Investigating the implementation of BOAR to develop secondary school students' conversation skills.pdf

1
INVESTIGATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF B.O.A.R TO DEVELOP
SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CONVERSATION SKILLS
Master of Teaching
Practice-Related Research Paper (PRRP)
CHERYL LIM MING YUH
G1560033F
February 2018
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Master of Teaching Degree
National Institute of Education-Nanyang Technological University

2
Investigating the implementation of B.O.A.R to develop secondary school
students’ conversation skills
INTRODUCTION
Thinking and speaking are independent lines of development that cross at certain
points where “thinking becomes verbal and speech intellectual” (Vygotsky, 1962). We
can think without speaking and speak without thinking but to build meaningful human
interactions, the integration of the two processes are necessary as thought only
becomes an idea through word (Roth, 2013). In our daily human interactions, at school,
work or play, the intricate relationship shared by these two processes impactus greatly.
If thought is embodied in speechand speechis illuminated by thought (Vygotsky, 1962),
it is reasonable to postulate that in order to realise deep and meaningful conversations,
maturity in both quarters of speaking and thinking counts. Yet, in the classrooms of
today, speaking as a productive skill is largely taught apart from and ahead of thinking
skills. This has proven ineffective as feedback from researchconducted in schools and
employers in the job market reflects a want in the level of speaking skills of local
students and adults in Singapore. It is especially of interest to the researcher to lift the
speaking skills of secondary school students taking the oral examination at the O level.
Will teaching thinking in speaking be the key to bridge the gap to produce deep and
meaningful conversation in the spoken interaction segment of the examination? This
study is aimed at working on the thinking skills of secondary school students in order
to develop their speaking skill, in the context of conversations for examination purpose.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Singapore Situation
Oral proficiency as a key aim of the curriculum
Oral proficiency is a critical aim of the revised English Language Syllabus 2010 in
preparing students to acquire critical skills in the 21st
Century, as outlined in the
Desired Outcomes (MOE, 2010, p6). It is classified as a productive skill that is meant

3
to make and communicatemeaning (p16) and so has been given 20% weighting in the
national GCE N and O level examinations. Beyond general education, oral
presentation skills is increasingly used at the tertiary level and generally recognised as
one of the most valuable workplace competencies the employee can possess. Yet, in
a 2005 review of the teaching and learning of the English language in secondary
schools across Singapore, the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review
Committee (ELCPRC) found that while reading literacy was rather high and even,
standards in oral conversation and writing skills were not so (Report of the English
Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review, 2005, p2-4). In fact, observations by
employers showed a decline in speaking and writing skills. Even among the top 20%
who make it to the university, higher standards are desirous. Thus, it is critical for each
secondary school student to acquire competency in speaking skills for both school and
life. This paper will start with working on developing conversation skills at the O level
oral examination.
O Level Oral Examination Format (1128/04)
The 1128/04 paper of the current syllabus tested its first batch of students in 2013. The
paper consists of two parts: Reading and Spoken Interaction. Out of a total of 30 marks,
Reading takes up a maximum of 10 while Spoken Interaction takes up 20. (MOE, 2011).
Please see Table 1 for a visual representation.
Table 1: 1128/04 O Level Paper 4 Oral Communication Mark Allocation
Components Marks
Reading 10
Spoken Interaction 20
Total 30
The mark allocation reflects the emphasis on conversation skills over reading, rightly
so since it is a ‘live’ skill more commonly used in daily life and work. In Spoken

4
Interaction, candidates have to create conversation based on questions on a given
topic and enunciate their personal views and values. This demands higher-order
thinking skills from students as, in limited preparation activities such as
extemporaneous speaking, critical thinking skills are always inherent (Davis &
Dickmeyer, 1993).
In the Spoken Interaction segment, students are asked three questions. The first
question pertains to a picture stimulus and goes along the line of: “Would you enjoy
the activity shown in the picture?”, “What do you think of the activity?” and more
recently, in 2016, “What are the characters feeling?” (1128/04/O/N/13, 2016, Days 1,
2, 6 and 7). The second and third questions run on the same theme of the reading
passage and the picture but move on to ask students personal questions about
themselves. For example, in Day 3 of 1128/2013, the reading passage was about a
famous pop star. The questions for Spoken Interaction were:
1. How would you feel if you were as famous as the singer in the picture?
2. What might be the possible disadvantages of becoming famous at an early age?
3. How far do you agree that celebrities have a duty to act as responsible role models for
their fans? (1128/04/O/N/13, 2013, p.2)
While Question 1 made a reference to the singer in the picture, Question 2 dealt with
the concept of being famous in general and requested students to talk about its
disadvantages. The third question required students to weigh if and how much they
agreed that celebrities should be role models. Thus, we see the demand of analysis,
evaluation and synthesis skills in these questions. In addition, the highest level of
expectations in this examination involve the introduction of a new idea, pushing for
synthesis in the transformation and creation of new information as described in
Bloom’s taxonomy (Chan & Chia, 2014). This expectation is spelt out in the band
descriptors as reproduced in Table 2 below (MOE, 2011).
The scoring scheme of the Spoken Interaction segment in the O level examination
(GCE Band Descriptors 1128/04) comprises 5 bands; with Band 5 as the lowest

5
scoring and Band 1 the highest, awarding 16-20 marks out of a total of 20 maximum
marks. To achieve this band, candidates need to introduce new ideas, opinions or
appropriate issues related to the questions posed to them. This is a unique and
distinguishing requirement that appears only in Band 1 while other criteria such as
accuracyand fluency are present in every band, differentiated by levels of competency.
Thus, we see that higher-order thinking that provides fresh insights and in-depth
thinking will set the ‘A’ candidate apart from the rest.
Table 2: Band Descriptors for 1128/04 Spoken Interaction
Assessment Criteria for Spoken Interaction
 Personal Response: to give considered and developed personal responses
 Clarity of Expression: to express oneself clearly with apt use of vocabulary, structures
and with good pronunciation
 Interaction: to engage actively with the Examiners in a sustained discussion
Band 1 (16-20)  Offers well-considered personal responses which are coherent and
well-developed
 Expresses ideas clearly using a wide range of well-chosen
vocabulary and structures, and supported by good pronunciation
 Engages actively with the Examiners to sustain the discussion,
introducing new ideas, opinions or issues where appropriate
Band 2 (11-15)  Offers some thoughtful personal responses, which are developed to
some extent
 Expresses most ideas clearly using a range of largely appropriat e
vocabulary and structures, and supported by mostly correct
pronunciation
 Engages with the Examiners in a sustained discussion by
responding well to the prompts but may not show initiative
Band 3 (6-10)  Offers some simple personal responses with little development
 Expresses some ideas clearly using a limited range of vocabulary
and structures with pronunciation that may sometimes impede
communication
 Engages with the Examiners in a discussion but may require
considerable support or encouragement
Band 4 (1-5)  Offers hardly any personal response with very little or no
development
 Any ideas expressed are in disconnected sentences, phrases or
single words with pronunciation that may often impedes
communication
 Finds it difficult to maintain any sustained interaction, even with
repeated prompting
Examination conversation skills of secondary school students
Research studies related to oral communication in local secondary schools
corroborated the fact that many students experience difficulties in speaking in public

