Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher

Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges Edited by Simon Borg

Contents Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges Simon Borg ...........................................................................................................................................5 Undergraduate students’ attitudes to pair work Beenish Asmat Ullah .........................................................................................................................17 Using group work in large classes Muhammad Asif ..................................................................................................................................25 Introducing interactive learning in higher education Aalia Sohail Khan ...............................................................................................................................39 . Student and teacher views about using the L1 in English classrooms Asma Zahoor ......................................................................................................................................49 University students’ attitudes towards code-switching Amna Naveed .....................................................................................................................................59 Using simulation in teaching oral skills to hotel management students Musarat Yasmin ..................................................................................................................................69 Language anxiety in university learners of English Saira Altaf .............................................................................................................................................79 Markers’ criteria in assessing English essays Athar Munir Siddiqui .........................................................................................................................89 Improving writing skills through written corrective feedback Ghazala Tabbasum ..........................................................................................................................101 Improving coherence in university students’ writing Nasiba Bibi ..........................................................................................................................................111 Dropout of students from English language courses Sabeen Hayat ....................................................................................................................................119 Student and teacher perspectives on the use of technology Ahsan Bashir .....................................................................................................................................129

Contents |

3

4

|

Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges Simon Borg 1.

Introduction

Educational change projects – sometimes very good ones – often lack a concrete legacy; the projects run their course, and may indeed have a signiicant impact on those involved, but lack an output, some documented record of the successes that were achieved and lessons learned that others can build on, learn from and be inspired by. This volume represents such an output and its publication is the irst achievement I would like to celebrate here. The project this work emerged from was a research methods training initiative for teachers organised by Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the British Council and, after introducing the aims of the publication, I will describe this project and discuss the ways in which it highlighted both the potential of and challenges raised by the introduction of teacher research into the teaching of English in colleges and universities. An overview of the contributions which form the core of this book is also provided.

2.

Aims

A key aim of this volume is to illustrate the beneits, to teachers, learners and organisations, of teacher research - systematic inquiry which is conducted by teachers themselves and which takes place in their own working contexts, and very often in their own classrooms. The primary purpose of teacher research is professional development and the enhancement of teaching and learning. We can contrast this view of research with one which sees it as a complex activity that only expert academics can engage in, which studies ‘others’, and which seeks to generate large-scale generalizable indings. This is the notion of research that remains dominant in many parts of the world, including Pakistan, and our purpose here is not to criticise this but to highlight an alternative which is more feasible and of more practical value to teachers. The principles behind teacher research will be discussed later in this chapter, but it is important to establish from the outset here the contribution we feel this volume Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges |

5

can make to the teaching of English in higher education in Pakistan. In this context, research is typically seen by teachers as an activity that is done to obtain higher qualiications and/or to secure promotion. These are valuable objectives, but the function that research by teachers can play in supporting their own professional development and enhancing teaching and learning in their institutions is rarely addressed. This volume’s concern with such issues thus represents a departure from conventional collections of research papers in higher education in Pakistan. Through these papers, we want to illustrate how teacher research can be done and the beneits it can provide – hopefully inspiring readers to do teacher research themselves, But, crucially, we also want to acknowledge the challenges teachers face when they assume the role of researcher in their own contexts. The teachers whose work is presented in this volume were all novice teacher researchers – several had a higher degree but using research to study their own work was a novel exercise for all of them. The process was thus a developmental one, and the reports we include here are the outcome of this process of learning to become a teacher researcher. To acknowledge the development dimension of this work, each chapter ends with an editor’s commentary in which I comment on aspects of this study, particularly areas for development. Again, this is not a feature that is present in conventional collections of research papers but one we feel enhances the instructional value of this volume. Our message to readers, then, is to approach this volume with an open-mindedness to learn about teacher research, to consider the potential it offers to support the teaching of English, and to accept that becoming a researcher is a learning process in which expertise is enhanced through practice and relection on critical feedback. In contrast, assessing these papers as examples of conventional academic research will not be a productive exercise for the reader.

3.

HEC/BC Research Methods Training Project

3.1

Planning

The HEC/BC Research Methods Training Project was part of the English Language Teaching Reforms (ELTR) initiative which, as Coleman (2010) notes, has been supporting ELT in higher education in Pakistan since 2004. The original terms of reference for the project read as follows: • Identiication of current pre-service teacher education provision relating to language in education. • Identiication of current in-service provision for teachers relating to language in education, and identifying examples of good practice. • Increased capacity in university departments in Applied Linguistics research methods, and improved decision-making about teaching and learning, based on this research.

6

| Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges

• A group of teachers/lecturers able to train practising teachers in classroombased or action research, and the use of this as a means of developing new teacher education programmes. • Enhanced understanding of Applied Linguistics and its role in understanding language acquisition within the Social Science faculties in Pakistan Higher Education. This would contribute to an emerging research and teaching ield in a small number of Pakistan universities which are moving from literature-based approaches to language teaching and towards ESOL/ELT approaches. • Encouragement and support for researchers wishing to publicise their work through journals or conference papers, thus encouraging a research culture in colleges. This rather ambitious and diverse set of targets relected some the priorities for language in education in Pakistan noted in recent reports (Coleman, 2010; Coleman & Capstick, 2012). However, at the planning stage it became clear that addressing these targets would be problematic – responses to a pre-course questionnaire which asked the participants about their current responsibilities showed that the vast majority of them were not involved in pre-service or in-service teacher education; also, language teaching methodology was not a key concern for most, with greater value reportedly assigned to the content of the English linguistics and literature courses most of them taught. Given this participant proile, two particular decisions were made about the design of the research methods training project: 1.

to encourage participants to focus less on disciplinary issues in linguistics and literature and to engage more with the pedagogy of their work as university and college teachers;

2.

to engage participants in research which focuses on their own pedagogical practices rather than on the study of others.

The envisaged focus on teacher education was thus replaced by a focus on participants’ own practices as teachers of English language and literature. Teacher research – systematic enquiry by teachers in their own contexts - thus became the central organising principle for the course. This change of orientation still allowed the terms of reference not associated with teacher education to be addressed.

3.2

Structure

The project ran from May 2012 to March 2013 and its structure is summarized in Figure 1 below. As this shows, there were three workshops (all lasting ive days and conducted in Islamabad) with on-line support in between.

Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges |

7

Workshop 1 • 21-25 May 2012

On-line support 1 • Jun-Oct 2012

Workshop 2 • 15-19 Oct 2012

On-line support 2 • Nov 2012-Mar 2013

Workshop 3 • 18-22 March 2012

Figure 1: Phases of the project

Phase 1 (Workshop 1 & On-line support 1) of the project equipped participants with a basic understanding of research, particularly of teacher research. During this phase participants also developed a research proposal and conducted a pilot study. In Phase 2 (Workshop 2 and On-line support 2), participants developed a deeper understanding of data collection methods, and collected the data for their studies. In Phase 3 the focus was on data analysis and report writing. Additionally, in the inal workshop some time was dedicated to a discussion of how participants might act as research mentors for others in their contexts. Although all the teachers had experience of studying research methods, teacher research was a novel concept for them – they saw research as a complex, theoretical activity which high-level academics did to or on others. Thus we invested a substantial amount of time during Phase 1 to ‘unlearn’ some of these deeply-rooted views about what research is; we emphasised the fact that teachers could be researchers in, and of their own contexts and that there was considerable value in them being so.

3.3

Principles

A number of principles about learning to do teacher research were relected in the design and delivery of the project. These draw on (and continue to develop) my understandings of how best to support the development of teacher researchers and which I discussed most recently in Borg (2013): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8

Teachers should be recognized as legitimate members of the ELT research community in Pakistan. Teacher research – systematic enquiry by teachers in their own contexts - is a powerful form of professional development. In learning to be researchers teachers need both theoretical input and practical opportunities to do an actual research project – workshops alone will not have substantial impact on the development of teachers’ research skills. Learning to be a researcher is a process that takes time – short one-off workshops can only have limited impact. Teachers also need on-going support from a mentor as they learn to do research; collaborative peer support is also an important resource for them. The process of learning to do research should be a positive and developmental one which increases teachers’ professional conidence. It is unreasonable to expect teachers to produce good quality research without adequate access to resources such as literature, equipment and software.

| Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges

Throughout the project then, the emphasis, as noted above, was on enabling teachers to do research in their own contexts primarily with the goal of better understanding their teaching and their students. The workshops provided theoretical input but the length and structure of the project meant that teachers had time to design and implement an actual study. They received support from me during workshops (including via tutorials) and also on-line in between workshops. Especially during the workshops, participants supported one another, for example, in learning to use software for data analysis such as SPSS. They were provided with electronic readings and also shared with each other any databases of literature they had access to. The project was conducted in a positive atmosphere which recognized participants’ achievements and focused on motivating them to complete their projects. Pedagogically, the workshops also emphasised active, task-based and collaborative learning. This does not mean there were no lectures; however, it was also important to give participants the chance to experience the kinds of interactive learning which, according to a recent report, need to be more common in English teaching in higher education in Pakistan (Donohue & North, 2012).

