Memoire Online - An Evaluative Study of Communicative Competence in Conversational English among English Language Learners in the Literary Option: The Case of Rusizi and Nyamasheke Districts

Computer is the most important pieces of equipment of all instructional technologies in that it can accomplish almost all tasks that should accomplished by other audio and/or video teaching aids. Therefore, computer can be used in various areas of language teaching process such as listening comprehension, speaking, writing, vocabulary, and phonetics. Talking about computer and teaching phonetics, for example, Leech and Candlin (1984), cited in Muvandimwe (2005, p.20), gives reasons for using computer in phonetics teaching:

Ø First, the subject can be taught more effectively with a computer than without;

Ø Second, it is actually jolly good fun, and makes teaching more enjoyable and more interesting than it was before;

Ø Innovation and increased efficiency are essential if phonetics is to maintain its position in linguistics and language teaching.

In addition, they argue that it is no doubt that Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is the lure which has attracted the ELT professions to the computer for it processes information quickly. (op cit.) Furthermore, Muvandimwe (op cit., p.10) citing Merril (1986) says that «Some programs on computer are designed to aid students in their use of subject matter». Therefore, schools, especially those concerned much with language teaching, should manage to bring some of computer programs designed for teaching and learning language.

The third chapter of this study describes the methods, and procedures used by the researcher throughout the study. As it is said by Baily in Ndikubwimana (2005), there are different methods of collecting data and they differ from one to another. Therefore, the chapter discussed the design of the study, area of the study, population of the study, sample and sampling techniques, instruments of data collection, validity of the instrument, method of data collection, method of data analysis, and limitations of the study.

Hutton (1990, p.8) cited in Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2001, p.77) says that «Survey research... is the method of collecting information by asking a set of pre-formulated questions in predetermined sequence in a structured questionnaire to a sample of individuals drawn so as to be representative of a defined population».

Then, Rosier (1988, p.107) cited in Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (op cit., p.77), says that «Survey research in education involves the collection of information from members of a group of students, teachers, or other persons associated with educational process, and the analysis of this information illuminates important educational issues»

Therefore, this research was a survey study since it is concerned with the exploration of the extent to which English language learners, in secondary schools' letters option, are communicatively competent and the factors that influence their competence in communicative English language.

To achieve the objectives of this study the researcher decided to conduct the research in secondary schools having the letters option. However, the study was not done on all those schools in Rwanda, but in those located in Rusizi and Nyamasheke districts. These districts are located in the Southern West of Rwanda and they have four schools with letters option namely. Those are: Collège de NKANKA, E.S.TYAZO, E.S.RANGIRO, and G.S.KARENGERA. The table below shows these schools and their locations.

Names of schools	District	Sector
Collège de NKANKA	Rusizi	Nkanka
E.S.RANGIRO	Nyamasheke	Rangiro
E.S.TYAZO	Nyamasheke	Kanjongo
G.S.KARENGERA	Nyamasheke	Kirimbi

The population of the study is composed of all students and teachers of English in the literary option of the schools located in Rusizi and Nyamasheke districts. The schools in respect with this study have 366 students who are in the literary option and 4 teachers of English. The table below shows the number of students and teachers of English in the schools concerned with this study.

Table 2: The number of students and teachers of English who make the population

Names of schools	Number of students	Number of teachers of English	Total population
Collège de NKANKA	95	1	96
E.S.RANGIRO	40	1	41
E.S.TYAZO	103	1	104
G.S.KARENGERA	128	1	129
TOTAL	366	4	370

The table below shows the number of students, in the literary option of schools concerned with the study, according to their respective classes.

Table 3: The number of students who make the population according to their classes

Classes Schools	4^th Form	5^th Form	6^th Form	TOTAL
Collège de NKANKA	57	38	-	95
E.S.RANGIRO	14	26	-	40
E.S.TYAZO	22	37	44	103
G.S.KARENGERA	40	38	50	128
TOTAL	133	139	94	366

According to Manheim and Richards (1991, p.92) the sample is «Any sub-group of the population which is identified for analysis». Similarly, as it was not possible to use the whole population, what should be done to find more valid information, the researcher resorted to the sampling technique in order to find a small part that can represent the population.

As far as sample and sampling techniques are concerned, the first and important thing to do is to determine the sample size to use. Therefore, Boll and Gall (1971) cited in Kalu (2005) say that in order to determine the sample size, the sample is 20% for the population up to 1,000, 10% for 5,000, and 5% for 10,000.

Therefore, referring to the model of Boll and Gall's sample size, the reseacher decided to take 20% of 366 students that are in the literary option of schools concerned with this study. That is to say that, 73 students is the sample to be selected from all students. For the teachers of English in the literary option, they were all selected because there is almost one teacher in each school only. This shows that the whole sample size is supposed to be made of 77 persons including students and teachers.

