Abstract
This study aimed at exploring the results of an intervention designed to improve the listening-speaking skills of students with low English proficiency for 60 hours over three weeks. These twenty-eight students were randomly selected from the lowest group in English ability among the first year students at Thammasat University, Thailand. The students had participated in integrated-skills classes unsuccessfully and had become less motivated in learning English. Three teachers designed a course to help students find English learning more enjoyable, develop a better attitude and get ready to study ESP courses in subsequent years of university. The data was collected from the pre-post tests, pre-post questionnaires, classroom observation, students’ self reflection, and course evaluation. The findings showed that: (1) the scores and the students’ readiness, interests, and confidence in learning and using English were significantly increased; (2) some students rated as 0 or 0+ speakers became Level 1+ and Level 2 performers; (3) from classroom observation, the students showed good rapport among themselves and with the teachers; (4) the students reflected on their changes cognitively, affectively and behaviorally; and (5) the students were satisfied with the course as a whole. The research also analyzed the factors for success and gave some recommendations for an EFL situation.

Keywords: teaching listening and speaking, intensive course, less-able students, slow language learners, low English proficiency

1.  Introduction
High school students in Thailand must get certain scores from the National Entrance Exam to gain admission to a faculty of a public university. The English scores the students get from the Entrance Exam are used for student placement into an English class at Thammasat University. If their English scores are over 80 per cent, they will be classified as advanced students, who can be exempted from taking English foundation courses, while lower scored students will be grouped into high intermediate, intermediate, and low intermediate or less able students. These three groups of students are placed at different levels of English courses called EL172, EL171 and EL070. The last group of the students, about 20 percent of 3,000 students each year, is the main concern of this study. Their entrance English scores are below 40 per cent. They are less able in English when compared to their peers. Their utterances are in words or short prefabricated phrases. Their grammar is mostly inaccurate and their pronunciation requires concentrated listening. In class they are apparently less motivated to learn because they know their English ability is low. When their ability or their grades are low, they are less motivated to learn.  When they are less motivated to learn, their ability can never improve (Littlejohn, 2001).   Because of their ‘negative learning experience’, they say goodbye to English as quickly as they can. However, from the year 2003 the Commission on Higher Education of Thailand requires that university students take at least 12 credits of English before they graduate (Wiriyachitra, 2002). This means that, apart from English foundation courses, students have to take one or two more ESP courses in their later years. Again, they participate in such classes with very little progress. They leave university being unable to do a simple task such as giving directions to a foreign tourist. From an informal interview to 25 randomly selected students of the fourth year students in 2003, the researcher found that the students had participated unsuccessfully in the English classes because the teaching of all four skills was too difficult for them.  Also, their real need of English was only the ability to communicate satisfactorily for basic needs such as giving directions or other language functions needed for everyday survival. Their opinions seemed to agree with El-Koumy (2000), who concluded that the teaching focusing on integrated skills seemed to be too burdensome for less able students but more suitable to highly motivated learners. Harlow and Muyskens (1994) also pointed out that the ultimate goal of most language learners is to be able to converse or communicate in that language when they are traveling or trying to gain access to information through interactive technologies such as movies and television.  Hadley (2001, p. 94) also suggested that although teaching speaking and listening skills helps follow natural sequences in acquiring a language, teaching less able learners requires special settings. The learners should be provided a classroom context where they enjoy learning with low anxiety, practicing simple but meaningful and personalized language patterns. After the learners have developed the fluency of the language of a ‘here-and-now’ context, the lessons then can aim at higher linguistic levels. This study, therefore, tried to develop a classroom context that emphasized more listening and speaking, expecting students to find English learning more enjoyable and thus developing better motivation so that they could participate and study ESP courses more successfully in their later university studies.

