Reviewing the research related to teacher perception of CLT provides insight into teachers’ decisions and instructional practices, while also helping to develop a deeper understanding of the underlying thoughts that influence the level of CLT implementation in classrooms across the globe. This study seeks to discern trends in teacher perceptions and detect gaps in CLT implementation. Studying teachers’ perceptions will help reveal, at least in part, the complexity of teachers’ cognition, intuition, conceptions, and beliefs due to the role of “teachers’ mental lives” in their practice (Yunus, Salehi, & Amini, 2016, p. 21).
According to Solis (2015), a belief is a theoretical part of knowledge that is “not founded on rationality but on feelings and experiences,” and is a basis for people to interpret facts and guide their further learning (p. 247-248). This study views teacher beliefs as crucial elements for determining teachers’ positive or negative perceptions towards CLT, which has implications for CLT implementation in their classrooms.
Several studies have shown that many teachers have a favorable perception of CLT (Mondal, 2012, Lashgari, Jamali, & Yousofi, 2014). For instance, the study by Mondal (2012) aimed at examining EFL teachers attitudes and perception toward CLT. The researcher observed that Bangladeshi college instructors held favorable opinions of CLT principles as the educators believed CLT made teaching English more meaningful, particularly in comparison to ensuring that students memorized a plethora of grammatical rules and concepts.
The instructors thought CLT gave students opportunities to practice using the rules in actual conversations rather than passively attempting to absorb and regurgitate the information outside of a meaningful context. So, they regularly utilized CLT principles in their EFL classroom instruction (Mondal, 2012).
In Iran, Lashgari, Jamali, and Yousofi (2014) found similar results in that EFL teachers, in general, had positive attitudes toward CLT while also embodying the fundamental aspects of CLT in their beliefs and their actual instructional practices. In fact, the study participants reported that not only were students able to develop a higher level of communicative competence, but students also managed to improve their understanding of grammar concepts through meaningful participation in language-rich activities (Lashgari et al., 2014).
Furthermore, several studies demonstrated that some teachers have a positive perception of the CLT approach while highlighting the benefits of collaborative learning, a specific CLT principle. The teachers reported that group work was important in EFL classes because of the multiple opportunities students had to use the target language in an authentic manner with their peers as they developed more cooperative relationships (Siddiqui & Asif, 2018; Ounis & Ounis, 2017; Jafari, Shokrpour, & Guetterman, 2015).
For example, Jafari et al. (2015) conducted a mixed method study that explored Iranian English teachers’ perceptions of the CLT approach. In this study, many of teachers who made specific mention of how they found partner and small-group activities to be particularly useful. The sheer number of instances in which students could practice the target language with each other and also with the teacher provided an advantage that was not possible with the more traditional EFL teaching approaches. As teachers were encouraged by the productivity of the student-centered CLT approach, the researchers noted the likelihood that teachers would implement CLT principles in their classrooms (Jafari et al., 2015).
Similarly, Siddiqui and Asif (2018) found that many English professors at a Saudi university considered group/pair work and communicative activities more favorable to them. They believe that it encourages learners to use the target language and helps to promote real communication. (Siddiqui & Asif, 2018).
Other studies have shown that many teachers believe that CLT is essential for improving both the communication skills and the motivation levels of students in their classrooms (Chang, 2011, Sarab, Monfared, & Safarzadeh, 2016).
Chang’s (2011) mixed method study conducted among fifty-five teachers from Taiwanese colleges aimed at investigating EFL teachers’ attitudes toward CLT. The researcher found that the majority of participants indicated their satisfaction with how CLT helps to eliminate the need for students to memorize information and helps mitigate concerns about how students can easily get lost in the multiple grammar rules associated with more traditional instructional approaches. In many ways, the teachers reported that CLT methods are more interesting, which makes learning language more effective and enjoyable, which motivates students to improve their communication skills (Chang, 2011).
Likewise, Sarab, Monfared, and Safarzadeh (2016) reported that the majority of the 75 Iranian secondary school teachers they surveyed understood the importance of the goals for students in CLT classrooms to establish productive and enjoyable communication for cooperation using the target language. The teachers expressed the belief that CLT improves students’ communication skills and increases their enjoyment, which is a motivating factor for learning (Sarab et al., 2016).
The aforementioned research findings indicate that many EFL teachers display favorable perceptions toward CLT principles, which seem to indicate the teachers’ willingness to shift their practices to a more communicative paradigm. However, a number of studies have also identified teachers’ concerns about CLT, persistent misconceptions about CLT, and misalignment of teaching practices with the principles of CLT.
For instance, some studies show that some teachers believe in using direct instructional methods and repetitive practice through drills for teaching grammatical rules, which conflicts with the CLT principle of refraining from direct grammar explanations in the CLT classroom (Wong & Marly, 2012; Jabeen, 2014). The purpose of the qualitative case study conducted by Wong & Marly (2012) was to investigate teachers’ perception of CLT and its implementation in the classroom.
According to (Wong & Marly, 2012) a group of American professors are steadfast in their belief that grammar instruction is necessary for students to be able to speak and write properly in the target language. While the participants were generally supportive of engaging students in communicative methods, their insistence on explaining grammatical and linguistic concepts to students affected their implementation of CLT principles (Wong & Marly, 2012). Along the same lines, Jabeen (2014) study of secondary teachers in Delhi showed how a significant proportion of the participants emphasized the importance of teaching grammar rules directly.
The teachers noticed that group work was effective in fostering learners’ autonomy; however, they believed that such activities were highly time-consuming and imposed difficulty to control and monitor all students. Therefore, many teachers reported they preferred individual work, which was quieter and more orderly. Their beliefs also affected their implementation of CLT (Jabeen, 2014).
Other studies have revealed concerns related to the CLT principle of error correction. Raissi, Nor, Aziz, Saleh, and Zainal (2013) found that some Malaysian teachers consider CLT principles to be effective in encouraging students to speak in a tourist-oriented environment. Nevertheless, the findings of the study diverged from the principles of CLT concerning error correction because more than half of the participants recognized error correction as an essential stage of language learning. Moreover, over half of the teachers expressed the desire to continue teaching mechanical grammar drills (Raissi et al., 2013). In total, these beliefs affected the teachers’ application of CLT principles in their classrooms.
Researchers have also found that teachers can misunderstand CLT principles, which affects their perceptions and their implementation of the instructional approach (Wong, 2012; Farooq, 2015). According to Wong (2012), the main reason some teachers avoided using CLT practices in their classrooms is that they misunderstood CLT methods. The author concluded teachers’ attitudes about CLT activities vary regarding grammar lectures and practices, communicative activities, and picture descriptions. This investigation makes a clear connection between teachers’ attitudes and their understanding of CLT.
Thus, according to Wong (2012), due to the general inexperience and uncertainty of teachers, the implementation of CLT still remains a concern in some colleges (Wong, 2012). Similarly, a recent study by Farooq (2015) explored how teachers in Saudi Arabia perceived CLT. The researcher applied a questionnaire to examine the teachers’ perceptions of ten CLT characteristics. The participants presented different definitions of the concept and emphasized different aspects of CLT, which shows that a lack of consensus, in addition to misunderstandings, can affect classroom implementation (Farooq, 2015).
References
Solis, C. (2015). Beliefs about teaching and learning in university teachers: Revision of some studies. Propósitos y Representaciones, 3(2), 227-260.
Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Amini, M. (2016). EFL teachers’ cognition of teaching English pronunciation techniques: A mixed-method approach. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 20-42.
Teaching English for Academic Purposes: Analysing Marking Descriptors
Marking Descriptors – Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies
The first marking descriptors document under consideration comes from the University of Warwick’s Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies. In this document, requirements for students’ academic writing proficiency are established (Marking descriptors n.d.). There are six ranks of marks in the descriptor: zero, fail, first, lower second, upper second, and. These ranks are further sub-divided into zero, low fail, fail, high fail (sub Honours), low 3rd, mid 3rd, high 3rd, low 2.2, mid 2.2, high 2.2, low 2.1, mid 2.1, high 2.1, low 1st, lower mid-1st, upper mid-1st, high 1st, and excellent 1st (Marking descriptors n.d.). The detailed ranking scheme employed in the descriptor is particularly useful since it enables a more precise evaluation of each student’s work depending on their academic achievement. The skills necessary for gaining the highest number of points are linked to excellent knowledge of the subject, including “exceptional insight” (Marking descriptors n.d., p. 4). Also, such factors as eloquence and scholarly organization are considered as crucial.
The descriptors emphasize the significance of such skills as presenting persuasive arguments, an engaged response, and integration. Scholars frequently analyze these factors in their studies. For instance, Young (2013) mentions that showing competence in interacting with others is highly significant for academic English course students. Hirvela and Du (2014) remark that students should be able to work with scholarly literature and interpret the data from it correctly. Haneda (2014) emphasizes the need to develop the abilities of problem-solving and developing ideas. When investigating analytical approaches used in academic writing, Basturkmen and von Randow (2014) agree that the knowledge of these skills is crucial for successful course completion. Thus, marking descriptors under consideration include the aspects that professionals regard as vital for students taking an academic English course.
King’s College London (KCL) English Learning Centre (ELC) Writing Band Descriptors
The second analyzed a set of marking descriptors that have been issued by King’s College London. The document comprises the following ranks of marks: outstanding, excellent, very good, food, satisfactory, basic, and fail (KCL ELC writing band descriptors n.d.). The score is determined based on such factors as task fulfillment, critical analysis, coherence and cohesion, style and lexis, grammatical range and accuracy, and academic conventions (KCL ELC writing band descriptors n.d.). Each of these factors, which are reflected in the scholarly literature on the issue, plays a crucial role in mastering academic English.
One of the major requirements mentioned in the marking descriptors is the control of lexical features. This qualification is considered as important by scholars investigating the issues of teaching and learning English for academic purposes and leads to the conclusion that the descriptors are formulated thoughtfully, and their fulfillment can enable students to reach the highest level of knowledge. In their analysis of academic writing assessments, Gebril and Plakans (2016) admit the outstanding role of lexical diversity in this process. Indeed, scholars note that lexical measures are tools that can help identify the quality of students’ writing, as well as their vocabulary knowledge (Gebril & Plakans 2016). Cai (2016) also emphasizes the significance of a sophisticated control of lexical features. Thus, including this requirement in marking descriptors was a wise decision.
Apart from lexis, the criteria in the descriptors involve such elements as cohesion, organization, and logical progression. According to Salter-Dvorak (2016), the ability to build arguments and express one’s opinions is one of the core skills that should be developed during an academic English course. Helmer (2013) remarks that teaching English for academic purposes requires an excellent organization. Thus, the criteria mentioned in the KCL ELC writing band descriptors are crucial for the development of students’ skills and mastery of academic English.
Reference List
Basturkmen, H & von Randow, J 2014, ‘Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 14, pp. 14-22.
Cai, J(L) 2016, ‘An exploratory study on an integrated genre-based approach for the instruction of academic lexical phrases’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 24, pp. 58-74.
Gebril, A & Plakans, L 2016, ‘Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 24, pp. 78-88.
Haneda, M 2014, ‘From academic language to academic communication: building on English learners’ resources’, Linguistics and Education, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 126-135.
Helmer, KA 2013, ‘Critical English for academic purposes: building on learner, teacher, and program strengths’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 12, no.4, pp. 273-287.
Hirvela, A & Du, Q 2013, ‘”Why am I paraphrasing?”: undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 87-98.
KCL ELC writing band descriptors n.d., Web.
Marking descriptors – Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies n.d., Web.
Salter-Dvorak, H 2016, ‘Learning to argue in EAP: evaluating a curriculum innovation from the inside’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 22, pp. 19-31.
Young, RF 2013, ‘Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: interactional competence in academic spoken English’, Ibérica, vol. 25, pp. 15-38.
The particular topic that I decided to study within the frame of the project is the usage of such expressions as ‘to make an appointment andto make an appointment in the English language. The reason why this very topic has been chosen is closely interconnected with the fact that English is not my mother tongue. There was a situation that happened to me and encouraged me to search for additional sources to extend my knowledge related to English grammar. One fine day, I needed to arrange to see a doctor, and I gave a call to specialists from one dental hospital. A lady in the reception answered the phone, I said, “Hello, can I make an appointment?” The lady replied, “You mean that you would like to make an appointment?” Frankly speaking, this case encouraged me to think more about the peculiarities of the usage of some words in English.
To solve this problem and find the information that would provide me and other non-native speakers with a substantial explanation related to the usage of these expressions in English, I decided to use the corpus tools we have learned during the exercise. To be more precise, I was using Google Ngram Viewer as it appeared to be the most appropriate tool to help me with my question. This tool allows users to track the popularity of a certain word or expression, they are supposed to lay down necessary parameters such as time-lapse, insert the particular word or expression to search for, and choose a corpus. After that, the system provides users with a graph showing the frequency of occurrence of the word or expression in texts from the chosen corpus, and these results can be analyzed and used in research papers as a justification of a certain point. Another important fact related to the given tool is that the user can insert two expressions together and compare word frequency results in different variants of the English language. In this case, my search inquiry would look like “make an appointment, make an appointment”. Due to the tool, students who learn English as a foreign language can collect a lot of interesting information and choose the most appropriate variant to express a certain idea.
Speaking about the information on these expressions that I retrieved with the help of the discussed tool, it can be stated that they were used in different ways. To begin with, as it is clear from the graph showing the tendencies for modern American English, “make an appointment” is used a few times more often than “make an appointment” and this fact remains a clue encouraging non-native speakers like me to choose the first variant. The same tendency can be noticed in British English. Nevertheless, it is known that some people can “make an appointment” but this expression can be used only about specialists who confirm the planned visit. To check it, I used two more search inquiries: “patient takes an appointment” and “patient makes an appointment”. The results helped me to make a decision: there were no cases when the first expression was used whereas the second one was used extensively and its frequency has increased recently. I suppose that all English learners should be explained how to work with this tool as it can be important during making research in linguistics. Besides, this tool allows students like me to analyze common situations and choose appropriate expressions to avoid misunderstanding.
People rarely expect this kind of an instrument and this kind of a performer on stage, and the U.S., caught in the grip of the Great Depression, amidst the I and the II World Wars, could hardly believe that a plain Georgian man with a plain harmonica would win over the hearts of his audience in a millisecond.
Sonny Terry, however, did not expect anything, either; he just did what he could do best – he simply told his Southern blues stories to the accompaniment of his harmonica. Surprisingly enough, his songs were exactly what America of the post-WWI depression needed.
Although traditional commonplace phrases also occurred in Terry’s songs, most of his repertoire consisted of his observations of the United States at the verge of a major change, which made these songs documentaries of the U.S. of the 1930ies.