Talking about the sample and the sampling techniques used in this research, one can first mention the class of 5^thform which was selected through judgemental or purposive sampling technique. This technique consists of giving to a given subject more chance to be selected because of its special characteristics which can enable the researcher to reach his objectives more easily. Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2001) say that the purposive sampling is a handpicking of supposedly typical or interesting cases. Therefore, at this level all 139 students of the 5^th forms were selected because this is the only class whose students are mature enough and which can be found in all schools concerned with the study.

Secondly, the simple random sampling technique was used in order to select 73 students from all 139 students of the 5^th forms. As this number is equal to approximately 53% of all students of the 5^th forms, the researcher decided to take this ratio for all students in every class. Therefore, 20 students were selected at College de NKANKA, 14 students at E.S.RANGIRO, 19 students at E.S.TYAZO, and 20 students at G.S.KARENGERA. The sampling technique used here consists of giving equal chance to all members of a group to be selected. Therefore, to do this, students' class numbers were written on pieces of paper, and then mixed in a container from which they were picked one by one until the desired number of students for the sample was selected.

Thirdly, using the judgemental/ purposeful sampling technique once again, one teacher of English was selected in each school. This technique was used because there is only one teacher of English who teaches in the literary option in each school. That is to say that 4 teachers were used in this study.

The table below shows the sample used in each school. That is to say the number of students and teachers selected in each school.

Schools	Number of students		Number of teachers	Total sample
Schools	5^th form students	Sample	Number of teachers	Total sample
Collège de NKANKA	38	20	1	21
E.S.RANGIRO	26	14	1	15
E.S.TYAZO	37	19	1	20
G.S.KARENGERA	38	20	1	21
TOTAL	139	73	4	77

In order to collect data used in this research, the questionnaire and the test were used as the research instruments.

As says Kalu (2005), the questionnaire is an instrument of data collection which elicits responses from respondents of the research through a series of questions or statements put together with specific aim in mind. He adds that a questionnaire can be structured/closed or unstructured/open-ended.

Therefore, the researcher decided to use a structured questionnaire which consists of restricting the respondent to respond to questions in the manner and extent required. This type of questionnaire was used to avoid long-sentence responses from respondents which could impede the analysis of collected data.

The test was used in this research to measure the extent to which students of the literary option are aware of how language can be properly used in friendly communication. Therefore, the test consisted of matching each element of one column to its corresponding element in the other column. The first column was made of a series of phrases that are often used in friendly communication, and the second column was made of a series of communicative situations in which these phrases are used. Then, all students who were used as respondents of the questionnaire sat also for this test.

According to Kalu (2005) validity is the appropriateness of an instrument in measuring what it is intended to measure. Therefore, in order to determine the validity of the instruments used, the researcher asked one English teacher at University to check whether the question items of the questionnaire and those of the test were really designed in accordance to the research questions and hypotheses.

Then, three students taken from the researcher's class fellows were asked to respond to the questionnaire and to do the test so that they may help him foretell problems that would hinder real respondents from providing necessary information. Finally, comments provided by these validators were used to make the final version of these research instruments.

Talking about the collection of data, Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2001, p.179) say that «Face-to-face surveys may get a better response rate, but are more time consuming for the researcher». However, despite the shortage of time, the researcher decided to administer the questionnaire himself. This was helpful because whenever respondents had difficulties in comprehension of the question items I was ready to help them.

This method was not much used for teachers because they were supposed to have fewer difficulties to understand the questionnaire than students. In addition they should feel bothered by controlling over them like students. Therefore, they responded to the questionnaire freely.

As far as the test is concerned, the teacher who would be teaching at the time of giving the test was used to supervise the class. This was done to avoid any attempt of cheating among students, what might have corrupted the originality of the information drown from that test.

All students, already selected, were given the same time to respond to the questionnaire and to do the test; therefore, the researcher collected copies of those who had already finished up to the time that was fixed. Therefore, out of 77 copies of questionnaire that were given to students and teachers, 77 copies were collected. It is equal to 100% of all copies distributed. Then, out of 73 copies of test that were given to students, 73 copies were collected. They are equal to 100% of all test copies distributed.

In this research, the quantitative method of data analysis was used because both the questionnaire and the test used as instruments of data collection could easily provide necessary information in numbers. After collecting data, computer softwares designed for data analysis were used. These are the Epidata 3.1 and SPSS 11.5, and they are suggested by Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (2001) as good softwares for quantitative analysis of data. To have this done, data were, first, entered in Epidata 3.1 which could directly save them and organise them in form of table. Then, they were exported in SPSS where they were analysed. Through this analysis, tables of frequency and mean were provided in accordance to each question item of the questionnaire or from the results obtained by different students in the test they did.

Ø The students were ashamed of showing their weakness in using English for communicative purposes thinking that their schools would be badly evaluated by higher authorities. Having noticed that, the researcher tried to ensure them that the information they provided would be confidential and that he was not doing an enquiry.

