Determinants of good oral communication skills for the improvement of advanced program students’ classroom oral presentation performance at Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
No.19_Sep 2020|Số 19 – Tháng 12 năm 2020|p.78-88
TẠP CHÍ KHOA HỌC ĐẠI HỌC TÂN TRÀO
ISSN: 2354 - 1431
DETERMINANTS OF GOOD ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF ADVANCED PROGRAM STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM
ORAL PRESENTATION PERFORMANCE AT THAI NGUYEN
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Vũ Kiều Hạnh1, *
1 Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
Abstract:
Article info
The study was conducted at Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and
Forestry, Academic year 2019-2020. Descriptive research design was used in
the study. Mean, standard deviation and linear regression analysis were
statistical tools employed in finding the mean level of the determinants of
good Oral Communication of Advanced program (AP) students in terms of
exposure to English language, grammar and vocabulary, mastery, passion in
English and self-confidence; the mean level of students’ Classroom Oral
Presentation performance in terms of diction, delivery, intonation,
pronunciation and voice projection; and the significant effect of exposure to
English language, grammar and vocabulary, mastery, passion in English and
self-confidence to students’ classroom oral presentation performance.
Recieved:
08/8/2020
Accepted:
10/12/2020
Keywords:
communication skills,
improvement, oral
presentation, AP students,
Thai Nguyen University of
Agriculture and Forestry.
1. Introduction
Currently, oral presentation is one of the basic
and important skills in the students’ studies. This
skill is very significant for students and in
particular those who take foreign languages
because learning a foreign language requires
learners’ development of confidence and enhances
initiative. Additionally, it is a skill valuable for
application in future jobs and of course in daily life;
especially when English is nowadays considered as
a global language. It is a bridge which helps people
from different countries; different languages
understand each other, since the main purpose of
language is communicating. Through the use of
English, people can see the view of others; can
exchange ideas, opinions and thoughts.
Presentation skills are important and crucial for
students. It is applied to many fields of life in
studies, job interview, and teaching. Oral
presentations represent an opportunity for
developing real-world communications as well as
leadership skills [2]. Strong soft skill as oral
presentation skill is an essential skill to obtain a job
and thereby succeed in job career at workplace [3].
Owning good presentation skills means that
students have good communication skills; they
must have confidence when presenting something
in front of a crowd; and, they can use language
effectively in certain situations.
However, the problem is that many students,
especially second-year students struggled much
80
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
when delivering presentations. It takes students lot
This study is conducted to find out the main
determinants relative to students’ oral presentation,
to address the problem with the aim to help
improving the presentation skills of the students.
of time practicing if they want to be skillful in it.
Most students lack the basic skills required in oral
presentation and can’t grasp the importance of it.
These are the deficiencies why students have
difficulty and experiencing confusion when
giving a presentation [4]. Moreover, many
students are still unaware of the importance of
presentation skills for current learning and for
their jobs in the future.
2. Subject and methodology
The respondents of the study were the AP
students at Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture
and Forestry, Academic year 2019-2020.
As there was assurance for validity of the major
instrument to conduct an actual study, letters
addressed to the principal of Thai Nguyen
University of Agriculture and Forestry requesting
permission to distribute the questionnaire to the
eighty (80) student respondents.
In Vietnam, however, this problem is even more
serious. Aside from the term of practicing,
Vietnamese students always have to face with many
other difficulties when giving oral presentations. It
cannot be denied that Vietnamese students are very
good in English theoretical exercises they have
mastery of grammar rules and vocabulary items yet,
there is an in ability to use it as a medium in classroom
oral presentation. Therefore, the problem is not lack
of grammar or vocabulary knowledge [5].
When the approved letter was released, the
researcher went to different classes to administer
the questionnaire. With the most valued help of the
teacher in each class, the researcher made possible
the distribution to clarify questions that were found
highly technical in nature by the actual respondents.