I’m a Stranger Here might seem a weird choice for a song that will make the audience feel happier about their lives. Indeed, the song tapped into the pace that was set by Guthrie, Moses Asch, and many other musicians of the decade. However, even with a song title that sounded no merrier than knell, Terry still managed to jazz the tune up a bit by introducing an upbeat rhythm and an optimistic “Woo-yes!” (Terry and McGhee).
More to the point, the song represents the needs and wishes of the people of the epoch, therefore, serving as a documentary of people’s emotions: “I’m gonna write home to daddy, / send me my railroad fare” (Terry and McGhee). It is truly amazing how both economical (“railroad fare” (Terry and McGhee) and social (“write home to daddy” (Terry and McGhee) aspects of a documentary are intertwined in a single line.
Despite its title, Mean Ole Frisco does not harp on the economical, racial or financial issues of the city, but, in fact, allows seeing the U.S. with the eyes of a person, who used to live in a happier place and, thus, makes one feel the loss of this place all the stronger.
Although technically, the song does not render any obvious economical or social issue, when taking a closer look at the lyrics, one will be able to see what lies beneath the surface and read an idiom of men and women losing their homes, hopes and each other as they roam to larger cities in search for a job to earn some pennies into the image of a girl luring the leading character into San Francisco.
Thus, the girl in the song appears to be a metaphor, which stands for a more promising fate, which the residents of the U.S. were so mercilessly ripped off.
The “ole dirty” (Terry and McGhee) San Francisco does not have much to offer, either, which tells the audience that for most Okies, the search for the “Promised Land” did not end well. However, Terry still manages to add more vivacity into the gloomy context of a seemingly silly song.
One of the songs that Sonny Terry is known best for, Born and Livin’ with the Blues might not sound as happy as one would expect it to, given some of his early and more upbeat performances; however, it still hit the chord with the post-WWI American audience, who wanted to hear about the family values, the strength of a community, faith in God, and the rest of the unshakeable elements of the life that they strived for.
On the one hand, the song appeals for the numerous Okies, who abandoned or, more probably, lost their property due to the economical disaster: “I’d use my guitar for my pillow” (Terry and McGhee). On the other hand, it shows people the glimpse of hope that they wish they could see: “From my childhood, where I am now, / I ain’t gonna worry, I’ll get by somehow” (Terry and McGhee).
While seemingly describing his childhood, starting, properly enough, from the time when he was a kid, to the point when he grows up into a disappointed adult: “Just look at what a hole I’m in” (Terry and McGhee), Sonny obviously refers to the situation that the entire South, predominantly “Okies,” was trapped in.
Classified as a mix of a social documentary and a traditional one, the song provides an account of both the historical events (though in a metaphoric way) and the emotions of the people who suddenly lost everything.
With Sonny Terry on stage, the darkest times of the American history did not seem as gloomy as they were. While other musicians of the era explained though their songs that it was all right to cry, Sonny Terry showed that it was fine to laugh – and the audience smiled as soon as the first chords of his songs started ringing.
While remaining a striking contrast to what most artists of the epoch preferred to perform on stage, Terry’s songs gave people lust for life, which was truly a breeze of fresh air for the United States of the 30ies, when every single citizen was caught in the Dust Bowl, with no ray of sunshine getting through.
The discussed example of the exercise remains effective because of several reasons. First of all, in the majority of Indo-European languages, there are several similarities in the meanings of words and their pronunciation which makes the understanding of the context easier for a learner. The given task utilizes this fact and encourages students to read the whole text to find hints that can help them to understand the main idea of the given message, the central actors, their names, and occupation.
For this reason, the majority of the assignments that do not presuppose the additional explanation of new words rest on the idea of certain similarity between languages belonging to the same group (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). At the same time, scanning texts, students can acquire an improved understanding of how learned languages are connected and what common features can be used to master skills.
The ability to answer true/false (T/F) questions also comes from this very idea. The fact is that the given type of task does not presuppose that a learner should understand and know the meaning of all words presented in the text. However, to provide correct answers, he or she should grasp the main idea conveyed by a particular message, the central discussed topics, and issues needed for the context’s analysis. In this regard, they will be able to predict the meaning of other words and answer T/F questions correctly. These exercises can be considered an effective approach to teach learners to understand the meaning of unknown words due to the increased attention to the context in which they are presented and analysis of the central idea of the discussed unit which is critical for real-life communication.
Scenario 2
The use of the exclusive knowledge of the target language (TL) can also be a potent tool in teaching students new vocabulary and mastering their skills. The fact is that the existence of a certain knowledge base among learners helps to achieve better results while discussing new words and analyzing their use in a particular context. However, this approach can be effective only if there is the appropriate level of the knowledge of TL and students can understand various linguistic situations regardless of the existence of unknown words in them.
Under these conditions, exercises that presuppose reading authentic documents and deciphering the meanings of the new words can help to achieve the new level of TL’s understanding. First of all, an explanation of new words and their use in the context are always more effective than simple translation (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). It helps not just to find the corresponding word in the native language but to achieve an improved understanding of how TL works and in what contexts or situations the new vocabulary can be used.
Finally, the use of the exclusive knowledge of the learned language helps to assess the overall level of students, as this sort of tasks presupposes that the current competence is enough to analyze texts without the complete understanding of all words that can be found in it. For this reason, only if a learner has a solid background, the goal can be achieved, and the meaning of new units will be explained using the already known words studied during the previous classes. The given sort of assignment should be provided only to advanced level learners; otherwise, it will have decreased effectiveness because of the absence of the TL’s improved knowledge.
Reference
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
In the article “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?” Linda Christensen raised questions about why children are taught language in one particular way and not the other. During standard English courses at schools and colleges, students are often confronted by large lists of new words, grammar and punctuation rules, irregular verbs, and so on. However, it is important to question why language is taught through rules as well as why students are forced to believe that they will be valued in the society because of their correct pronunciation and the use of “cash language.” Therefore, the most significant problem that the author found in teaching students English language was that they rarely knew where they could find help in their learning while teachers had no idea how to adequately correct mistakes.
It was interesting to read the article because the author had a unique approach towards language. When reflecting on her personal experiences with language teaching, Linda Christensen mentioned Fred, a student who was extremely scared of taking risks in his learning and only followed strict grammar rules that he had memorized. The author wrote: “the biggest problem with Fred’s writing was that he didn’t make mistakes” (Christensen, 1990, p. 37). This meant that the student felt extreme discomfort when using a new language and experimenting with it; he would write with a purpose of avoiding mistakes instead of genuinely expressing his thoughts and opinions in a paper. Therefore, Christensen underlined the problem of valuing the way something in said instead of what is said in language teaching. It became evident that the author did not hold a view that students had to be limited in their own opinions and thoughts for the purpose of getting to learn a language based on strict rules. When learners are frowned upon for experimenting with language and are ridiculed for making mistakes, they usually lose interest and confidence in learning, which are huge barriers to education.
The issue of alienation played a significant role in the author’s discussion because educational facilities tend to make students feel alone in their learning. Thus, it is the role of teachers to encourage students not to be afraid of making mistakes and sharing their thoughts, especially in language learning. Because the primary purpose of languages is to express opinions for communication, teachers should not put an emphasis on grammatical rules since they may often restrict communication. To make language learning a creative and liberating process, Christensen offered such strategies as writing stories, poems, letters, and essays to share them during lessons. In this way, learning becomes an interactive process where every student has opportunities to share his or her writing and be heard by others. In such a welcoming environment where students are equal in their language learning, the problem of alienation fades away as it is replaced by creativity and the freedom to express one’s thoughts.