3.4

Outcomes

Of the 18 teachers who started the course in May 2013, 16 completed it in March 2013 and this should be seen as a very positive completion rate. Of those 16, 12 produced written reports for this volume, with a range of unforeseen and often unfortunate personal circumstances accounting for those who were unable to. Overall, though, the quantitative measures of success here are very positive, and this publication celebrates the teachers’ achievements, recognizing at the same time that developing as a teacher researcher, as noted above, is an on-going process. Most participants investigated issues that were of immediate and practical relevance to their work in an inward-looking manner. In some cases, though, the powerful inluence of traditional notions of what counts as good research were not, though, wholly overcome and in such cases the focus on teachers’ own practices was less central to their projects. Also important was the impact that participants felt the project had on them. In this respect the outcomes, as measured through evaluations after each phase and exit interviews at the end of the project, were very positive. In particular, the teachers agreed strongly that the course had made them more conident as researchers, had developed in them positive attitudes to research, and that completing the course had given them a sense of achievement. It is hoped, then, that this group of teacher researchers can provide the basis of a growing community of like-minded individuals in colleges and universities in Pakistan. There is already evidence that is the case, and some of these teachers are already actively engaged in introducing teacher research to their colleagues.


9

3.5

Challenges

It would of course be misleading to suggest that the project did not face challenges. There are three in particular I will focus on here. The irst is access to recent journal articles and books. Although teacher research does not demand the kind of extensive literature review that academic research calls for, access to sources is still important. Teachers can, for example, ind out whether instruments relevant to their studies already exist or whether studies of relevance have been recently completed. They can also learn about who the key igures are in relation to their research topics. Access to literature is also needed to support their understandings of research methodology, and this is something that was addressed during the project through the provision of an electronic pack of readings. Gaining access to recent literature relevant to their topics, though, was a challenge for most of the participants, and this is relected in many of these chapters. The second challenge relates to the support that the teachers needed to sustain their commitment to the project and to complete and write up their studies. Although the structure of this project – 10 months, with alternating intensive workshops and remote support – provided the right conditions for teachers to plan and conduct research in their contexts – it did also demand an extended commitment on the part of the teachers. Various forms of individual and group, face-to-face and virtual support were built into the course to help the teachers remain engaged. Intermediate deadlines were set by which they were required to complete tasks such as submitting a proposal and writing a pilot study report. Teachers also received oral and/or written feedback on all the work they produced. Overall, the support mechanisms built into the course were perhaps the single most important factor that enabled the teachers to sustain their effort. The inal challenge is one that has not been overcome but which merits discussion here. Although the teachers embraced teacher research as an orientation to their own professional development, the reports presented here follow the format of conventional research papers. This is important for the teachers in that their work is more likely to be valued by the ELT research community in Pakistan. It was also a format the teachers were familiar with and which thus facilitated the task, which for many was very challenging, of writing up their work. However, I do feel that alternative formats can allow teachers to share their work in a way that better captures the spirit of teacher research. For example, there is little space in these reports for extended relections on the processes that teachers went through or on their development as teacher researchers. Different narrative strategies could also be used by teachers to tell their stories. As the facilitator of the project, the standardisation of these reports is of course wholly my responsibility and I raise this issue here not as a criticism of the teachers’ work but as one that merits more attention when teacher research is being disseminated. Arguably, asking teachers to consider alternative more imaginative formats of presenting their research would, given their status as novice teacher researchers, have been unrealistic. It is likely to be an issue, then, that teacher researchers can explore with greater conidence once they are more experienced.

10 | Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges

So, to summarise this analysis of the project, we can identify four targets which research methods courses for teachers should aim for: irst, is that teacher research be the guiding principle; second, is to structure the course in a way that teachers learn about research by doing it – a practical element is essential; third, is for the teachers not only to complete a project but to produce an output that can be shared with fellow professionals (Burns, 2010 provides a good discussion of various options for communicating research); and fourth, especially where reports are written, to explore alternative forms of representation that allow key elements and processes in teacher research to shine through. In this project we met the irst three of these targets.

4.

Overview of the Volume

In addition to this introduction, the volume consists of reports produced by 12 teachers of English in public sector colleges and universities in different parts of Pakistan. The representation of both colleges and universities on the project was in itself innovative as projects of this kind have traditionally been reserved for university staff only. Several different themes are covered, and where these overlap the chapters have been grouped accordingly. Despite the diversity of topics and contexts, though, what unites these chapters is that they focus on issues of immediate relevance to the authors’ working contexts and contribute to the authors’ understandings of these issues.

Issue 1: Interactive Learning One challenge that many English teachers in public sector higher education contexts in Pakistan is how to promote interactive modes of teaching. The irst three papers here examine this issue in different ways. Beenish Asmat Ullah explored her students’ reactions to the introduction of pair work during a course on English grammar. She discovered that students acknowledged the beneits that pair work creates for their learning and agreed that it should continue to be a feature of their English classes. At the same time, though, they expressed positive views about learning through lectures and also wanted these to be retained as a feature of the teacher’s pedagogy. The point here is that making learning interactive does not mean abruptly abandoning the traditional ways of teaching that students appreciate. Muhammad Asif’s paper examines interactive teaching in large classes through group work. He surveyed teachers and students and both felt that group work can be a useful strategy for making large classes more interactive. Participants also agreed that group work could improve students’ conidence, speaking, discussion and critical skills. Some problems were also identiied, particularly that of nonparticipation in group work by shyer or less able students. A third perspective on making university courses more interactive is provided by Aalia Sohail Khan. The author was asked to teach her English Studies students a new course on research methods and she used this as an opportunity to relect on the design, delivery and outcomes of learning where interactivity, autonomy, and practical activity were emphasised. Her analysis provides interesting insights into Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges |

11

the challenges experienced lecturers may face in breaking away from their own established ways of teaching (i.e. lecturing) but also highlights how relection (in this case through a teaching journal) can create the awareness that is needed for change to occur. Students were asked to work in groups, to do a research project and to write a report about it. With the support of the author, students responded positively to this challenging task.

Issue 2: Mother Tongue Use The next two chapters focus on another issue of general interest in the teaching of English in higher education in Pakistan – the role of the mother tongue. Asma Zahoor collected data on this issue from one of her classes and ive of her colleagues. The use of Urdu (a national lingua franca but actually a irst language for a minority of the population) was generally acknowledged by the respondents to be a feature of English lessons The teachers mostly felt that maximising the use of English during their classes was desirable and that Urdu use should be minimised, though they felt that it was not always easy to do so. The students also recognised the value of increasing English use, though they were not of the view that Urdu use should be eliminated. Amna Naveed found that students had positive attitudes about the use of English by themselves and their teachers; they did also note, though, situations where they found the use of the irst language beneicial, such as when teachers were explaining vocabulary. Overall, both these studies show how teacher research can provide teachers with insights into their students’ feelings about various aspects of learning English. Equipped with these insights, teachers can then consider what the implications for their teaching are.

Issue 3: Promoting Oral Communication Skills The next two chapters share a focus on speaking. Musarat Yasmin analysed the use of simulation as a strategy for developing the oral communication skills of students preparing for a career in the hotel industry. Students participated in a series of simulations and their performance was observed and analysed each time. The results were encouraging, pointing towards improvements in students’ oral performance overall as well as speciically in grammar, vocabulary, luency and conversational strategies. The study illustrates the potential that exists for introducing innovative and practical ways of teaching English in higher education, particularly when, as in this case, these changes are supported by the management. Saira Altaf’s study also focuses on speaking. She used a checklist to document evidence of anxiety when her students were giving oral presentations and found widespread evidence of this kind (e.g. trembling, stammering and avoiding eye contact). She then interviewed the students to learn more about their feelings when they were required to give presentations in class and found that they found public speaking scary, were concerned about being assessed negatively by the audience, 12 | Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges

and found it much harder to ind the words they needed to express themselves during presentations, as compared to in writing. This study highlights another recurrent theme in this volume – the valuable insights that teacher research can give teachers into their own students.

Issue 4: Promoting Writing Skills Athar Munir Siddiqui’s is the irst of three chapters which focus on writing. The author works as an examiner on an important state-wide English examination and his study focuses on the criteria that he and a group of fellow examiners use when they are marking the essays students write as part of this examination. The study highlights the very subjective criteria that different markers use and, even where criteria overlap, the different weighting markers assign to issues such as grammar. This study points to the need for formal standardisation procedures to be introduced to enhance the reliability of essay marking on high stakes examinations. The next two papers both focus on ways of improving the quality of university students’ writing. Ghazala Tabbasum was motivated to do her study by the fact that, while students understood the content of her literature classes, they were unable to express this understanding coherently in essays (performance on objectives tests, in comparison, was very good). The teacher’s response was to provide systematic written corrective feedback to students on their work over a number of weeks; the feedback was also selective, focusing on those issues that her analysis of students’ essays suggested they needed most help with. The analysis of the essays students produced after this phase of written corrective feedback showed improvement in organisation and critical analysis, though problems with choice of vocabulary remained. Overall, though, the results suggest that literature teachers can support the writing of their students through systematic and focused written corrective feedback. Coherence is a common problem in the writing of undergraduates and this was the focus of Nasiba Bibi’s study. Once again, the starting point for the investigation was an issue in her own teaching and the purpose of the project was to explore ways of responding to it. She did this by providing direct instruction to the students on aspects of coherence, such as links across paragraphs, as well as by providing individual written feedback to the students as they completed a series of written assignments over a number of weeks. Although the students made some progress in organising their ideas logically, problems with the overall coherence of their essays remained. The author’s conclusion is that while the strategies for achieving coherence taught to the students were useful, they would have beneited from more opportunities to apply these as well as more examples of these being used in other examples of writing. This study is a good example of the fact that teacher research will not always lead to the hoped-for improvements at the irst attempt; this in no way makes the research less successful; rather, it reminds us that teacher research is a process rather than a one-off activity, with linked cycles of inquiry gradually leading towards more effective teaching and learning practices.