3. Findings
Level of the Determinant of Good Oral Communication of Second Year Students
Table 1. Level of Exposure to English language as one of the Determinants of Good Oral Communication
Item
I read English newspapers, magazines.
I listen to English programs on radio.
I watch English TV programs.
I visit English web pages on the internet.
Overall
Mean
3.20
3.43
3.38
3.13
3.28
SD
V.I
ME
E
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.04
1.00
0.97
0.93
0.75
ME
ME
ME
Legend:
Remarks
Verbal Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
Highly exposed (HE)
Exposed (E)
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Moderately exposed (ME)
Less exposed (LE)
Not exposed (NE)
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
81
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
As evident in table 1 showed that the learners are
pages on the internet which were shown by the
standard deviation of 0.75 with verbally interpreted
as moderately exposed. This can be supported by
the fact that the social background of the learner
has significant effect on the development of
language skills.
more exposed to English programs on radio English
TV programs with a highest mean of 3.43. It was
found that students tend to watch English program
than reading English newspapers and magazines.
The lowest mean score is 3.13 for English web
Table 2. Level of Grammar and Vocabulary as determinants of Good Oral Communication
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
MK
MK
MK
MK
MK
1. It takes too much time to make every sentence grammatically and accurately correct.
3.38
1.07
0.77
0.83
0.69
0.56
2. My English vocabulary knowledge is enough for me to express all what I want to say. 3.10
3. I can manage to pay attention on grammar and vocabulary at the same time.
4. I know grammar patterns and vocabulary items which have some things in common.
Overall
3.15
3.33
3.24
Legend:
Remarks
Verbal Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
Highly knowledgeable (HK)
Knowledgeable (K)
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Moderately Knowledgeable (MK)
Less knowledgeable (LK)
Not knowledgeable (NK)
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
As observed from table 2 respondents’ grammar
and vocabulary received mean scores of 3.38, 3.10,
3.15 and 3.33 respectively with standard deviations
of 1.07, 0.77, 0.83 and 0.69. Based on their overall
mean which was 3.24 they got moderate/sometimes
as remark and moderately knowledgeable as verbal
interpretation.
Table 3. Level of Mastery as one of the determinants of Good Oral Communication
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
1. I am determined to what I’m about to say to avoid mistake during presentation.
3.08
0.76
MO
2. I see to it that I remember the corrections that my teacher checked to avoid the
same mistakes.
3.45
3.33
0.84
1.06
O
3. I keep in mind the important information that I’m about to share in my oral
MO
presentation.
4. I am determined to what I will present from the most important to the least
important so that others may understand what I mean to say.
3.23
3.27
0.89
0.51
MO
MO
Overall
82
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Table 3 presents the mastery of students when
giving presentations. A mean of 3.08 came out in
item number one which pertains to avoiding
mistakes during pretention of students followed by
3.45 mean that students remember the corrections
of teacher and avoid the same mistakes, a 3.33
mean for the item number three that students keep
the important information in their mind and then
share in their oral presentation, and a 3.23 mean
was gathered in students’ order of presentation
from the most important to the least important with
0.76, 0.84, 1.06 and 0.89 as standard deviation.
Table 4. Level of Passion in English as one of the determinants of Good Oral Communication
Item
Mean
3.68
2.93
3.50
3.23
3.33
SD
V.I.
I
1. I attend all my English classes.
1.04
0.96
0.90
1.14
0.71
2. I volunteer to answer all the questions of my teachers.
3. I practice actively in all activities in classrooms.
4. I ask my teacher for help whenever I have any question in classroom.
Overall
MI
I
MI
MI
Legend:
Remarks
Verbal Interpretation
Highly interested (HI)
Interested (I)
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Moderately interested (MI)
Less interested (LI)
Not interested (NI)
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
As can be seen from table 4, the respondent’s
passion in English had an overall mean of 3.33 and
a standard deviation of 0.71 with moderately
interested verbal interpretation. The highest mean
scores of 3.68 and 3.50 among the items discloses
that motivated students are likely to learn more and
learn more quickly than students who are less
motivated. In a particular learning situation,
students who are less motivated are likely to lose
their attention, misbehave and cause discipline
problems. On the contrary, the results also mentions
that students who are more highly motivated will
participate actively and pay more attention to a
certain learning task or activity.