To conclude, “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?” is an excellent article that spread the message of rethinking the way students are taught language to encourage engagement, creativity, and freedom from alienation. Schools and teachers have done enough to intimidate students and make them feel less successful in learning when they make mistakes. Errors should be embraced and celebrated as ways to improve one’s language learning; only in this way will students learn and become liberated and confident in their knowledge.
Work Cited
Christensen, Linda. “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?” English Journal, vol. 79, no. 2, 1990, pp. 36-40.
Foreign language study is a long-term and challenging process that demands many skills from both educators and learners to succeed and achieve appropriate results. At the same time, there are numerous aspects impacting all participants and showing the emergence of particular outcomes. That is why much attention is devoted to the development of tools, models, and methods of language teaching that are used in modern educational establishments to achieve success and ensure a high level of language skills.
The assigned reading also delves into this aspect and revolves around the nature of approaches and methods that can be used by skilled specialists depending on the situation and current needs of learners. Understanding this area is critical for the appropriate selection of models and their implementation into practice.
Describing the methods, the chapter assumes that the difference between a philosophy of language teaching regarding theory and principles becomes critical. That is why there are the three suggested levels of conceptualization which are defined as approach, method, and technique. They form a particular bond and remain in hierarchical relations that determine their further use and implementation. Thus, an approach is described as a set of assumptions describing the nature of language teaching and learning.
The method is outlined as the plan needed to present the language material in terms of the selected approach. One approach might include many methods used by educators to achieve their goals. Finally, the technique is a set of actions that take place in classrooms and are used to accomplish the objective. These three terms become central while speaking about language teaching and final success.
Continuing cogitation about the outlined basic elements, the reading delves into the critical peculiarities of the approach, design, and techniques to avoid misunderstandings and reveal essential features. For instance, the existence of multiple theoretical concepts of language is emphasized as they impact teaching and results significantly. That is why there is a detailed description of models influencing the effectiveness of methods and tools such as the cognitive, structural, functional, interactional, sociocultural, genre, and lexical ones.
The necessity of their detailed discussion comes from the idea that language is an extremely complex phenomenon that can be studied using various perspectives determining its understanding. For instance, the cognitive model presupposes that the way a person speaks reflects the central properties of his/her mind. In accordance with this theory, our mind contains specific grammar and principles universal to all languages, which is critical for learning. For this reason, it is fundamental to take into account all existing models.
Speaking about language, one should also consider the existence of theories that are designed to explain how second languages are learned by individuals and what peculiarities impact outcomes. There is a wide array of frameworks such as behaviorism, cognitive-code learning, the creative-construction hypothesis, constructivism, sociocultural learning theory, and skill learning. All of them try to describe the main stages of language acquisition and factors that impact individuals during the educational process. At the same time, the reading emphasizes the existence of the direct correlation between language and learning theory. It means that all teachers should be ready to take them into account while trying to select the most appropriate methods.
The design is also discussed in the assigned chapter. Being determined as the level of method analysis helps to understand what are the main objectives, reasons for the selection, types of tasks, roles of learners, teachers, and instructions of various approaches. In other words, analyzing the nature of a certain methodology, one should remember the reason for certain topics, texts, and word inclusion. Finally, the procedure also plays a critical role as it involves the choice of appropriate techniques that can be applied within the language theories discussed above.
Altogether, the reading can be considered an important source that provides information about the nature of language teaching. From the text, I can understand the existence of the direct correlation between the theory that describes the way learners get new data, master their language, acquire new information, and selection of appropriate approaches that can help to achieve success. Another idea is that the effectiveness of techniques used in the class and methods come from the utilized approach that should consider the most relevant learning theory peculiar to certain learners.
In other words, language teaching is situational and should be planned in terms of existing demands, characteristics of learners, and dominant theoretical frameworks. There are also certain learning style preferences that come from the personal characteristics of students that should be considered while selecting the style to increase the effectiveness of language learning.
In such a way, the analyzed reading contributes to the improved understanding of the nature of language teaching approaches, methods, and techniques and how they should be used in various situations depending on the existing tasks, peculiarities of learners, and their needs. Moreover, the chapter outlines the need for an effective selection to ensure that preferred learning styles are utilized and applied to achieve the best possible results and help students to master their language.
In this paper, I would like to bring forward the issue of writing skills in an L2. I would like to explore the possibilities, if any, of students’ cultural backgrounds affecting or influencing their L2 writing skills. I would also, in this paper, like to critically examine the role of an ESL teacher with regard to the current theme.
As such, the present paper looks into the area of students’ culture, their L1, and the writing acquisition process in L2.
Literature Review
Writing is considered one of the most complex human activities. “It involves the development of a design idea, the capture of mental representations of knowledge, and of experience with subjects” (geocities.com). Moving along the same lines of our discussion, Hinkel (p. 1, 2002) informs us that: because written discourse and text occupy a prominent place in the academy in the United States and other English-speaking countries, much research has been devoted to formal discourse genres, their characteristics, and common linguistic features encountered in academic text.
Most students who are studying in academic institutions like schools, high schools, universities have writing skills. It may more often be the case that their writing capabilities are in conflict with the requirements of the context of a second language. There are certain differences in their writing styles and conventions that are taken as something that hinders learning. For example, Myles (p. 2, 2002) tells us that “the culture-specific nature of schemata – abstract mental structures representing our knowledge of things, events, and situations – can lead to difficulties when students write texts in L2”. Thus a student from Mandarin, or Spanish, or Portuguese cultural background is not necessarily a competent writer when it comes to the English language not because they lack writing skills but because the system of English language composition is different from that of Mandarin or Spanish, and so on. Mother tongue or L1 cultural influence is something that is apparent in the second language writing or composition. In this connection, the writer tells us that “learning to compose in English is not an isolated classroom activity, but a social and cultural experience. The rules of English composition encapsulate values that are absent in, or sometimes contradictory to, the values of other societies” (Spack, & Zamel, p. 124, 1998). Thus according to the writer when it comes to learning English composition, it means, to a great extent, actually learning of Anglo-American society.
Moving along the lines of our review, we find that language and writing in it are ongoing processes that need to be understood in connection with historical and sociocultural contexts. We note what the author (in Kaplan, 2002) observes about language and its link or relation to a person’s culture that how a language learner interprets or constructs a written text requires an ongoing negotiation among historical understandings, contemporary realities, and future desires. Thus, language learners are not only learning a linguistic system; they are learning a diverse set of sociocultural practices, often best understood in the context of wider relations of power.
The author further informs us that in recent times, researchers have shifted their attention from the area of investigation of social psychology to other such diverse areas as anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, and so on. This is surely a remarkable turn to the direction of recognizing the place of cultural knowledge of L1 and its transfer to L2 writing or composition.
Thus, we can aver that there is high evidence and acceptance among scholars about the influence of culture on second language acquisition and in the present case, writing skills.