6
(Anbalagan et.al, 2007, p2, p6), (Kudabar & Gnanambikai, 2009, p8). Of the many
skills involved, students often tell us that they are unable to think of what to say when
posed questions by the oral examiner. As an English teacher at a regular school for
eight years and an oral examiner for six, I have come across many instances when
students are unable to converse optimally at the examination. They show a general
lack of confidence and readiness to communicate their ideas and opinions. Some
speak inaudibly or take a long time to form their lines and in worst cases, some ‘blank
out’ during oral tests or examinations and freeze when posed questions by examiners.
Mostly, students answer questions superficially and are unable to either grasp
concepts on a broader level or analyse issues in depth. Many offer limited suggestions
and rarely any counter-arguments, fresh ideas and alternative choices and views.
Nearly every examiner can attest to sitting through afternoons of cookie-cutter replies
during the oral examination season.
A mostrecent example was a question posed to N level students in this year’s national
examination that asked if students would consider working with animals (in the context
of a zoo) (1190/04, 2016) and almost the whole cohort of 16-year-olds had ambitions
of becoming zookeepers. Reasons proffered were along the line of being pet-lovers
and protectors of animal welfare. The only exception was a student who had had a
traumatic experience with animals.
So, if critical thinking and self-expression are valuable qualities in the market place,
students should be trained to offer credible and appropriate answers at the
examinations. They will be empowered to say ‘No’ instead of ‘Yes’ to any question that
starts with ‘Would you’ after careful analysis of the content. They ought to be able to
offer other realistic options instead of stopping at one career choice, which happened
to benefit the zoo on that day. It is paramount to build requisite skills to enable “pupils
to convey and express their thoughts and opinions with accuracy, fluency,
appropriateness and succinctness” (MOE, 2010, p46). This study hopes to develop a

7
strategy to help students achieve the above aim in the oral examination. In order to do
that, this paper will start with the concepts of thinking and speaking.
Thinking and Speaking
In order for thought to give meaning to speech and for speech to make thought visible
(Vygotsky, 1962), the transition from thought to word must take place. Yet, according
to Vygotsky, it is a highly complex process as it involves the partitioning of thought and
recreation in words. Mental processes take place to first break down the thoughts that
we have, which is very often a complex whole of many elements coming together
simultaneously like a picture. Then the speaker has to link the pieces together and find
the right words to express them sequentially in speech (Vygotsky, 1962). As thought
itself is considered vague, we can see how difficult it is to conceptualise speech
(Scovel, 1998). Furthermore, thoughts, as described by Fromkin (1993) as ‘stored
items’, are fewer in number than words and are complex wholes that need to be
unpacked by “stringing together, arranging and rearranging” (Scovel, 1998). One can
see how easy it is to lose track of one’s thoughts while attempting to organise them
quickly in the head and finding the right words for them. It is no wonder that more and
more researchers have started looking into teaching thinking skills in order to help
students structure their thoughts to produce cogent speech (Cassamasima, 2015,
Chen, 2016, Obaidullah, 2016). This organisational skill is even more important in
conversations due to its extemporaneous nature.
Conversation skills
To transit from thought to speech is challenging, but it is even more so in conversations
as it involves extemporaneous interaction between interlocutors. A meaningful
exchange of ideas demands the perfect amalgamation of comprehension, cognition
and production skills, or as Ruder and Finch describes,“the integration of three general
components – conceptual organisation, receptive language, and productive language.”
(ed. Dechert and Raupach, 1987). Florez (1999) terms it the three main stages of

8
“producing, receiving and processing information” (Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014). Similar
to producing, receiving or comprehending takes on a sequential mode. Priming also
affects comprehension. Each word builds on the former and how each word is often
used with other words will prime the speaker in a certain direction of comprehending
the statements or questions of his interlocutor. Speakers are also able to activate
mental associations better if words and sentences fit into a familiar context (Scovel,
1998). Thus, if students learn to think about how questions are asked in the oral
examination and learn to frame their thinking according to the questions asked, they
may be able to think in a certain direction that can bear more fruit in their speech
production. For example, if students hear questions suchas “To what extent would you
agree with …” students could activate a thinking pattern to question how much he
would agree and disagree and give reasons for why he would do so. Teaching such
thinking skills may be able to direct students to offer a balanced and comprehensive
answer.
In the information-processing stage, it is known that the speaker activates his short-
term memory to access declarative knowledge (Levelt, 1989) to form his speech.
Rieber (1987) also suggests that the speaker searches knowledge bases in the long-
term memory by retrieval cue and search processes in order to generate ideas (ed.
Dechert and Raupach, 1987). Here is the process of activating memory and
linking to one’s knowledge and past experiences. This is an important step as
Dewey explained that students need to learn to organise their arguments or
suggestions with reference to the facts they know or the experiences they have had
(Dewey, 1910) in order to give a coherent reply. Thus, helping students reach into their
knowledge bases and link to their personal experiences is one of the focal areas in the
development of the thinking frame B.O.A.R presented in this study.

9
In addition, through using B.O.A.R, the researcher also aims to render more
opportunities to students to practice thinking in speaking. This is because where
speakers have amassed vast experiences in speaking, whole messages can be made
available in his long-term memory and becomes retrievable immediately (ed. Dechert
and Raupach, 1987). Thus, we see that experience and exposure can enhance
conversation skills greatly. The more the students practice, the better they become.
Hence, the key challenge raised in each of the above stages of speech production
form the basis of the conceptualisation of the thinking frame B.O.A.R; to help speakers
organise and structure their thoughts, to prime them for idea generation and to offer
them thinking models for linking to their experiences, practicing thinking in speaking
and experience-gaining.
Research on integrating thinking and conversation skills
As early as a century earlier, Dewey (1933) propounded that the central purpose of
education is learning to think (Barjesteh & Vaseghi, 2012). Over the past century, the
movement of teaching thinking has gained ground as an important goal of education
as espoused by Perkins and Salomon (Costa, 1991). As found by Marzano (1988),
teaching thinking is possible (Dilekli & Tezci, 2016), and it is seen to be of great value
to the student as a life skill (Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014). Obaidullah has even gone a
step further to argue for thinking and understanding to be taught as language skills
(Obaidullah, 2016). He quoted Baqui (2015) who affirmed the six skills in mastering a
language: listening, reading, understanding, thinking, speaking and writing. In thinking,
Obaidullah highlighted the use of critical and creative thinking while in understanding,
he referred to the employment of skills and strategies to apply learners’ “contextual
knowledge to infer or anticipate things” (Obaidullah, 2016). The teaching of these six
skills in tandem will enhance proper language learning. In Taiwan, Chen (2016)
implemented a theoretical framework for integrating high-order thinking into L2
speaking of first-year university English language classes and found strong evidence

10
that thinking tasks exert “statistically significant positive effects on L2 speaking
proficiency and higher-order thinking performance” with long-lasting effects (Chen,
2016). In another study, Chen (2017) found that integrating thinking into L2 learning
helps students to process information and respond faster. They took lesser time to
think and to express their ideas. Students themselves felt that they were more fluent
and could speak more (Chen, 2017).
Among the thinking skills outlined in Costa’s Developing Minds: A Resource Book for
Teaching Thinking (Costa, 1991), namely: creative thinking, decision making, critical
thinking and problem solving, critical thinking is most closely studied in its impact on
students’ learning. As defined by Sezer (2008), critical thinking is ‘the intellectually
disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualising, applying, analysing,
synthesizing and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by,
observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action’ (Malmir & Shoorcheh, 2012).
Recent studies in linking the impact of teaching critical thinking to speaking skills have
been encouraging (Malmir & Shoorcheh, 2012, Yang, Chuang, Li & Tseng, 2012,
Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014, Yang, Gamble, Hung & Lin, 2014, Casamassima & Insua,
2015, Afshar & Rahimi, 2015). Students who received training in critical thinking
perform better orally as they are able to identify directions, focal-areas, and sort
relevant information and evidences. Such organisation leads to coherent articulation
of their thoughts (Malmir & Shoorcheh, 2012) and a deeper grasp of vocabulary and
higher speaking motivation (Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014) as first discovered by Vygotsky
(1962) (Malmir & Shoorcheh, 2012). In Iran, Yaghoubi (2017) proved “positive and
low/moderate correlations between the psychological constructs of critical thinking and
the willingness to communicate” among foreign language learners, auguring an
improvement in language learning. Thus, teaching critical thinking explicitly, as
purported by scholars such as Cosgrove (2011) and Van Gelder (2005), is key to raise