13

Other Issues The inal two papers here cover topics not related to those discussed so far. Sabeen Hayat examines the reasons why students drop out of English language courses. She claims this is a common phenomenon in Pakistan and one she has experienced in different institutions, and her aim was thus to develop a better understanding of why it occurs. She interviewed dropouts and found that inancial issues and lack of time (due to conlicts with other studies and/or family responsibilities) were key reasons why students discontinued courses; to a lesser degree, institutional and pedagogical issues (e.g. teachers) were also factors. Students who completed their courses were also interviewed and a central factor to emerge in their persistence was their teachers’ ability to motivate and encourage them. What this study suggests is that while it is dificult to prevent dropouts caused by changes in students’ external circumstances, motivating and supportive teachers may have the power to retain students who would otherwise drop out. There is thus a clear message here to language institutes, who may be able to improve their retention rates by supporting their teachers in creating positive, motivating and supportive learning environments. Finally, Ahsan Bashir looks at the very topical issue of technology in the learning of English. The author is enthusiastic about technology and tended to assume (as he felt his colleagues did) that such enthusiasm would be shared by the students. In the spirit of teacher research, though, he decided to assess this assumption by asking students for their views on the use of different kinds of technology during English lessons. The results suggested that, while the students were generally positive about technology, they were not uncritical about its use in their learning. The author found these insights useful in allowing him to take students’ perspectives into account when making decisions about the use of technology in his work.

5.

Conclusion

As the overview above indicates, the contributions to this volume, despite differences in their focus and context, highlight a range of recurrent themes. Primary among these is the value to teachers of becoming researchers in their own contexts. Teachers are, of course, periodically reminded of the fact that they should be relective professionals who examine their own work. Such encouragement, though, is of limited value unless it is accompanied by the concrete support that teachers need to make teacher research a reality, and this project is an excellent example of what can be achieved when such support is provided. A second recurrent theme here is the value to teachers of understanding their students’ experiences and perspectives. In several of these studies teachers asked their students for their views on aspects of learning English and used (or plan to use) the insights obtained to inform their teaching. This does not mean that teachers must do what students say; however, teachers who know what their students feel are better placed to address those feelings and to support changes in them, if this is necessary. The third and inal recurrent theme I will note in concluding here is that innovation is more feasible when it seeks not to displace, but to co-exist with, established ways of teaching and learning. Several studies here examined ways of 14 | Promoting Language Teacher Research in Higher Education: Potential and Challenges

making the teaching and learning of English more interactive, student-centred, and practical, and while they generally reported positive results, they also concluded that students continued to value the ways of learning they were accustomed to. Change in both teaching and research therefore, needs to take place sensitively, gradually and with the kind of thoughtful relection on their work that the teachers in this volume have demonstrated. I conclude by congratulating the contributors to this volume (and the other colleagues who took part in the project) on their achievements and thanking the HEC and British Council in Pakistan for initiating and supporting this work.

References Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge. Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education. Islamabad: The British Council. Coleman, H., & Capstick, T. (2012). Language in education in Pakistan: Recommendations for policy and practice. Islamabad: The British Council. Donohue, J. & North, S. (2012). Needs analysis report. Milton Keynes: Open University.

The Author Simon Borg has been involved in the teaching of English for over 25 years. After 15 years at the University of Leeds (where he remains a Visiting Professor) he now works full-time as an ELT consultant, particularly in the areas of teacher development and research methods training.


15

16

|

1 Undergraduate Students’ Attitudes to Pair Work Beenish Asmat Ullah 1.

Introduction

This study investigates students’ reactions to the introduction of pair work during English language lessons at university. My teaching (and that of most of my colleagues) has generally relied on the lecture method, with little space for interactivity among students, and I wanted to explore alternatives to this approach by using pair work activities in my English classes. In this project I examined students’ reactions to these activities and their views on how pair work compared to lecture-based lessons.

2.

Pair Work

Pair work refers to learning in which two students work together to complete an activity or task. During pair work, the whole class is divided into pairs which complete a set activity at the same time. Doff (1988) calls this simultaneous pair work. Below I will discuss some advantages and advantages of pair work.

2.1

Advantages of Pair Work

According to Wright, Betteridge & Buckby, (2006) pair work creates the possibility for intensive speaking. It also enhances the conidence level of the students and improves their communication skills. Besides it also inculcates a spirit of cooperation among learners. According to Harmer (2000), student talking time is heightened during pair work and, because there is less teacher intervention, the students have opportunities to be more autonomous.

2.2

Disadvantages of Pair work

According to Harmer (2000), language teachers and learners often ind pair work noisy and do not like it. Teachers also dislike it because they think that that classroom management becomes more dificult when students are asked to speak in pairs. Students might also be distracted from the activity assigned to them and Undergraduate Students’ Attitudes to Pair Work |

17

start talking about some other topic. Another common concern is that students might use their irst language rather than English. The biggest challenge of pair work particularly related to the Pakistani higher education context is the management of large classes. This situation is common in most of the Government schools and colleges. Therefore, it can be a challenge for the teacher to carry out pair work activities smoothly in the classroom within the allotted time. As the students are more used to teacher-centred ways of learning, it becomes dificult to control and manage the class during interactive activities. Additionally, the need to cover a heavy syllabus within a limited time is also one of the hurdles that discourages teachers from using pair work activities in their classrooms. Subsequently teachers can be reluctant to adopt this teaching method.

3.

Methodology

This study aims to analyse students’ reactions to pair work during an undergraduate English course. It also examines how students feel about pair work compared to the lecture method. The immediate purpose of the study was to provide insights which would allow me to make more informed decisions about how to approach my teaching, though I hope the study will be of broader interest to colleagues who work in contexts similar to mine. I addressed the following questions: i.

How do students react to pair work activities during an undergraduate English course?

ii.

How do students rate pair work compared to the lecture method?

3.1

Context and Participants

The project took place at the Women’s Development Center, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar, Pakistan. Initially there were ten students enrolled in the Functional English course I teach. However, four students dropped out and the study was conducted with the remaining six (I acknowledge that this is a very small class compared to normal undergraduate courses in Pakistan, but it did provide a manageable context in which to experiment with my teaching). Students had two contact hours per week for this particular course and the total duration of the course was twenty two weeks. Each week we focused on a different area of grammar.

3.2

Data Collection

I used both qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) to collect data from the students. The consent of the university administration was taken in order to conduct the study. Similarly, the consent of the participants was also obtained. The names of the respondents were kept conidential and the data collected by them has been used only for the purpose of this study. Below I describe the procedures I followed (the instruments were piloted with a different group of students and found to work well). 18

| Undergraduate Students’ Attitudes to Pair Work

3.2.1

Evaluation Questionnaires

3.2.2

Interviews

During the irst 11 weeks of teaching I used the lecture method. During this period, at the end of each second week (so ive times in total) students completed an evaluation sheet designed for this study. During the second 11 weeks of the course I used pair work activities and repeated the procedure, using a second evaluation sheet every second week. Both evaluation sheets included similar statements to facilitate comparisons (see Figure 1). The sheets were a type of questionnaire – i.e. a series of questions or statements that are presented to the respondents in written form to which they react either by selecting from the available answers or by writing their own answers (Brown, 2001, in Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). For the closed questions I used a three-point rating scale (agree, unsure, disagree). To give respondents some choice I also included some open questions. Dörnyei & Taguchi (2010) state that it is better to place openended questions at the end therefore one such question was the inal item on both checklists. The question was ‘Would you like us to use lecture method/pair work more often in English lessons? Why or Why not? According to Denscombe (2012), the interview is the most suitable method to get a clear understanding of people’s emotions, experience, feelings and opinions. Therefore, two sets of interviews were carried out during the project. One interview was carried out in the middle of the course, after eleven weeks. It was an individual interview with each student which helped me to get some feedback from the students regarding the lecture method. Similarly, another individual interview was carried out at the end of the course. It helped me to understand students’ views regarding pair work activities. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The interviews questions are listed in the Appendix. I used descriptive statistics to analyse the closed questions in the questionnaires. The open-ended questions and the interviews were analysed qualitatively – i.e. I identiied recurrent themes in the data and put them into categories which described different issues raised by the students in their comments.

4.