Culture, Second Language, and Self
When we probe deeper into the issue of cultural influence on second language writing, we find that there is more to talk about now, that is to say, with relation to the influence of culture onto students’ second language writing, the concept of “self” is gaining wider recognition at the present time. Matsuda, Silva, and Erlbaum (p. 128, 2005) come up with the observation that “The charge that seeing writing as a cultural phenomenon as much as, say, a cognitive activity essentializes unique individual implies there is an essential self insulated from its context”. In the same connection, we find that the concept of ‘self’ that is being referred to in linguistic literature as something that is regarded as something hard intertwined owing to the empirical findings and implications behind these findings. Here, Eagleton (as cited in Matsuda, Silva, and Erlbaum p. 128, 2005) notes that the “essential” self is not one beyond cultural shaping, but one which is culturally shaped in a specific, self-reflexive way… to belong to culture is just to be part of a context that is inherently open-ended… Like the rough ground of language itself, cultures work exactly because they are porous, fuzzy-edged, indeterminate, intrinsically inconsistent, never quite identical.
AT the end of the literature review, it is observed that the influence of mother tongue or language one or both cultures on the target language acquisition is a phenomenon that is well-discussed in the empirical literature on linguistics. Therefore, it is worth our attention to talking about the cultural transfer of L1 to the writing development of a second language.
In the coming part of the paper, the discussion shift onto the implications that these findings yield in connection with the teaching of writing skills to the students of other languages. The paper highlights discuss and point out the considerations that an ESL teacher should take into account when it comes to teaching writing skills to students of other languages.
ESL Writing Trend
Ferris, Hedgcock, and Erlbaum (1998) inform us that “a strongly influential trend in L1 composition research and pedagogy” emerged in the 1960s and 1970s (p. 4). This trend of teaching writing to the students of other languages got popularised in the United States of America in the 1980s. This trend is known as the process approach. The writers cite Faigley, according to whom “process proponents can be divided into two distinct categories: the expressivists and the cognitivist (p. 4). For the former composing is a creative act. The latter writing is about planning, defining, rhetorical problem solving and so much more. However, there are complexities in this regard that are beyond the scope of the present paper.
However, when we come to talk about the consideration to be taken by an ESL teacher while teaching writing skills, we find literature that gives us views and ideas in this very connection.
In literature, the research on mother tongue societal and cultural factors and their influence on second language acquisition has yielded an area that is a sociohistorical approach. Goldman and Rueda (p. 1, 1988) inform us of the application of this approach to writing. This approach introduces new principles of instruction. It reinforces a number of principles that are based on cognitive development, information-processing approaches.
First of all, in this approach, all human beings (children as well) are seen as individuals who are actively participating in their own world and consequently in their learning processes. Following this approach teaching writing to the students of other languages the teacher has to view the culture of the first language rationally and intertwine the culture of the second language sensibly creating in students an awareness of both the world with a view of adding to both the poles.
The writers also inform us of another approach that is functional-interactive to teaching writing. According to this very approach, an ESL teacher teaching writing to the students of other languages is more likely to work on the systems of both the languages that a student is putting hand with so that “an interaction between the cognitive processes involved in writing and the educational and cultural contexts that influence these processes” can be adequately addressed and handled (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988).
Henceforth, the following guidelines can be put to be considered by an ESL teacher while teaching writing to students of other languages. These are as follows:
The teacher has to bring into effect the approach that the topic for writing (which both the above-mentioned approaches stress upon) should be student-chosen since “Such topics maximize the knowledge students have to include in their writing and they minimize the cognitive load associated with content generation, thereby freeing up resources to be used on other aspects of the writing process” (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988).
Secondly, under both or either of the approaches, the role of the teacher is somewhat highly nontraditional though highly important. The role is that “The teacher provides guided assistance by structuring input just above students’ current developmental levels and assisting students to develop self-regulatory mechanisms” (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988). In this way, the role of the teacher is to provide scaffolding that creates an interactional learning environment.
Moving along the same line, Commins, and Miramontes tell us of the duty of the teacher who is teaching students of other languages. They say that:
“Teachers must carefully consider that second language students will require much more extensive attention to language development than is required for native speakers. At every level, especially for those learning to read solely through their second language, additional steps need to be taken before students can handle text in the same way as native speakers.”
They also give us some criteria as to what should be the lines along with a teacher has to move. They say that for every comprehension strategy (which according to them depends on a number of concepts) vocabulary and grammatical awareness should be such that makes sense in front of the students of other languages. They also claim that it is more important to create a repertoire of the second language vocabulary and concepts among the students than merely trying to make them cram out the alphabets. Because this way students will become gradually capable of gripping what they are reading about. They further assert that “It will also be easier to learn to read and derive meaning when students already have had extensive practice in talking about and understanding the big ideas and vocabulary represented in the text” (Commins, and Miramontes, p. 1, 2006).
Another important area regarding teaching to ESOL individuals is that the teacher should also opt for using the physical environment so that they can help create instructions that are meaning-based, they come up with their rationale for the support of this very observation with the following comment:
“An important aspect of meaning-based instruction in a linguistically diverse environment is how the physical space in the room is used. In any good classroom, it should be apparent to students from the physical environment the topics they are learning about, the expectations for their behavior, and the main guidelines for how to accomplish their work.”
They stress that “print-rich” texts that surround the students in the classroom are not necessarily helpful unless these texts are meaningful. Henceforth, the focus must be on the meaningful transition of language rather than print-mania that nothing but confuses and hampers the cognitive development of the students. In a linguistically diverse environment, the key to teaching writing successfully to students of other languages is that the teachers “always mediate understanding by relating test, visual imagery, and oral discussion about important concepts” (Commins, and Miramontes, p. 1, 2006).
Another important strategy that the authors talk about in the present context is to create as many opportunities as possible for practice and interaction among students. Thus in their view, three poles must be considered when it comes to teaching writing to the students of other languages; these are language, culture, and context. Not until these three poles stand in complete harmony and balance is it possible to yield high result in ESL teaching:
“What teachers do and how they do it in the context of their particular school makes a difference in student outcomes. To succeed, all educators need to proactively account for the complex interactions of language, culture, and context.”
Moving ahead in the quest of empirical data and observation, we also find another very important observation made by Ferris and Erlbaum (2003) with regard to teaching writing skills to the students of other languages referring to the process approach of teaching writing. They say that in the present-day context, at least within the physical boundaries of the United States of America, the writing model is cyclic. This cyclic model is the process-oriented, multi-draft approach that regards feedback on a broad spectrum of issues, response-and-revision writing cycle. They also inform us that the latest trend has yielded empirical data that teacher-student conferences for feedback on writing and peer review sessions are also equally contributing factors when it comes to teaching writing skills. The best strategy to start with this cycle is to focus, according to them on content and meaning in the initial drafts of the students. It is only when the drafts are mature that the teacher should opt for meaning and form which to them “maybe a false dichotomy” (Ferris and Erlbaum, pp. 22-23, 2003).
Conclusion
The latest research and the trends emerging from this research tell us of the importance of the L1 cultural influence of the students of other languages to the target language and particularly on the writing skills in the present discussion. It has been observed in the paper that the teaching approach must come to address students’ needs and the core realities that they’re being the students of other languages hinge to the context of ESL.
Unless and until due importance is given to the writing skills with regard to the present research findings, it is hard to say that true address can be made to the needs of the students in the due course of time.
References
Advanced Writing in English as a foreign language. 2007. Web.
Commins, N. L., & Miramontes, O. B. (2006). Addressing linguistic diversity from the outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3).
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., Hedgcock, J. S., & Erlbaum, L. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldman, S. R., & Rueda, R. (1988). Developing writing skills in bilingual exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 54(6).