11
speaking ability (Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014). Therefore, this study will focus on imparting
critical thinking skills through the use of thinking frames.
Using thinking frames to scaffold thinking in speaking
Thinking frames, as defined by Perkins (2012), are ‘representations that are intended
to guide the process of thought, supporting, organising and catalysing that process’.
They are tactics students can employ to aid their thinking and include information to
show how and when to proceed in a certain direction (Perkins, 2012). The organisation
of thoughts helps to reduce ‘purposeless wandering’ and, as Brown (2001) stated, is a
strategy to increase ‘communicative competence’ that brings about effective
communication (Casamassima & Insua, 2015). Brown (2001) asserted that different
thinking routines can be used to target students’ language-based needs in accuracy
and message-based needs in interaction, fluency and meaning (Brown, 2001) and the
latter will be the target focus of the researcher.
Development of the thinking frame B.O.A.R
Having metacognitive knowledge about learning has been argued by researchers to
influence one’s learning process and outcome (Zhang & Goh, 2006). Thus, the
researcher believes that as students think consciously and explicitly about how to
organise their thoughts in pertinence to each question, they would be able to raise their
conversation skills in the Spoken Interaction segment at the O Level Oral Examination.
Originally conceptualised in July 2016 by the teacher-researcher, B.O.A.R is a thinking
frame consisting of four thinking skills ‘Balance’, ‘Opposites’, ‘Alternatives’ and
‘Reason’. They act as thought organisers to structure thinking processes (Moseley,
Elliott, Gregson & Higgins, 2005), to link experiences and to generate ideas. B.O.A.R
serves as a model that shows students how to think well (Zare, 2015) and helps
students offer well-developed answers in a highly engaged and sustained conversation.

12
There are a total of three questions asked in the Spoken Interaction segment. These
questions are based on authentic issues and often relate to social affairs and students’
life contexts and test their responses in critical thinking such as analysing problems
and suggesting solutions to a societal concern such as pollution, evaluating causes
and effects of an urban phenomenon such as traffic woes, eliciting opinions on
advantages and disadvantages of learning music, and methods of controlling waste,
just to name a few. To further stretch their thinking, students are asked questions that
require a stand and their justification of it. Often, the issue is not a clear-cut one and
requires them to deliberate on two or more sides and deliver a balanced and indepth
answer. Examples look like, ‘To what extent do you agree that we pay far too much
attention on how we look?’ (1128/04, 2015) and ‘How far would you agree that people
who take part in extreme sports are irresponsible?’ (1128/04, 2013).
Each question is designed to test different (though sometimes overlapping) thinking
skills. Using Bloom’s taxonomy of skills (Chan & Chia, 2014, p.16-17) as a framework,
the researcher has paired the relevant thinking skill to each question and showed how
B.O.A.R is designed to answer it. A detailed representation of the design of B.O.A.R
is shown in Table 3. It shows question samplers (non-exhaustive) modelled after
1128/04 paper, their corresponding Bloom’s taxonomy of skills, an explanation of the
thinking frame, examples of how it is used and its rationale.
In this study, the teacher-researcher and two other teacher-participants first taught the
frames directly and practiced using them with the students until they became fluent
and spontaneous. After the ‘automatization’ of the frames, the teachers slowly faded
these supports till the frames became fully internalised (Perkins, 2012). It is hoped that
students would be able to transfer the application of these frames in their daily
discourse, such as in project work or CCA collaborations. As students activate the
transfer of these thinking frames to solve real-life issues and bring depth to

13
conversations as enunciated by J. H. Clarke (Costa, 1991), they would reap the
ultimate purpose of education.

14
Table 3
An overview of 1128/04 Oral exam question samplers, Bloom’s Taxonomy skills required and B.O.A.R thinking frames
No
.
1128/04 Oral
Exam Question
Samplers
Bloom’s
taxonomy of
skills required
B.O.A.R
thinking
frame
Explanation of B.O.A.R Examples of using
B.O.A.R
Rationale of B.O.A.R
1. Would you
enjoy a certain
activity? Why or
why not?
or
Would you
choose a certain
career/ sport/
course? Why or
why not?
Or
What is your
opinion about a
social
occurrence or
general
observation?
Knowledge –
recalling,
identifying and
describing
differing
situations and
contexts
‘Reason’  Students make links to
experiences, values and
preferences to provide
reasons for their choices,
with accompanying
examples.
 The key word for students
to remember this frame is
‘Because’.
 The big idea is ‘Personal
Value’.
 Students are taught to keep
pushing for the next
‘because’; I do because I
think, because I believe.
They should finally explain
their personal value/belief
which motivates their
thoughts that turn to fruition
in their actions.
 It is important to note that
students are prompted to
verbalise their reasons and
arrive at their own base
values and not anybody
else’.
 Example: To a question
such as ‘Do you enjoy
sports?’, students may
answer:
Yes they play sports
because they love the
adrenaline rush of
achieving at
competitions (action)
which is because they
take pride in overcoming
challenges and reaching
their goals (thought)
that is because they
believe in the spirit of
excellence and
endurance (personal
value). Students may opt
to say:
No, I do not enjoy sports
and proceed to provide
the reasons for their
action, thought and
personal value before
moving to ‘I would
rather’ or Instead of this’
 Students tend to
provide superficial
answers to why they
choose a certain
course of action
without delving deep
into their belief
systems
 Explaining their
personal value lends
depth to the
conversation by
showing the examiner
the steering compass
of the candidate and
is a good springboard
to discuss new ideas
such as an alternative
activity they would
enjoy (see example
under ‘Alternatives’)

15
Synthesis –
forming/ creating
an innovative and
unique ‘product’
or a combination
of ideas or
thoughts
‘Alternatives
’
 Students must proffer
another option on top of the
item or activity given in the
question. This alternative
option is usually linked to
their personal value.
 Key phrases to prompt
thinking are: ‘I would also
consider’, ‘On top of this’,
‘Besides this’,
 Big idea is ‘What else?’
 The rationale of this
thinking frame is to help
students see that in life,
there is hardly a one-size-
fits-all choice as humans
and issues are multi-
faceted and they can open
their minds to explore
alternatives.
 Students are also
encouraged to speak their
mind if they do not enjoy
the said activity and go on
to describe what they really
would enjoy.
 Their key words are: ‘I
would rather’, ‘Instead of
this’
 They should offer more
than one alternative activity
in this case.
 Example: To the question
‘Do you enjoy sports?’,
after ‘Reason’, students
may proceed to give
‘Alternatives’ based on
their personal value (spirit
of excellence and
endurance):
 On top of sports, they also
enjoy chess as it is
mentally stimulating,
 It takes hours to plot a
seamless game and years
of practice to perfect the
game
 training and realising the
spirit of excellence and
endurance
 Students may opt to say:
No, I do not enjoy sports
and proceed to provide
the reasons for their
action, thought and
personal value before
moving to ‘I would
rather’ or Instead of this,
I would’
 Most students would
not go further to
suggest an
alternative activity
besides sports
 Thus, the use of
‘Alternatives’ ensure
the birth of a new
idea
 Where students opt
to start with ‘Instead
of this’, they should
use their personal
value to explain two
activities they would
enjoy and that would
be a new idea too.