Table 5. Level of Self-confidence as one of the determinants of Good Oral Communication
Item
Mean
3.38
SD
V.I.
MC
MC
1. I feel relaxed when giving presentation in front of my classmates.
0.97
0.76
3.23
2. I am free from worries when giving presentation in front of my teacher in the
83
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
classroom because she is approachable.
3. I am optimistic that I will succeed in my oral presentations.
4. I feel that my classmates think that I am trying to show that I am better than them.
Overall
3.20
2.85
3.16
0.75
1.09
0.57
MC
MC
M C
Table 5 shows that students feel relaxed and
free when giving presentation in front of the
acquaintances such as their classmates and teachers
which gathered mean are 3.38 and 3.23. They found
that they are optimistic to have presentations
successfully for it collected a mean of 3.20
followed by the lowest mean among the items
which is 2.85 for the reason that students feel that
their classmates think that they are trying to show
that they are the better one.
Legend:
Remarks
Verbal Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
Highly confidence (HC)
Confidence (C)
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Moderately confidence (MC)
Less confidence (LC)
Not confidence (NC)
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
Level of Students’ Classroom Oral Presentation Performance
The respondents of delivery, diction, intonation, pronunciation and voice projection are presented in tables 6
to 10.
Table 6. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Delivery
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
1. I usually give presentation with eye contact for them to know that I know what I want
to say.
3.25
0.89
A
2. I use eye contact because I’m communicating to the class.
3. I maintain eye contact most of time in my presentation but frequently return to notes.
4. I use gestures to convey meaning.
3.15
3.15
3.10
3.16
0.86
0.73
0.87
0.52
A
A
A
A
Overall
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Average
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
84
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
As evident from table 6, the respondent’s
they maintain eye contact most of time but
frequently return to notes in their presentation
which both gathered a mean of 3.15. The lowest
3.10 mean was given for student’s using gestures to
convey meaning with 0.89, 0.86, 0.73 and 0.87 as
standard deviation and they are all interpreted as
average.
delivery got an overall computed mean of 3.16 and
a standard deviation of 0.52 with average verbal
interpretation. Students give presentation with eye
contact for others to know what they want to say
which gathered a highest mean of 3.25. Students
use eye contact to communicate to the class and
Table 7. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Diction
Item
1.I choose correct words in my presentation.
2.I use variety of words in my presentation
Mean
3.28
SD
V.I
MO
MO
0.93
0.77
3.10
3.I can use a wide range of vocabulary in my presentation but still very few minor
mistakes.
3.20
0.91
MO
4.I can use a wide range of vocabulary without any mistakes.
Overall
2.73
3.08
1.01
0.59
MO
MO
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
Table 7 showed the respondent’s diction had an
shows that students also can use variety of words.
Although having a few minor mistakes, students
still can use a wide range of vocabulary in their
presentation and it is shown to be the third item
with 3.20 mean. The last item got the least of mean
which is 2.73, it deals with the ability of using
vocabulary without mistakes of students.
overall mean of 3.08 and a standard deviation of
0.59 with
moderately
observable
verbal
interpretation. The item number one got the highest
mean of 3.28 with 0.93 standard deviation; it shows
students can choose the correct words in their
presentation. Item number two with a 3.10 mean
Table 8. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Intonation
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
1. I mumble, and use monotone or highly erratic voice inflection.
2. I speak with low volume with little variation in tone.
3. I speak with variation to avoid monotony.
3.10
2.90
3.10
3.18
3.07
0.74
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.49
4. I speak with clearly using the rising and falling of voice when necessary.
85
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
As observed from table 8, the respondent’s
intonation got an overall computed mean of 3.07
and a standard deviation of 0.49 with moderately
observable verbal interpretation. It shows students
use monotone or erratic voice inflection, speak with
low volume with little variation in tone, speak with
variation to avoid monotony and speak with clearly
using rising and falling of voice. The items receive
mean scores of 3.10, 2.90, 3.10 and 3.18 and 3.07
respectively with standard deviations of 0.74, 0.87,
0.89, 0.92 and 0.49. Based on the scale, they are all
interpreted as moderately observable.