Ø The schools in which the research was conducted were located on a very wide geographical area and it was very difficult to reach them. This caused the researcher to arrive in some schools so late that he used to meet some teachers at their homes and to meet students in evening studying time.

Ø Many Students thought that responding to the questionnaire and doing the test were tasks which they would be paid for. Therefore, the researcher managed to explain them that the indirect benefit they would get from the completion of this study is greater and more durable than the direct one.

This chapter deals with the presentation of data, the analysis and the interpretation of findings. It presents the data from respondents collected through questionnaires and the test. The questionnaires targeted respectively students and English Teachers in the literary option whereas the test targeted students only. Therefore, some of tables illustrate findings from both teachers and students while others illustrate those from students only. Then, all the headings and subheadings that make this chapter are structured according to the questionnaire items and the distribution of results from the test among different groups of student who have sat for it.

Answers from respondents were used to, both, answer to the research questions and test the hypotheses of the research. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, it is to be mentioned that percentages were presented in the tables as they were exactly calculated but, for decimal numbers, only one decimal was presented while the following ones were rounded up. For instance, instead of writing 16.43836 % and 60.27397%, they were rounded and, therefore, 16.4 % and 60.3 % respectively were written.

4.2. Teachers and Students' Views on E.L. Learners' Use of English in Real-life Communication

As far as the students' use of English in real-life communication is concerned, the researcher focused on investigating the following points: the extent to which students are interested in using English in real-life communication, how they feel when speaking English outside the classroom and what they consider more important; either accuracy, fluency or the mixture of the both when they are speaking.

4.2.1. Students' Interest in Using English Language in Real-life Communication

To be communicatively competent, E.L. learner should be sufficiently interested in using English in his everyday-life communication. Therefore, the following table illustrates the extent to which E.L. learners are found interested in using English to communicate.

Answers	Students		Teachers
Answers	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Always	12	16.4	-	-
Often	13	17.8	-	-
Sometimes	42	57.5	4	100
Rarely	5	6.9	-	-
Never	1	1.4	-	-
Total	73	100	4	4

The table 5 reveals that a small percentage of 16.4% of students is always interested in using English in real-life communication and only 17.8% of the students use it often. However, a great percentage of 57.5% represents a number of students who are sometimes interested in using English in real-life communication; then, 6.9% and 1.4% represent a number of students who are rarely and never respectively interested. On the other side, a hundred percent of teachers agreed that students are sometimes interested in using English in real-life communication.

From these findings it is noticed that students are poorly interested in using English in real-life communication. However, Littlewood (1984, p.53) says that, «In second language learning as in every other of human learning, motivation is the crucial force which determines whether a learner embarks on a task at all, how much energy he devotes to it, and how long he perseveres». Therefore, it is to be mentioned that this students' poor interest in using English in real-life communication should be caused by these students' lack of motivation in using foreign languages in general and English in particular.

The feeling of a language learner when he is speaking that language has a great relationship with his communicative competence. Therefore, the following table shows how E.L. learners feel when using English in their oral communication. That is, whether they feel proud or shy when speaking English.

Table 6: Students' feeling when speaking English out of the classroom setting

Answers	Students		Teachers
	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
They feel proud	44	60.3	-	-
They feel shy	29	39.7	4	100
Total	73	100	4	100

As it is shown in table 6, 60.3% of students said that they feel proud when speaking English out of classroom setting while 39.7% represent the number of students who are shy. On the other side, a hundred percent of teachers confirmed that students feel shy when they are speaking English out side of classroom. This contradiction between students and teachers' answers should be due to the fact that some students did not want to reveal their weakness especially thinking that their schools would be negatively criticized thereafter.

Then, relying much on the teachers' assertion, one can say that students are generally shy when using English outside the classroom. This observation relates to `problems with speaking activities' stated by Ur (2002). These problems are the following: inhibition, nothing to say, low or uneven participation, and the mother tongue use. This means that, if an E.L. learner finds himself inhibited, dominated by the use of his mother tongue, etc. in the classroom, it would always be difficult for him to use this language outside the classroom where he encounters different people he is not familiar with.

4.2.3. Students' Choice between Accuracy and Fluency when They Are Speaking in English.

As say Richards, Platt and Platt (1992, p.65) cited in Kilfoil and Walt (1997, p.12), the communicative competence is «The ability not only to apply the grammatical rules of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences but also, to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom». Therefore, to be communicatively competent, a language learner needs to be both accurate and fluent when he is speaking. The following table shows what students prefer from accuracy, fluency and the mixture of accuracy and fluency.

