The Effect of Background Knowledge on Speaking Ability of Iranian EFL Learners

The Effect of Background Knowledge on Speaking Ability of Iranian EFL Learners Mohammad Bagher Shabani Abstract Imam Khomeini International university of Qazvin,Qazvin-Iran E-mail: Shabani_m_b@yahoo.com Speaking is a fundamental and yet demanding skill to be mastered by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Compared to other language skills, speaking has been given less attention in second language acquisition, research, teaching, and assessment. The present study explored the effect of background knowledge or topic familiarity on speaking ability of Iranian students. In so doing, the study carried on a Pre-university class including 10 students. Since there was just one class available, a Quasi-experimental design was employed. First, in two successive class meetings, the subjects were required to talk on the spur of time about topics they were not familiar with. The researcher evaluated their performance as pretests. Then, they were given three topics for the following sessions to work on before attending the class. They could get information about the selected topics through the Internet, magazines, newspapers, books, and the like. In this way, they became familiar with the topics and their background knowledge was activated. Consequently, could talk more easily and for longer periods of time on the familiar topics compared to those topics they were not familiar with. Their performance was regarded as posttests. A statistical analysis of the results obtained from Paired-Samples t test provided some evidence in support of the positive effect of background knowledge on speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Keywords: background knowledge, speaking ability, EFL learners, Quasi-experimental design, and Paired-Samples t test 1. Introduction Speaking in the foreign language has always been considered the most demanding skill to develop in the learners of the target language compared to such other skills as listening, reading, and writing. This is in part due to the fact that it involves more than simply knowing the linguistic components of the language. Of course, knowledge of the linguistic components such as vocabulary and grammatical structures seems essential but not sufficient. What makes Speaking distinct from the other skills is that the speaker needs to have a quick access to all the relevant knowledge required to produce the appropriate language in relatively short lags of time, whereas in other skills the learners normally have enough time to either match the input with the existing knowledge, e.g., in reading or writing or to search for the accurate forms to produce the 25

language with no immediate recipient who might be waiting even some times impatiently to receive the language, e.g., in writing. Chastain (1988) maintains that speaking a language involves more than simply knowing the linguistic components of the message, and developing language skills requires more than grammatical comprehension and vocabulary memorization. Teachers and students come to language classes with conscious or subconscious attitudes, expectations, interests, and needs. These are especially germane to establishing course objectives for speaking, which has tended to receive the greatest attention and emphasis in recent years and for which achievement has tended to be the most disappointing, perhaps because expectations have been elevated beyond realistic levels (p. 270). Many studies have been done on factors influencing subjects language learning. Some researchers have investigated the effect of background knowledge on improving language learning in general, and learning language skills and sub-skills in particular. Some specialists consider the role of schematic knowledge as a determining factor affecting and influencing language components especially comprehension. Brown and Yule (1983) define schemata as organized background knowledge which leads us to expect or predict aspects in our interpretation of discourse (p. 248). They say that the listener uses two basic principles to relate the new information to his or her previous experience: the principle of analogy, i.e., things will be as they were before and the principle of minimal change, i.e., things are as like as possible to how they were before. Gebhard (2000) points out that background knowledge relates to our real world experiences and expectations that we have. This knowledge is very important when we consider the language processing problems of students. Schmidt-Rinehart (1994) cited in Sadighi & Zare, (2006) carried out a study with the main purpose of discovering the effects of topic familiarity on L2 listening comprehension. University students of Spanish at three different course levels listened to two familiar passages, one about a familiar topic and another about a novel topic. The passages represented authentic language in that the recordings were from spontaneous speech of a native speaker. Listening comprehension was assessed through a native language recall protocol procedure. Subjects scored considerably higher on the familiar topic than on the novel one. Schmidt-Rinehart concluded that background knowledge in the form of topic familiarity emerges as a powerful factor in facilitating listening comprehension. In the same way, Othman and Vanathas (2006) carried out a parallel study on topic familiarity and its influence on listening comprehension. In total, there were thirty-four students aged between 18 and 21 under investigation. These students came from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, China, Tanzania, Botswana, Kenya and Malaysia. The findings of this study indicate that background knowledge has a significant effect on listening comprehension. Providing the learners with background knowledge as well as systemic knowledge as advocated by Anderson and Lynch (2000) provides learners with the necessary information to facilitate comprehension of an unfamiliar topic. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies carried out on the effects of topic familiarity on listening comprehension (William & Thomas, 1991 & Schmidt Rinehart, 1995). The findings show that listening comprehension can be improved by providing appropriate instructions. Teachers have to re-evaluate their methods and start to recognize that they have to concentrate on the listening process rather than the listening test 26