Table 9. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Pronunciation
Item
Mean
SD
V.I.
1. I make clear pronunciation of the end sounds of English words.
3.33
0.99
A
2. I know exactly how to produce English sounds which do not occur in
Vietnamese language sound system.
3.33
0.85
A
3. I produce English words with stress or even with no stress.
4. I miss some sounds in long words.
Overall
3.30
3.20
3.29
0.85
0.82
0.56
A
A
A
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Average
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
1.00-1.80 Not at all/Never
As can be seen from table 9, the respondent’s
pronunciation had an overall mean of 3.29 and a
standard deviation of 0.56 with average verbal
interpretation. Table 9 shows that students can
make clear pronunciation with the ending sounds
and they know exactly how to produce English
sounds which do not occur in mother language
sound system which both gathered a mean of 3.33,
students also can produce English words with stress
or even with no stress for it collected a mean of
3.30 followed by the lowest mean among the items
which is 3.20 for the missing of some sounds in
long words.
Table 10. Level of Students’ Classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Voice Projection
Item
Mean
3.13
SD
V.I
MO
MO
1. It is easy for me to say most terms correctly to be understood.
2. I pronounce the words correctly in front of my classmates.
0.88
0.70
3.10
86
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Item
Mean
3.08
3.05
3.09
SD
V.I
MO
MO
MO
3. My voice is loud and clear enough to be heard by the class.
0.91
0.93
0.58
4. I know when to raise and lower my voice if necessary.
Overall
Legend:
Remarks
4.21-5.00 Very much/Always
3.41-4.20 Much/Often
2.61-3.40 Moderate/Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Little/Seldom
As evident in table 10 showed the respondent’s
voice projection got an overall computed mean of
3.09 and a standard deviation of 0.58 with
moderately observable verbal interpretation. Item
number one which shows that students are easy to
say most term correctly to understood got mean of
3.13, 3.10 was given to item number two which
indicates that students pronounce the words
correctly in front of their classmates, item number
three shows that the voice of students are loud and
clear enough to be heard by the class gathered 3.08
mean and a lowest mean 3.05 was given for the last
item that students know when to raise and lower
their voice.
There is significant relationship in the ratings
given by the students on the determinants of Good
Oral Communication to students’ classroom Oral
Presentation performance.
Effects of Self-confidence, Mastery, Grammar and vocabulary, Passion in English and Exposure to
English language to students’ Classroom Oral Presentation Performance
Table 11. Regression of Delivery on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary,
Passion in English, Exposure to English language.
Term
Coefficient
1.544
t
3.33
p
Remarks
-----
Constant
0.001
0.707
0.850
0.716
0.629
<0.001
Self Confidence
-0.0355
0.020
-0.38
NS
Mastery
0.19
NS
Grammar and Vocabulary
Passion in English
Exposure to English Language
0.0341
0.0423
0.4454
0.36
NS
0.48
NS
5.98
Significant
S=0.407
R2=44.99%
R2(adj)=39.64%
R2(pred)=32.04%
Self-confidence had a coefficient of -0.0355
with the computed t of -0.38 and p-value of .707,
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a
coefficient of -0.020 with the computed t of 0.19
and p-value of .850 and was interpreted as no
significant; grammar and vocabulary had
a
87
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
coefficient of 0.0341 with the computed t of 0.36
interpreted as no significant; exposure to English
language had a coefficient of 0.4454 with the
computed t of 5.98 and p-value < 0.001 (almost
zero), interpreted as significant.
and p-value of .716, interpreted as no significant;
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.0423 with
the computed t of 0.48 and p-value of .629 and was
Table 12. Regression of Diction on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar
and Vocabulary, Passion in English, Exposure to English language.
