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

ow that I know what I want 
 3.25 0.89 A 
to say. 
2. I use eye contact because I’m communicating to the class. 3.15 0.86 A 
3. I maintain eye contact most of time in my presentation but frequently return to notes. 3.15 0.73 A 
4. I use gestures to convey meaning. 3.10 0.87 A 
 Overall 3.16 0.52 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 
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 
delivery got an overall computed mean of 3.16 and frequently return to notes in their presentation 
a standard deviation of 0.52 with average verbal which both gathered a mean of 3.15. The lowest 
interpretation. Students give presentation with eye 3.10 mean was given for student’s using gestures to 
contact for others to know what they want to say convey meaning with 0.89, 0.86, 0.73 and 0.87 as 
which gathered a highest mean of 3.25. Students standard deviation and they are all interpreted as 
use eye contact to communicate to the class and average. 
 Table 7. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Diction 
 Item Mean SD V.I 
1. I choose correct words in my presentation. 3.28 0.93 MO 
2. I use variety of words in my presentation 3.10 0.77 MO 
3. I can use a wide range of vocabulary in my presentation but still very few minor 
 3.20 0.91 MO 
mistakes. 
4. I can use a wide range of vocabulary without any mistakes. 2.73 1.01 MO 
 Overall 3.08 0.59 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. 
overall mean of 3.08 and a standard deviation of Although having a few minor mistakes, students 
0.59 with moderately observable verbal still can use a wide range of vocabulary in their 
interpretation. The item number one got the highest presentation and it is shown to be the third item 
mean of 3.28 with 0.93 standard deviation; it shows with 3.20 mean. The last item got the least of mean 
students can choose the correct words in their which is 2.73, it deals with the ability of using 
presentation. Item number two with a 3.10 mean vocabulary without mistakes of students. 
Table 8. Level of students’ classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Intonation 
 Item Mean SD V.I. 
1. I mumble, and use monotone or highly erratic voice inflection. 3.10 0.74 MO 
2. I speak with low volume with little variation in tone. 2.90 0.87 MO 
3. I speak with variation to avoid monotony. 3.10 0.89 MO 
4. I speak with clearly using the rising and falling of voice when necessary. 3.18 0.92 MO 
 3.07 0.49 MO 
 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 variation to avoid monotony and speak with clearly 
intonation got an overall computed mean of 3.07 using rising and falling of voice. The items receive 
and a standard deviation of 0.49 with moderately mean scores of 3.10, 2.90, 3.10 and 3.18 and 3.07 
observable verbal interpretation. It shows students respectively with standard deviations of 0.74, 0.87, 
use monotone or erratic voice inflection, speak with 0.89, 0.92 and 0.49. Based on the scale, they are all 
low volume with little variation in tone, speak with 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 
 3.33 0.85 A 
 Vietnamese language sound system. 
 3. I produce English words with stress or even with no stress. 3.30 0.85 A 
 4. I miss some sounds in long words. 3.20 0.82 A 
 Overall 3.29 0.56 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 sound system which both gathered a mean of 3.33, 
pronunciation had an overall mean of 3.29 and a students also can produce English words with stress 
standard deviation of 0.56 with average verbal or even with no stress for it collected a mean of 
interpretation. Table 9 shows that students can 3.30 followed by the lowest mean among the items 
make clear pronunciation with the ending sounds which is 3.20 for the missing of some sounds in 
and they know exactly how to produce English long words. 
sounds which do not occur in mother language 
Table 10. Level of Students’ Classroom Oral Presentation Performance in Voice Projection 
 Item Mean SD V.I 
1. It is easy for me to say most terms correctly to be understood. 3.13 0.88 MO 
2. I pronounce the words correctly in front of my classmates. 3.10 0.70 MO 
86 
 V.K.Hanh/ No.19_Dec 2020|p.78-88 
 Item Mean SD V.I 
3. My voice is loud and clear enough to be heard by the class. 3.08 0.91 MO 
4. I know when to raise and lower my voice if necessary. 3.05 0.93 MO 
 Overall 3.09 0.58 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 
 As evident in table 10 showed the respondent’s three shows that the voice of students are loud and 
voice projection got an overall computed mean of clear enough to be heard by the class gathered 3.08 
3.09 and a standard deviation of 0.58 with mean and a lowest mean 3.05 was given for the last 
moderately observable verbal interpretation. Item item that students know when to raise and lower 
number one which shows that students are easy to their voice. 