Findings

4.1

Comparison of Lecture and Pair Work

Figure 1 compares the ratings that students gave to lecture method and pair work activities. The three possible answers to each statement in the questionnaire (agree, unsure, disagree) were assigned respective values of 3, 2 and 1, and mean scores (out of 3) for each item calculated (as noted above, each questionnaire was completed ive times). Thus a higher mean relects a higher level of agreement with each statement.

Undergraduate Students’ Attitudes to Pair Work |

19

Out of nine statements, agreement was higher for pair work on three of them; thus compared to lectures, students felt that during pair work activities they helped each other more, interacted with each other more, and they spoke English with each other more. These are three characteristics of lessons which we would expect pair work to promote more effectively than lectures. This does not mean, though, that the students were negative about the lecture method and on ive of the statements agreement for lectures was higher, including ‘I prefer this way of learning’. In terms of enjoyment, students rated lecture and pair work approaches equally positively. Overall, what these results suggest is that students value the lecture approach more, but recognize too that pair work activities offer certain advantages. This suggests that combining both approaches is likely to be an effective way to proceed. I prefer this way of learning Did not speak L1 Should be used during English lessons Neither too short nor too long Pair work

Students helped each other

Lecture

Felt more conident I enjoyed it Interact with my classmates Talk in English with my classmates 1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Figure 1: Students’ average ratings for pair work and lecture method (1 = Disagree, 2=Unsure, 3=Agree)

The open-ended questionnaire responses provided further evidence that students saw the beneits of both lectures and pair work. Table 1 lists the main beneits of lectures students identiied. As noted above, each questionnaire was completed ive times by six students and in this table N refers to the total number of times a beneit was mentioned in the open-ended responses. Other than these main beneits, the students also felt that lectures helped them improve their English, provided more support from the teacher when dificulties arose, were easier to follow, and promoted interaction between the teacher and students.

20


Table 1: Beneits of the lecture method. Beneits

N

Sample Quotes

Learning

9

Teacher’s experience and knowledge

5

• ‘I am learning more from it’ • ‘we can learn better by this method’ • ‘teacher’s experience and knowledge are irreplaceable’ • ‘teachers are greatly experienced and learned’ • ‘ma’am made lecture method very interesting for us’

Interesting

3

In turn, Table 2 summarizes the key beneits of pair work students mentioned in their questionnaires, again, with examples. Table 2: Beneits of pair work Beneits

N

Sample Quotes

Improves English

12

Enjoyment

8

Enhances learning

7

• • • • • •

‘improves my English’ ‘improves their speaking skills’ ‘learn … without getting bored’ ‘learn along with entertainment’ ‘helps students learn’ ‘students learn a lot’

Less frequently, students mentioned other beneits of pair work such as increased interaction, opportunities to speak English, greater cooperation, more conidence, and a positive learning environment.

4.2

Student Interviews

In this section I report the indings from the interviews. Overall, the comments reported below conirm that the students saw several beneits in both lectures and pair work.

4.2.1

Lecture Method

Based on their previous experience of the lecture method the students said that “the teacher did not give attention to all students because of the strength of the students” (i.e. stronger students received more attention) and they “didn’t get a chance to talk to …. teacher.” At the start of the course they found the lecture method “very good and very interesting” and “they liked it and enjoyed it”. As the course progressed they felt “their conidence level has built up”. During lectures they said they felt they were ‘learning a lot”. They said that they could “take part in all activities” and it “improved …. English’. They did not particularly like or dislike any lecture. All of them agreed they wanted to have lectures in future English lessons because “it increases interaction among teacher and students”. They also said that they want this method because the teacher is “more educated


21

than the other fellows” (i.e. they value input from the teacher more than from their peers).

4.2.2

Pair Work

Three students had some experience of pair work before the course. They “really enjoyed those activities” and found “it was interesting”. At the start of the course the students thought pair work was “a very good idea”, having “fun and entertainment”. One of the students also said that “I knew that it’s going to improve my speaking skills”. They “liked the creative work” and found practically every pair work activity enjoyable. All of them agreed it would be good to have pair work activities in future English lessons and said that “it is like a game and we all enjoy it. We learn new things through pair work activities”. They also said that “it helps improve our speaking skills” and we “gain conidence”.

5.

Discussion

The data indicate that students enjoyed both the lecture method and pair work activities. However, they felt they helped each other more during the pair work activities. Also, pair work activities as compared to the lecture method provided them with more opportunities to interact with one another and talk in English language. This relects what Harmer (2000), as noted earlier, says about pair work second language teaching and learning. The interviews with the students suggested that they felt pair work activities helped them to improve their speaking skills and they enjoyed these activities. At the same time, that they learnt a lot through lectures and they beneited from the teacher’s experience and knowledge. Therefore, personally I believe both methods should be used by teachers of English in higher education. The study has contributed a great deal to my professional development and my teaching strategies as I have started using both methods in my classes regularly.

6.

Conclusion

Lecturing remains the predominant mode of teaching in higher education in Pakistan, and this also applies to the teaching of English language. My aim here was not to criticize lecturing as an instructional strategy – it clearly has many beneits, my students recognized and valued these, and lecturing will continue to play a role in my courses. However, there is clearly space in the teaching of English to create opportunities for students to work interactively and make the learning of English a more practical and enjoyable activity. My aim here was to conduct a small-scale study in my own teaching context and to use this to enhance my own teaching. In this sense the study was successful. It would be interesting, though, for similar studies to be conducted on a larger scale and in a range of different contexts. I hope to continue exploring the use of pair work in my teaching and I hope that this work stimulates a similar interest in readers.

22


References Creswell, W. J. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. (4th Ed.) Buckingham: Open University Press. Doff, A. (1988) Teach English: A training course for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Harmer, J. (2000). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3rd Ed.). London: Longman. Wright, A. Betteridge, D. & Buckby, M. (2006). Games for language learning (3rd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix Individual Interview Questions for Pair Work: • Did you have experience of pair work before this course? If yes, tell me about it. • How did you feel about pair work at the start of the course? • How did you feel during the pair work activities we did in class? [positive and negative points, explore why and maybe elicit speciic examples of pair work activities]. • Was there a particular pair work activity that you liked? Which one and why? • Same as previous question except ‘disliked’. • Would you like to have pair work activities in future English courses? Why/why not? Individual Interview Questions for the Lecture Method: • How was your past experience of lecture method before this course? • How did you feel about lecture method at the start of the course? • How did you feel during the lecture in the class? [positive and negative points, explore why and maybe elicit speciic examples of pair work activities]. • Was there a particular lecture that you liked? Which one and why?


23

• Was there a particular lecture that you disliked? Which one and why? • Would you like to have lecture method in future English courses? Why/why not?

The Author Beenish Asmat Ullah has been involved in teaching of English for four and a half years. She holds an MA degree in English Language and Literature from the University of Peshawar and currently she is working as a Lecturer in the Department of Education in Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary The design of this study was logical, incorporating quantitative and qualitative data as well as a longitudinal dimension. The two parallel evaluation questionnaires that were administered repeatedly during the course allowed for systematic comparisons over time to be made between students’ views about the lecture method and pair work. The use of interviews provided added some qualitative insights to those from the questionnaires. One key limitation here was the size of the sample – a class of six students is somewhat untypical of the larger classes many higher education teachers in Pakistan face, and thus it would be valuable to repeat this work in a more typical setting. A larger sample would also allow for more detailed analyses of the quantitative data than were possible here. The quantity of data generated by the instruments used could also have been extended, especially through the conduct of more detailed interviews. This would have allowed the qualitative dimension of the study to play a more central role than it did here.

24

| Undergraduate Students’ Attitude to Pair Work

2 Using Group Work in Large Classes Muhammad Asif 1.

Introduction

Large classes are a characteristic feature of education in Pakistan and are the cause of many of the problems that bedevil it. Large classes constrain teachers to resort to traditional teacher-centred methods, leaving little scope for activities promoting interactivity through group work, role play and other cooperative learning techniques. In higher education in particular, interactive classes often seem highly unfeasible. There is no push or impetus for making classes interactive and teachers continue to teach with traditional and often outdated methodologies. Academicians and policy makers, too, often seem unsure about the beneits and advantages of making classes interactive. The aim of this project is thus to explore the potential for making college and university English classes more interactive by using group work. This is a tried and tested method in other parts of the world and one which is believed to be effective in making classes interactive. My aim here is not just to see whether group work can be implemented but whether this is possible in a system with large classes, traditional seating arrangements, and attitudes (in both teachers and students) that are often averse to innovation.

2.