2.  Literature review
Shrum and Glisan (2005) explained that average or non-gifted students are actually one of two groups. The first group refers to students with a learning disability (LD). They suffer from disorders that affect a broad range of academic and functional skills including the ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, reason and organize information. They need long-term assistance from specialists. The second group refers to students whose aptitude for language learning is minimal (FL-difficulties). They are poor language learners but if more suitable language classes are provided they may improve.  However, it is quite unfortunate that a ‘more suitable language class’ seldom exists. Most language teachers practice according to what was concluded by McDonough (1981, p. 138). Classroom management most of the time ignores individual differences of the learners. A classroom of mixed ability students requires a teaching method that focuses on a variety of activities with the hope that either one or other of the activities will help the majority of students to some extent, while slow learners become temporarily ‘invisible’ or ignored. However, there have been concerns and administrative policies that pay more attention to minority populations.  For example, in the United States there is a federal legislation which enacts the theories of standards-based educational reform called No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Although, according to Shaw & Gouwens (2002), being hotly debated in requiring all public school students to be measured annually for math and reading and leading to some undesirable practice in some schools, the Act explicitly indicates that slow learners or LD students do exist and need more attention. In Peru, the Remedial English Project was initiated in 1992 to study the learning disabled group and the English slow learners to find ways in assisting them. That means in both cases, slow learners are regarded as ones who have specific needs and, therefore, special classes must be established in some ways to help them (Lescano, 1995). The placement of students in courses of different levels at Thammasat University reflects an attempt to help slow learners. The lowest level course (EL070) is regarded as a non-credit remedial course for students with low English proficiency. Such students usually show poor memory or function at significantly below the expected level. They score low on achievement tests. They master skills slowly and have poor self-image.  All of these contribute to their low motivation. The problem that still exists at Thammasat University and probably elsewhere in Thailand is the regular class size of over 40 or 50 students, which makes it almost impossible for a teacher to care for individual differences. 
   Jamieson (1992) looked into variables that contribute to individual differences in language learning: aptitude, motivation, anxiety, self-esteem, extrovert and introvert personality, and cognitive style. A lot of research had been conducted to find ways to help poor learners. In an EFL situation, Takeuchi (2003) tried to compare the learning strategies of 153 Japanese students comprising poor language learners, good language learners, highly advanced learners and successful language learners. The results of the study showed that poor language learners used only 3 strategies in language learning while successful learners used 31 strategies. In 1999, Chung conducted an experiment in Taiwan asking students to watch videos with or without context and subtitles. It was found that when the lessons were prepared to match the level of the learners, there was no significant difference in achievement between fast learners and poor learners.  Gan, Humbpreys, & Hamp-Lyons (2004) compared nine successful language learners (SLLs) with 9 unsuccessful language learners (ULLs). One of the results showed that ULLs believed that teachers paid interest only to SLLs and did not give them enough help. They felt they were forgotten. These studies implied that it is possible to help slow learners by training them to use more language learning strategies or showing them that they are not forgotten by preparing lessons that are more suitable to their learning styles.

   Theoretically, Hadley (2001, pp. 94-105) proposed five hypotheses that would be conducive to the achievement of language teaching goals, but only some of them seem applicable to slow learners. For instance, one of the hypotheses involves providing opportunities for students to practice using language in a range of contexts likely to be encountered in the target culture. This means students should be encouraged to express what they mean interacting among themselves and with native speakers of English, or English speaking people. Thus, small group activities or outside class experiential activities should be provided exclusively while teacher-fronted instructional formats also have their place. In other words, Hadley commented that classroom practice should provide opportunities for students to carry out a wide range of language functions. The teaching practice that limits the student role to the respondent of the teacher question and the belief that a higher level of language functions such as activities enquiring student opinions, arguments or inquiries should be reserved for advanced conversation courses may not be right because the majority of students never take such courses. However, while the teaching approach is targeted to help students cope with communication demands, the role of the development of accuracy or the form-focused instruction must have its part in a language classroom. The most important hypothesis that is really applicable to poor language learners is to tailor a lesson that is responsive to the affective as well as the cognitive needs of students.  The students should be settled in a classroom environment that lowers their anxiety, increases their confidence and encourages their willingness to communicate (Chan, 2002). Actually, the last aspect - the willingness to communicate (WTC) - has been suggested by many educators such as MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, & Donovan (2003) that it be the ultimate goal of language learning process which must always be engendered. Some examples in engendering students’ WTC include planting students’ interest in foreign affairs and foreign cultures, removing students’ anxiety and building their confidence in using the language, preparing students to complete tasks in pairs before performing in a large-group setting, using authentic materials, and using a variety of activities and tasks.
   Balado (2001) and Lescano (1995) suggested the following practical ideas to help teachers understand slow learners and work with them in a more effective way:

• Their weakest skills are writing and reading. Focus priority goals on oral expression and listening skills and devote less time and effort to polishing grammar and detailed reading.
• Use lots of praise and reinforcement. Also, slow learners need repetition.
• Limit the working time and have several short work periods rather than one long one.
• Add variety to the academic routine. Do active things and use educational games, puzzles, and other techniques as much as possible.

