again in another virtual speaking course. All of them showed their interest and enthusiasm to return back to face-to-face classrooms, not only for speaking but also for all the other learning skills.

In addition to these, several views from the participant learners’ responses could be referred to. Some of the participants argued that the virtual speaking sessions failed to provide the real components of a speaking lesson. Pre speaking activities were not enhanced. Learners spoke about improvising most of the time which demotivated the majority of learners to take part.   In addition, many complained about receiving insufficient explanations and illustrations during the sessions. Many of their presentations received no feedback. They spoke about speaking sessions with “little speaking opportunities”. Other participants were hesitant to ask the instructor about unclear issues. They even worried about using the microphone, so they muted themselves all the time.

Through analysis, it could be evidently noticed that the assigned virtual speaking sessions did not meet their expectations. The fifteen-week semester did not give the opportunity to improve their speaking proficiency level. On the contrary, the sessions were monotonous most of the time, and they lacked motivation and interaction. In addition, the whole course was not delivered efficiently. The participants argued that the new approach of virtual speaking was not new only to them, it was also new to the instructor who encountered several challenges throughout the fifteen weeks. Instructors, some participants insisted, frequently failed to achieve the determined session objective(s) because upload and download materials failure, weak connectivity, and lack of experience. Most of the time the participants were silenced by the instructor which turned the promised speakers into listeners. This situation demotivated learners and urged them to avoid interaction and participation. It could be obviously noted that the virtual speaking sessions lacked efficacy, so it could not be assumed that they could be an alternative approach to onsite learning. Learners’ expectations were not met in this respect. They failed to explore any strategy that could enhance their speaking abilities. Furthermore, the participants showed that issues like motivation, interaction, feedback, rehearsal, drilling, and communication scarcely were observed in the virtual speaking classes.

iii. Encountered Challenges

Throughout the semester which extended to fifteen weeks, both the instructor and the participants faced diverse challenges which could be classified into technical and academic challenges. One of the primary technical challenges was that learners were not well trained on virtual learning. During the previous semester, they learned virtually, but the training they received was so limited. They had little expedience on being in alive session acting and interacting. The whole issue was totally novel. The second technical challenge was learning tools unavailability. Instructors were delivering speaking lessons virtually from home where facilities like sound systems, cables, cameras, etc. were not found. Even for participants, many of them had no personal computers. Instead they used mobile phones which were not well equipped to meet the needs of remote learning. The third technical challenge was related to electricity and connectivity.  All participants complained about frequent power failure and network disconnection. Some learners were unable to join the assigned virtual meeting. Others joined only part of each session. While as some, had problems in receiving instructions clearly. When the researcher spoke to the instructor he complained saying that he could not recall a full session without technical hindrances. As for educational challenges, many learners complained about the inability to practice properly during the virtual sessions. Speaking necessitates involving eye contact, body language, tone and intonation enhancement, fluency, etc. These, according to many interviewees, were not exposed plainly due to distant learning. Many of the presentations were acted out like recitation, and the instructor was unable to provide the appropriate amount of speaking tasks. Another educational challenge was the absence of self-motivation. Many participants reported that they started losing hope once they encountered any trouble. The whole issue demanded motivation to engage learners in further tasks and drills. This prevented many learners not to show up in several sessions, while others did not stick to the assigned schedule plan.  These put learners down and obliged them to consider a negative attitude towards virtual speaking classrooms.