Interactive Learning in Higher Education

The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and the British Council, in collaboration with the Open University, UK, recently launched a project called ‘Transforming English Language Skills’ to improve the quality of teaching English. As part of this project, a needs analysis was done to assess existing teaching practices in Pakistan. This concluded that there is pressing need to making teaching in the country “interactive, creative, critical, student-centred and active” (Donohue & North 2012, p.12). This analysis also highlighted the factors that currently limit opportunities for interaction in classrooms. These factors are: • Large class sizes (up to 140 in some cases) • Extreme differences in students’ language abilities and willingness to speak Using Group Work in Large Classes |

25

• Lack of physical resources (print based and multimedia) • Lack of resources that would foster interaction • The pressure of the assessment system which encourages fact-based rote learning and memory testing • Lack of opportunities for professional development among English teachers. The report also suggests that despite the above obstacles “it was still possible to foster student to student interaction, to set up group work, presentations and class discussions” (p.16). The challenges of large classes have of course been discussed widely in the literature. For example, Das & Almekhlafy (2012) enumerate the following problems that a large class creates: • It makes great demands on the teacher • It is taxing and tiring • The teacher needs to be very active and energetic • A large part of the teacher’s energy is spent in managing the class • Individual attention to learners is often not possible • Many students cannot see the blackboard • Making the class learner-centred becomes dificult • Modern methods of teaching such as group work are dificult to apply The purpose of education is to prepare individuals for life and this cannot be achieved without imparting the necessary social and interpersonal skills needed to interact with others. In Pakistan, students are generally taught the value of good communication skills but they are hardly ever trained in them. One response to this issue is to promote group work in class in order to encourage interaction among the students and make them work together for common goals and objectives. There is much support for such an approach to learning (in L2 learning – e.g. Coleman, 2010 - and in education more generally). For example, according to Baines et al. (2009), group work has the following beneits: • conceptual development • academic achievement • engagement in learning • development of oral skills 26

| Using Group Work in Large Classes

• critical and analytical thinking skills • positive motivation and attitudes • improved behaviour in class and relationships with peers • development of group-working skills • understanding of citizenship Blatchford et al. (2003) contend that in group work the balance of ownership and control of the work shifts from teacher to students. However, doubts over the eficacy of group work are sometimes shared by both teachers and students. Group work can present three kinds of problems for the teachers. They are loss of control, increased disruption and off-task behaviour (Cohen & Intilli, 1981, in Blatchford et al., 2003). Selecting tasks and integrating them into classroom work are also problem areas for teachers wanting to introduce group work. In assessmentoriented contexts which focus on written exams, students too may often resist attempts to introduce communicative group work pedagogies. One purpose of this study was to examine whether this would be the case in my context.

3.

Methodology

3.1


The context of the study was the Government Postgraduate College, Samanabad, Faisalabad. Most of the programs are co-educational but some are only for male students. The size of the classes generally varies from 50 to 120. All 13 English language teachers who participated in this study worked in this context. They used group work to varying degrees (though probably not very often) and where they felt it could be integrated appropriately into their routine teaching. In addition, the 62 students who responded to the questionnaire were randomly selected from two of my English language classes on the Bachelor of Science programme. Thirty questionnaires were distributed in one class and 32 in the other. There were both male and female students in the classes. These students did group work routinely. I would give the students 15-20 minutes in each class to work in groups on the tasks given in the course book. The students sitting on a bench, usually four to ive in number, would huddle together and engage in discussion. Though it was not an ideal seating arrangement, the students generally responded well to the tasks assigned to them in groups. They thus had suficient experience of working in groups before responding to the questionnaires.

3.2

Data Collection

Data were collected using two separate questionnaires for teachers and students. The questionnaires contained both closed and open ended questions.

Using Group Work in Large Classes |

27

The questionnaire for teachers consisted of 37 Likert-scale statements on a ivepoint scale of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The statements elicited responses to the following issues: large classes and interactivity, group work in large classes and group composition. Closed questions were followed by some open questions which were about the use of group work in the English classroom. The questionnaire for students consisted of 23 statements, also on a ive-point scale of agreement. These statements focused on the beneits of group work, interaction during group work, and group formation. These statements were followed by some open questions through which students could explain in more detail their feelings about group work.

3.3

Data Analysis

Thirteen teachers of English (the total number in my institution) illed in the questionnaire, although two teachers omitted two of the open-ended questions. The Likert scale data were analysed through SPSS, using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts. The open questions were entered into a word processor, grouped according to each question, then common themes and issues were identiied. Similar procedures were applied to the student questionnaire. Interviews would have been a better option to explore students’ views about group work but this was not feasible due to limitations of time and resources. To make it easier to discern trends in the data, the quantitative results below are presented in three categories – ’Agree’ (comprising ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’), ‘Unsure’ and ‘Disagree’ (comprising ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’).

4.

Findings

4.1 Teacher Questionnaire 4.1.1

Large Classes and interactivity

One section of the questionnaire presented 13 statements about the characteristics of large classes. Teachers’ responses to these are summarised in Table 1.

28


Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Table 1: Teachers’ views about large classes (N=13)

1.

Large classes produce conident students.

9

2

2

2.

Large classes are conducive to producing critical skill.

7

5

1

3.

Large classes promote rote learning.

2

2

9

4.

Large classes are good for shy students.

3

4

6

5.

Large classes are dominated by few leading students.

2

3

8

6.

Large classes are interactive

9

3

1

7.

Large classes are student-centered

8

4

1

8.

Large classes are teacher-centered

5

1

7

9.

Large classes are not interrupted due to disciplinary issues

8

3

2

10.

Large classes allow teacher to focus on teaching solely

10

0

3

11.

Large classes produce better results in assessment

8

3

2

12.

Large classes work well in annual system

6

2

5

13.

Large classes work well in semester system

7

3

3

Disagreement with these statements was predominant and there were only four items where more teachers agreed than disagreed. Strong trends were observed for statements 1 (‘Large classes produce conident students’ – 9 /13 disagree), 3 (‘Large classes promote rote learning’ – 9/13 agree), 6 (‘Large classes are interactive’ – 9/13 disagree) and 10 (‘Large classes allow teacher to focus on teaching solely’ - i.e. without distractions caused, for example, by classroom management problems – 10/13 disagree). Interestingly, most teachers (8) disagreed that large classes produce ‘better’ assessment results. Similar numbers disagreed that large classes are student-centred and that disciplinary issues do not interrupt, while eight teachers also agreed that large classes are dominated by a small number of students.

4.1.2

Group Work in Large Classes

The next section of the questionnaire asked teachers about group work in large classes and Table 2 summarises their responses. Strong trends of agreement here are seen for statements 14 (‘The seating arrangement in the classrooms allows the students to interact’ – 9/13 – but compare this to item 15, which is less positive about the impact of seating arrangements on group work), 16 (‘The students show interest in group work’ - 9/13), 23 (‘Students use critical skills in group discussions’ – 9/13) and, perhaps most signiicantly, 26 (‘Group work should be a regular feature of teaching’ – 10/13). In terms of disagreement only one statement stands out here – ‘All the students in a group take part in discussion’ (9/13).


29

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Table 2: Teacher’s views about group work in large classes (N=13)

14. The seating arrangement in the classrooms allows the students to interact.

4

0

9

15. Even with the traditional seating arrangement group work can be carried out.

7

1

5

16.

The students show interest in group work.

3

1

9

17.

Good students show more interest in group work.

5

1

7

18.

Poor students do not beneit much from group work.

6

2

5

19.

All the students in a group take part in discussion.

9

2

2

20.

All the members in a group listen to each other carefully.

4

3

6

21.

Group discussion is generally dominated by one member.

5

2

6

22.

Group members take turns while talking.

5

3

5

23.

Students use critical skills in group discussions.

3

1

9

24.

Group work does not hinder teaching of curriculum

6

1

6

25.

Group work produces desired results.

4

3

6

26.

Group work should be a regular feature of teaching

2

1

10

27.

Group work is good for teaching languages only

5

0

8

28.

Group work doesn’t work in science classes

7

3

3

4.1.3

Group Formation

Table 3 lists the questions teachers were asked about group formation, together with a breakdown of their responses. Three statements that attracted most agreement were 31 (‘Friendship groups work well and achieve desired goals’ – 10/13), 32 (‘Group formation should take into account personality styles of the students.’ – 11/13) and 33 (‘Equal gender mix encourages more participation group than same gender groups’ – 12/13).

30


Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Table 3: Teachers’ views about group formation (N=13)

29.

Same ability groups beneit all the members.

5

1

7

30.

Mixed ability groups beneit the poor students.

3

1

8

31.

Friendship groups work well and achieve desired goals.

2

1

10

32. Group formation should take into account personality styles of the students.

1

1

11

33. Equal gender mix encourages more participation group than same gender groups.

0

1

12

34. Group formation takes into account the ethnic background of the members.

7

4

2

35. The group formation takes into account the social class of the members.

3

2

8

36.

The group members are randomly selected by the teacher.

3

1

9

37.

The students are given a free choice in group formation.

5

1

7

4.1.4

Open-Ended Questions – Teachers

Teachers were asked to comment in writing on the following questions: What was the major issue in conducting group work in the class room? A key challenge teachers noted was that group members did not interact well with each other. As one teacher said “The interaction of the students within the class was very poor and they were not sure how to work in a group”. Teachers also reported that the students showed a lack of interest in group work and did not pay attention to it. Shy and more able students also responded to group work in different ways, as one teacher noted: “The shy and dull students feared exposure and the brilliant students hesitated to share their knowledge as they thought they could lose in the competition”. Maintenance of discipline, the size of the class, limited space and lack of time were also cited as issues in conducting group work. What was the major impetus for the students to get involved in the group work? Teachers felt that group members were motivated by the opportunity for interaction and the ‘relief’ this brought from just having to listen to the teacher. According to the teachers, students were also motivated by the competitive nature of group work and the possibility that doing well would earn them good marks.


