An investigation into students’ engagement in English speaking activities at political academy

items, which 
were analyzed to examine three dimensions of 
students’ engagement: emotional, cognitive and 
behavioral engagements. As a result, the higher 
the means of responses were, the higher level of 
students’ engagement in speaking activities was 
assumed to be.
Behavioral, emotional, and cognitive 
engagement survey items were drawn from 
a variety of measures (Wellborn & Connell, 
1987; Finn et al., 1995; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, 
& McKeachie, 1993) and included new items 
developed for this study. In Table 4.1, the 
descriptive statistics of student’s emotional 
engagement are presented. With a possible range 
of mean values from 0 to 5, the mean value ranges 
from 0.55 to 1.84. The number of students who 
circled Option B (Sometimes) was the largest. In 
other words, mean value of Option B was also the 
highest (1.84). Meanwhile, the figure for Option 
C (Often) was slightly lower, at the mean value 
of 1.26. The mean values for Option A (Never), D 
(Usually), and E (Always) stayed quite low, at 0.55, 
073, and 0.71 respectively. These statistical results 
reveal that the majority of students were at the 
levels of “sometimes” and “often” (see Table 4.1).
Thanks to classroom observations, the author 
got some insights into what was actually occurring 
inside the classroom and students’ emotions to 
teaching and learning English activities at Political 
Academy. In the classes observed, the teachers 
did their best to engage students into the activities 
and arouse their interest. In response, most of the 
students followed the sequence of activities, tried 
to liven themselves up, and strived to fulfill their 
roles in the assigned activities. However, they all 
did their job as if they had been forced to do during 
the activities.
Overall, the results presented in Table 4.2 
showed that a majority of the students were on the 
important threshold of moving from “sometimes 
engage” to “usually engage” in terms of cognitive 
engagement. More specifically, the mean of 
students choosing option B (Sometimes) was 
1.53. This was about 0.2 higher than the mean of 
respondents opting for option C (Often). On the 
other hand, the means of students who circled 
options A (Never), D (Usually), and E (Always) 
were quite low, at 0.71, 0.84, and 0.60 respectively.
During the class observation, it seemed that 
just a few students were immersed in the tasks. 
Table 4.1. Responses by 45 students related to 
emotional engagement
Items of emotional 
engagement
by 45 students
Total number of student’s responses to 
each option within Likert’s five-scale 
items
A B C D E
1. I feel motivated 
to participate in 
English speaking 
activities.
6/45
13%
19/45
42%
9/45
20%
6/45
13%
5/45
11%
2. I feel comfortable 
talking with my 
classmates in 
English.
5/45
11%
16/45
36%
12/45
26%
6/45
13%
6/45
13%
3. I feel focused 
during English 
speaking activities
5/45
11%
17/45
38%
12/45
27%
7/45
15%
4/45
9%
4. I feel excited 
by the work in 
English speaking 
activities.
4/45
9%
17/45
38%
13/45
29%
6/45
13%
5/45
11%
5. I look forward to 
the next lesson 
when the lesson 
is over.
5/45
11%
14/45
31%
11/45
24%
8/45
18%
7/45
16%
Mean Value 0.55 1.84 1.26 0.73 0.71
72 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰNo. 19 (5/2019)
v DISCUSSION
Many students wanted the lesson to be over as 
soon as possible. In addition, a few students made 
efforts to talk in English while others did personal 
things after finishing their tasks. Without teacher’s 
presence, the students stopped their discussion in 
English immediately. There were a few students 
who were self-aware of their study.
In Table 4..3, the means of option B, C, 
and D were quite equal (1.24, 1.29, and 1.26 
respectively. It is noticeable that the means of 
option D in Table 4.3 was significantly higher 
than those of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (1.26 compared 
to 0.73, 0.84). This suggests that students’ level of 
behavioral engagement was higher than the levels 
of emotional and cognitive engagement.
There is a remarkable difference in the findings 
between student self-report and class observation 
regarding behavioral engagement. For some 
participants, self-report results were consistent 
with their behavioral engagement in English 
speaking activities, whereas for some others, self-
report results contradicted their performance in 
class. In fact, it was found that two students, who 
reported to have had high behavioral engagement in 
the survey questionnaire, appeared to demonstrate 
low engagement in class. The inconsistency 
could be resulted from wrong self-assessment of 
students. Another possible explanation could be 
that they had the desire to communicate, but for 
some reasons, such as personality and English 
competence, they withdrew from participation.