16
2. What are some
causes / effects
/ problems /
solutions /
advantages /
disadvantages /
methods /
incentives /
disincentives of
a certain
situation?
Analysis –
identifying
motives,
surfacing
underlying ideas
and intentions,
breaking down an
issue to exemplify
its relation to the
large picture
‘Opposites’
(main)
and ‘Reason’
 Students automatically
think the antonym of a
given noun; the flip side of
the coin:
Problem ↔ Solution
Cause ↔ Effect
Pros ↔ Cons
Measures ↔ Challenges
Incentives ↔
Disincentives
 In ‘Opposites’, students
answer what is asked and
then offer the opposite
 The frame that requires
more explicit teaching and
practice is Measures ↔
Challenges. When students
are asked ‘What are some
ways to raise money for
charity?’ (1128/04, 2013),
they first suggest at least 2
methods and then think of
the obstacles that confront
1 of the methods
 The rationale of ‘Opposites’
is to help students see the
interconnectedness of
ideas and the mutual
influence of forces;
complementary or
conflicting.
 Example: ‘What are some
incentives to help people
recycle more?’
 Students may answer:
Monetary incentives,
games and quizzes
They go on to discuss
the opposite, which is
disincentives of recycling
in this case: the lack of
recycling bins, the lack
of collective effort (the
inaction of others that
undo the work of
recyclers)
Students are
encouraged to think of
the reason for these
disincentives eg. The
NIMBY syndrome
(utilising the sub-frame
‘Reason’),
They then toggle back to
incentives to tackle the
new set of problems
they have identified
(utilising ‘Opposites’
again): increasing
awareness, providing
education to correct
attitudes etc.
 When told to discuss
problems, most
students would offer 2
to 3 problems without
going into solutions.
 When asked about
solutions to an issue,
even lesser would
think of the problems
related to these
solutions
 Being able to offer the
opposite situation
helps to create new
ideas for the
interaction
 Students are able to
offer double new
ideas when they
toggle back and forth
the ‘Opposites’ frame
(see example)
 Incentives →
disincentives → new
incentives

17
3. To what extent
do you agree
with a
statement?
Evaluation –
making value
decision on
issues of concern
or duty, solving
contradictions
and
controversies,
developing
perspectives,
opinions,
judgments and
making decisions
‘Balance’
(main)
and ‘Reason’
 Students are trained to give
a balanced answer by
explaining both Yes and No
 The big question to bear in
mind is: ‘In what situation is
it not wholly true/ not the
sole factor?’
 The two more common
factors students should
consider are “when” and
“who”
 Students are encouraged to
go with their leanings and
explain the position they
are more inclined to.
 Then they have to push to
think of situations when
their position may not apply
 Key words are ‘to a large /
small extent’, ‘on the other
hand’, ‘however’
 Example: ‘Dancing is the
best way of getting and
staying fit. How far do you
agree with this
statement?’ (1190/04,
2015)
 Students can take the
position of yes, it is the
best way and give
reasons such as people
who love music or
possess good
coordination skills would
enjoy dancing which
greatly motivates them in
making it a regular routine
which aids in getting and
staying fit.
 However, people who are
not music lovers or prefer
exercise that target a
certain part of the body or
competitive games etc
would find other forms of
exercise more effective.
 In a hurry to express
their views, most
students do not stop
to think of when a
statement may not be
true. They explain
their position with
examples and
contentedly close the
case.
 However, they
neglect the fact that
the question wants to
know ‘how much’ they
agree with a
statement implies that
there is room for ‘the
other side of the
story’

18
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In Outram Secondary School, where 17% of students scored A for the English paper
in 2015, a good oral performance will go a long way in bolstering the majority’s chances
and confidence at a major examination. Not only will students aim for the best, it should
put the school en route to achieving the desired outcome of the 2005 ELCPRC review
to improve the “general command of the language among all students, while achieving
the best international standards among the mostable” (Report of the English Language
Curriculum and Pedagogy Review, 2005, p5).
Research Purpose and Rationale
Although there have been recent studies that link the teaching of critical thinking to oral
communication skills in countries such as Iran, Argentina and Taiwan (Malmir &
Shoorcheh, 2012, Yang, Chuang, Li & Tseng, 2012, Sanavi & Tarighat, 2014, Yang,
Gamble, Hung & Lin, 2014, Casamassima & Insua, 2015, Afshar & Rahimi, 2015),
there has been little or no known research on the impact of teaching thinking on oral
skills in Singapore schools. Thus, this study is aimed at examining if explicit teaching
of thinking is able to develop secondary school students’ conversation skills.
To this end, the teacher-researcher has conceptualised a thinking frame entitled
B.O.A.R. Consisting of four thinking skills, B.O.A.R is designed to help students
organise and structure their thinking, prime them for idea generation and help them to
link their experiences to their responses at the O Level Oral Examination and hopefully,
in their real world interactions after school.
Although the Reading and Spoken Interaction sections run on the sametheme and the
reading passage often provides information and clues for students to talk about in
Spoken Interaction, it is possible to teach conversation skills without utilising the
Reading passage and this research paper will only use resources for Spoken
Interaction for its teaching and research purpose.

19
Objective of study and Research Question
The objective of this study is to investigate if implementing the thinking frame B.O.A.R
will develop secondary students’ conversation skills for the examination. This study
was guided by the following question: Does the implementation of B.O.A.R develop
secondary students’ conversation skills?
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample comprises 76 Secondary Four Express students from a cohort of three
express classes in a typical Singapore school. These students are taught in four
groups. The groups are formed based on teacher deployment plans and student
differentiation. Group 1 consists of 20 students from a pure science class with mixed
abilities in the English language, and Groups 2 to 4 consist of students from two
classes and they are grouped by their perceived abilities in the English Language
based on their results in the previous year. Group 1 consists of 18 students of high
ability, Group 2 has 20 students of middle ability and Group 3, 18 students of low ability,
as shown in Table 4:
Table 4: Sample Distribution
Group No. of students
Group 1 20 students
Group 2 18 students
Group 3 20 students
Group 4 18 students
Total 76 students
Research Design
Research Overview
The study was implemented over a courseof 10 weeks in Terms 1 and 2 from February
to April 2017; 6 weeks in Term 1 and 4 weeks in Term 2. At the start of the study in
February, the principal investigator and two English Language teacher-participants
conducted B.O.A.R through group teaching in two lessons totalling 160 minutes, giving

20
examples of oral questions and eliciting answers from students using the frames.
Thereafter, individual practices with students were carried out with approximately 20
to 30 minutes of interaction time with each student. During individual practices,
teachers used any one out of the four thinking frames to delve into in-depth discussions
with students. At the end of the study, students sat for an oral examination identical to
one they have sat in September 2016 as part of their Semestral Assessment.
The research design is a mixed-method study consisting of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches. The researcher used the sequential explanatory design
(illustrated in Figure 5) with equal priority in quantitative and qualitative methods, and
integrated the results at the analysis stage (Creswell, 2003).
Figure 5: Sequential Explanatory Design
Quantitative Approach: School Test records before and after the implementation of
B.O.A.R
In the quantitative approach, the school test records before and after the
implementation of B.O.A.R were collected and compared. The means were calculated
and data presented using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and plotted in a graphical
format.
The school test scores before the implementation of B.O.A.R are represented by the
students’ Secondary Three End-of-Year Semestral Assessment oral examination
marks. The oral exam was conducted in September 2016 in accordance with the
1128/04 GCE O Level Examination format. Of the two components of 1128/04;
Reading (10 marks) and Spoken Interaction (20 marks), only marks in the Spoken
QUAN
Data
Collection
QUAN
Data
Analysis
Qual
Data
Collection
Qual
Data
Analysis
Interpretation
of Entire
Analysis
Data
Analysis
QUAN qual