Answers	Students		Teachers
Answers	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Accuracy	32	43.8	4	100
Fluency	10	13.7	-	-
Both accuracy and fluency	31	42.5	-	-
Total	73	100	4	100

The table 7 above presented shows that 43.8% of students prefer to be more accurate than fluent in their speech. However, a small percentage of 13.7 represent the number of students who prefer to be more fluent than accurate in their speech. Then, 42.5% of students said that both accuracy and fluency are the main goals in their speech. On the other side, a hundred percent of teachers said that all students consider much more accuracy than fluency when they speak. The fact that there is a small number of students who regard fluency as an element of great importance in their speech allows the researcher to confirm that students' communicative competence in conversational English is low. This point of view goes hand in hand with that of Richards et al (1985, p.107) who say that «Fluency is the features which give speech the qualities of being natural and normal, including the use of pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate of speaking, and use of interjections and interruptions».

4.3. Availability of Language Teaching Aids in Schools and the Use of these Latter to Develop Oral Communicative Skills among E.L. Learners

Talking about the language teaching aids, the researcher wanted to know the extent to which schools access on audio-visual equipment, how schools use this equipment and the extent to which teachers and students judge audio-visual equipment important in E.L. teaching.

All secondary schools do not possess or access on audio-visual equipment equally. Therefore, the table below shows the extent to which schools own the equipment such as radio, video player, CD player and computer.

Answer «Yes» frequency Equipment	Students		Teachers
Answer «Yes» frequency Equipment	Number of respondents	%	Number of respondents	%
Radio	56	76.7	4	100
Video player	55	75.3	3	75
CD player	37	50.7	-	-
Computer	58	79.5	3	75

A glance at the above table shows that 76.7 % of students and 100% of English teachers agreed that their schools own radio cassette player. In addition 75.3% of the students and 75% of teachers confirmed that video player is available in their schools. Then, only 50.7% of students said that CD player can be found in their schools. Moreover, 79.5% of students and 75% of teachers stated that their schools own computers. However, no English teacher agreed that CD player is available in his school. The reasons for this may be that they are not interested in using such equipment, hence they cannot know whether they are available or not.

In this light, it is clear that all schools own sufficient audio-visual teaching aids. This sufficient ownership of the teaching aids should result in students' sufficient practice of English language for communicative purposes. These findings go hand in hand with the idea of Locatis and Atkinson (1984) who say that audio media such as radio, record player and tape recorder are available in most households and many people have sophisticated audio equipment in their homes. However, the potential of audio media as an educational tool is too seldom realised. Therefore, it is worth knowing whether the available equipment is used for language teaching purposes.

As all schools do not access on audio-visual equipment, all schools that have that access do not use this equipment in language teaching purposes. Therefore, the table below shows the extent to which schools use audio-visual equipment in language teaching purposes. .

Answer «Yes» frequency Equipment	Students		Teachers
Answer «Yes» frequency Equipment	Number of respondents	%	Number of respondents	%
Radio	37	50.7	2	50
Video player	8	11	-	-
CD player	6	8.2	-	-
Computer	16	21.9	-	-

The above table shows that 50.7% of students and 50% of English teachers said that radio is used for English language teaching purposes. 11% of students asserted that video player is really used. Then, only 8.2% of students said that CD player is used. Moreover, 21.9% of students responded that computer is sometimes used for E.L. teaching purposes.

No English teacher said that Video player, CD player and computer are used for E.L. teaching purpose while some students responded `yes'. The reason for this may be that students use this equipment outside English class in their spare time for example or in other courses. However, this poor use of audio-visual equipment in language teaching is very dangerous in development of students' communicative competence in conversational English. This is not far from the writings of Lonergan (1984) saying that with video player, the combination of sounds and vision is dynamic, immediate and accessible. Therefore, the communication can be shown in a context and various features of communicative language can be perceived easily by the learner. Then, it is to wonder whether both teachers and students are aware of the importance of using audio-visual equipment in language teaching.

4.3.3. Importance of Using Audio-visual Equipment in E.L. Teaching and Learning

Students and teachers do not have the same view on the importance of using audio-visual equipment in English teaching and learning process. The following table shows the level at which students and teachers agree that using audio-visual equipment in E.L. teaching is important.

Table 10: The importance of using audio-visual equipment in E.L. teaching and learning

Answers	Students		Teachers
Answers	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree	32	43.8	4	100
Agree	25	34.3	-	-
Disagree	13	17.8	-	-
Strongly Disagree	3	4.1	-	-
Total	73	100	4	100

From the result of this table, it is clearly shown that 43.8% of students and 100% of English teachers strongly agreed that audio-visual equipment is of a paramount importance in E.L. teaching/ learning process. Only 34.3% of students agreed with this assertion. Conversely, 17.8% of students disagreed and only 4.1% of students strongly disagreed that audio-visual equipment is important in E.L. teaching/learning process.

