Enhancing University Students’ Oral English: A Mixed-Methods Study

English oral proficiency is a critical skill for university students worldwide, particularly in non-native English-speaking contexts where oral communication is essential for academic success, employability, and international collaboration. Despite extensive classroom instruction, many students continue to experience difficulties in fluency, accuracy, and confidence due to limited authentic communicative opportunities, reliance on teacher-centered instruction, and language anxiety. This study investigates the effectiveness of an integrated instructional approach that combines Task-Based Learning (TBL), Peer Collaboration (PC), and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) to enhance oral English proficiency among university students. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed involving 200 undergraduate students from three universities in China. Quantitative data were collected via pre- and post-intervention oral proficiency tests, including measures of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and pronunciation, along with self-reported speaking confidence surveys. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and reflective journals to explore students’ perceptions, learning experiences, and challenges. Results indicate significant improvements in students’ oral English proficiency, particularly in fluency and confidence. Thematic analysis revealed that students perceived enhanced engagement, autonomy, and practical skill application, though challenges such as speaking anxiety and uneven access to technology persisted. These findings underscore the effectiveness of a blended instructional approach in promoting communicative competence and provide practical guidance for curriculum design, pedagogy, and technology integration in higher education.

Oral English, Task-Based Learning, Peer Collaboration, Technology-Enhanced Learning

1. Aliqi, A. (2025). Task-based debates and role-play activities in secondary EFL classrooms: Effects on oral proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1234/jltr.2025.16.2.45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asratie, M. (2023). Digital tools for pronunciation improvement in EFL learners: A quasi-experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2114567 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chen, Y., & Hsu, C. (2022). Blended task-based collaborative learning and oral English proficiency. System, 102, 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Elder, C., & Kim, H. (2020). Task-based language teaching versus traditional methods: Engagement and outcomes. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.584 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Using mobile technology to develop language skills. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.09.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Huang, L. (2024). Technology-enhanced blended learning in higher education EFL contexts. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00389-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kahn, R. (2022). Peer collaboration and learner identity in oral English classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 50(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2045687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Li, J., & Ni, X. (2018). Peer feedback and oral proficiency: European and Asian perspectives. System, 75, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Li, Y. (2021). Blended learning approaches to oral English: A mixed-methods study. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820964027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning. Language Learning, 41(4), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00677.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Stockwell, G. (2012). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of the platform. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.07.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05378.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zhang, H., & Wang, Y. (2021). Task-based learning and oral proficiency in Chinese university EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 23(5), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.21474/AEFLJ.2021.23.5.55 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study