21
Interaction segment are used for this study as B.O.A.R is designed to improve
conversation skills. The oral examination was conducted in the school hall simulating
the actual O Level examination procedure. Students were tested by approximately 10
examiners who were not the English teachers of the classes to ensure exam integrity
and to put students through conditions similar to the actual O level examination. Each
student had 10 minutes of preparation time during which he had access to the reading
passage and the picture. He practiced reading and predicted likely questions that might
be prompted by the picture. While the first question was in direct relation to the picture,
for example, “Would you enjoy the activity in the picture?” the second and third
questions did not relate to the picture.
The school test scores after the implementation of B.O.A.R are represented by the
students’ Secondary Four Mid-Year Semestral Assessment 1128/04 Spoken
Interaction marks.The examination was conducted in April 2017. The oral examination
took exactly the same format as the test in September 2016, except that the test
questions and examiners were different. The testscores before and after B.O.A.R were
analysed to determine if the implementation of B.O.A.R has developed the
conversation skills of the students.
Qualitative Approach: Individual Reflection and Small Group Interview of student
participants and Group Interview with Teacher-Participants
In the qualitative approach, a written reflection was administered to all participants after
the school test in April 2017. A small group interview was then conducted with selected
participants based on their performance in Spoken Interaction in the test. The reflection
and small group interview served to provide the researcher with a deeper analysis of
the results in the quantitative approach. A group interview with the teacher-participants
was also conducted to gather further information about the implementation of B.O.A.R.

22
Research Schedule
The research proper was scheduled from February to April 2017 during which the
instruction of B.O.A.R was carried out, and data from school test after the
implementation, individual reflection and small group interview were collected. More
details are tabled below in Table 6.
Table 6: Research Schedule
Instrument Details Date Duration
Instruction of
B.O.A.R
Group Teaching Lesson 1 - ‘Opposites’
and ‘Balance’
Term 1 Week
5 2017
Double periods
of 80 minutes
in total
Instruction of
B.O.A.R
Group Teaching Lesson 2 - ‘Reason’ and
‘Alternatives’
Term 1 Week
6 2017
Double periods
of 80 minutes
in total
Instruction of
B.O.A.R
Individual Practices - Any of B.O.A.R Term 1 Week
7 to Term 2
Week 4 2017
20 – 30
minutes each
student
School Test Marks from Spoken Interaction Component
in Secondary Four Mid-year Semestral
Assessment Oral Exam based on GCE O
Level 1128/04 format
April 2017 ~15 minutes
(actual exam,
excluding
waiting and
preparation)
Individual
Reflection
A short-answer written reflection is
administered to all students to ascertain
their perceptions of using B.O.A.R.
Responses will be grouped into major
categories and themes for a further analysis
of the results of the quantitative approach.
April 2017 10 minutes
Small Group
Interview
A small group interview of about 10 to 20
students will be conducted based on their
performance in Spoken Interaction in the
post-test. Half will be selected from those
who have made the most improvement and
another half from those who are lowest
performing. The aim of the small group
interview is to find out if the students’
improvement or lack of is linked to B.O.A.R.
April 2017 15-30 minutes
Teacher-
Participant
Group
Interview
Teacher-Participant Group Interview will be
conducted with the aim of gathering
feedback on the perceived usefulness of
B.O.A.R.
April 2017 15-30 minutes
Instruments
The instruments adopted in the present study include the thinking frame B.O.A.R, the
group instruction and individual practice of B.O.A.R, the individual student reflection,
the student small group interview, and the teacher-participant group interview on the

23
use and effectiveness of B.O.A.R. Details of the instruments are presented in Table 7
and described in the section after.
Table 7: Instruments and Annexes
No. Instrument Annex
1 Thinking frame B.O.A.R 1
2
Group Instruction and Individual Practice of
B.O.A.R
2:2.1, 2.2.1-2.2.8
3 Individual Reflection Form 3
4 Small Group Interview Guide 4
5 Teacher-participant Group Interview 5
1. Thinking frame B.O.A.R
B.O.A.R was conceptualised by the teacher-researcher from the analysis of the GCE
‘O’ Level Oral Examination Paper 1128/04. It was piloted with a graduating class in
July 2016 with encouraging feedback (written and verbal reflections) received.
Generally, students felt that the frames were useful as thought-organisers that
enhanced their responses in the oral examination. Some felt the frame helped them
with structuring their answers in their heads while others thought that they provided
content. Some reflected that B.O.A.R helped them to sustainthe conversation by being
able to think of the next point to make. With the positive feedback, the teacher-
researcher is utilising the frame in a formal study to ascertain its effectiveness in lifting
conversation skills of the students.
2. Group Instruction and Individual Practice of B.O.A.R
During the data collection period from February to April 2017, the frame was taught by
the Principal Investigator (teacher-researcher) and two teacher-participants. Of the
four groups, the Principal Investigator took two groups while the teacher-participants
took one group each. They taught the frames explicitly on a group basis and practiced
them with students on an individual basis. Group teaching took place over two double-

24
period lessons and each student received one individual practice with the teacher-
participants, practicing at least one of the four thinking frames in depth. Table 8 lists
the teaching and practice schedule of B.O.A.R.
Table 8: Teaching and Practice Schedule of B.O.A.R
Group Instruction
Lesson 1
2017 Term 1 Week 5
Double periods of 80
minutes in total
‘Opposites’ and
‘Balance’
Group Instruction
Lesson 2
2017 Term 1 Week 6
Double periods of 80
minutes in total
‘Reason’ and
‘Alternatives’
Individual
Practices
2017 Term 1 Week 7 to
Term 2 Week 4
20 – 30 minutes
each student
Any of B.O.A.R
In group teaching, the students practised using each thinking frame to respond to three
to five different questions in class. For individual practices, the teachers took students
through each thinking frame using O level oral papers. For each of the three questions
in the oral paper, teachers prompted students by asking them which thinking frame
they would choose to use. Teachers were to select at least one question and at least
one of the frames to conduct an in-depth practice with the student.
Although the thinking frames may be used interchangeably, they were taught in the
following order (as shown in Table 9 and Table 3) as a guide:
Table 9: Guide to using B.O.A.R
No./
Type
Questions B.O.A.R
1
Would you enjoy a certain activity?
Would you choose a certain
career/sport/course?
‘Reason’ and ‘Alternatives’
2
What are some causes / effects /
problems / solutions / advantages /
disadvantages / methods / incentives /
disincentives of a certain situation?
‘Opposites’ (main) and ‘Reason’
3
To what extent do you agree with a
statement?
‘Balance’ (main) and ‘Reason’
It is a note-worthy mention that the oral question styles at 1128/04 are evolving and in
the last two years (2015 and 2016), there have been less Type 2 questions about
problems and solutions, advantages and disadvantages. Instead, more general