31

How can group work be made more effective within the given ground realities? Teachers made a number of suggestions for improving the effectiveness of group work: • increasing its weighting (i.e. the importance given to it) • using it regularly • forming groups carefully and ensuring a group ‘leader’ is appointed • giving students more opportunities to interact • monitoring students carefully • developing a sense of competition • making sure groups are not too big

4.2 Student Questionnaire 4.2.1

Beneits of Group Work

Table 4 presents the results of Section A of the student questionnaire. As this table shows, the students were very positive about their experience of group work. Only 6.5% of the students said that group work did not help them.

Group work has made me more conident.

Agree (%)

Group work has helped improve my speaking skill.

2.

Unsure (%)

1.

Disagree (%)

Table 4: Beneits of group work according to students (N=61)

1.6

1.6

96.7

0

4.9

95.1

3.

Group work has improved my relations with my class fellows.

4.

I did not feel shy of taking part in an argument

5.

Group work helped me in developing discussion skills

1.6

3.3

95.1

6.

Group work has improved my analytical skill.

16.4

14.8

68.9

7.

Group work did not help me.

78.7

14.8

6.6

4.2.2

Group work and Interaction

0

0

100

8.2

23

68.9

Table 5 summarises the next set of student responses, which focused on the extent to which group work enabled all students to participate and interact. 47.5% of the students said that shy students did not participate,

32


while almost 64% agreed that there were non-participants and over 72% said these individuals were ignored. These results suggest that group work was not seen by students to be successful in enabling all students to participate.

9.

Agree (%)

It was easy to resolve a disagreement.

Unsure (%)

8.

Disagree (%)

Table 5: Interaction during group work, according to students (N=61)

11.5

31.1

57.4

Shy students did not participate in the group work.

11.5

41.0

47.5

10. Some members did not take part in the discussion.

13.1

23.0

63.9

11. The non-participants were generally ignored in the group.

13.1

14.8

72.1

12. All the students had equal opportunities to share in the group work.

6.6

13.1

80.3

13. Group leaders generally dominated the group discussion.

13.1

27.9

59.0

14. I took my turn while participating in a discussion

1.6

14.8

83.6

15. Group members took the group work seriously

6.6

31.1

62.3

16. Sometimes we digressed from the topic

14.8

29.5

55.7


33

4.2.3

Group Composition

Students were also asked a set of questions, shown in Table 6 with their responses, about the composition of groups. Over 95% enjoyed working in a group of their choice, while 82% felt that mixed-ability groups were more productive. Close to 85% felt comfortable working in a same-gender group, while almost 51% found mixed gender groups more dificult to work in.

Unsure (%)

Agree (%)

17. Selection of the members in the groups was random

Disagree (%)

Table 6: Group composition, according to students (N=61)

24.6

9.8

65.6

18. I enjoyed working in group of my choice

1.6

3.3

95.1

19. Working in a mixed ability group was more productive.

4.9

13.1

82.0

20. Ethnic background of the group members did not disturb the group work.

11.5

34.4

54.1

21. I felt comfortable in the same gender group

14.8

1.6

83.6

22. Working in a mixed gender group was more competitive.

14.8

9.8

75.4

23. Working in a mixed gender group was dificult.

29.5

19.7

50.8

4.2.4

Open-Ended Questions – Students

I now present an analysis of the ive open-ended questions students answered at the end of the questionnaire. Write down any ways in which you think you and the rest of the group could work better together next time. The majority of the students (49 out of 61) believed that they could work better if group work is done on a regular basis. 40 out of 61 also said that if taken seriously groups could work better. For example, a student wrote that “If done properly with attention, we will work better next time”. Two other suggestions made by several students were that group work would be better if everyone participated and if there was “proper planning and complete attention”. Was group work a good activity? There was a 100% positive response to this question. A recurrent response was “Yes, it was a good activity”. While not very insightful, such comments were unanimous. Did it really motivate the students to speak? There was a 100% positive response to this statement as well, with a recurrent answer being “Yes, it really motivated the students to speak”. Again, the students did not elaborate on this, for example, by explaining what it was that motivated them.

34


What was the major problem with group work? The students listed a wide range of problems they faced during group work. By far the most common, though, was that group work is timeconsuming. Other comments students made were that group work: • does not suit our present system of education • Is dificult with ixed furniture • is hard in a large class • needs a wide space • needs a trained teacher • needs a lot of resources • creates many disagreements • does not involve everyone • creates gender problems Concerns about the time-consuming nature of group work are not surprising. Students will have felt that group work is an ‘extra’ activity, not directly related to their syllabus; they also knew that group work activities and the oral skills they promote will not be assessed, as the inal examination focuses only on writing. Should group work be a regular part of teaching or it should be an occasional activity? The majority of the students (45/60) said that group work should be a regular part of teaching and (10/60) said that it should be an occasional activity. Only ive students said there should be no group work in class.

5.

Discussion

Overall, this study suggests that both teachers and students had generally positive attitudes about group work and its potential to make the learning of English in large classes more interactive. Teachers acknowledged many of the problems that large classes create and saw group work as one way of addressing some of these. Students were very positive about their experience of group work, felt it supported their learning and development in several ways, and expressed the view that group work should be used more regularly in English classes. At the same time, both teachers and students had concerns about how group work could be made productive given the many perceived constraints that exist in the context of university teaching in Pakistan. These constraints are both physical and attitudinal, although it must be stressed that the kinds of physical constraints


35

noted, such an unfavourable seating arrangements and lack of space, are not insurmountable obstacles to the use of group work. Similarly, concerns that group work requires special resources and is time-consuming are also perhaps based on misconceptions of what the activity involves, although the time issue is one that merits further attention given that it relects broader problems with an educational system which focuses on written factual products as evidence of learning and pays less attention to communication, interpersonal and collaborative skills. Clearly, if group work is to become an integral part of the way English is taught at universities in Pakistan, its relationship to current assessment systems will need close consideration. Otherwise, as shown here, students may see group work as enjoyable respite from lecturing but which they feel is not preparing them for assessment. Another challenge highlighted here related to how all students can be involved in group work – the results suggested that shyer or less able students may tend to be left out and the work dominated by the more outgoing or able. Broader attitudinal challenges that group work raises relate to conventional notions of teaching and learning which are the norm in Pakistan. Accepting group work means that teachers must change their view of their role, while students must also accept more responsibility for being active learners rather than expecting knowledge to be transmitted by teachers. It is these kinds of attitudinal changes which are perhaps most dificult to bring about. Yet the small-scale intervention this study is based on suggests that it is possible to integrate group work into our system and that, used regularly and with careful planning, its value can be recognized by teachers and students.

6.

Conclusion

Large classes are a feature of the education system in Pakistan and these cannot be wished away. Both teachers and students consider class size a hindrance in making classes interactive and developing students’ conidence to speak English. Yet rather than criticizing large classes, our focus should shift towards inding ways of making large classes interactive. This study suggests that group work can be a useful strategy in this respect. Both teachers and students agreed that group work should be conducted regularly and they felt it proved effective in developing conidence in the students and improving their speaking, discussion and critical skills. It was also felt that group work resulted in improved relationships among students. This study thus makes a case for making group work a regular feature of English lessons at university. It should not be left to the teachers’ discretion whether to conduct group work or not; rather it should be made a mandatory part of teaching. Teachers, of course, should receive appropriate support in order to implement the changes that are needed to their teaching. Group composition is an important issue. This study shows that students like to work in friendship groups or groups of their own choice. Mixed gender groups can also motivate students to take a more active part in group work and promote competition among the students, although some students found that a mix of genders created dificulties for them.

36


The assessment of performance in group work is a one key area which needs to be looked at carefully. As already noted, students will take the activities which are not assessed less seriously and this implies that it would be useful to have some discussion not only of different ways of using group work in university English classes but also of how these activities might contribute to students’ scores. These are issues I, with my colleagues, will continue to explore as we build on this initial study.

7.

References

Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education. Islamabad: British Council. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Chowne, A., Ota, C., & Berdondini, L. (2009). Promoting effective group work in the classroom. London: Routledge. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E. & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153172 Das, B. & Almekhlafy, S.S.A. (2012). Teaching English language in disadvantaged contexts: International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1(3). Donohue, J. & North, S. (2012). Needs analysis report. Milton Keynes: Open University.


37

The Author

Muhammad Asif has been teaching English Language and Literature for more than 15 years. He is employed in the Higher Education Department of the Government of the Punjab and he is currently teaching at Government Postgraduate College, Samanabad, Faisalabad. He holds a PhD in English Literature from NUML.