In order to reveal general tendency and 
characteristics of engagement among students at 
Political Academy, descriptive statistical analyses 
were collected from all items in self-report 
questionnaire. Descriptive statistics of the overall 
students’ engagement are computed and presented 
in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.2. Responses by 45 students related to 
cognitive engagement
Items of cognitive 
engagement
by 45 students
Total number of student’s responses
to each option within Likert’s five-scale items
A B C D E
1. I practice 
s p e a k i n g 
English at home 
and in class 
even when I do 
not have a test.
5/45
11%
15/45
33%
12/45
27%
8/45
17%
5/45
11%
2. If I do not 
know how to 
pronounce a 
word, I actively 
look it up in the 
dictionary or 
ask someone.
6/45
13%
13/45
29%
13/45
29%
7/45
15%
6/45
13%
3. When teacher 
gives out a 
speaking activity, 
I get ready to 
participate in.
5/45
11%
16/45
35%
12/45
27%
7/54
15%
5/45
11%
4. I positively get 
feedback from 
teacher
9/45
20%
16/45
35%
10/45
22%
7/45
15%
4/45
8%
5. I want to talk 
to my teacher/
friends in 
English in class.
7/45
15%
9/45
20%
13/45
29%
9/45
20%
7/45
15%
Mean Value 0.71 1.53 1.33 0.84 0.60
Table 4.3. Responses by 45 students related to 
behavioral engagement
Items of behavioral 
engagement
by 45 students
Total number of student’s responses
to each option within Likert’s five-scale 
items
A B C D E
1. I always pay 
attention in 
speaking activities.
2/45
4%
9/45
20%
12/45
27%
14/45
31%
8/45
18%
2. I raise my hand to 
answer in English 
when the teacher 
asks a question.
4/45
9%
14/45
31%
13/45
29%
9/45
20%
5/45
11%
3. I actively 
participate in all 
English speaking 
activities.
4/45
9%
10/45
22%
11/45
24%
12/45
27%
8/45
18%
4. I strictly follow 
the teacher’s 
i n s t r u c t i o n s 
and lesson’s 
regulations.
5/45
11%
9/45
20%
12/45
27%
12/45
27%
7/45
15%
5. When I am in class, 
I always present 
my opinions in 
English
5/45
11%
14/45
31%
10/45
22%
10/45
22%
6/45
13%
Mean Value 0.44 1.24 1.29 1.26 0.76
73KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰNo. 19 (5/2019)
 DISCUSSION v
As indicated in Table 4.4, the mean value of 15 
items ranged from 1.62 (Option A) to 4.62 (Option 
B). That is to say, the number of students who 
sometimes engaged in English speaking activities 
was the highest (208), while the number of students 
never engaging in such activities was the lowest 
(73). All in all, the level of students’ engagement 
in English speaking activities at Political Academy 
moved from “sometimes” to “usually”. In other 
words, the level of students’ engagement in 
English speaking activities at Political Academy 
was not particularly high.
4.2. Factors influencing students’ 
engagement in English speaking activities
Semi-structured interviews with individual 
students and teachers were conducted during the 
last week of the investigation. Eight students: five 
students (group 1) with low level of engagement; 
three students (group 2) with high level of 
engagement in class, were selected among the 
participants for a semi-structured interview. They 
were asked and answered in Vietnamese language. 
This was to guarantee the truthfulness of the 
information in case the students were not confident 
enough to answer the questions in English or they 
might have got confused in understanding the 
questions. In order to obtain more in depth-data, 
two teachers who participated in the classroom 
observation phase were also invited to attend 
interviews. The interviews were summarized and 
analyzed as follows.
4.2.1. Factors from individual student
a. Motivation
This study found that motivation could be a major 
factor influencing students’ engagement in English 
speaking activities. When being asked about the 
motivation in learning English speaking activities, 
all five students with low level of engagement 
shared that they had very little motivation. More 
specifically, four of them admitted that English was 
a compulsory subject. Therefore, they did not have 
time to invest much time in learning it. Moreover, 
they added that English would be unnecessary 
for their career after graduation. Another one 
said that he learnt Russian at high school, thus he 
could not catch up with his classmates in learning 
English. As a result, he felt frustrated and bored 
with English. Three students with high level of 
engagement thought that they felt motivated 
when learning English. For the teachers, as far as 
motivation is concerned, they agreed that many 
students had little motivation to learn English. 