• Work on material that is somewhat challenging but allows success. Work that is too hard or too easy is a turn-off.
• Make learning fun and comfortable. 
• Provide meaningful, concrete activities rather than abstract ones.

   Together with the suggestions above, another essential aspect to help poor language learners is to provide a lot of opportunities for language exposure. Lightbown & Spada (1987; 1989) compared 1000 students from 40 intensive classes and 200 students from regular programs. The study found that intensive experienced learners, who had learned the language for five months, were more fluent and confident in using the language than the non-intensive experienced learners, who had been learning the language for 5 to 7 years.  Wighting, Lisbet & Tindall (2005) reported the results of a three-week intensive course preparing 149 young Chinese students to be able to liaise in English with the 2008 Olympic Games participants. A variety of activities were used and the results were quite satisfactory because language improvement and cultural awareness were remarkable through the intensity of English exposure with American teachers and American friends in the camp. There are also many other intensive language courses throughout the world that usually require learners to attend class every day for at least 3-6 weeks so that a certain level of proficiency can be reached. It is also fortunate that those courses can be run with the ideal number of 8, 12 or 15 participants in each class. There has been a plethora of advertisements that claim their language intensive courses provide a one-to-one student/teacher ratio or small classes with a fully flexible learning content geared to the needs of an individual learner.
   Based on research explored in the above review, this study, therefore, intended to set a framework in offering a ‘special class’ to a ‘special group’ of students within the following scope. The course offered was aimed to:

• increase the intensity of the learning time and decrease the number of class participants,
• give priority to listening and speaking skills,
• provide varieties of activities that require interaction, collaboration, and competition, and
• provide sufficient input and at the same time encourage output both inside and outside class.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Purposes of the study
The study aimed to find out how much the course could help and promote a more positive attitude towards learning English in the learners, and thus the following goals were set:
3.1.1    To study the development of the students’ listening and speaking skills after they joined the course
3.1.2 To study the students’ readiness, interests, and confidence in learning and   using English after taking the course
3.1.3 To evaluate the course as a whole, regarding the curriculum, the teaching methodology and other aspects of classroom environment

3.2 Participants
Twenty-eight students were randomly selected from 360 students of the lowest ability group of Thammasat University first year students. Their grades from a previous English course were a D and D+. 

3.3    Curriculum and teaching methodology
The three-week course comprised 60 hours: half days from Monday to Wednesday and full days on Thursday and Friday. The communicative approach was used with the variety of ‘fun’ elements such as games, puzzles, songs, competitions, collaboration and roleplays. Two Friday afternoons were reserved for ‘review activities’ of the language practiced from the whole week. There was a day trip to a tourist attraction where students were assigned in a walk rally game to communicate with foreign tourists to fulfill two tasks. The last day of the course was called the ‘Day of Performance.’ Students were assigned to engage in simulation and roleplay activities.  The learners were divided into three subgroups which were led by two Thai teachers and one native speaker. Each teacher took care of a group for one week and changed to the next group. In some activities all three teachers mixed all learners together and shared the information gaps that each group had encountered. The target language functions involved giving personal and family information; describing objects, places and people; giving directions and telling locations; telling likes and dislikes; comparing things; shopping and ordering meals; and discussing their future plans.  These topics were chosen because they seemed useful for everyday life communication.

3.4  Data collection and analysis
Five research tools were used in this study. The data was analyzed both  quantitatively and qualitatively. 

