1

In English language teaching the search for promoting students’ oral production is dominant,
because our country educational system intends to have all students speaking English. A lot has
been discussed as to which ways should be taken as for it to be successfully accomplished, as a
result the use of communicative activities came to the written down. A lot of activities have been
suggested and used; notwithstanding the failure to produce the language expected on the part of
students prevails. Not only this, but also, the researchers’ internship culminated with a notice that
the majority of Mapara secondary school students, lack oral production. Thus, the main objective
of this study is to examine factors underlying Mapara Secondary students’ lack of oral production
by identifying the problems hindering oral production development, by analyzing the classroom
materials used by teachers as to boost oral production, and by proposing effective activities and
techniques for boosting oral production.

Three questions were found crucial to be raised: what are the problems hindering Mapara
secondary students’ oral production?, what classroom materials are used by teachers to boost oral
production?, are the classroom activities and techniques used to boost oral production effective?

As an attempt to respond to these questions the following were the possible answers: students
may face oral production problems due to the lack of use of communicative activities, the
classroom materials used by teachers to boost oral production may not be appropriate, and may
be the activities and techniques used by teachers may also not be effective.

With respect to data collection, it is worth saying that quantitative and qualitative dimensions
were employed, because the former helped the researcher collect and analyze the data through
numbers and the latter helped the researcher to collect and analyze the data naturally. The target
population for this study was 83 students and 8 English teachers. As for the sample it is worth
saying that 66 students out of 83 were randomly selected and through this number conclusions
could be claimed.

With regards to the instruments used, it is worth noting that questionnaire, interview and
observation form were the basic instruments for data collection, where questionnaire was for
students, interview for teachers and observation form was employed as to check what teachers do
as to encourage oral production.

The chapter 2 has to do with the theoretical overview which gave a support to our study by giving
us the basic definitions. One of the definitions that is crucial to be stated is the distinction
between mechanical, meaningful and communicative practices…

Now let’s turn our attention to chapter 3 where the data collected is presented, analyzed discussed
and our hypothesis are tested. As stated in chapter I that questionnaire and interview were used in
this research, the questionnaire as well as interview forms had 3 similar questions that were found
crucial to be presented. The first is how often does your teacher assign activities which demand
you to fill in with your own information, the second was have you ever used a communicative
teaching sequence? And the last but not the least, was about the classroom materials used to boost
 2

oral production. For the first question the majority of students said that it’s very seldom, for the
second the teachers before voicing their views explanations of what communicative teaching
sequence meant was called for. However, some had previous knowledge about it, when pressed
to give detailed account they failed. Lastly, both teachers and students stated that there is a high
use of exercises from grammar books. Through this answers it is obvious that our hypotheses are
proven right.

In chapter 4 proposals, recommendations and implementation are presented. With respect to the
proposals it is worth noting that the main idea is to show how applicable discussions, role plays,
debates and so forth as part of communicative activities are with the communicative teaching
sequence proposed by Richards. Thus, teachers are highly recommended to use such structure
when teaching if want their students to develop oral production. Just to emphasize it fits better in
a PPP lesson plan, because a teacher can decide to drill in the presentation, let ss make
meaningful choices in the practice stage and finally, develop an activity which will demand
students to use the language in a real communicative context in the production stage.

As for implementation, there will be copies to be sent to the school as for teachers have access of
it.