Therefore, it is to be mentioned that both students and E.L. teachers are aware of the importance of using audio-visual equipment in E.L. teaching/learning process. It means that the poor use of this equipment is due to others factors but not to the fact that they ignore the importance of this.

As far as the E.L. teachers focus on oral skills is concerned, the researcher wanted to know, the rank given to oral language skills comparatively to other language skills, how much time teachers prepare and teach the lesson on oral skills, and then which oral skill is insisted on.

4.4.1. Writing, Reading, Speaking and Listening Skills as They Are Emphasised on by E.L. Teachers

Writing, reading, speaking and listening are known as four traditional language skills and all language learners are supposed to have sufficient knowledge on each of these skills. However, some language teachers do not take these skills at the equal footing in their teaching activity. Therefore, two tables below show respectively students and teachers' views on the extent to which E.L. teachers emphasise on these skills differently.

Table 11: The views of students about their teachers' emphasis on some of the four skills

Skills Frequency	Writing		Reading		Speaking		Listening
Skills Frequency	Respondents	%	Respondents	%	Respondents	%	Respondents	%
Always	17	23.3	17	23.3	7	9.6	-	-
Often	24	32.9	17	23.3	13	17.8	9	12.3
Sometimes	25	34.2	24	32.9	30	41.1	3	4.1
Rarely	4	5.5	13	17.8	16	21.9	47	64.4
Never	3	4.1	2	2.7	7	9.6	14	19.2
Total	73	100	73	100	73	100	73	100

The table above shows that 23.3% of respondents agreed that their teachers always emphasise writing skill in E.L. teaching process. 32.9% said that writing is often emphasised, 34.2% confirmed that it is sometimes emphasised. However, 5.5% said that writing is rarely emphasised while 4.1% responded that writing is never emphasised. As far as reading is concerned, 23.3% of respondents agreed that reading is always emphasised by their teachers. The same percentage said that reading is often emphasised. In the same way 32.9% confirmed that reading is sometimes emphasised. Conversely, 17.8% said that it is rarely emphasised and only 2.7% said that reading is never emphasised in E.L. teaching/learning process.

Concerning speaking skill, 9.6% of respondents said that speaking is always emphasised and 17.8% confirmed that it is often emphasised. A great percentage of 41.1% confirmed that it is sometimes emphasised in their language learning. On the contrary, 21.9% responded that speaking is rarely emphasised and 9.6% answered that speaking is never emphasised in E.L. teaching/learning process. For the listening skill, 12.3% said that it is often emphasised and 4.1% said that it is sometimes emphasised in their language learning. Conversely, a great percentage of 64.4% of respondents confirmed that listening is rarely emphasised and 19.2% said that it is never emphasised.

Table 12: The views of teachers about their emphasis on some of the four skills

Skills Frequency	Writing		Reading		Speaking		Listening
Skills Frequency	Respondents	%	Respondents	%	Respondents	%	Respondents	%
Always	2	50	1	25	-	-	-	-
Often	1	25	1	25	-	-	-	-
Sometimes	1	25	2	50	3	75	-	-
Rarely	-	-	-	-	1	25	4	100
Never	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	4	100	4	100	4	100	4	100

From the results of this table 50% of respondents agreed that they always emphasise writing skill in E.L. teaching process. 25% said that writing is often emphasised, 25% confirmed that it is sometimes emphasised. As far as reading is concerned, 25% of respondents agreed that reading is always emphasised. The same percentage said that reading is often emphasised. In the same way 50% confirmed that reading is sometimes emphasised.

Concerning speaking skill, a great percentage of 75% confirmed that it is sometimes emphasised in their language teaching. On the contrary, 25% responded that speaking is rarely emphasised. As far as listening skill is concerned, 100% of E.L. teachers said that it is rarely emphasised in their language teaching process.

From the findings in table 11 and table 12, it is clear that the most emphasised skills are writing and reading while speaking and listening are neglected. This implies that students' communicative competence in conversational English cannot be well developed.

The researcher wanted to know the extent to which the lesson on oral skills is prepared and taught by E.L. teachers. Therefore, the following table shows the time during which E.L. learners have the lesson on oral skills.

Answers	Students		Teachers
Answers	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Always	7	9.6	-	-
Often	8	11	-	-
Sometimes	25	34.2	2	50
Rarely	22	30.1	2	50
Never	11	15.1	-	-
Total	73	100	4	100

The above table reveals that 9.6% of students confirmed that they have always a lesson on oral skills. 11% said that they have such lesson is often given. In the same way, a great percentage of students and teachers said that the lesson on oral skills is sometimes given. That is 34.2% for students and 50% for teachers. Nevertheless, 30.1% of students and 50% of English teachers answered that the lesson on oral skills is rarely planned. 15.1% remaining students said that a lesson on oral skills is never given.