3.4.1 A pre and post-test was designed by the researcher team to find the students’ ability in two skills. The listening test consisted of 40 multiple-choice questions and the speaking test comprised 10 questions used for a structured interview. The tests were based on the content from the book chosen for the course called “New Person to Person” (Richards, 1995). The book was actually a guideline to lead the three teachers in the same direction, while other teaching activities were supplemented as necessary.  The two tests had been piloted with 40 students who were at the same level as the subjects of the study and the test results were analyzed for reliability and validity. The MC listening test could be objectively scored while the speaking test required the reliability of two raters. This was done after the two testers had interviewed 10 students who were at the same level with the subjects and compared the test results.  The inter-rater reliability was 0.9455. The listening pre and post-test results were analyzed by mean, standard deviation, and dependent t-test. The speaking test results were also analyzed with the same statistics but the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) rating criteria (Long & Richards, 1987, pp. 407-408) were also used to rank the level of the students’ speaking performance. This FSI criteria was used because with the checklist of performance and conversion tables, as Keitges (1987) suggested, it could be used to interpret the level of a learner quite effectively.

3.4.2 A pre and post questionnaire was designed by the researcher to find the students’ readiness, interests and confidence in learning and using English. The questionnaire required students to give their previous background of language learning such as the grades they had got in their previous English courses. The main questions in the questionnaire were grouped into four parts using the Likert scale to rate the students’ responses. The first part consisted of 10 questions aimed at finding how the students could see the importance, necessity and benefits of learning English and the researcher set this part to see if there was any ‘cognitive’ change in the students’ views.  The second part of the questionnaire involved the ‘affective’ elements in learning English as how they felt about learning English. The third part of the questionnaire asked about how they behaved regarding the use of English in their daily life. In other words, these three parts of the questionnaire actually aimed at finding how the students ‘think, feel, and do’ about English. The last part of the questionnaire was to check the students’ confidence in using the target language functions such as talking about themselves and their families, giving directions and ordering a meal. The questionnaire had been piloted with the same students who had helped in piloting the listening and speaking tests. The data was analyzed with the mean, standard deviation and t-test.

3.4.3 A self-reflection check sheet was developed to see how the students mirrored their learning experience. It involved the three aspects that corresponded with the questionnaire mentioned above, i.e. students were expected to reflect change (or no change) cognitively, affectively and behaviourally. This check sheet was delivered everyday at the end of each class to individual students and because of the huge pile of the paper, the data only from the five lowest and the five highest achievers at the end of the course was analyzed.

3.4.4 Classroom observation was conducted 9 times during the three weeks. The observer, the researcher who did not teach the course, set the aim to focus on four aspects of the teaching procedure, namely: the teacher-student interaction, the student-student interaction, the course content and teaching methods, and the classroom general atmosphere. The data was analyzed based on the notes given under each aspect and then descriptively summarized.

3.4.5 A course evaluation form adapted from the one regularly used by Thammasat University at the end of each course was also distributed to find the students’ opinions about the teaching methodology, the teachers, the curriculum and other administrative factors such as the time allotted for the course and the class size. The data was analyzed with percentage, mean and standard deviation. 

4.   Results
The results are presented in the following discrete areas:
4.1   Listening test results
The students’ listening average score significantly increased from 17.82 to 22.61 from the total of 40 as shown in the table below.

Table 1: Listening test results

	Mean	Standard Deviation	t	Sig. (2-tailed)
pre-test post-test	17.82 22.61	7.013 7.057	-5.537	.000***

4.2 Speaking test results

The students’ average score of speaking increased from 22.71 to 33.75 from the total of 60 as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Speaking test results

	Mean	Standard Deviation	t	Sig. (2-tailed)
pre-test  post-test	22.71 33.75	8.119 8.934	-7.396	.000***

*** Sig 0.001

The students’ level of speaking performance was also rated with the FSI criteria. It was found that before taking the course, 25 students were rated as Level 0, 0+, and Level 1 speakers. At the end of the course, there were only 12 students who were left at Level 0-1 while 16 of them became speakers of Level 1+ and Level 2 as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Development of speaking skills rated by FSI criteria

Pre test		Post test
Level	Number of students	Level	Number of students
0	2	0	1
0+	15	0+	4
1	8	1	7
1+	2	1+	10
2	1	2	6