results. In conclusion, this study has established that topic familiarity is an essential factor in the comprehension of unfamiliar texts. It is hoped that these findings would serve as a guide to teachers, curriculum planners as well as text book writers to gear their materials and classroom activities towards a more effective approach to the teaching and learning of listening. Similarly in Iran, Sadighi and Zare (2006) conducted an interesting research on the role of background knowledge on listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Having done the research and analyzing the data, they concluded that the findings of the study show that the experimental group had a better performance as compared with the control group in their listening comprehension, and this better performance in the listening test seems to be the result of the background of the subjects in the experimental group. Many research studies have also been carried out on variables and factors influencing other areas. For instance, Carlo Magno (2008) did a remarkable research on factors influencing writing. The purpose of this study was to examine further the role of cognitive and affective factors in writing ability. The variables such as reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, metamemory (cognitive factors), and apprehension (affective factor) were used as predictors of English written proficiency among the pre-university students. The results indicated that as individuals use reading strategies such as understanding the purpose of the reading material, activating relevant background knowledge, focusing attention to main ideas, evaluation, monitoring and making inferences, the more likely they can make better writing compositions. The reading strategies enable an individual to acquire the necessary framework in building one s vocabulary, comprehension, spelling, semantics and syntax in language development. These prior skills enable an individual to make better writing. Sadighi and Zarafshan (2006) conducted an experimental research on the Effects of Attitude and Motivation on the Use of Language Learning Strategies ( LLSs) by Iranian EFL University Students. In this study, the effects of attitude on the choice of LLSs were found to be significant. Students with positive attitude used LLSs more frequently than those holding negative attitude. Since learners with positive attitude try to become a member of the target language community, they do their best to know more about the techniques or strategies which can help them acquire a better command of the target language. This might be a reasonable justification for the more frequent use of LLSs by the participants holding positive attitude in this study. However, in their findings motivation was not found to have a significant effect on LLSs. With a brief glance into the existing literature, it is felt that there is a highly disappointing shortage and even lack of studies with respect to the plausible effects of background knowledge on speaking ability of EFL learners. Therefore, in this study the effect of background knowledge, i.e., the effect of familiarity with the discussion topic on the speaking ability of Iranian EFL Learners is under investigation. It is hoped that the results of this study would cast light on this issue and pave the way for prospective studies on the topic and eventually result in fruitful findings to better understanding of significant role of the speaking skill in the process of foreign language teaching and learning. 27

The Role of Speaking As is true for other language skills, speaking plays several roles in language learning classes. Being aware of these roles will enable instructors to attend to them all and to see speaking as one important element in developing each language skill and conveying culture knowledge. In Language Classes Language students view the world as growing smaller and smaller, and they are aware that all people have increasing opportunities to communicate with speakers of other languages. They view speaking as an essential skill for functioning in another country, and except when they have special needs, they enroll in language classes with speaking as one of their principle goals. The most realistic opportunity teachers have to demonstrate to students the practical use of second languages to communicate is to use the target language as the medium of communication during the daily routine of conducting the class. If the teachers speak the language in class and if the students also speak it to express themselves, the class becomes an example of using language to function in a social situation. Thus, one of the most important roles of speaking is to serve as a vehicle for participating in class activities (Chastain, 1988). In Second-Language Learning Perhaps the best way, according to Chastain (1988), to begin the discussion of the role speaking plays in language learning is to consider one function that it does not perform- learning language. Students who are speaking cannot be absorbing new linguistic elements because students who are producing language cannot possibly be taking in language forms at the same time. In a broader definition of the term learning, however, speaking does play an important supporting role. Although productive practice does not contribute to learning, it does foster retention, which is an important component of learning. Vocabulary and grammatical patterns that are used in meaningful contexts tend to be remembered for longer periods of time and to be more readily available when needed in the future. In addition, speaking invites feedback, either overt or covert, which is the basis upon which students make adjustments in their learned language system. Also, having opportunities to speak the language motivates students to learn during listening and reading activities new language elements that they may need in the future to communicate orally. Speaking is the performance of the speaker s competence, but performance does not follow competence automatically. Language must first be in the head, but practice is required to enable the person who understands the language to be able to speak it. Speaking may not teach students language, but it helps them activate the language they know. Listening and reading facilitate speaking in the sense that students learn new words and new forms while they are listening and reading and in the sense that they must learn to comprehend oral and written messages before they can produce them themselves, but students must speak to develop speaking skills. 28