say most term correctly to understood got mean of 
 There is significant relationship in the ratings 
3.13, 3.10 was given to item number two which 
 given by the students on the determinants of Good 
indicates that students pronounce the words 
 Oral Communication to students’ classroom Oral 
correctly in front of their classmates, item number 
 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 t p Remarks 
Constant 1.544 3.33 0.001 ----- 
Self Confidence -0.0355 -0.38 0.707 NS 
Mastery 0.020 0.19 0.850 NS 
Grammar and Vocabulary 0.0341 0.36 0.716 NS 
Passion in English 0.0423 0.48 0.629 NS 
Exposure to English Language 0.4454 5.98 <0.001 Significant 
 S=0.407 R2=44.99% R2(adj)=39.64% R2(pred)=32.04% 
 Self-confidence had a coefficient of -0.0355 coefficient of -0.020 with the computed t of 0.19 
with the computed t of -0.38 and p-value of .707, and p-value of .850 and was interpreted as no 
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a 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 
and p-value of .716, interpreted as no significant; language had a coefficient of 0.4454 with the 
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.0423 with computed t of 5.98 and p-value < 0.001 (almost 
the computed t of 0.48 and p-value of .629 and was zero), interpreted as significant. 
 Table 12. Regression of Diction on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar 
 and Vocabulary, Passion in English, Exposure to English language. 
 Term Coefficient t p Remarks 
Constant 1.220 2.01 0.048 ----- 
Self Confidence 0.113 0.92 0.363 NS 
Mastery -0.070 -0.51 0.610 NS 
Grammar and Vocabulary 0.020 0.16 0.872 NS 
Passion in English 0.190 1.66 0.101 NS 
Exposure to English Language 0.2521 2.59 0.012 Significant 
 S=0.532 R2=26.65% R2(adj)=19.52% R2(pred)=5.08% 
 Self-confidence had a coefficient of 0.113 with p-value of .872, interpreted as no significant; 
the computed t of 0.92 and p-value of .363, passion in English got a coefficient of 0.190 with 
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a the computed t of 1.66 and p-value of .101 and was 
coefficient of -0.070 with the computed t of -0.51 interpreted as no significant; exposure to English 
and p-value of .610 and was interpreted as no language had a coefficient of 0.2521 with the 
significant; grammar and vocabulary had a computed t of 2.59 and p-value of .012, interpreted 
coefficient of 0.020 with the computed t of 0.16 and as significant. 
Table 13. Regression of Intonation on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary, Passion 
in English, Exposure to English language. 
 Term Coefficient t p Remarks 
Constant 1.643 3.28 0.002 ----- 
Self Confidence -0.113 -1.11 0.269 NS 
Mastery 0.368 3.27 0.002 Significant 
Grammar and Vocabulary 0.267 2.65 0.010 Significant 
Passion in English -0.0407 -0.43 0.667 NS 
Exposure to English 
 0.0783 0.97 0.333 NS 
Language 
 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 
the computed t of -1.11 and p-value of 0.269, coefficient of -0.0407 with the computed t of -0.43 
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a and p-value of 0.667 and was interpreted as no 
coefficient of 0.368 with the computed t of 3.27 and significant; exposure to English language had a 
p-value of .002 and was interpreted as significant; coefficient of 0.0783 with the computed t of 0.97 
grammar and vocabulary had a coefficient of 0.267 and p-value of .333, interpreted as no significant. 