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matsuda, P. K., Silva, T., & Erlbaum, L. (2005). Second language writing research: perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ. Publication: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Myles, J. (2002) Second language writing and research: the writing process and error analysis in student texts. 2007. Web.
R. Spack, & V. Zamel (1998), (Eds.) Negotiating academic literacies: teaching and learning across languages and cultures. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication.
Robert B. Kaplan (2002), (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
In the modern world, the role of the English language is considered vital and the teaching of the language has similar significance. This language is extensively used in every field of life today, trade and commerce, travel and tourism, banking, administration, aviation, law, and education, to name a few. “And now, with the advent of globalization and a revolution in information technology, the importance of this language has further increased.” (Sethi & Jindal Sethi, p 3). The teaching of the English language to the users of another language, thereby, gets pertinent prominence in this context. TESOL can be seen as a key way of teaching English to speakers of another language. There are several theories that deal with the various ways and methods of teaching English to speakers of other languages. Similarly, it is important to note that the teaching of the language involves the teaching of all the four skills of language, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Listening comprehension, one of the primary skills to be acquired in TESOL, has a pertinent role in the acquisition of the English language by the speakers of other languages. “The field of TESOL is informed by theory, research and practice. TESOL is primarily practical activity but practice on its own can only be understood and improved when it is systematically examined and explored.
Main body
Hence, research is seen as a testing ground for the beliefs and assumptions on which practice is based and also as a source for new practices. There should be a dichotomy between theory and practice. While there is both applicable as well as inapplicable theory and research basis of TESOL is the focus on theoretical foundations of TESOL practices as well as the significance of theory for successful practice.” (Carter & Nunan, 2001, p 215). English language learning has been of central value in the modern context and “Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages” (TESOL) has great relevance in the modern world. “TESOL is an acronym which stands for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and is a ‘blanket’ term covering situations in which English is taught as an L2, as well as those in which it is taught as a foreign language.” (Carter & Nunan, 2001, p. 1). The teaching of English to the speakers of other languages has great relevance in the modern world and it suggests the significance of attaining good skills of teaching the language. “In fact, the field of teaching English as a second or foreign language has grown enormously in the past two decades.” (Opportunities in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1995, p 3).
There are four basic language skills, the acquirement of which is essential in the learning of English or any language for that matter. “For a long time, listening has been treated as the Cinderella of the four macro-skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing. However, as an essential part of communicative competence, listening is a skill that deserves equal treatment with the others…” (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005, p 134). Listening skill is the primary and most essential language skill to be acquired and the mastery in this skill may indicate proficiency in the language of English. “The term listening is used in language teaching to refer to a complex process that allows us to understand spoken language. Listening, the most widely used language skill, is often used in conjunction with the other skills of speaking, reading and writing. Listening is not only a skill area in language performance, but is also a critical means of acquiring a second language (L2).” (Carter & Nunan, 2001, p 7). Along with the skill of speaking, the listening skill is regarded as the important pillar of the language which is learned primary by a speaker, and the other two language skills are acquired only at a later stage of language acquisition. “Listening and speaking play central roles in language acquisition and development… Listening is the ability to understand speech… Listening comprehension is central to language acquisition. In the last two decades it has become increasingly common to emphasize listening in the early stages of second language acquisition. Listening is an active and conscious process.” (Carrasquillo, 1994, p 131).
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) involves several language theories and listening comprehension has been a central concern of many of these theories. It is essential to be aware of the fact that these language theories suggest the method and techniques of listening comprehension. The external and internal aspects of the learner, as these theories point out, are considered vital in the development of listening comprehension in the process of language acquisition. “Listening comprehension has become the foundation of a number of theories of second language acquisition that focus on the beginning levels of second language proficiency. The primary assumption underlying those theories is that language acquisition is an implicit process in which linguistic rules are internalized by extensive exposure to authentic texts and particularly to comprehensible input that provides an appropriate level of challenge to the listener… In parallel with but independent of the emphasis on comprehension-based approaches to second language instruction, there has been an equal degree of theoretical interest in the mental process involved in listening.” (O’Malley & Uhl, 1990, p 129-30).
The several theories of learning very well suggest that learning of the language can be assisted and directed clearly so that the effect of TESOL is greater. The social cognitive theory, for example, proposes that behavior, environmental factors, personal elements, etc can be instrumental in better learning. It is the interrelation between all these factors that help the learners acquire learning items faster and more effectively. This also corresponds to the learning of language, especially the listening skills. “Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) describes learning in terms of the interrelationship between behavior, environmental factors, and personal factors. It also provides the theoretical framework for interactive learning used to develop both Constructivism and Cooperative Learning.” (Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), 2008). It is clear that according to this theoretical perspective, every learner achieves knowledge when the situation congregates with personal characteristics and personal experience. In this theory, the latest experiences are assessed against those of the past and it is clear that prior experiences are crucial in subsequently directing and informing the learner regarding how the present should be investigated. Thus, on the basis of this theory, the learning environment in language learning, as well as past learning, can be critical in the acquisition of the language. The instructor, therefore, should provide every opportunity to develop these conditions for the learning of listening skills. Therefore, it is clear the constructivist theory backs up the learning process of TESOL. In the same way, other theories such as comprehensible input, bottom-up and top-down listening schemata, behaviorism, and constructivist orientation theory may be seen as contributing to the learning activity of TESOL.
The skill of listening several other sub-skills and only a comprehension of the various listening aspects can lead one to be a good listener. The process of listening comprehension is of vital importance as well. It is important to comprehend that “effective listening involves a large number of component skills. Effective listeners actively engage in the process of comprehension: they apply relevant internal information available to them in order to construct their own interpretation of what has been said. They do not passively receive and record.” (Anderson & Lynch, 1988, p. 6). Listening comprehension can be very well comprehended as a central process in the language acquisition process and it is an active process in which several central aspects of language activity are involved. “Listening comprehension is viewed theoretically as an active process in which individuals focus on selected aspects of aural input, construct meaning from passages, and relate what they hear to existing knowledge.” (O’Malley, Uhl & Küpper). Some of the direct research evidence has sufficiently proved and supported this theoretical view and this is essential to view that the listening activity is an integral part of the language process. “Listening has rightly assumed a central role in language learning. The skills underlying listening have become more clearly defined. Strategies contributing to effective listening are now better understood. Teaching methodology in the mainstream has not yet caught up with theory… Specific skill instruction as well as strategy development still needs greater attention in order to demystify the listening process.” (Carter & Nunan, 2001, p 13).
It is essential to consider that the teaching of the language to the speakers of other languages involves several challenges. The teaching of the English language to speakers of other languages involves various pertinent questions and these are very significant to be dealt with in the process of teaching the language. It is significant also to consider the several methods and theoretical perspectives of language teaching. “Methods serve as a foil for reflection that can aid teachers in bringing to conscious awareness the thinking that underlies their actions.” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p ix). In an evaluation of the various theories that are significant in language teaching to the speakers of another language, the role of listening taxonomy is of primary consideration. Listening taxonomy can be regarded as an essential element in the learning of English as a foreign language. The listening taxonomies indicate various elements of learning the language. “Foreign language educators also have developed taxonomies of listening comprehension as a foundation for enabling students to process the acquisition of the new language.” (Wolvin & Coakley, 1993, p 17).