25
questions asking students to talk about a certain event have been seen, such as “Tell
me what happened at a time when you needed to be self-reliant.” (1128/2015, Day 4)
and “Tell me about how you travel to school every day.” (1128/2016, Day 1). Even
though students do not receive the explicit cue to use ‘Opposites’ by being asked for
a problem or a cause, students are able to exercise flexibility and freedom to think of
how to use ‘Opposites’. For example, to the former question, students can take the
initiative to discuss problems he faced in needing to be self-reliant and the solutions
he eventually used. For the latter question, students can talk about methods of
travelling and the challenges faced. Thus, B.O.A.R is a comprehensive frame that can
be used flexibly and interchangeably.
3. Individual Reflection
After the test post-implementation, each student was administered a written (short-
answer) reflection to gather information about their perception of the effectiveness of
B.O.A.R. A sampleof the Reflection is included in Annex 3. A mixtureof multiplechoice
and short-answer written reflection is administered to ascertain students’ perceptions of
using B.O.A.R. Encouraging students to think reflectively has been argued to benefit
their learning outcomes (Afshar & Rahimi, 2016) and thus is the aim of this reflection.
4. Group Interview
A small group interview of about 20 students were conducted based on their
performance in Spoken Interaction in the post-test. Nine were selected from those who
have made the most improvement; four maintained the same scores in the pre- and
post-test while seven were among those whose performance dipped. The aim of the
small group interview is to find out if the students’ improvement or lack of is linked to
B.O.A.R.
The questions were deliberately left open-ended to help trigger students’
metacognition about their learning need (Zhang & Goh, 2006) that will help them

26
become more active participants in their own performance. A guide to the interview is
included in Annex 4.
5. Teacher-participant Interview
A group interview was conducted with the two teacher-participants to gather data on
their perceptions of the usefulness and effectiveness of B.O.A.R through their
experience in teaching it.
Data Collection
Data were collected over a courseof 10 weeks from February to April 2017. A schedule
of the process of data collection is summarised in Table 10 as shown below.
Table 10: Data Collection Schedule
Instrument Date Status
School Test Scores before
the implementation of
B.O.A.R
September 2016 Collected
School Test Scores after the
implementation of B.O.A.R
April 2017 Collected
Individual Reflection April 2017 Collected
Small Group Interview April 2017 Collected
Teacher-participant Group
Interview
April 2017 Collected
Data Analysis
Data collected were analysed as shown and described below:
Figure 11: Sequential Explanatory Design
QUAN
Data
Collection
Sep 2016 &
April 2017
QUAN
Data
Analysis
April 2017
Qual
Data
Collection
April 2017
Qual
Data
Analysis
April 2017
Interpretation
of Entire
Analysis
May/June 2017
QUAN
Test records before and
after the implementation of
B.O.A.R
qual
Individual Reflection, Small
Group Interview & Teacher-
participant Interview

27
Quantitative Approach: School Test records before and after the implementation of
B.O.A.R
In the quantitative approach, the school test records before and after the
implementation of B.O.A.R were collected and compared. The means were calculated
and data presented using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and plotted in a graphical
format.
Qualitative Approach: Individual Reflection, Small Group Interview & Teacher-
participant Interview
A short-answer written reflection is administered to all students to ascertain student
perceptions of using B.O.A.R. Responses were grouped into major categories and
themes for a further analysis of the results of the quantitative approach. A small group
interview of 20 students was conducted based on their performance in Spoken
Interaction in the test after the implementation of B.O.A.R. Nine were selected from
those who have made the most improvement; four maintained the same scores while
seven were among those whose performance dipped. The aim of the small group
interview is to find out if the students’ improvement or lack of is linked to B.O.A.R. A
group interview was also conducted with the two teacher-participants to gather data
on their perceptions of the usefulness and effectiveness of B.O.A.R through their
experience in teaching it.
Group interviews were audio-recorded while the individual reflections were recorded
on paper. Major themes reflecting students’ perceptions of using B.O.A.R and its
effectiveness are presented below.
RESULTS
Improvementin conversation skills evidenced by marks scored in tests before and after
the implementation of B.O.A.R
A total of 76 students sat for the spoken interaction test before and after the
implementation of B.O.A.R. There was an increase in mean score from 12.7 marks to

28
13.2 marks (out of a maximum of 20), seen in Figure 11. Thus, an overall improvement
in the results in the Spoken Interaction segment after the implementation of B.O.A.R
is evident.
Figure 12: Mean score increase
Out of the total number of students who took the tests, 45% saw an increase in their
scores, 38% saw a drop in their scores and 17% held constant scores (Figure 12).
Figure 13: Overall performance of students
Of those who made improvements, their average increase was 2.6 marks, larger than
the average 1.7 drop among those who deteriorated (Figure 13).
12.4
12.6
12.8
13
13.2
13.4
Pre-BOAR Post-BOAR
Mean Scoreof 76 students
45%
38%
17%
Performance of students (%)
Increase in Scores
Decrease in Scores
Constant Scores

29
Figure 14: Mean score movement
As the test scores were taken from semestral assessments, students were subjected
to regular examination conditions. Test questions and examiners were not controlled
factors. There was however, a group of six students who happened to be tested by the
same examiner in both tests. Out of the six, four saw an increase in marks of between
2 and 4 while the other two students maintained their scores. None saw a dip in their
results.
Quantitatively, there was an overall improvement in conversation skills reflected in
students’ scores. A qualitative study was then done to assess students’ perceptions
and experiences in using B.O.A.R, further amplified in the section below.
Student perceptions of using B.O.A.R
74 students took part in the individual reflection survey (Table 7: Instrument 3). All,
except one student, reported the use of at least one thinking skill. Of the four skills, the
one most used by students was ‘Balance’, followed by ‘Reason’ (Figure 14).
2.62
1.67
0
1
2
3
Mean Score Increase Mean Score Decrease
Mean Score Movement (Mean
Marks)

30
Figure 15: Use of B.O.A.R in the oral examination
The popularity of the skills in Figure 14 seems to corroborate with the students’
perceptions of the usefulness of the skill (seen in Figure 15).
Figure 16: Most useful thinking skill
58.1% felt that ‘Balance’ was the most useful, followed by ‘Reason’ (35.1%). Some
explanations for their choices were that ‘Balance’ helped them to weigh both sides of
a matter, was applicable to “all questions” and helped to “generate new ideas”.
Teachers believed that ‘Balance’ was the most frequently used skill because the
priming question was extant in every practice paper. Almost every Question 3 in the
practice papers inadvertently started with “How far do you agree…” and “Do you
agree…” (Annex 2.2.1-2.2.8: Instrument 2). Thus, students could immediately
63.5
31.1 35.1
51.4
0
20
40
60
80
Balance Opposites Alternatives Reason
BOARSkills used in OralExam (%)
Total %
because:
Reason 26 35.1
Alternatives 10 13.5
Opposites 10 13.5
Balance 43 58.1
43
58.1
10
13.5
10
13.526
35.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Most Useful Thinking skill
Balance Opposites Alternatives Reason because:

31
associate the question with the thinking skill. The priming for idea generation seemed
to work well.
As for ‘Reason’, some students felt they could relate to it easily as they are “used to
giving reasons”, it is the most applicable skill and it “allows me to come up with a solid
support for my point.” This observation for ‘Reason’ is easy to understand in light of
Bloom’s Taxonomy as ‘Reason’ functions at the basic level of Knowledge where
students are generally able to retrieve their experiences to answer for their choices or
behaviour. However, some students found it hard to link reasons to personal values.
These students could be the ones who really grasped the skill as ‘Reason’ was
developed to push for an in-depth exploration of the speaker’s values and beliefs,
which is at the Evaluation level of Bloom’s taxonomy. This showed an appreciation of
the skill and some effort on their part to attempt it, and certainly, more practice is
required.
There was also a dichotomy of perceptions on what is a valuable skill to learn. While
some students appreciated how they could relate to ‘Reason’ as a personal skill they
have, others thought it gave no value in their learning for the same reason. More
thought is required to pitch ‘Reason’ at different levels and for different students; for
example, those who are more comfortable with familiar skills and those who are ready
to be challenged further.
Conversely, students felt that ‘Alternatives’ was the least useful skill (28.4%), followed
by ‘Opposites’ and ‘Reason’, which were tied at second place at 25.7% (Figure 16).