Editor’s Commentary This study was motivated by a practical problem of interest not just to the author but of more relevance to English teaching in higher education in Pakistan. In that sense it manages to balance local and more global concerns, thus illustrating that teacher research can be of broad relevance. Methodologically, the study relied predominantly on closed questionnaire data, and while these provide some insight into trends across respondents, they inevitably lacked the depth needed to understand the basis of respondents’ views. The questionnaires were thoughtfully designed and organised, though, as with most new instruments, they would beneit from further development if used in further studies. Some open-ended questions were included to elicit more detailed comments about group work but these played a minor role and, particularly in the case of the students, did not generate much material. As the author notes, interviews would have been more useful in eliciting extended views about group work from a sub-set of teachers and students. One other area where the study could have been improved is in the detail it provides about the prior knowledge and experience of group work the participants had. We are told that teachers used group work and that the author himself used it frequently; what exactly this involved, though, was never fully clariied. Doing so would have allowed readers to engage with the paper in a more informed way.

38


3 Introducing Interactive Learning in Higher Education Aalia Sohail Khan

1.

Introduction

The traditional pattern of teacher-centred lecture method is gradually starting to be challenged in higher education in Pakistan in favour of a more interactive learning pedagogy and one which promotes learner autonomy. Despite this emphasis on the learner, however, the teacher retains a central role in designing and implementing interactive learning experiences for university students. The purpose of this study is to document my own attempts to deliver a new interactive course for my students and to examine their reactions to it. Explorations of this kind are so far rare in Pakistan.

2.

Interactive Learning

Over the last forty years the learner-centred approach has reshaped teacher and learner roles. The interactive learning pedagogy (Head & Taylor, 1997; Kolb, 1985; Ball & Pelco, 2006; Oliver & Whiteman, 2008) places a premium on the responsibility of the learners (Wenden, 1998; Savin-Baden, 2000) to take charge of their own learning and to build autonomy, that is, the “capacity for detachment, critical relection, decision-making, and independent action” (Little, 1991: 4). A learner-centred pedagogy can be successfully adapted and transferred to a wide range of subjects regardless of whether they arise from the natural sciences, social sciences or the humanities in higher education (Oliver & Whiteman, 2008; Tait, 2003). Current educational theory challenges the idea that traditional lectures will develop in students higher-order cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, lecturing is still, by far, the most predominant method of instruction in most higher education institutions in Pakistan. Lecturing, as the main teaching method, has been criticized because it relects a model of knowledge as ‘inert’, waiting to be transmitted from the teacher who owns it to those who are passive like containers and blank slates (Bereiter Introducing Interactive Learning in Higher Education |

39

& Scardamalia, 1985). The power of such assumptions on learners makes it a frustrating task for the teacher to make them assume the responsibility for their own learning and become independent learners (Head & Taylor, 1997). Active, collaborative learning encourages self-directed learning in learners that leads to higher motivation, increased interest, the development of critical and reasoning skills and better retention of material (Benson & Blackman, 2003). Learning is seen as a process facilitated by the teacher rather than a static product. Nevertheless, learner autonomy can be supported by educational interventions (Candy, 1991) and the teacher has an important role to play in providing such support. In the context of teaching at higher education level in Pakistan, my analysis, informed by personal experience both as a student and teacher and empirical evidence collected from teachers and students from other institutions, shows that teaching practices do not relect interactive, collaborative approaches to learning (see also the report on higher education in Pakistan by Donohue & North, 2012). As research in the humanities is not just about inding new facts but about systematically opening up and exploring new ways of understanding and learning, both as teachers and students (Unsworth, 2005), my research project on introducing interactive teaching practices in higher education will address an

issue that is ‘live’ in my own teaching and thus directly relevant to my work and to the learning of my students. 3.

Methodology

This project was guided by the following research questions: iii.

What interactive processes characterize my teaching?

iv.

What is the rationale for the selection of these processes?

v.

How far do they promote students’ autonomy?

3.1

Context & Participants

The research was conducted in my workplace with a class of English Studies students who were in Semester VI of a four-year degree program at a public sector higher education institution - Government Postgraduate College for Women, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. As the practitioner researcher in this project I was also a participant. Informed consent (Salkind, 2012) was obtained from the students prior to the study and they also granted permission (as recommended by Denscombe, 2010) for me to use their class work and assignments for research purposes. Having taught literature for the last 25 years, this year I chose to focus on a Research Methodology course, because it was a new course for me and presented an opportunity to try out more interactive methods of teaching and evaluate the

40

| Introducing Interactive Learning in Higher Education

consequences of them, particularly given that research methods is normally taught via lectures.

3.2

Research Design

I followed the principles of teacher action research, so that I could systematically relect upon my teaching practices, develop understandings of my own work and subsequently learn to change and improve the quality of what I do (Hadley, 2003). Action Research is enquiry that is concerned with practical issues that arise in the real world. Its aim is not only to understand, but also to bring about change and improvement in actual practice. Action Research supports continuing professional self-development (Cohen et al., 2007) through a cyclical, on-going process in which research feeds back directly into practice. I did mixed methods research because it combines both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single programme of inquiry (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011). I used this combination to acquire “multiple ways of seeing and hearing” (Greene, 2007, cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p.2) and to obtain a fuller and “more comprehensive account” (Denscombe, 2012, p.150) of the issues I wanted to study. I started off with the qualitative strand of the project and later on conducted the quantitative strand. The relationship between the two strands was “independent” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p.64), with greater emphasis placed on the qualitative data and the quantitative data playing a secondary role.

3.2.1

Data Collection

In 2012, when I was assigned a course on research methods to a class of 30 girls in the sixth semester of the BS English Studies course, I tried to introduce interactive, learner-centred teaching methods. The aim was to promote learner autonomy. I designed various activities to involve students in interactive, collaborative learning processes. However, the focus of this report is on the use of one particular activity – asking students to write a research paper. Data were collected from different sources using several research tools: 1. Keeping a diary: I maintained a researcher’s diary to make relective notes about each class (as suggested by Mayo, 2003; Nunan, 1989). It included a record of the objectives, plan and preparation I did before every class. All the events of the class, the attainment of speciic aims, students’ reactions and how I consequently made decisions to change planned activities were also written up after every class. 2. Questionnaire: I designed a questionnaire to elicit feedback from students on my ways of teaching. In order to keep the instrument short and easy to complete (advised by Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010), I divided it into two sections (see Findings below). The irst section focused on students’ reactions to the interactive process of learning and a Likert scale was used for this purpose. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to Introducing Interactive Learning in Higher Education |

41

understand their affective response to interactive learning: their feelings, level of interest and motivation. According to the usual standards of research ethics, students’ anonymity was maintained and they were not required to write their names on the questionnaire (Salkind, 2012). 3. Conversations: informal focused conversations conducted at different times with different students, sometimes in groups and sometimes individually, elicited the deeper qualitative comments which the questionnaire alone could not (Litosseliti, 2003). Students were assured that their comments would be treated conidentially. I had also asked one of my colleagues to observe my teaching practices twice a month to provide data to compare to my own insights, but the plan could not be implemented because of the busy schedule of my colleague. The qualitative data I collected through my diary, conversations with students and self-observations of my classes were analysed holistically and from these I identiied key themes relevant to an understanding of the issues under study – i.e. the process of implementing interactive learning as perceived by my students and myself. The quantitative data were subjected to basic descriptive statistics.

4.

Findings

After six credit hours teaching, when I relected on my teaching practices, I realized, among other observations, that I had been slipping quite often into the teacher-centred lecture method: explaining in detail technical and abstract concepts; the theoretical underpinnings of various methods of research; ‘the paradigm wars’; the rationale behind the emphasis on observing ethical rules in research. I tried to make the philosophical complexity and historical backdrop interesting by interspersing anecdotes and jokes. Students listened with interest and were impressed by, as one of the students put it, my “encyclopaedic range of knowledge”. But they were not thinking critically; rather they were overwhelmed by a teacher who bombarded them with her knowledge. As one of the students later observed, “I am afraid of her because she is very learned, and I don’t speak because I don’t wish her to notice any mistake”. As a result of self-relection, I realized that though I began with student-centred activities, I interjected very quickly and quite often to explain and help students to ind answers. I gave them little time to critically engage with an issue and formulate responses, and quite often answered my own questions, assuming that I know more and that students cannot understand unless I explain the concepts to them. Through self-relection, I gathered that though I tried to put the emphasis on learning through doing, process rather than product (Tataka & Leiting, 1987; Nunan, 1988), yet “the absence of a sound pedagogy” for teaching research methods (Borg, 2013, p. 205) was limiting what I wanted to achieve. The most important issue that I needed to address was how interactive, collaborative learning can be implemented. Thinking that recent research on teaching might help, I did some reading and found that one way of promoting learner autonomy on a research

