ABSTRACT
Students, and especially students in developing countries,
frequently remain deficient in the ability to actually use the language and to
understand its use in normal communication. Therefore, the lack of
communicative competence in conversational English among E.L. learners can
cause a serious problem to the whole Rwandan society in general and
particularly to the learners themselves. This study intends to illustrate the
extent to which E.L. learners in the literary option are communicatively
competent in conversational English and factors that influence that competence.
To achieve this objective, three research questions and three hypotheses were
used.
The population targeted by this study was made of 366 students
and 4 teachers of English in the literary option in Rusizi and Nyamasheke.
Using the purposive sampling and the random sampling techniques 73 and 4
teachers were selected as the sample of the study. Two research instruments:
the questionnaire and the test were used in the collection of data. After
testing the validity of instruments the questionnaire was administered by the
researcher and he managed to control over the students who sat for the test to
prevent them from cheating. Then, the quantitative method of data analysis was
used.
It was found out that students are not communicatively
competent in conversational English. This results in the fact that 100% of
teachers say that their students are not interested in using E.L. in real-life
communication, and that they feel shy when using English outside the classroom
while 43.8% of students say that they prefer to be more accurate rather than
fluent in their speech. It was also noticed that, despite students and
teachers' awareness of a paramount importance of using audio-visual equipment
in E.L. teaching and learning, teachers do not use some of these teaching aids
that are available in their schools in E.L. teaching. For instance, 50% of
teachers say that they use only radio in E.L. teaching. Then, it was found that
oral language skills are given less emphasis.
This study has some implications to the development of oral
skills for communicative purposes among E.L. learners. Since students are not
interested in using English in real-life situations, they can not be
communicatively competent. Then, since teachers do not use updated teaching
aids, students would always find their E.L. learning boring. Therefore, to
overcome this problem, learners, teachers and decision-makers need mainly to be
aware of it.
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the
Study
Language is the main tool of communication between the members
of the society that uses it. DeSantis (1999, p.80) emphasises this saying that
«The language is a structured system of signs, sounds, gestures, or marks
that is used and understood to express ideas and feelings among people within a
community, nation, geographic area or cultural tradition». It is the case
of English Language, the one of four languages used in various needs of
communication in Rwandan community. Those languages are Kinyarwanda, French,
English and Swahili. On this, the NCS (2005) states that almost all the
residents of the country (99.7%) could speak Kinyarwanda in 2002. French,
English and Swahili were spoken only by 3.9%, 1.9% and 3% of the population
respectively. Among these languages, three are taught from the Primary to the
Tertiary level and they are used as Official Languages.
However, the use of Kinyarwanda in everyday life communication
is still at a high rate even in the intellectual community. This is remarkable
in many secondary schools where foreign languages seem to be used only in
classrooms when dealing with courses designed in those languages. Briefly, the
NCS (op cit.) says that the level of knowledge of foreign languages is far too
low in Rwanda.
As far as English Language is concerned, it is remarkable that
there are some people who are still considering it as a newly-introduced
language in Rwanda. The reason of this may be that there is no long time since
the English Language in Rwanda has been officially promoted after the 1994
Genocide and the RPF victory. This promotion was mainly due to the coming back
of many Rwandan Refugees from English Language speaking countries. It is also
due to the role of the English Language in the globalisation policy. The NCS
(2005) emphasises this saying that, in this era of globalisation, fluency in
foreign languages (especially the English Language) is vital for easier
exchange of information among countries and for communication with other
nationals.
In addition, when compared with other foreign languages spoken
in Rwanda, English Language is not used by many people. Generally, English is
only used in schools by some school authorities and outside the school by some
businessmen from Anglophone countries. Furthermore, many of these English
Language users in Rwanda do not use it in real communication but, only, in
classes as a subject or a medium of instruction. Therefore, communicatively
unable learners with a mastery of structures are frequent in Rwandan secondary
schools, even in the Literary Option. This may be due to the fact that teachers
focus on teaching only grammar and few other linguistic features of English
language, neglecting oral language skills and their use in real
communication.
According to Ashworth and Wakefield (2005, p.3), «A
speaker of any language can create and comprehend a number of utterances that
can cover a multitude of functions such as requesting, refusing, promising,
warning, denying, agreeing, disagreeing, and expressing emotions». In the
contrary, many Rwandan English Language Learners, especially those from the
countryside, use English only when they are in classes and they have no other
opportunity to express their everyday feelings in English but only in their
mother tongue.
Consequently, this weakness in the use of English Language for
communicative purposes can be observed to almost all categories and levels of
learners. Unfortunately, it is the same case for many of the Literary Option
learners whereas they are supposed to be more communicatively competent than
those of professional and science option.
| 