In Relation to the Other Language Skills In the initial stages of language learning, beginning with listening activities and following with speaking activities seems to be the most appropriate sequence. It resembles the order of firstlanguage learning in which children first learn to comprehend oral speech and then to speak, and it enables language teachers to introduce the students to the sound system early in the course. Too, such a sequence puts the emphasis on oral communication, which is the primary interest of most language students, and it permits teachers to begin the class at a more exciting and enthusiastic level than would be the case if the stress were entirely on reading and writing. With regard to sequence, certain possibilities seem plausible. In the early stages listening precedes speaking and reading precedes writing. However, after the introductory prerequisites have been completed, language teachers can incorporate other arrangements into the sequence. For example, the speed at which students have to process language is an important variable in language learning and practice. It should also be added that since the students in secondlanguage classes normally already know how to read in their native language, language teachers can take advantage of these skills to enhance language learning. Teachers might set up a sequence in which students read about a topic prior to listening to a passage on a similar topic or one in which students write about a topic prior to discussing a similar topic in class. Having the opportunity to process language at the lower speed required in reading and writing prior to participating in listening and speaking activities should take some of the pressure off students and enable them to perform more comfortably and satisfactorily. The Study The Research Question Is the speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners influenced by their background knowledge? In other words, does topic familiarity affect the speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners? The Research Hypothesis The background Knowledge of Iranian EFL learners does not influence their speaking ability, i.e., topic familiarity has no effect on speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Subjects This research study was conducted on a class majoring in humanities in Shohadaye Haft-e-Tir Pre-University school, Saleh Abad, Ilam. There were ten students in the class, all males in gender. Design and Procedure for Data Collection Because of the lack of a control group, a Quasi-Experimental design was employed. Hatch and Farhadi (1981) define Quasi-Experimental as practical compromises between true 29

experimentation and the nature of human language behavior which we wish to investigate (p. 24). For the purpose of this study, Time-series design was used. In this procedure, two pretests were used to evaluate the current speaking ability of the subjects. They were required to talk and comment, on the spur of time, about subject matters that they were not familiar with. Then the treatment was introduced. In this phase, a topic was introduced to the learners to work on for the following session. The subjects were asked to get the needed information about the topic through searching in the Internet, books, magazines, newspapers, and the scripts that the teacher (researcher) provided for them. In this way, they became familiar with the subject matter. When attending the class for the following session, the students were asked to put forward their opinions and findings about the topic as much as they could. At the end of each discussion, the researcher wrapped up the topic and provided them with adequate information. During the discussion, he observed and evaluated the subjects production. His observation and evaluation of the subjects performance was deemed as a posttest. This procedure was employed for three consecutive class sessions, i.e., they were given topics in advance to work on for the following class sessions while their comments and discussions were regarded as posttests. In evaluating the subjects production, since the emphasis was over communication, a complete point was regarded for every relevant clause or phrase. In sum, two pretests and three posttests were employed to evaluate the effect of background knowledge of Iranian EFL learners on their speaking ability. Results and Discussion In order to find out whether the treatment has been influential and beneficial in improving the subjects speaking ability, two kinds of statistical analyses were employed. First, the raw scores obtained in the pre-test and post-test exams were analyzed descriptively, then inferential statistics were employed to find out whether differences, if any, were statistically significant. Descriptive statistics for the application of the results of the pretests and posttests are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the results of pretests and posttests Pretests Posttests N Valid Missing 11 0 11 0 Mean 6.09 10.06 Std. Deviation 2.30 1.30 Range 6.5 4.25 Skewness 1.04 1.13 30