Conclusions

To wrap things up, this qualitative survey was conducted for the aim of exploring undergraduate ESL learners’ view of learning speaking skills virtually. After thorough investigation of the participants’ views extracted from the provided questionnaires and conducted interviews, it was clearly revealed learners’ negative attitude towards virtual speaking sessions as an alternative to onside learning. Participants complained about the beneficence of virtual speaking classes. They indicated that, through the online speaking classes, they were deprived of having the chance to observe whether their speaking was undergoing improvement or not. They believed that such virtual lessons were unable to determine needs as well as areas of improvement. Findings showed that virtual classes did not have a positive influence on their sense of motivation and they did not help them comprehend and apply the speaking tasks properly. It was evident that these sessions were uninteresting and imposed too much efforts and work on learners. learners were showered with too much assignments to fulfill in addition to being unable to take part in pair or group interactions as used to be done before the pandemic. Some results showed that virtual speaking was rejected as an alternative to face-to-face speaking, and they were held unproductive. Learners did not feel that such sessions were as beneficial as those previously delivered before the outbreak of Corona Virus pandemic. Many participants complained about being unable to comprehend the course as a whole. Learners discussed the absence of the appropriate conditions that stimulated them to speak freely and reflectively. The issue was that they had no chance for proper drilling turns.  Other findings showed that the virtual speaking class environment was described as monotonous. The sessions were not stimulating to learners where tasks and drills were performed in an unattractive procedure the thing that kept them less excited to the coming sessions.  Learners blamed the course for the lack of motivation, so they failed to interact. Speaking was delivered individually, and feedback was provided only by the instructor. Learners’ presentations were like recitations and primarily prepared for attaining grades. All learners disagreed to turn on cameras while presenting.  Moreover, some findings indicated that the speaking classes were not genuine. This was attributed to the lack of motivation and interaction during classes. It was reported that almost all of the speaking tasks were not authentic. They were far from reality and did not respond to realia.  It was evident that all participants strongly rejected the idea of being involved again in another virtual speaking course. All of them showed their interest and enthusiasm to return back to face-to-face classrooms, not only for speaking but also for all the other learning skills. These negative views of virtual speaking classes resulted from various challenges which were labelled as technical (lack of training on platforms, shortage of tools, instability of electricity and connectivity failure) and academic (inability to practice properly and the absence of self-motivation).

These findings disagreed with those concluded in Gorra & Bhati (2016); Fansury et al. (2020); Sinaga & Pustika (2021); Ghazwan & Saeed (2021) who conveyed promising results of virtual speaking classes as being effective, motivational, and productive. However, some of this research results showed that the delivered virtual speaking sessions were helpful and acted as good substitutes of face-to-face learning. It was confirmed by a few participants that the online speaking classes gave them the chance to practice with peers and interact while some outcomes showed it as neither positive nor negative showing that it was inefficiently performed with ESL learners, but it was the only available approach at the time being. This agreed with what was concluded by Fansury et al. (2020) and Prihatmi et al.  (2021) who disclosed either uncertain results or limited significance of virtual speaking sessions. Hence, it is worth admitting that survey results could have been better if the sample had been more representative. The research was conducted in a limited area and encompassed only 45 ESL undergraduate learners from one private university in Tyre district- South Lebanon. Thus, the research findings were primarily based merely on the perceptions of this limited group. For further research; therefore, the research recommends to increase the number of participants, involve instructors, and cover more universities to make the sample more representative. It is also recommended to utilize other research instruments as observations for achieving more validated results.

 

References

Ahmed, M. K. (2018). Pedagogy in Speaking: Challenges Addressed by Teacher-Student in the ESL Context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.97

Al-Ahdal, A., Alfallaj, F., Al-Awaied, S., & Al-Hattami, A. (2014). A comparative study of proficiency in speaking and writing among EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(2), 141-149.

Al-Asmari, A. M., & Khan, M. S. R. (2014). E-learning in Saudi Arabia: Past, present and future. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5339/nmejre.2014.2

Alberta Learning. Teaching Students Who Are Gifted and Talented. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Learning, 2000.

Alharbi, H. A. (2015). Improving Students’ English Speaking Proficiency in Saudi Public Schools. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2015.818a

Amir, H., Sudarman, S., Asfar, A., & Batara, A. S. (2020). Covid19 Pandemic: Management and Global Response. Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan, 12(1si), 121. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkl.v12i1si.2020.121-128

Anjaniputra A.G. (2013) Teacher’s strategies in teaching speaking to student at secondary level.

Arham, R., Yassi, A. H., & Arafah, B. (2016). The Use of Role Play to Improve Teaching Speaking. INternational Journal of Scientific and Research Publication, 6(3), 239–241.