When looking closely at the quality of the performance, students’ responses developed quite positively. Their utterances, rather than words or fabricated short phrases with long pauses, became longer and more polite.  The examples of students’ responses can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4: Examples of students’ responses

Pretest	Post test
Example 1 T:  Can you tell me what you see in the       picture? S:  Belt.	T:  Can you tell me what you see in the       picture? S:   It’s a belt.  A leather belt.  It’s red.          It’s for (a)* lady.
Example 2 T:  Can you tell me what you are wearing       today? S:  Jean.  Shirt.	T:  Can you tell me what you are wearing       today? S:   I’m wearing jeans, blue jeans.  My T-       shirt is red and white.   I’m wearing       white sock(s)* and pink trainer(s)*.
Example 3 T:  You’re in a restaurant.  You want to       order food and here’s the menu.  S:  I want chicken.  (long pause) Salad.	T: You’re in a restaurant.  You want to      order food and here’s the menu. S: May I have a medium-rare steak, a      salad, and a coke, ( pause) please.

|
4.3 Students’ readiness, interests, and confidence in learning and using English

The study found a relatively high significance that the students changed cognitively.  This means students could see how English was important for their further studies and their jobs; 80 percent of the subjects suggested that many more English courses be compulsory. They also saw English as having become necessary for many daily activities. The second ranked responses involved affective filters. Students found English learning more enjoyable, less tiring, and not beyond their capability. The lowest rank was indicated by their behavior. The statistics showed the least change in their behavior. They still seldom read English newspapers and neither did they listen to English radio programs or try to talk to foreigners. However, the positive cognitive, affective and behavioral changes could be noticed from the t-test result as shown in the following table.

Table 5 : Students’ readiness and interests in learning English

	Mean (Pretest)	SD.	Mean (posttest)	SD.	t-test	Sig.
Cognitive elements (what students think)	3.87	0.37	4.04	0.32	-3.70	0.00***
Affective elements (how students feel)	3.21	0.34	3.38	0.33	13.00	0.00***
Behavior (what students do)	2.66	0.75	3.03	0.77	-3.10	0.00***

***Sig 0.00

When the data about how confident the students were in using English was analysed, it was found that students could do best when talking about themselves, telling likes and dislikes, and giving directions while they were less confident in comparing objects and places, discussing about their future plans and giving presentations in front of the class as shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Students’ confidence in using English

Language Function	Mean Pretest	SD.	Mean Posttest	SD.	t-test	Sig.
1. talking about oneself	2.93	0.77	3.36	0.56	-3.06	0.00***
2. talking about family	2.79	0.57	3.29	0.76	-3.33	0.00***
3. describing clothing	2.68	0.77	3.21	0.50	-3.22	0.00***
4. describing objects	2.57	0.79	3.18	0.55	-3.67	0.00***
5. giving directions	2.61	0.96	3.57	0.74	-4.93	0.00***
6. telling likes and dislikes	2.93	0.94	3.64	0.62	-3.87	0.00***
7. shopping	2.46	0.84	3.21	0.79	-4.10	0.00***
8. comparing things	2.46	0.92	2.96	0.64	-3.15	0.00***
9. comparing places	2.18	0.77	2.89	0.79	-4.67	0.00***
10. ordering food	2.43	0.88	3.29	0.76	-5.09	0.00***
11.talking about future plans	2.32	0.90	2.89	0.96	-2.83	0.01 **
12. giving presentations	2.14	0.76	2.64	0.56	-3.55	0.00***

4.4 Results from students’ self reflection

Although the data from the check sheet was analyzed as percentages, the results showed some agreement with the results from the questionnaire in 4.3. Cognitively, the majority of the students (82%) could see that English was essential in their lives; they learned it in a more motivated way; they tried to attend class regularly and 90% of them showed up on time. They noticed the difference between ‘fun’ and ‘less fun’ or ‘less difficult’ lessons. They felt that they could talk about themselves and their family in a more informative way. They could describe the appearance of objects, places and people and could also discuss their likes and dislikes more confidently. They understood the teachers and their peers better and they could make themselves understood a lot better.