As is shown in Table 1, the mean score of the pretests is 6.09, while that of the postests is 10.06. This shows that the mean score of the posttests is higher than that of the pretests. It can be concluded that this increase in the amount of the students performance may highly be attributed to the effect of the treatment. To continue, the standard deviation of the pretests is 2.30, and that of the posttests is 1.30. The range of pretests and posttests are 6.5 and 4.25, respectively. Thus, both the range and the standard deviation indicate that there is much more variation among the subjects performance scores in the pretests compared with that of the posttests. Furthermore, the distribution of the scores of the pretests and posttests is positively skewed, meaning that most of the scores are low, while a few scores are very high and that those high scores positively skew the distribution curve, even though the latter is more positively skewed (1.04 and 1.13, respectively). In order to decide whether the difference among subjects means of the pre- and post-tests is statistically significant, a Paired (Matched) samples t test was employed. Table 2 below represents the paired samples t test and the difference between the means of the pretests and posttests. Table 2: Paired samples t test for pretests and posttests df Mean difference 10 3.97-7.72 t Sig. (twotailed).000 p 0.05 t-critical 2.228 As is shown in Table 2, the t observed (-7.72) is much greater than the t-critical (2.228) with the degree of freedom (df) 10. This indicates that the difference between the means of the subjects in pretests and posttests is statistically significant. That is, the subjects performed better in posttests than pretests and this better performance in their speaking production seems to be, to a great deal, the result of the treatment given. In nutshell, the findings of this study indicate that when the subjects could get familiarity with the subject matters, in any way possible, they became knowledgeable about the topics and could easily talk about them in their classes. So the study findings reject the null hypothesis of the research study, i.e. the background Knowledge of Iranian EFL learners does not influence their speaking ability, but on contrary support that background knowledge of the subjects has a positive effect on their speaking ability: the more they have background knowledge about a topic, that is, the more they become familiar with a topic, the more they can talk about it, and the more their speaking ability improves. However, the results of this study may suffer from some defects and shortcomings. In the first resort, the research is conducted on a very small sample which is not a representative of all Iranian EFL learners. Therefore, generalizing the outcomes of this study research on similar situations should be done cautiously. Secondly, it seems that more research is required to clarify the impact of background knowledge on the speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. 31

Conclusions The findings of this study indicate that background knowledge has a significant effect on speaking ability. Providing the learners with background knowledge as well as systemic knowledge provides learners with the necessary information to facilitate speaking on a previously unfamiliar topic. An implication of this study is that topic familiarity is an important aspect in improving speaking about that topic. The background knowledge that students bring with them helps them to perform the speaking task more successfully. This knowledge helps the learners to match new information with what they already know about the topic. Another implication of this study is that teachers must do more than just providing learners with linguistic knowledge. New information that is acquired should be put into practice. Thus, learners should be provided with the opportunity to use language for communication in a meaningful context in class. The findings show that speaking ability can be improved by providing appropriate instructions. Teachers have to re-evaluate their methods and start to recognize that they have to devote more attention to improving this skill in their course schedule. In sum, this study has established that topic familiarity is an essential factor in the improving of speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. It is hoped that these findings would serve as a guide to teachers, curriculum planners as well as text book writers to gear their materials and classroom activities towards a more effective approach to the teaching and learning of speaking. References Anderson, A. & Lynch, T. (2000). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1993). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice. (3 rd ed.). United States of America: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Gebhard, J. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language: A Teacher Self - development and methodology Guide. United States of America: The University of Michigan Press. Hatch, E. & Farhadi, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Tehran: Rahnama Publications. Magno, Carlo. Reading Strategy, Amount of Writing, Metacognition, Metamemory, and Apprehension as Predictors of English Written Proficiency. De La Salle University Manila. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles 2008. Mall Amiri, B. (2006). Speaking in English. Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 20(2), 28-34. 32

Othman, J. & Vanathas, C. (2006). Topic familiarity and its influence on listening comprehension. The English Teacher Journal, XXXIV, 19-32. Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (1994). The Effects of Topic Familiarity on Second Language Listening Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 78 (2), 179-198. Sadighi, S. & Zare, S. (2006). Is listening comprehension influenced by the background knowledge of the learners? A case study of Iranian EFL learners. The linguistics Journal, 1, 1-11. Sadighi, F. & Zarafshan, M. (Spring 2006). Effects of attitude and motivation on the use of language learning strategies by Iranian EFL university students. Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, 23(1), 72-80. William, C. & Thomas, M. (1991). Increasing Comprehension by Activating Prior Knowledge. ERIC Digests. Retrieved 13 July, 2004 from http://www. ericdigests. org/pre-9219/prior.htm. 33