In fact, taking into consideration the importance of oral skills in developing students' communicative competence, insufficient frequency of planning a lesson on oral skills may result in serious problem to the development of communicative competence in conversational English. This is not in disparity with the findings of Ur (2002) who says that speaking seems intuitively the most important of all the four skills. That is, people who know a language are referred to as `speakers' of that language.

4.4.3. Emphasis on either Speaking or Listening in E.L. Teaching and Learning

A language teacher may be interested in developing his students' oral skills but have difficulty to balance the emphasis to be given to each of these skills. That is why the table below is used to show the emphasis on either speaking or listening in E.L. teaching and learning process.

Table 14: Emphasis on either speaking or listening in E.L. teaching and learning

Respondents Answers	Students		Teachers
Respondents Answers	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Speaking	41	56.1	4	100
listening	21	28.8	-	-
None of them	11	15.1	-	-
Total	73	100	4	100

The above table shows that 56.1% of students and 100% of teachers said that speaking is emphasized. 28.8% of students agreed that listening is more emphasised than speaking. Contrary to this, 15.1% of students said that none of both speaking and listening is emphasized in E.L. teaching/learning process.

This cannot help in developing communicative competence because the latter involves the development of both proactive and receptive skills. In this light, emphasizing speaking which is one of the productive skills, and ignoring or neglecting listening which is one of receptive skills, is a serious problem in language learning for communicative purposes. In this way, these findings derive support from Byrne (1976) who states that oral communication is a two way process between speaker and listener involving the productive skills of speaking and receptive skills of understanding

4.4.4. Factors Influencing Teachers in Deciding which Skills to Insist on when Teaching English Language

Having remarked that some language skills are given much emphasis while others are neglected, the researcher wanted to know the factors influencing teachers in deciding which skills to insist on when teaching English. He used the table below to show the extent to which teachers agree that each of these factors affects the teachers' decision on the skills to give much emphasis in the language teaching process.

Table 15: Factors influencing teachers' choice of language skills to emphasise

Teachers' answers Factors	Strongly Agree		Agree		Disagree		Strongly Disagree
	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%
Instructional aids	1	25	3	75	-	-	-	-
National exams	4	100	-	-	-	-	-	-
Formation in E.L. Teaching	-	-	-	-	4	100	-	-

As it is presented in table 15, 25% of teachers strongly agreed that the availability of instructional aids for language skills development, is a a factor influencing their choice of skills to emphasise. Then, a great percentage of 75% agree with this assertion. 100% of respondents strongly agreed that the construction of English national exams is the factor influencing their decision on which skills to insist on when teaching. Conversely, 100% of these teachers disagreed with the assertion that their choice of the language skills to insist on, is influenced by having got formation in E.L. teaching or not.

From these findings, it is to be confirmed that the way English national exams are constructed is the main factor influencing the teachers' choice of the skills which they put emphasis on. The second factor is the availability of instructional aids. That is, having seen that that writing and reading are skills that are given much emphasis in E.L. teaching and learning, English national exams are prepared to measure only students' communicative competence in writing and reading skills. Then, it may be that instructional aids that are available in schools are not put on E.L. teachers' disposal so that they may be used to develop students' communicative competence in oral skills and, then, in conversational English . If teachers are still deciding what to teach in accordance with what are likely to be the main concern of the national exam and if they do not use modern instructional aids effectively, students will always be unable to use English language in real-life communication.

4.5. The Ability of Students in Using E.L. in Friendly Communication Situations

Littlewood (1984) says that the learner should have access to situations where the language is used as a natural means of communication. Therefore, according to him, more fortunate learners may avoid anxiety when using the second language, by establishing friendly contacts in that language environment. Based on this the reseacher designed a test intending to know whether E.L. learners are able to use different functions of the language to establish a friendly communication in English.

The following table shows the mean and the standard deviation calculated from the students' marks in the test. Then, these marks are used to illustrate the students' ability to use E.L. in everyday-life communication considering different categories in which they are; that is, the category of sex, that of residence area, and the one based on students' family level of literacy.`

Marks obtained by students out of 20 (x)	Number of students who obtained each mark (f)	fx
1	4	4
2	4	8
3	7	21
4	7	28
5	9	45
6	15	90
7	7	49
8	4	32
9	6	54
10	6	60
12	3	36
16	1	16
Total	N = 73	Ófx = 443
Mean ()	= = = 6.1

The table 16 shows the mean calculated from the students' results is 6.1. Knowing that the test has been done out of 20, the calculated mean is very low. This implies that these students do not use English language in real-life communicational context such as in friendly communication. It is worth to mention that this poor communicative competence is due to various factors; but to be clear and concise, the researcher wanted to find out different factors which might influence the students' ability to use English in situations related to friendly communication. These factors are the following: sex, students' residence area and their family literacy.

4.5.1. Sex and Students' Ability to Use E.L. in Their Everyday-life Communication

The table below shows the mean and the standard deviation calculated from marks obtained respectively by female and male students who sat for the test.