Accordingly, the students mainly focused on using 
English for class assignments and exams. Hence, 
it can be interpreted that motivation played as a 
crucial role in affecting students’ engagement in 
English speaking activities.
b. Language anxiety
As to the question concerning whether students 
felt confident when they were practicing speaking 
English in class, all students in group 1 stated that 
they lacked confidence in speaking in English. 
Different from students in group 1, all of the three 
students in group 2 responded that they were quite 
confident when speaking English in class. For the 
two teachers, they revealed that the majority of 
their students did not dare to raise hands to play 
roles in their speaking activity, very few of them 
were at ease and confident when speaking English. 
From the responses in the interviews, it can be 
interpreted that the students with low level of 
engagement were much concerned about causing 
mistakes when practicing speaking English. 
Table 4.4. Total responses by 45 students related to 
students’ engagement
Items of 
engagement 
by 45 students
Total number of student’s responses
to each option within Likert’s five-scale items
A B C D E
Item 1 - 15 73 208 175 128 88
Mean Value 1.62 4.62 3.88 2.84 1.95
74 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰNo. 19 (5/2019)
v DISCUSSION
c. English proficiency
When participants of two groups were asked to 
rate their English proficiency in general, students 
from group 1 placed themselves at low level of 
English proficiency. On the other hand, the three 
students in group 2 viewed themselves as being at 
the above average English proficiency level. They 
indicated that they had learnt English since they 
were at primary school, so they had a firm basis of 
English; therefore, they felt comfortable to perform 
their English ability in class. When interviewing the 
two teachers, the author found that most students 
were at considerably average and low English 
levels. It can be inferred that English proficiency 
was also a factor influencing students’ engagement 
in English speaking activities. The students with 
high level of English language proficiency tend to 
highly engage in speaking and vice versa. 
4.2.2. Factors from teacher’s teaching methods
a. Unauthentic and unfamiliar activity
Being asked about the attitude towards teacher’s 
methods, all students in two groups had a common 
answer that their teacher’s methods were adequate 
and helpful. Hence, it can be referred that teachers’ 
pedagogy did not significantly hinder the students 
from engaging in English speaking activities. 
However, when taking a closer look at the teacher’s 
activity arrangement, all students in the two groups 
shared that speaking activities were merely based 
on their textbook. Responding to this issue, one 
teacher expressed her view that she had to do so 
due to the limited time. The interview responses 
clarified that students did not think that teachers 
had given them appropriate speaking activities as 
those activities were unauthentic and culturally 
unfamiliar to them. Meanwhile, the teachers 
thought that this was out of their desire, stemming 
from the objective element. In short, the findings 
of in-depth interviews indicated that teachers 
did put forth efforts to accommodate students in 
speaking activities. However, to a certain extent, 
speaking activities which heavily relied on their 
course book hindered them from engaging in 
English speaking activities.
b. Uneven participation
When the students were asked whether the teacher 
gave them even chance for participation in English 
speaking activities, all of them had the same answer 
“No”. The students from group 1 shared that their 
participation rate was at low level. The teachers 
admitted that they usually gave more priorities to 
the active students and the ones sitting at the front 
row. In class, if a few strong students dominated, 
the rest would either listen or lose interests in their 
lesson. As a consequence, the strong ones were 
more and more confident and active while the 
weaker ones became more and more passive.
4.2.3. Factors from class arrangement
Concerning the language teaching and learning 
environment at Political Academy, there were two 
emerging issues; namely, seating arrangement and 
class size. These two factors were out of teacher’s 
control, stemming from Political Academy’s 
facilities and administrators.
a. Seating arrangement
The students shared that the traditional way 
of seating arrangement prevented them from 
fulfilling their speaking activities. All the 
interviewed teachers expressed their discontent 
in the arrangement of tables and chairs in class. 
Whenever a group work was organized, students 
had to change their seats. This was considerably 
uncomfortable and time-consuming.
b. Class size
Along with the seating arrangement, the large 
number of students in English class could be also 
a factor influencing students’ engagement. All the 
teachers expressed their view that they could not 
find a sound solution to the over-sized class. In the 
English class observed, there were 45 students. 
Within two 40-minute speaking activities, the