32
Figure 17: Least useful thinking skill
Reasons given by students included not knowing how to use them, being unable to
come up with alternatives, forgetting to use it and ‘Alternatives’ being hard to
understand and ‘confusing’. Teachers’ comments corroborated students’ sentiments.
Students tended to get ‘Alternatives’ and ‘Opposites’ mixed up. This finding is not
surprising in light of Bloom’s Taxonomy of skills. ‘Alternatives’ is at a very high level of
Synthesis.Here, students are expected to combineideas to create a new product. This
may explain the reason for the difficulty and also reveal the general level that students
are presently functioning at and the level students encounter difficulty with.
For ‘Opposites’, responses included not understanding the skill or not knowing how to
apply the skill. This could be due to the fact that some questions did not directly ask
for opposites such as advantages and disadvantages or causes and effects etc.
Students thus find it hard to apply the skill to other questions. This was confirmed by
teachers’ feedback that questions were not explicit in asking for ‘Opposites’ and thus
priming did not work for the students and they could not extrapolate the skill to other
questions. Another reason could be that ‘Opposites’ uses the skill of Analysis which is
also a critical thinking skill that requires practice.
Total %
Reason 19 25.7
Alternatives 21 28.4
Opposites 19 25.7
Balance 10 13.5
10 13.5
19
25.7
21
28.4
19
25.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least Useful Thinking Skill
Balance Opposites Alternatives Reason

33
Finally, students gave their input on how B.O.A.R was useful to them (Figure 17).
Leading the pack was 59.5% agreement that B.O.A.R was useful for generating ideas,
followed by 58.1% who felt that it helped them to analyse an issue more deeply. The
aim for B.O.A.R to help students make links to their experiences seemed to enjoy only
moderate success.
Figure 18: How B.O.A.R was useful
The feedback was encouraging in supporting the original intent of B.O.A.R as an
instrument to generate ideas. As indicated earlier, students did not find it easy using
‘Reason’ to enunciate their personal values and their perceptions of B.O.A.R as an
instrument of that was the lowest of the five aspects of usefulness (Figure 17).
DISCUSSION
It appears that, from the quantitative and qualitative analyses, students generally found
B.O.A.R useful in lifting their conversation skills in one way or another, although they
have differing levels of understanding for each skill. More information surfaced in the
group interview. Although students confirmedthe fact that B.O.A.R was generally easy
to understand, they did experience confusion. For example, somefound ‘Opposites’ to
be similar to ‘Balance’ and were confused between the two. This may point at some
gaps in the metacognitive understanding and application of the skill. Although
‘Opposites’ and ‘Balance’ both require students to give ‘two sides of the story’, ‘Balance’
44
59.5
43
58.1
33 44.6
24 32.434 45.9
0
50
100
Total %
Usefulness of B.O.A.Rin...
helping you generate new ideas
helping you analyse an issue more deeply
helping you make links to your experiences and knowledge
helping you relate to others your personal values
helping you give balanced views

34
points to when and for whom a certain situation may not apply, using the skill of
Evaluation. ‘Opposites’ however, employs antithetical thinking such as in ‘problem
versus solution’ and concerns itself with the skill of Analysis (Table 3). Analysis
requires the breaking down of parts of an idea to consider their relations with one
another and to the larger picture. With ‘Opposites’, students are geared towards
contrasting different parts of an idea, rather than comparing similar parts. In Evaluation
(‘Balance’), students also have to consider contradictions in an idea and to come to a
decision about it. In doing that, they may see that they have done the analysis of the
smaller parts of an idea and confuse it with evaluating the larger picture. For example,
if confronted with the question if dancing is the best form of exercise, they may do an
analysis by breaking down the various pros and cons of dancing as a form of exercise.
However, when they evaluate, they have to consider how the various pros and cons
interact with other factors such as the age of individuals, the spaces they have and
their personal preferences before coming to a decision if they agreed with the
statement. They may not be as cognisant of the latter thought process and simply think
that they have done the analysis of pros and cons. They might also have been unable
to perform the skill of Evaluation, considering and developing perspectives and value
judgments. The explicit teaching of metacognitive skills may be considered for
students to be able to differentiate their levels of thinking and reasoning and more
exercises to develop the skill of Evaluation.
In addition, as reported earlier in the paper, oral questions evolve from year to year. It
may be difficult for students to apply ‘Opposites’ flexibly and interchangeably if the
question does not contain the specific terms as introduced in the ‘Opposites’ skill, such
as ‘pros and cons’, ‘incentives and disincentives’ etc (Table 3). Thus, more time and
practice may be needed to help students think in, relate to and apply ‘Opposites’ to
questions that may not immediately present itself as an ‘Opposites’ question and to
identify suitable opportunities to use this skill.

35
Another point of interest is that students listed nervousness as one of the reasons for
not using B.O.A.R as much as they had wanted to. As high as 44.6% said they blanked
out during the examination (Figure 18). In the smallgroup interview, students explained
that although it was relatively easy to learn and understand B.O.A.R, it was harder to
use them due to nerves. However, as the discussionwent on, some students said they
might have used B.O.A.R subconsciously. When the researcher clarified with the
others, even those who had said they thought they did not use B.O.A.R raised their
hands. A total of 11 out of 20 students said that they used B.O.A.R subconsciously.
On the optimistic front, this may indicate the internalisation of the thinking frame as
they start to use the skills without realising it. Through their practices, students might
have stored the messages in their long-term memory and retrieved them
subconsciously (ed. Dechert and Raupach, 1987) during the test, giving them a sense
of familiarity.
However, it could also mean that students are still not cognizant of their meta-thinking
as much as the researcher had hoped that B.O.A.R would do for them. Regardless,
this discovery is good information about the teaching approach and the time frame
used to teach it. As reflected by students in the interview, about half of them wanted
more individual practice and classroom discussions where teachers cue the students
on the skills and where they could hear one another’s views. Students felt that the
exchange of ideas and the input from teachers will help to enrich their own answers
and clarify the skills. This motivates the researcherto implement B.O.A.R over a longer
time period for students to discuss and utilise the frame in more practices and perhaps
in stages where they can learn and internalise one skill at a time.

36
Figure 19: Reasons for not using any of the B.O.A.R skills
CONCLUSION
Findings
The study shows quantitative improvements in conversation skills of the students at
the oral examination. Apart from higher scores achieved in Spoken Interaction,
students perceived B.O.A.R to be useful in generating ideas and moderately useful in
linking to experiences and knowledge. In addition, they spoke about B.O.A.R helping
them ‘organise ideas in a professional way’, ‘think more than usual’, and giving them
‘more to talk about’. This is supported by teachers who felt that B.O.A.R helped
students organise ideas and analyse issues more deeply. As one of the teacher-
participants put it, the frame gave students “a language to structure their thoughts.”
Thus, it is encouraging to the researcher that B.O.A.R was able to fulfil the intentions
of its conception, mainly to help students generate ideas, organise their thoughts and
to provide them opportunities to accumulate thinking experiences in conversations.
Perhaps the most unexpected but positive finding through the interview was that
students reflected that they were positive about using B.O.A.R in their daily lives and
found it useful for other subjects such as the Humanities. It is gratifying as it was one
of the aims of the researcher for B.O.A.R to have a greater impact on students then
17.6
44.6
8.1
8.1
Forgot
Nervous
Not Applicable
Other reasons
0 10 20 30 40 50
Reasons for not using BOAR in oral
exam