The table 16 reveals that the mean calculated from 21 female students' results is 6.8. On the contrary, the mean calculated from 52 male students' results is 5.8. From these findings, it is to be mentioned that neither female nor male students are communicatively competent in conversational English because none of these groups got the mean of 10 out of 20. However, a significant difference exists between the mean of female students and that of male students who sat for the test.

Even though there is no clear reason for this difference between girls and boys' results in the test, one can try to guess the reason: It may be that a great number of boys who did the test do not like to use English when conversing with their friends. They may have difficult to find particular words or phrases to use appropriately to a given situation or context. This is so because boys like freedom more than girls. Boys may like to speak paying less attention on the appropriateness of their speech. Therefore, the researcher has the reason to reject the first hypothesis saying that «Sex is not a significant factor influencing E.L. learners' communicative competence in conversational English».

4.5.2. Students' Residence Area and Their Ability to Use E.L. in their Everyday-life Communication

The following table shows the mean and the standard deviation calculated from marks obtained respectively by students from rural residence area and those from urban residence area.

The above table shows that the mean calculated from the results of 43 students from rural areas, is 6. However, the mean calculated from the results of 30 students from urban areas, is 6. A glance at these findings allows the researcher to say that there is no significant difference between students from rural areas and those from urban areas in using English in real-life communication. This assertion is proved by the fact that none of these two groups got 10 out of 20.

This poor communicative competence between both students from urban areas and those from rural areas is a serious problem which may be due to the fact that all of them find it easier to communicate through the mother tongue that to use English. However, students from urban areas should be more communicative competence in conversational English than counterparts because they have some facilities that should enable them to overcome this problem. For example, those facilities are: they frequently encounter people who do not use Kinyarwanda to communicate, they have sufficient access on radio, television and video in their homes, and they can use these series of equipment for language learning; many of them may have also learning evening programmes where they speak English their home tutors. Hence, relying on these findings, the second hypothesis is retained. It says that «There is no significant difference of communicative competence in conversational English between E.L. learners from rural area and those from urban area».

4.5.3. Students' Family Literacy and their Ability to Use E.L. in Their Everyday-life Communication

The following table shows the mean and the standard deviation calculated from marks obtained by students from families with different levels of literacy.

The level of students' family literacy	N	Mean
At least one family member attended university/ institution of higher education	29	7.3
At least one family member finished the secondary school	52	6.5
All family members finished the primary only	23	4.5

The above table shows that 29 students whose families have at least one person who attended university or any other educational institution, got the mean of 7.3. Then, 52 students whose families have at least one person who finished the secondary school have the mean of 6.5. Finally, 23 students from families where all other members finished the primary school only, have the mean of 4.5.

From these results, it is worth to mention that the level of literacy in students' families is an important factor that influences students' communicative competence in conversational English. That is why the third hypothesis i rejected. It says that «There is no significant relationship between family literacy and E.L. learners' communicative competence in conversational English».

The fourth chapter, which is the core of this study, is concerned with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of research data. Through this chapter the emphasis was put on checking whether E.L. learners are communicatively competent in conversational English.

In this regard, the researcher wanted to check the extent to which learners use English in real-life communication. He wanted also to show the impact of teachers' use of teaching aids on the learners' communicative competence in conversational English.

Then, he tried to exhibit the language skills that are given much emphasis by teachers and some of the factors that influence them in choosing skills to insist on. Finally, it was noticed that E.L. learners do not generally use E.L. in friendly communication whatever is the group of sex they belong to, their residence area and the level of their family literacy.

CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES.

The preceding chapter has dealt with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data obtained from students and English teachers in schools with the literary option in Rusizi and Nyamasheke districts. Then, this chapter is going to deal with conclusion, recommendations and suggestions for future researches.

The main goal of this work was to evaluate the communicative competence in conversational English among English Language Learners in the Literary Option. To have this goal reached, two instruments for data collection: the questionnaire and the test were resorted to. As far as data analysis is concerned, specific software such as EPIDATA and SPSS designed for data analysis have been used based on the responses provided by the research informants, that is, by both students and English teachers.

Through the respondents' answers this study revealed that students are not interested in using E.L. in real-life communication. The reason for this may be that students have no motivation in using foreign languages in general and English in particular. This relates also to the fact that many students feel shy when using English outside the classroom. All these imply that many students have poor communicative competence in conversational English which is also due to their choice of accuracy by ignoring fluency which is, instead, an important component of an effective oral communication.

In addition, from the findings of this study, it was noticed that all schools own audio-visual teaching aids but teachers do not resort to them for E.L. teaching purposes. However, both students and teachers are aware of a paramount importance of using audio-visual equipment in E.L. teaching/learning in order to develop communicative competence in conversational English.