It is of significant consideration that language learning depends greatly on listening as it provides the aural input that serves as the basis for language acquisition and enables learners to interact in spoken communication. It is also pertinent to remember that among the four language modes the children acquire the listening mode first. Remarkably, listening plays a life-long role in the process of communication as it offers the basis for all facets of language and cognitive development. Language input, according to second language acquisition theory, is the most critical condition of language achievement. Listening has a crucial role to play in the language development of the students, as it is an input skill. Therefore, language is acquired mainly through receiving understandable input. Significantly, the listening ability is the essential element in the achievement of understandable language input. It is fundamental for language teachers to help students in becoming effective listeners as there is great importance for listening in language learning and teaching. “In the communicative approach to language teaching, this means modeling listening strategies and providing listening practice in authentic situations: precisely those that learners are likely to encounter when they use the language outside the classroom.” (Guo & Wills).
In the attempt to comprehend the various theories that contribute to the listening aspect of the language learning schema theory has a great significance. It is a theory that details how the stored information in the memory of the people is found useful in the attainment of the essentially human aspects. There have been several pieces of evidence for the role of the schema theory in the understanding of listening comprehension. The richness of a schema affects listening in a significant manner and it is crucial in the process of adding new listening aspects to the existing schema. Schema is also useful in listening during conversations. “Schema theory is important for listening theory and research for several reasons. First, selection, interpretation, and retrieval of information are components of listening… Second, a database involving orally administered tasks already exists in schema theory research.” (Wolvin & Coakley, 1993, p 61).
In this analysis of the TESOL theories and listening comprehension, it is also important to consider the significance of listening strategies. “Listening strategies are techniques or activities that contribute directly to the comprehension and recall of listening input. Listening strategies can be classified by how the listener processes the input. Top-down strategies are listener based; the listener taps into background knowledge of the topic, the situation or context, the type of text, and the language. This background knowledge activates a set of expectations that help the listener to interpret what is heard and anticipate what will come next… Listening comprehension tends to be an interactive, interpretive process in which listeners use prior knowledge and linguistic knowledge in understanding messages. Listeners use meta-cognitive, cognitive and socio-affective strategies to facilitate comprehension and to make their learning more effective.” (Guo & Wills).
As we understand more about language quality as well as the development of teaching theory, there has been a great identification of the process of listening comprehension which requires better emphasis. It is imperative to understand that listening is an invisible mental process and therefore it is complex to be described. However, it is most often realized, as Wipf in his “Strategies for Teaching Second Language Listening Comprehension” points out, that the listeners must discriminate between sounds, understand vocabulary and grammatical structures, interpret stress and intonation, understand the intention and retain and interpret this within the immediate as well as the larger socio-cultural context of the utterance. (Wipf, 1984, 17:345-48). It is pertinent to consider the definition of listening given by Rost who in a broad sense defines it as a process of receiving what the speaker actually says (receptive orientation); constructing and representing meaning (constructive orientation); negotiating meaning with the speaker and responding (collaborative orientation); and, creating meaning through involvement, imagination, and empathy (transformative orientation). (Rost, 2002). From such a discussion of the listening comprehension by important writers, it becomes clear that it is essential to comprehend listening as a complex activity that needs further investigation. “Listening, then, is a complex, active processes of interpretation in which listeners match what they hear with what they already know.” (Guo & Wills P. 4).
The theoretical analysis of listening comprehension can be essential in an understanding of the various aspects of listening processes. Significantly, there are two distinct processes involved in listening comprehension. In the first process of listening, which is known as ‘top-down’ processes, listeners use previous knowledge to comprehend the meaning of a message. The knowledge of the topic, the listening context, the text type, the culture, or other information stored in long-term memory as schemata, etc can be part of the prior knowledge. Content words and contextual clues are made use by the listeners in order to form premises in an investigative way. The second process, known as ‘bottom-up’ processes, is, on the other hand, used by listeners as they use linguistic knowledge to understand the meaning of a message. In such a process meaning is arrived at from lower-level sounds to words to grammatical relationships to lexical meanings. “Listening comprehension is not either top-down or bottom-up processing, but an interactive, interpretive process where listeners use both prior knowledge and linguistic knowledge in understanding messages. The degree to which listeners use the one process or the other will depend on their knowledge of the language, familiarity with the topic or the purpose for listening. For example, listening for gist involves primarily top-down processing, whereas listening for specific information, as in a weather broadcast, involves primarily bottom-up processing to comprehend all the desired details.” (Vandergrift).
Conclusion
In ultimate conclusion, it is important to consider that listening is the most pertinent language skill, the comprehension of which is central to the language acquisition by learners. TESOL is obviously one of the essential factors of modern man as the role of English has reached a new zenith. For the acquisition of English by speakers of other languages, the theories and practice of TESOL can be found essential. The role of English as well as the teaching and learning process, i.e. TESOL, has increased tremendously n the modern world. The listening comprehension strategies and their various aspects can be essential in the process of TESOL. This paper has been found central in investigating some of the fundamental elements that relate the TESOL theories with listening comprehension. Further investigation into the topic can draw essential conclusions regarding the TESOL theories and listening comprehension.
References
Sethi, Sadanand., & Jindal Sethi, Sadanand. A practical course in English pronunciation, Prentice Hall Publishers, p. 3.
Carter, Ronald., & Nunan, David. Jack C. Richardson, “Postscript: The Ideology of TESOL” The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, p. 215.
Carter, Ronald., & Nunan, David. The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, p. 1.
Opportunities in teaching English to speakers of other languages, Blythe McGraw-Hill Professional, 1995, p. 3.
Flowerdew, John., Miller, Lindsay. Second language listening: Theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. p.134.
Carter, Ronald., & Nunan, David. Michael Rost, “Listening”, The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, p. 7.
Carrasquillo, Angela L. Teaching English as a second Language: A Resource Guide, Taylor & Francis, 1994, p. 131.
O’Malley, Michael., & Uhl, Anna J. Learning strategies in second language acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, p. 129-30.
Anderson, Anne., & Lynch, Tony. Listening, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, p 6.
O’malley, Michael J., Uhl, Anna., & Chamot and Küpper, Lisa. Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. 2008. Web.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. Techniques and principles in language teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Wolvin Andrew D., & Coakley, Carolyn Gwynn. “A Listening Taxonomy,” Perspectives on Listening, Green wood Publishing Group, 1993, p. 17.
Guo, Naizhao., & Wills, Robin. An Investigation of Factors Influencing English Listening Comprehension and Possible Measures for Improvement. 2008. Web.
Wolvin Andrew D., & Coakley, Carolyn Gwynn. Renee Edwards and Janet L McDonald, “Schema Theory and Listening”, Perspectives on Listening, Green wood Publishing Group, 1993, p. 61.
Guo, Naizhao., & Wills, Robin. An Investigation of Factors Influencing English Listening Comprehension and Possible Measures for Improvement: Abstract. P.4. 2008. Web.
Wipf, J. Strategies for teaching second language listening comprehension, Foreign Language Annals, 1984, 17:345-48.
Rost, M. Teaching and researching listening London, UK: Longman, 2002.
Vandergrift, Larry. Listening: Theory and Practice in Modern Foreign Language Competence. Language Linguistics Area Studies. 2008. Web.