4.5 Results from classroom observation

The observer found the teachers could develop a good rapport with the students. They remembered every student and showed intimacy by calling them by their nicknames.  The students themselves, realizing that they were among peers of the same level, tried to cooperate and help each other learn. They didn’t feel as inferior as when they were among ‘better’ learners. The content and the teaching methodology were suitable for them, especially when they were learning English by playing games. A good example of the game that the observer could see clearly that they really enjoyed was about describing objects. The teacher put many objects in a black plastic bag and each student took turns to put their hand in the bag and describe the objects without seeing them, while the other students tried to guess what the objects were from the description. The class atmosphere was quite desirable, and everyone became active participants. They participated in pairwork and groupwork quite satisfactorily. A few students even developed the courage to ask questions when the lessons seemed unclear to them. These kinds of behaviour seldom existed in their regular classes.

4.6 Results from the course evaluation

All of the students (100 percent) were satisfied with the intensity of the course, the number of classmates, the teachers and the teaching methodology and all of them agreed that the course was able to help improve their listening and speaking skills dramatically. A student wrote this comment at the open-ended part of the course evaluation form (translated by the researcher): I enjoyed this class a lot. I had never been able to give good information about my family before and I could have chance to speak English much more than ‘yes’ ‘no’ ‘okay.’ Another student wrote: Professor, if you do a new research, please let me join again. Your course really helps me improve my English.

5. Discussion and Recommendations

Despite the positive results that showed the high significance statistically in all aspects of this study, it cannot be taken for granted that the course was successful. It was very interesting to find that in a Thai context this research class could make only a little change in the students. It was apparent when the students’ average scores of both skills were compared as shown in the table below. From the pre test, the students’ combined average score of both listening and speaking skills was 40.53 from the total of 100. If the pass-mark was set at 50%, these students would have failed an English exam before taking the course. When the average score of the post test turned out to be 55.36, it meant the students passed the test, but they were still rated as poor language learners. It could not be said that a student with the score of 55 from 100 was a good student. Three weeks did help, but not much.

Table 6: Student’s average scores (both skills)

	Average Score (Listening)	Average Score (Speaking)	Total (100)
pre-test post-test	17.82 22.61	22.71 33.75	40.53=F* 55.36=P*

*F = failed, P = passed

Statistically, however, with such a significant improvement, given the short length of the intervention, it could probably be claimed that if a class was conducted properly and geared to the learners’ needs, it could be possible to help poor language learners.  The factors for success, the limitations of the study and the recommendations from the study are as follows:

5.1   Factors for success
5.1.1 It cannot be denied that this course was ideal for the participant students. The main components of success include a rare case of a small number of students in the class, the availability of both native and non-native English speakers, and the opportunities to run language-use activities both inside and outside class. Moreover, the students participated in the class in a relaxed atmosphere. They merely came to learn – no grades; it was a special course run for a research purpose. They could enjoy the class even though they were participating in the subject that some of them said was the ‘most-disliked’ one in their life. 

5.1.2 The course devoted less time and effort to focus on grammar and detailed reading, which was quite different from the regular class that the students had been familiar with. Such a course probably has resulted in the student higher motivation.  As Balado (2001) and Lescano (1995) have pointed out, the weakest skills of poor language learners are writing and reading. Thus, when the course focus was deviated from what they were not capable of to something that they found less demanding for accuracy, it may have helped boost their self-esteem. The change of the skill focus for this course could be one of the factors that helped motivate students to participate more actively.       In relation to this, the     classmates who shared a similar level of competency were another factor that     contributed to students’ active participation.  They did not keep quiet and let the ‘better’ students speak for them as in the regular class where more competent learners tend to dominate the talk. They needed to cooperate and help each other to put their message across, although the quality of the performance was not as good as the researcher had expected.

5.1.3 The awareness of the teachers who took student personality and cognition variables into account as suggested by Reiss (1981) and Oxford (1990) also played a great role in helping less able students. They combined the varieties of teaching methods that encouraged the students to develop positive attitudes in learning. One of the class ‘going shopping’ was started by Total Physical Response and ‘Simon Says’ game and then moved to some input of language model through listening and then role playing. Songs, games, and roleplays seemed to be the key elements in creating a non-stressful atmosphere in the class.