37
what it could do for them at the oral examination, and count it a step towards the
ultimate purpose of education, where students live their learning.
Implications
The confusion faced by students in understanding some of the thinking skills and the
difficulty faced in applying them during examination are fodder for enhancements to
the pedagogy and time frame of implementation. The differing appreciation for each
thinking skill also helps the researcher to think about pitching the teaching of the skill
in such a way that it benefits speakers who are comfortable with familiar skills and
those who prefer more challenging learning goals. The moderate success of using
B.O.A.R to link to past experiences will motivate the researcher to dwell on how else
to make this intent more accessible through the frame.
The information that researchers gathered regarding the thinking level students
function at or find difficulty with can be put to good use to develop packages that
promote the teaching of explicit metacognitive skills. The department can begin to
challenge the students to practise the higher levels of Synthesis and Evaluation in
order to enhance their critical thinking skills.
At the present moment, the researcher has recommended the English Language
department to teach B.O.A.R across the levels, starting with the most relatable skill of
‘Reason’ at the Secondary One level, giving students ample time and practice to
understand and internalise the skill of articulating their personal values, before
progressing to the next skill in the next year. At the same time, the department will
begin to teach metacognitive skills such as Bloom’s taxonomy in tandem with B.O.A.R
so that students get used to the language of thinking about thinking and bring their
thought processes to the fore of consciousness. For example, the lower secondary
students will be introduced to Bloom’s Taxonomy skills with focus on Knowledge and
be moved up the scale to Evaluation gradually. In upper secondary, they would focus

38
on Analysis and Synthesis to create new knowledge (in tandem with ‘Opposites’ and
‘Alternatives’). By the time they sit for the national oral exams, they may have mastered
the four thinking skills.

39
REFERENCES:
Afshar, H. S. & Rahimi, M. (2015). Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking
ability of EFL learners: Is there a relation? Thinking Skills and Creativity 19, 97-111.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.005
Anbalagan, S. YANG X. & CHU, S.H., (n.d.). A Study on the Impact of a Drama-in-Curric ulum
Programme on Students’ Oral Competence and Confidence. Retrieved from
http://www.iaea.info/documents/ paper_4d52a000. PDF
Ansari, M.S. (2015). Speaking Anxiety in ESL/EFL Classrooms: A Holistic Approach and
Practical Study. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2 (4), 38-46.
Barjesteh, H. & Vaseghi, R. (2012). Critical Thinking: A Reading Strategy in Developing English
Reading Comprehension Performance, Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, 1(2), 21-34. Retrieved
from http:// efl.shbu.ac.ir/ efl2/2.pdf
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
2nd Edition. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Casamassima, M. & Insua, F. (2015). On How Thinking Shapes Speaking: Techniques to
Enhance Students’ Oral Discourse, English Teaching Forum, 21-29. https://americanenglish.
state.gov/files/ ae/resource_files/ 53-2_5_casa massima_insua.pdf
Chan, C. & Chia, A. (2014). Reading in the 21st Century: Understanding Multimodal Texts &
Developing Multiliteracy Skills. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
Chen, M-H. (2016). Theoretical Framework for Integrating Higher-Order Thinking into L2
Speaking. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 217-226. DOI:
http://dx.dor.org/10.17507/tpls.0602.01
Chen, M-H. (2017). Integrating Thinking into L2 Learning: What do We Learn from Students’
Learning Experience. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(7), 512-522. DOI:
http://dx.dor.org/10.17507/ tpls.0707.03
Costa, L. A. (1991). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods
Approaches. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davis, M. D. & Dickmeyer, S. G. (1993). Critical Thinking Pedagogy: Opportunities to Take
Limited Preparation beyond the Realm of Competition. Paper presented at the Annual meeting
of the Speech Communication Association. Miami: Florida.
Dechert, H.W. and Raupach, M. (Ed.) (1987). Psycholinguistic Models of Production. New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co. http://rci.rutgers.edu/
~tripmcc/phil/dewey-hwt-pt1-selections.pdf
Dilekli, Y. & Tezci, E. (2016). The relationship among teachers’ classroom practices for
teaching thinking skills, teachers’ self-efficacy towards teaching thinking skills and teachers’
teaching styles, Thinking Skills and Creativity 21, 144-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tsc.2016.06.001
Jacobs, G.M. & Goh, C.C.M. (2007). In Renandya, W.A. & Richards, J.C. (Ed.), Cooperative
Learning in the Classroom. (RELC Portfolio Series 14). Singapore, SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre.

40
Kudabar, M. K. & Gnanambikai, W. K. (2009) Impact of the Drama Pedagogical Tool on the
Level of Engagement and English Oral Examination Results of Secondary One Students.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. USA: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Ministry of Education. (2010). English Language Syllabus 2010 Primary & Secondary
(Express/Normal [Academic]). Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/
docs/default-source/document/ education/ syllabuses/ english-language-andliterature/
files/english-primary-secondary-express normal-academic.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2011). General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level, English
Language 1128, Specimen Papers and Marking Guides. Singapore.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Report of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy
Review. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.edu.sg/pdf/MOE%20 English%20Review.pdf
Ministry of Education in collaboration with University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate. (2013). General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level, English Language Paper
4 Oral Communication Day 3, 2013.
Malmir, A. & Shoorcheh, S. (2012). An Investigation of the Impact of Teaching Critical Thinking
on the Iranian EFL Learners’ Speaking Skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4),
608-617. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.608-617
Moseley, D. and Baumfield, V. and Elliott, J. and Gregson, M. and Higgins, S. and Miller J. and
Newton, D. P. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: a handbook for teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1: The nature of thinking and thinking skills,
p 8-32. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2277/0521848318
Obaidullah, M. (2016). Role of ‘Thinking’ and ‘Understanding’ as Two Other Major Skills in
Learning a Language: A pedagogical Interpretation. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies, 7(6), 209-215. DOI:10.7575/ aiac.alls.v.7n.6p.209
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Thinking frames. Educational Leadership, 4-10. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.com/ ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198605_ perkins.pdf
Roth, W-M. (2013). An Integrated Theory of Thinking and Speaking that Draws on Vygotsky
and Bakhtin/Volosinov. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 1, A32-A53.
DOI:10.5195/dpj.2013.20
Sanavi, R. V. & Tarighat, S. (2014). Critical Thinking and Speaking Proficiency: A Mixed-
method Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(1), 79-87. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.1.79-
87
Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. In Widdowson, H.G. (Ed.), Oxford Introductions to
Language Study. UK: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Yang, Y. C., Gamble, J. H., Hung, Y-W. & Lin, Z-Y. (2014). An online adaptive learning
environment for critical-thinking-infused English literacy instruction, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 45(4), 723-747. doi:10.1111/bjet.12080
Yang, Y-T. C., Chuang, Y-C., Li, L-Y. & Tseng, S.S. (2013). A blended learning environment
for individualized English listening and speaking integrating critical thinking. Computers &
Education 63, 285-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu. 2012.12.012
Yaghoubi, A. (2017). Critical Thinking and Willingness to Communicate among EFL Students.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 375-381. DOI: http://dx.dor.org/
10.17507/jltr.0802.22

41
Zare, P. (2015). Critical Thinking Skills among EFL/ESL Learners: A Review of Literature.
Language in India, 15(11), 241-257. http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2015/zarecritical
thinking.pdf
Zhang, D. & Goh, C.C.M. (2006). Strategy Knowledge and Perceived Strategy Use:
Singaporean Students' Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies. Language
Awareness, 15(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.2167/la342.0

Investigating the implementation of BOAR to develop secondary school students' conversation skills.pdf

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Investigating the implementation of BOAR to develop secondary school students' conversation skills.pdf

Semelhante a Investigating the implementation of BOAR to develop secondary school students' conversation skills.pdf (20)

Último

Último (20)

Investigating the implementation of BOAR to develop secondary school students' conversation skills.pdf