Language education remains an active area of research, and inquiry on a global level, and numerous studies conducted by language educators are sensitive to many issues faced by learners, communities, and national education systems concerning language learning and education. It is believed that conversational interaction can facilitate inter-language development, but compared to laboratory settings realistic research to identify its efficacy in classroom settings is few. The interaction hypothesis, within the context of second language acquisition (SLA), suggests that receiving comprehensible input and interactional feedback and negotiating for meaning are helpful for second language (L2) learning. Literature on conversational interaction studies reveal that much of the empirical research has been carried out in laboratory settings, hence some researchers opine that patterns may differ if the research is done in L2 classroom settings The research by Gass et al (2005) is an attempt to compare interaction in classrooms and laboratories to provide insight into the nature of interactions in each setting.
It is assumed that interaction, when it involves negotiations for meaning and feedback, facilitates second language learning (SLA), which includes receiving comprehensible input and interactional feedback, and may provide opportunities for learners to test target language to identify the difference between their “interlanguage and target language” (Gass, 2005, p. 576). According to Pica (1994a), negotiation for meaning is an activity ‘in which learners seek clarification, confirmation, and repetition of L2 utterances they do not understand” (cited by Gass). The important benefit of interaction is its capacity for negotiation to connect input and output.
Research paradigm
Earlier research by Long (1981, 1983, 1985), Pica (1985, 1988, 1989, 1992), and others, in the domain of interaction research, was mainly investigations of various aspects of the role of negotiation in comprehensions, which advanced to interaction-comprehension links. Recent empirical studies by Ayoun (2001), Braidi (2002), Long et al (1998), and Philp (2003), to name a few, convincingly demonstrated a relationship between various types of interaction and L2 learning. These claims that there are benefits from conversational interaction by a number of researchers are supported with empirical data collected in laboratory settings. The research findings of Foster (1998), on the basis of classroom observation, prompts her that “learners appear to choose not to negotiate for meaning,” because the classroom environment is less controlled than that in the laboratory. In her data, dyads carrying out information exchange tasks were the most successful in producing negotiation for meaning, suggesting that it may be worthwhile to investigate task type further. In the opinion of Nicholas et al (2001, p.721 as cited by Gass) in many English as the second language (ESL) classrooms “response to learner utterances are even more likely to be interpreted as reactions to meaning.” Thus, the relevance of laboratory research to L2 classroom settings is important in interaction research, and the study by Gass is “a first step toward investigating the difference between classrooms and laboratories by examining the extent to which interaction is present in two highly comparable settings” (p.581). They compared task-based interactions, using materials that have been used as instructional tools and research instruments, in everyday classes and in a laboratory setting. In a controlled laboratory setting, learners worked in dyads to carry out tasks, whereas in a foreign language classroom, learners from the same population carried out the same tasks as in the laboratory and the results were compared. The research questions posited by Gass et al were (p.581-582):
How does task-based interaction in the classroom compare to task-based interaction in a laboratory setting?
How do different tasks influence interaction in classrooms and laboratories?
Sample and methodology
For their research, students enrolled in 3rd-semester university-level Spanish courses, in the age range from 17 to 25 were selected. There were 55 female and 19 male students, generally native speakers of English, who had been taking the Spanish class for 11 weeks which met 4 days a week for 50 minutes. The three tasks, selected from material appearing in popular textbooks that were typically used in the student’s language classrooms, were: one optional information exchange task (consensus); and two required information exchange tasks (picture difference and map). The tasks were adapted and translated by an experienced language instructor and the appropriateness of the task was checked by a second native-speaking Spanish instructor. The contextualized and communicative pictures of the picture difference task describe real-life scenes, and the participants were instructed to find 10 differences between their pictures. This allowed students to use and learn the authentic and meaningful language and value of which is well documented in the literature. The consensus task consisted of descriptions of several Spanish universities, in Spanish, requiring the participants to help prospective students to rank the universities and decide which school to attend. Under the Map task, the participants had to share their knowledge of the street conditions and cooperate with each other to successfully locate different street properties from the map, as well as to draw a driving route from starting point to a waiting friend. Considering the usefulness and interactive features of (a) negotiations for meaning, (b) language-related episodes, and (c) recasts, for analyzing interaction studies, Gass et al adopted these three coding methods in their data analysis. To compare the settings and tasks and to explore whether there were any significant interactions between the settings and tasks, repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed.
Research findings, suggestions, and conclusions
Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed that there were neither significant interactions between setting and task nor significant differences between classroom and the laboratory on the total amount of negotiation and confirmation checks, except significant differences in the amount of the tasks for the total amount of negotiation. “Post hoc Bonferroni” analyses also revealed that there was more negotiation and confirmation on the picture differences task (p.588). In the summary of results, Gass et al suggest that “in terms of amount and type or negotiation for meaning Language Related Episodes (LREs), and recasts, whether learners interacted in classroom or laboratory settings had very little impact on the interactional patterns” (p.596-597). On examining the interactional features of the study sample it was found that there were fewer differences in the classroom and laboratory contexts. The incidences of LREs and recasts in the classroom interactions were highly comparable to those in the laboratory. They found some interesting differences in interactional processes according to the task, but not the setting. The claims of Foster (1998) that there is a lower incidence of negotiation of meaning in a classroom setting than in a laboratory setting was not supported by the data of Gass et al.
The research of Gass et al (2007) points to the need to carefully examine task types in any investigation of interaction and considering a number of variables when looking at negotiation in a classroom context. The primary variables are one-way versus the two-way flow of information, the role of the interlocutors, task familiarity, and gender. They conclude that when considering generalization researchers and teachers need to consider what makes sense in their context as findings will be different in different settings; “classrooms can vary tremendously and not all laboratories are equivalent either” (p.601). Thus, interaction may be more task-dependent, varying in each context from task to task. It is suggested that in future research, it might be interesting to consider gender differences and examine this in the light of individual initiative in interactional modifications, and length and linguistic target of interactional feedback, as well as other qualitative information.
Critical observations about the study
Though the research findings were aimed to reflect comparative relevance of classroom setting over laboratory setting, considering the wide range of classrooms that can be examined, the generalization of the findings is clearly limited. This study was carried out in a foreign, rather than an L2, classroom, which may affect the test results. The number of social and contextual features that a classroom has not been focused on in this study. The researchers have not taken into account the various complexities of the classroom context, such as the social relationships of the participants. As the evaluation was carried out in a typical foreign language classroom and a typical interaction laboratory experiment, the findings cannot be taken as representative of a comparable population.
It is pertinent to note that impediments to research may include access to the kinds of literature, the degree to which the quantitative and qualitative research methods are valued, the ways in which research methodology and reporting are taught, guidance in data collection and analysis, and other constraints posed by limited access to assistance or other physical resources. Choices of research topics and methodology may also reflect different value systems of priorities which may not be popular outside the researcher’s contexts. As such, original data-driven research in language education will influence the type of research questions, how these questions are investigated, and how the results and interpretations are reported or not reported. Research topics may include language acquisition in formal and informal settings, effects of innovative teaching methodologies on language learning, language testing, technology in language learning, task-based learning, influences on instructional changes, developing locally appropriate textbooks and educational materials, language teacher problems solving, and program evaluation. Hence, for the future of TESL, Gass et al suggest that “replication studies are obviously advisable in order to permit greater confidence in the results” (p. 601).
Works cited
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passe´ compose´ and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.
Foster, P. A Classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23. 1998.
Gass, Susan; Mackey, Alison and Ross-Feldman, Lauren. Task-based Interactions in Classroom and Laboratory Settings. Language Learning 55:4, 2005, pp.575-611.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘‘noticing the gap’’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Pica, T. (1994a). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49–79.