Term
Coefficient
1.220
t
2.01
p
Remarks
-----
Constant
0.048
0.363
0.610
0.872
0.101
0.012
Self Confidence
0.113
0.92
NS
Mastery
-0.070
0.020
-0.51
NS
Grammar and Vocabulary
Passion in English
Exposure to English Language
0.16
NS
0.190
1.66
NS
0.2521
2.59
Significant
S=0.532
R2=26.65%
R2(adj)=19.52%
R2(pred)=5.08%
Self-confidence had a coefficient of 0.113 with
the computed t of 0.92 and p-value of .363,
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a
coefficient of -0.070 with the computed t of -0.51
and p-value of .610 and was interpreted as no
p-value of .872, interpreted as no significant;
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.190 with
the computed t of 1.66 and p-value of .101 and was
interpreted as no significant; exposure to English
language had a coefficient of 0.2521 with the
computed t of 2.59 and p-value of .012, interpreted
as significant.
significant; grammar and vocabulary had
a
coefficient of 0.020 with the computed t of 0.16 and
Table 13. Regression of Intonation on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary, Passion
in English, Exposure to English language.
Term
Coefficient
1.643
t
p
Remarks
-----
Constant
3.28
-1.11
3.27
2.65
-0.43
0.002
0.269
0.002
0.010
0.667
Self Confidence
Mastery
-0.113
NS
0.368
Significant
Significant
NS
Grammar and Vocabulary
Passion in English
0.267
-0.0407
Exposure
Language
to
English
0.0783
0.97
0.333
NS
S=0.439
R2=26.92%
R2(adj)=19.81%
R2(pred)=8.78%
88
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Self-confidence had a coefficient of -0.113 with
interpreted as significant; passion in English got a
coefficient of -0.0407 with the computed t of -0.43
and p-value of 0.667 and was interpreted as no
significant; exposure to English language had a
coefficient of 0.0783 with the computed t of 0.97
and p-value of .333, interpreted as no significant.
the computed t of -1.11 and p-value of 0.269,
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a
coefficient of 0.368 with the computed t of 3.27 and
p-value of .002 and was interpreted as significant;
grammar and vocabulary had a coefficient of 0.267
with the computed t of 2.65 and p-value of .010,
Table 14. Regression of Pronunciation on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary,
Passion in English, Exposure to English language.
Term
Coefficient
0.788
t
p
Remarks
-----
Constant
1.82
0.073
0.165
0.244
0.502
0.004
<0.001
Self Confidence
0.1234
0.1142
0.0589
0.2438
0.3203
1.40
NS
Mastery
1.18
0.67
NS
Grammar and Vocabulary
Passion in English
Exposure to English Language
NS
3.00
Significant
Significant
4.61
S=0.38
R2=58.68%
R2(adj)=54.66%
R2(pred)=48.13%
Self-confidence had a coefficient of 0.1234 with the
computed t of -1.40 and p-value of 0.165,
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a
coefficient of -0.1142 with the computed t of 1.18
and p-value of .244 and was interpreted as no
and p-value of .502, interpreted as no significant;
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.2438 with
the computed t of 3.00 and p-value of .004 and was
interpreted as significant; exposure to English
language had a coefficient of 0.3203 with the
computed t of 4.61 and p-value < 0.001, interpreted
as significant.
significant; grammar and vocabulary had
a
coefficient of 0.0589 with the computed t of 0.67
Table 15. Regression of Voice Projection on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary,
Passion in English, Exposure to English language.