Furthermore, it was found that writing and reading are the most emphasised skills in E.L. teaching/learning process while speaking and listening are neglected. This may be caused by the way English national exams are constructed; that is, these exams have nothing to do with students' competence in oral skills. Then, teachers are not familiar with language teaching aids designed for oral skills development.

Finally, students' poor communicative competence is shown by their failing marks in the test on their ability to use English in friendly communication. Then, it was found that sex and students residence area are not significant factors to students' communicative competence. However, the level of literacy in students' families influences significantly the students' communicative competence in conversational English.

After having drawn the conclusion of this study's findings, it is worth making some recommendations to different educational stakeholders in order to help secondary school students in general and particularly those of the literary option; improve their communicative competence in conversational English in case the made recommendations are taken into account. In this light, the following recommendations are addressed to the Ministry of Education, the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC), the National Examination Council (NEC), school leaders and E.L. teachers.

Ø Provide schools with updated materials that can be used to enhance conversational English among E.L. learners.

Ø Provide E.L. teachers with in-service trainings on how to improve their students' communicative competence in conversational English.

Ø Collaborate with the National Examination Council to introduce oral skills in English national exams.

Ø Explain to students the importance of using foreign languages in general and particularly English for communicative needs.

Ø Oblige teachers and students to use foreign languages including English, both in the classroom and outside the classroom.

Ø Integrate in school activities some out-of-classroom activities enabling students to be involved in actual communication using English Language.

Ø Use audio-visual equipment available in their schools for communicative language teaching purposes.

Ø Initiate students' English clubs in which students can find the opportunity to use E.L. in meaningful context.

As this work is not exhaustive, future studies would be concerned with the following areas:

Ø Using audio-visual language teaching equipment to improve E.L. learners' communicative competence in conversational English.

Ø The impact of students' socio-economic background on their communicative competence in conversational English.

Ø Investigating the role of the NCDC into the improvement of E.L. learners' communicative competence in conversational English.

Ø Factors impeding secondary school E.L. teachers to develop students' communicative competence in conversational English.

Abbott, G. et al (1981). The Teaching of English as an International language. London: Biddles Ltd.

Allen, R.R. & McKerrow R.E. (1977). The Pragmatics of Public Communication. Ohio: Bell and Howell Company.

Bailey, K.M. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Speaking. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Companies.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight M. (2001). How to Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Broughton et al (1980). Teaching English as a Foreign Language, London: Routleadge Education Books.

Brumfit, C.J. & Johnson K. (1979). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Canale, M. & Swaim M. (1978). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman Group Limited.

Canale, M. & Swain M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. London: Longman Group Limited.

DeSantis, A. (1999). Introduction to Communications. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

International Student Edition (2002). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Johnson, K. & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the Classroom. London: Longman Group.

Kennedy, C. & Rod B. (1984). English for Specific Purposes. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Kilfoil, W.R. & Walt C.R. (1997). Learn to Teach: English Language Teaching in a Multilingual Context. Oxford: OUP

Leech, G. & Svartivik J. (1975). .A Communicative Grammar of English. Harlow: Longman

Locatis, C.N. & Atkinson F.D. (1984). Media and Technology for Education and Training. Columbus: Bell &Howell Company.

Manheim, J. & Richards C. (1991). Empirical Politic: Research Methods in Political Science. New York: Longman Publishing Group.

NCS (2005). Third Census of Population and Housing: August 2002. Kigali: Ministry of Local Administration.

Reid, J.M. (1985). The Process of Paragraph Writing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Revell, J. (1979). Teaching Techniques for Communicative English. London: Macmillan Press.

Richards et al (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Issex: Longman.

Richards, J.C. & Schmidt R.W. (1983). Language and Communication. New York: Longman Group limited.

Rivers, W. M. (1983). Communicating Naturally in a Second Language. Cambridge: C.U.P.

Ashworth, M. & Wakefield H.P. (2005). «Teaching the World's Children: ESL for Ages Three to Seven» in English Teaching Forum, Vol. 41, N^o1

GAHUTU, P. (1998). The Communicative Approach to the Teaching of English at the Rwandese Primary School Level. NUR-Butare. (Memoir)

GIKWERERE, B. P. (2005).Teaching Speaking as a Communicative Skill at Rwandan Upper Secondary School Level Case of Butare Province. NUR-Butare. (Memoir)

MUVANDIMWE, A. (2005). An Investigation into the Extent of Computer-usage in Teaching and learning English language in Rwandan Secondary School. NUR-Butare. (Memoir)

NDIKUBWIMANA, E. (2005). Problems Related to the Teaching of English Language and English Language Communication, in Lower Secondary Schools in Rwanda, NUR-Butare. (Memoir)

An Evaluative Study of Communicative Competence in Conversational English among English Language Learners in the Literary Option: The Case of Rusizi and Nyamasheke Districts

2.6.4. Computer