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 t p Remarks 
Constant 0.788 1.82 0.073 ----- 
Self Confidence 0.1234 1.40 0.165 NS 
Mastery 0.1142 1.18 0.244 NS 
Grammar and Vocabulary 0.0589 0.67 0.502 NS 
Passion in English 0.2438 3.00 0.004 Significant 
Exposure to English Language 0.3203 4.61 <0.001 Significant 
 S=0.38 R2=58.68% R2(adj)=54.66% R2(pred)=48.13% 
Self-confidence had a coefficient of 0.1234 with the and p-value of .502, interpreted as no significant; 
computed t of -1.40 and p-value of 0.165, passion in English got a coefficient of 0.2438 with 
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a the computed t of 3.00 and p-value of .004 and was 
coefficient of -0.1142 with the computed t of 1.18 interpreted as significant; exposure to English 
and p-value of .244 and was interpreted as no language had a coefficient of 0.3203 with the 
significant; grammar and vocabulary had a computed t of 4.61 and p-value < 0.001, interpreted 
coefficient of 0.0589 with the computed t of 0.67 as significant. 
Table 15. Regression of Voice Projection on the Self-Confidence, Mastery, Grammar and Vocabulary, 
Passion in English, Exposure to English language. 
 Term Coefficient t p Remarks 
Constant 2.663 4.67 <0.001 ----- 
Self Confidence 0.126 1.00 0.322 NS 
Mastery -0.165 -1.18 0.241 NS 
Grammar and Vocabulary -0.052 -0.42 0.677 NS 
Passion in English 0.075 0.64 0.524 NS 
Exposure to English Language 0.251 2.52 0.014 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 
the computed t of 1.00 and p-value of .322, statistically significant Factors, grammar & 
interpreted as no significant; mastery got a vocabulary, and mastery. 
coefficient of -0.165 with the computed t of -1.18 Since only some of the factors significantly 
and p-value of .241 and was interpreted as no affect the students' oral classroom, therefore the 
significant; grammar and vocabulary had a null hypothesis is partially supported. 
coefficient of -0.052 with the computed t of -0.42 References 
and p-value of .677, interpreted as no significant; 
 1. Adams, K. (2004). Modelling success: 
passion in English got a coefficient of 0.075 with Enhancing international postgraduate research 
the computed t of 0.64 and p-value of .524 and was students’ self-efficacy for research seminar 
interpreted as no significant; exposure to English presentations. Higher Education Research & 
language had a coefficient of 0.251 with the Development, 23(2), 115-130. 
computed t of 2.52 and p-value of 0.014, 2. A. Kanu and S. Durham (2016). Processing 
interpreted as significant. Public Speaking: Perspectives in Information 
 Production and Consumption. 
 4. Conclusions 
 3. Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The 
 Based on the findings, the following 
 Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers 
conclusions were drawn. of Other Languages.Cambridge: Cambridge 
 1. It was found out that students’ exposure to University Press. 
English language was significant determinant of 4. Derwin, Tracey M. et., al. (2018). Second 
students’ presentation in term of voice projection, Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A 
diction, delivery and pronunciation. Research-Based Approach 
 2. Students’ passion in learning the English 5. Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Developments in 
language predicts their skills in oral presentation English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary 
 approach. Cambridge University Press. 
performance in classroom. 
 NHỮNG YẾU TỐ QUYẾT ĐỊNH ĐẾN KỸ NĂNG GIAO TIẾP TỐT 
 NHẰM NÂNG CAO KHẢ NĂNG THUYẾT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN 
 CHƯƠNG TRÌNH TIÊN TIẾN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NÔNG LÂM THÁI NGUYÊN 
Vũ Kiều Hạnh 
Thông tin bài viết Tóm tắt 
 Nghiên cứu được tiến hành tại trường Đại học Nông Lâm Thái Nguyên, năm 
Ngày nhận bài: học 2019-2020. Phương pháp mô tả được sử dụng trong nghiên cứu này. Độ 
20/8/2020 trung bình, độ lệch chuẩn và phân tích quy hồi tuyến tính là phương pháp 
Ngày duyệt đăng: 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 
10/12/2020 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 
Từ khóa: quan trọng của việc tiếp cận với tiếng Anh, ngữ pháp và từ vựng, sự thành 
kỹ năng giao tiếp, nâng thạo, niềm đam mê với tiếng Anh và sự tự tin trong việc trình bày bài thuyết 
cao, thuyết trình, sinh viên trình của sinh viên. 
chương trình tiên tiến, 
trường Đại học Nông Lâm 
90