5.1.4 The real benefit of the course came from the intensity of the exposure; the students had to learn and use English every day for three weeks. In an EFL situation, time allocation for English learning may need reconsidering if students are expected to reach a high level of proficiency. In many Thai universities, students are required to take one or two compulsory English courses when they are in the first year, and English is optional in their later years. Students with average or low ability may never want to take any other elective courses once they have met the curricular minimum requirement. They may avoid English when they are in their third or fourth year.  When they graduate, it is apparent that they are not good at English and they cannot meet the demands for English used in the workplace (Wiriyachitra, 2002). From the current study, it seemed obvious that in order to improve the learners’ language skills, they should be exposed to the language every day, rather than the once or twice a week of regular classes. The Educational Testing Service found out that language learners with different levels of language aptitude require different learning time to achieve a goal. For example, a learner with minimum of aptitude may need at least 16 weeks (480 hours) of training to become a Level 1 speaker, 24 weeks (720 hours) to become a 1+ performer and 44 weeks (1320 hours) to be at the Level 2/2+ (Hadley, 2001, pp. 16-18). From this study, the students below average who had attended the class for 60 hours in three weeks did improve, so it may be likely that if they had had more opportunities to learn they would have more comfortable and confident in using English.

5.2 Limitations of the study

Like some other studies, an unavoidable problem occurred in the form of missing samples. At the beginning of the course, 36 students took part in the learning, but eight of them gradually disappeared. A few had given an excuse that they were too tired because they had another course to concentrate on to get a good grade from it. Two students explained that they wanted a summer vacation rather than coming to a non-credit class. The biggest problem that such an ideal class encountered was that the smaller the classes were, the greater the budget needed for administration. When the class size became smaller with only 8-12 students in each group rather than 40-50, it meant more teachers, more classrooms and more use of learning facilities. This study would not have been possible without the financial support from the Thailand Research Fund. In addition, the researcher should have had some follow-ups to see if the students could really participate in the subsequent ESP courses satisfactorily after the intervention.

5.3   Recommendations
5.3.1 More time should be given to language learning. The detailed amount of training and the expected levels of speaking proficiency is given in language taught at the Foreign Service Institute (Hadley, 2001, pp. 16-18) can be used as a guideline.

5.3.2 The focus skills in language learning and teaching should be reconsidered.  According to Wiriyachitra (2002), “researchers on the topics of needs and wants of English in workplaces have suggested that the English curriculum in Thai universities cannot meet the demands for English used in the workplace. The skills used most at this level are listening and speaking which are not the focus skills in the Thai tertiary education English curriculum.” It is thus necessary that universities take the findings of such research into consideration as an important part of the educational reform.
  
5.3.3 Low level learners should not be expected to reach the same successive level as good language learners. If the learners think their needs are listening and speaking skills, it is not justified to force them to learn all the four skills although each skill enhances the development of another skill. There are many cases where a successful native speaker of a language is not at all capable of tackling a high level of reading or writing proficiency. It really depends upon what skills are needed and regularly used.

5.3.4 Ways of evaluating student language ability should be changed. Thailand’s current system of evaluation and assessment of language learning is based on a grading system. After finishing a course students know only what grades they get or whether they pass or fail the exam but they never know their real ability in the English skills. They don’t know what they can and cannot do. There are benchmarks and band systems developed by many institutes which seem to better describe the learner successive level of communicative achievement. Such a system, which is increasingly available, should be applied in an EFL situation. In this research, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) Proficiency Ratings were used to assess the students’ speaking ability because it was found that the performance factors and descriptions, together with the weighting and conversions tables were quite easy for the raters to use. For example, if the raters found that the student ‘can ask and answer questions on topics very familiar to him/her with slowed speech and limited vocabulary, frequent errors of pronunciation and grammar but still be understood by a native speaker,’he/ she is a Level 1 speaker. If the student ‘can discuss particular interests with reasonable ease and adequate control of grammar,’ he/she would be ranked as a performer of Level 3. In addition, there have been current developments of guidelines that provide a means of assessing the proficiency of language learners, some more developments of scales for describing language proficiency and criterion-referenced performance assessments such as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), and the Common European Framework (CEF). They are descriptor systems that focus on the successful completion of communicative tasks, i.e. use-focused rather than form-focused, and each level of the systems can clearly refer to a learner’s ability in listening, speaking, reading or writing. If the students’ abilities are assessed by different skills, it means that some learners may reach a high level in reading but they may be at a lower level in listening, speaking, and writing. Their target needs seem more tangible and the description of ‘can do’ statements makes students recognize what skills they need to pay more or less attention to or when to enroll for a correct course. Countries in EFL situations may adopt or adapt one of those guidelines or establish their own appropriate to their context.