Term
Coefficient
2.663
t
4.67
p
Remarks
-----
Constant
<0.001
0.322
0.241
0.677
0.524
0.014
Self Confidence
0.126
1.00
NS
Mastery
-0.165
-1.18
NS
Grammar and Vocabulary
Passion in English
Exposure to English Language
-0.052
-0.42
NS
0.075
0.64
NS
0.251
2.52
Significant
S=0.546
R2=18.76%
R2(adj)=10.86%
R2(pred)=0.00%
89
V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88
Self-confidence had a coefficient of 0.126 with
3. For skills and intonation, there were two
statistically significant Factors, grammar
vocabulary, and mastery.
&
the computed t of 1.00 and p-value of .322,
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a
coefficient of -0.165 with the computed t of -1.18
and p-value of .241 and was interpreted as no
Since only some of the factors significantly
affect the students' oral classroom, therefore the
null hypothesis is partially supported.
significant; grammar and vocabulary had
a
coefficient of -0.052 with the computed t of -0.42
and p-value of .677, interpreted as no significant;
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.075 with
the computed t of 0.64 and p-value of .524 and was
interpreted as no significant; exposure to English
language had a coefficient of 0.251 with the
computed t of 2.52 and p-value of 0.014,
interpreted as significant.
References
1. Adams, K. (2004). Modelling success:
Enhancing international postgraduate research
students’ self-efficacy for research seminar
presentations. Higher Education Research &
Development, 23(2), 115-130.
2. A. Kanu and S. Durham (2016). Processing
Public Speaking: Perspectives in Information
Production and Consumption.
4. Conclusions
3. Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The
Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Based on the findings, the following
conclusions were drawn.
1. It was found out that students’ exposure to
English language was significant determinant of
students’ presentation in term of voice projection,
diction, delivery and pronunciation.
4. Derwin, Tracey M. et., al. (2018). Second
Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A
Research-Based Approach
5. Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Developments in
English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary
approach. Cambridge University Press.
2. Students’ passion in learning the English
language predicts their skills in oral presentation
performance in classroom.
NHỮNG YẾU TỐ QUYẾT ĐỊNH ĐẾN KỸ NĂNG GIAO TIẾP TỐT
NHẰM NÂNG CAO KHẢ NĂNG THUYẾT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN
CHƯƠNGTRÌNHTIÊNTIẾNTẠITRƯỜNG ĐẠIHỌCNÔNGLÂMTHÁINGUYÊN
Vũ Kiều Hạnh
Thông tin bài viết
Tóm tắt
Nghiên cứu được tiến hành tại trường Đại học Nông Lâm Thái Nguyên, năm
học 2019-2020. Phương pháp mô tả được sử dụng trong nghiên cứu này. Độ
trung bình, độ lệch chuẩn và phân tích quy hồi tuyến tính là phương pháp
thống kê được sử dụng để tìm ra mức độ trung bình của các yếu tố quyết định
đến khả năng giao tiếp tốt của sinh viên chương tình tiên tiến xét về mặt tiếp
xúc với tiếng Anh, ngữ pháp và từ vựng, sự thành thạo, niềm đam mê với tiếng
Anh và sự tự tin; mức độ trung bình bài thuyết trình của sinh viên xét về mặt
diễn đạt, trình bày, ngữ điệu, phát âm, và chiếu bằng giọng nói; và ảnh hưởng
quan trọng của việc tiếp cận với tiếng Anh, ngữ pháp và từ vựng, sự thành
thạo, niềm đam mê với tiếng Anh và sự tự tin trong việc trình bày bài thuyết
trình của sinh viên.
Ngày nhận bài:
20/8/2020
Ngày duyệt đăng:
10/12/2020
Từ khóa:
kỹ năng giao tiếp, nâng
cao, thuyết trình, sinh viên
chương trình tiên tiến,
trường Đại học Nông Lâm
90
11 trang
06/04/2022
7220
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Determinants of good oral communication skills for the improvement of advanced program students’ classroom oral presentation performance at Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- determinants_of_good_oral_communication_skills_for_the_impro.pdf