Brown, H. (2010). Language assessment (1st ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Carbonilla Gorra, V., & Bhati, S. S. (2016). Students’ perception on use of technology in the classroom at higher education institutions in Philippines. Asian Journal of Education and eLearning, 4(3), 92-103.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

Chen, X.  & Sun, A. (2016). Virtual education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15(2016), 157–190. https://doi.org/10.28945/3502

Cohen & Morrison, (2000). Research methods in education. (5th Ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Cojocariu, V.-M., Lazar, I., Nedeff, V., Lazar, G. (2014). SWOT analysis of e-learning educational services from the perspective of their beneficiaries. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1999–2003.

Eggen, P., Kauchak, D., & Harder, R. (1979). Strategies for teachers (1^st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Fansury, A. H., Januarty, R., & Ali Wira Rahman, S. (2020). Digital Content for Millennial Generations: Teaching the English Foreign Language Learner on COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.3.40

Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing Second Language Speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Garisson D.R and Anderson T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st Century. A framework for research and practice. RoutledgeFalmer. New York

General Education Curricula (1996). Curriculum project for English language (p.3-5) Republic of Lebanon, Ministry of National Education, Youth & Sports. National Center for Educational Research and Development

Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effects of e-learning on students’ motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.905

HEA & JISC (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World Report of an independent Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students` widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies Available. From http://www/jisc.ac.uk/media/documents /publications/heweb.20 ptvl.pdf.

Kayi, Hayriye. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 11, November 2006. [virtual]. Retrieved on http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kayi-Teaching Speaking.html [September 10th, 2016]

Merlin, P (2012) Supporting Learning and Teaching of Language Using e-Learning: the importance of VLEs and the rise of students` agency. Journal Investigating in university teaching and learning vol 8, summer 2012.

Mohammed, Ghazwan & Mohammed, Saeed. (2021). Speaking Skills in Virtual Learning: An Investigation of the Strategies Used by EFL Learners at the University of Bisha. 10.13140/RG.2.2.28194.96962.

Musliadi. (2016). the Problems of Teaching Speaking with Respect to the Teaching Methodology: Task-Based Language Teaching. Ethical Lingua, 3(1), 74–88.

Nunan, David. (1991). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Get the Book Here

Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Virtual or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The internet and higher education, 13(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004

Paneerselvam, A., & Mohamad, M. (2019). Learners’ Challenges and English Educators’ Approaches in Teaching Speaking Skills in an ESL Classroom: A Literature Review. Creative Education, 10(13), 3299–3305. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1013253

Prihatmi, Tutut & Istiqoma, Maria & Anjarwati, Rini. (2021). ASSURE MODEL FOR TEACHING SPEAKING VIRTUAL: TEACHER SELF REFLECTIONS. Jurnal Ilmiah Langue and Parole. 4. 27-33. 10.36057/jilp. v4i2.477.

Robert N. F. & Pane W. S. (2020) Teacher’s Strategies in Teaching English Speaking to Young Learners.

Sharma, V. K. (2015). How do productive skills of Saudi students affect EFL learning and teaching? Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS), 3(2), 91-99.

Sinaga, R. R. F. & Pustika, R. (2021). Exploring Students’ Attitude towards English Virtual Learning Using Moodle during Covid-19 Pandemic at SMK Yadika Bandarlampung. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 8-15.

Thornbury, Scott. (2005) How to Teach Speaking. United Kingdom: Longman.

Widiastuti, I. A. M. S., Mantra, I. B. N., & Sukoco, H. (2020). Mobile Internet-Based Learning to Cultivate Students’ Speaking Skill During Coronavirus Pandemic. International Journal of Applied Science and Sustainable Development (IJASSD), 2(1), 6–10. Retrieved from https://e-journal.unmas.ac.id/index.php/IJASSD/article/view/739%0Ahttps://ejournal.unmas.ac.id/index.php/IJASSD/article/view/739/677

Yusuf, Q., & Zuraini. (2016). Challenges in Teaching Speaking to EFL Learners. Teacher’s Efforts to Overcome Students’ Difficulties in Reading Comprehension, 542–546.

Zepke, N and Leach L. (2010). Improving student engagement. Ten proposals for action Active Learning in Higher Education. SAGE. Pp. 167-176

[1] Assistant Professor English Language Education

Email  , kassimmuhammad72@gmail.com: elkassim1972@yahoo.com

عدد الزوار:85