6.  Conclusion
Less-able students of English cannot cope with too many skills because they use very few strategies in language learning. For them, listening and speaking skills seem to be more motivating to acquire because they can use these skills for everyday communication. They should also be given opportunities to be exposed to the target language more intensively both inside and outside class because they need repetitive learning in an environment that is relaxing and encouraging. In assessment, there must be some clear guidelines, descriptors, or benchmarks to describe what the learners can do or what level they are at and what language functions they should learn to master so as to move up to another level. 

References
Balado, C. (2001). Teacher to teacher, slow learner questions.  Material supplied by University of Central Florida, School Psychology/Counselor Education Programs. Retrieved from  
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/t2t/thread.taco?thread=5858.

Chan, E. (2002). Designing a learning environment that alleviates anxiety. CDTLink. Retrieved August 17, 2006 from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/link/Mar2002/tm2.htm.

Chung, J. (1999). The effects of using video texts supported with advance organizers     and captions on Chinese college students’ listening comprehension: An    empirical study. Foreign Language Annals, 32(3), 295-305.

El-Koumy, A. (2000). Effects of skilled-based versus whole language approach on the comprehension of EFL students with low and high listening ability levels. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERIC_Koumy

Gan, Z., Humbpreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal,  88(2), (electronic version).

Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching language in context. (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle &  Heinle.

Harlow, L.L. & Muyskens, J.A. (1994). Priorities for intermediate level language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 141-154.

Jameison, J. (1992). Cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field  independence/dependence and ESL success. In H.D. Brown & S. Gonzo (Eds.). Readings on second language acquisition  (pp. 119-137). Upper Saddle  River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Keitges, D.J. (1987). Language proficiency interview testing: An overview. In M.H.Long & J.C. Richards, (Eds.). Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings   (pp. 395-411). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Lescano, A.A. (1995). The remedial English project.(electronic version). FORUM,  33(4), 40.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1987). Learning English in intensive programs in Quebec schools (1986-87): Report on the first year of research. Montreal: Concordia University.

Lightbown. P. and Spada, N. (1988). Learning English in intensive programs in Quebec schools (1986-87). Montreal: Concordia University.

Littlejohn, A. (2001). Motivation: Where does it come from? Where does it go? (electronic version). English Teaching Professional, 19, March 2001.
From http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/motivation.html.

Long, M.H. & Richard, J.C. (eds.). (1987).  Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.

McDonough, A.H. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. George Allen & Unwin.

MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R. & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. (electronic version). Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4).

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies - What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Reiss, M. (1981). Helping the Unsuccessful Language Learner. The Modern Language Journal, 65(2), 121-128.

Richards, J.C. (1995). New person to person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saito, H. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of       Japanese EFL and ESL students. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERIC

Shaw, S.R. & Gouwens, D.A. (2002). Chasing and catching slow learners in changing times. NASP Communiqué. Volume 31, # 4. December 2002. Retrieved August 17, 2006 from
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq314slowlearner.html.

Shrum, J.L. & Glisan, E.W. (2005). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. (3rd ed.). Thomson & Heinle.

Takeuchi, O. (2003). Synopsis: Searching for better language learning
strategies: Studies on good language learners in the Japanese FL context.  Tokyo: Shohakusha.

Wighting, M., Lisbet, D. & Tindall, E. (2005).  Exploring a summer English 
language camp experience in China: A descriptive case study. Asian EFL  Journal. Retrieved from www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_feb_06_mw.pdf.

Wiriyachitra, A. (2002). English language teaching and learning in Thailand in this  decade. Thai TESOL Focus, 15(1), 4-9.