42


methods course is to engage students in writing a research article (Winn, 1995; Oliver & Whiteman, 2008). Students had already been introduced to methodological concepts and tasks had been designed to develop their critical skills and understanding, but now I focused on fostering ‘doing’ by engaging them in an actual research project. Barnett & Coate, (2005) argue for an integrated practicebased approach that reconciles the concepts of learning by doing in collaboration, the process of knowing, and an emphasis on the affective dimension of learning (i.e. on conidence and motivation). I tried to use each of these three elements as the organizing principles in teaching research methods. The initial response by students to writing a research paper was excitement. They proposed many grandiose topics for research, e.g., Day Care as a Form of Child Neglect, Nature Imagery in the Quran with reference to the 164th verse of Chapter 2, Effect of Violent Video games on Teenagers, Learning of English Language by Women at Murree (a hilly station in Pakistan). What I found troubling, though, was that although the course had commenced with a discussion of the various features of research, and I had ‘explained’ in detail the concept of feasibility in research, yet the students came up with the most unfeasible research topics. So I developed a plan to specify the parameters of their area of research. I asked students to limit themselves to ‘Problems faced by Pakistani Students in learning English’. The area of research was limited, but within these parameters they were given the freedom to choose a topic of their own interest. They could focus on any of the problems faced by either girls or boys at any level. At this stage, I elicited their feedback by asking this question: “How do you respond to the task of writing a research paper?” One of the students wrote, “You have thrown us into the ocean, and now it is our job to swim”. Earlier they were individually working on their topics, now they were asked to collaborate and work in groups. Each group comprised six members. I changed the tutorial pattern from meetings with individuals to groups. However, the initial excitement of students appeared to subside; what appeared to be so simple and easy while listening to the lectures suddenly became a Herculean task. Many of them exclaimed, “It is interesting but dificult… I am confused”. Their prior learning experience had not trained them to work independently, and at this stage the difference between knowledge (product) and knowing (process) emerged. What was transmitted by way of lecture in six credit hours - selecting a topic, determining its feasibility, providing a rationale and formulating research questions – took the students 18 credit hours to do in practice. I assumed that students would be able to inish the research paper after 32 credit hours of teaching, but they went very quiet and I was quite concerned. Later on, through a close analysis of the feedback questionnaire and focused conversations, three causes of their reactions emerged: I was being too ambitious in demanding immediate results from students who had no prior experience of autonomous learning; they did not take it seriously because they thought that it was out of course; and they also knew that they would not be tested on it in the inal exams.

Introducing Interactive Learning in Higher Education |

43

However, I was pleased with the results when they inally submitted the complete work just a week before the inal exams. Not only did I ind evidence of higher order thinking, but also by involving them in the evaluation of their own work and their peers’, a climate of trust, negotiation and cooperation was built in class. Students provided me with candid and honest feedback. One said, “Initially I was so discouraged that I thought of quitting, but then I took it as a challenge … your appreciation and feedback encouraged me and now I feel conident”. Table 1 provides is a quantitative analysis of the feedback questionnaire. Overall, students’ responses here were positive, although 50% disagreed that they felt freedom in choosing a topic and 50% also said they prefer to write traditional assignments. Of the ive groups in the class, three completed the task of producing a research report; the other two did not go beyond the data collection stage. In many conversations with different students in different groups and different sittings and settings, it emerged that collaborative, interactive learning functioned as an effective strategy in carrying out the learning, not only outside the class but even during the unpredictable holidays. They learnt and used e-resources to collaborate, as well as tools such as Skype. More than labour sharing, “mutuality” was observed as they coordinated and encouraged or at times even pressurised the reluctant and passive students into doing the work. Though four students came up to me protesting against the absentee ine1, none complained about the inal evaluation of their work by me. I interpret this as acceptance of their responsibility for their learning. Their ungrudging acceptance of the evaluation and their frank responses gave me the conidence that they trusted me and believed that their opinions were valued and respected.

0

40

10

b.

Develop self-reliance in learning.

0

0

0

70

30

c.

Study material not taught in the course.

0

0

0

70

30

d.

Develop critical thinking.

0

0

0

70

30

e.

Explore knowledge according to my interest.

0

0

0

60

40

f.

Develop ability to decide what I need to learn.

0

0

0

60

40

1

44

Students who attend less than 70% of classes are required to pay a ine to be allowed to sit the inal exam.


Agree (%)

Agree (%)

40

Strongly

Unsure (%)

10

a.

Disagree (%)

Exercise freedom in choosing a topic.

Writing a research paper was a means to:

Strongly

Disagree (%)

Table 1: Interactive teaching and learner autonomy

Please tick ONE answer for each statement below:

g.

When the teacher involves students in class activities, I understand the lesson easily.

0

0

0

70

30

h.

I prefer to write assignments in the traditional style.

10

40

0

30

20

i.

I feel more relaxed when working in groups.

0

20

0

50

30

j.

I feel challenged because I have to work harder.

0

10

0

70

20

k.

I feel myself responsible for my learning process.

0

0

0

80

20

l.

I feel encouraged because I could do it.

0

0

0

10

90

5.

Discussion

Interactive teaching methodology should be introduced gradually with the full realization that students who do not have prior experience of such a way of learning will ind it dificult. Learner autonomy is related to learner ability and experience. Besides, “in order to help learners to assume greater control over their own learning it is important to help them to become aware of and identify the strategies that they already use or could potentially use” (Holmes & Ramos, 1991: 198). Students are a potentially conservative force within the classroom and often need to become accustomed to new ideas and different styles. The resistance that my students showed in learning by doing (writing the research paper) stemmed from their belief that what is prescribed in the syllabus is more important than the process of learning. This belief shaped their behaviour and attitudes, as shown in their primary concern with getting good scores. Though they managed to think, choose, decide and work independently, what ultimately made them do the task was my decision to assess them on the basis of their research paper. This shows the power of administrative rules, which resist and override the implementation of new ideas and pragmatic concerns (Tait, 2003). The implication here is that if new methods of learning are to be successfully implemented, then they have to be, with the support of the government, systematically built into the educational system. Other than the ‘threat’ of assessment, there were two other factors that helped students in completing their task: (a) constant feedback at every stage in writing and editing – the three groups of students who completed their work wrote six


45

drafts, and (b) my encouragement and appreciation of their efforts. This brings out the importance of the teacher’s pivotal role in promoting learner autonomy. If reform is to materialise, it is important to understand and change teachers’ beliefs because they underpin pedagogic decisions and impact ultimately on students’ behaviour and achievement. Professional development programmes, particularly those which support teachers in examining teaching and learning in their own contexts, are thus vital to systematic educational reforms,.

6.

Conclusion

I am not suggesting that lectures have no further place to play in higher education in Pakistan – they certainly do. My goal here, though, was to explore alternatives which give the students more responsibility and which also focus on making learning more practical. This approach was particularly suitable for the research methods course I taught, because research is ultimately about doing not just about knowing. I have found the experience of examining my own teaching very fulilling and I hope my account encourages readers to consider what alternative pedagogies they might experiment with in their own contexts.

References Ball, C. T., & Pelco, L. E. (2006). Teaching research methods to undergraduate psychology students using an active cooperative learning approach. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 147-154. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. New York: Open University Press. Benson, A & Blackman, D (2003). Can research methods ever be interesting? Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 39-45. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert knowledge”. In S. F. Chipman, J.W. Chipman & R. Chipman (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open quesions (Vol. 2, pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Candy, 1991. Self-direction for lifelong learning. California: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge. Creswell, W. J. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

46


Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale research projects (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Donohue, J. & North, S. (2012). Needs analysis report. Milton Keynes: Open University. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hadley, G. (Ed.). (2003). Action research in action. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Head, K., & Taylor, P. (1997). Readings in teacher development. London:

Heinemann. Holmes, J. L. & Ramos, R. (1991). Talking about learning: establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning processes. Kolb, D.A. (1985) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. New York: Continuum. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Deinitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Mayo, D. (2003). Discovering the classroom community. In G. Hadley (Ed.), Action research in action (pp. 16-20). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding language classrooms. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Oliver, M., & Whiteman, N. (2008). Engaging with the research methods curriculum. Relecting Education, 4(1), 63-71. Salkind, N.J. (2012). 100 questions (and answers) about research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. Tait, J. (2003). H850 postgraduate certiicate. (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes : The Open University Tataka, S., & Leiting, W. (1987). Learning by doing: The teaching of sociological research methods. Teaching Sociology ,15, 144-150.


47

Unsworth, J. (2005). New methods for humanities research. The 2005 Lyman Award Lecture. Retrieved 21 October 2013 from http://people.lis.illinois. edu/~unsworth/lyman.htm. Wenden, A. (1998). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London:: Prentice Hall. Winn, S. (1995). Learning by doing: Teaching research methods through student participation in a commissioned research project. Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 203-214.

The Author Aalia Sohail Khan has been involved in the teaching of English for twenty six years. She holds a PhD from the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad and currently works as a Principal and Professor of English at Government Postgraduate College for Women, Satellite Town Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary This paper illustrates the value of research in which teachers examine their own thinking and practices and report these in a narrative fashion. The ‘story-like’ nature of this account allows readers to understand the process the teacher went through as she relected on and analysed, in a systematic matter, her attempts to promote more independent learning among her students. The beneits of this relective process for the teacher were an enhanced understanding of her thinking, beliefs, work, and students. In terms of methodology, a range of data from different sources were used, though the focus here was on the qualitative data; the quantitative data did in fact play a minor role and more such data (perhaps collected via student questionnaires at intervals during the course) would have extended the study. It would have also been valuable to see some extracts from the teacher’s diary used as data in the paper - especially as a way of illustrating for readers what such relective diary entries look like. More speciic detail about the processes involved in the ‘holistic’ analysis of the qualitative data would, too, have further clariied the processes she went through in organizing and making sense of these data.

48


4 Student and Teacher Views about Using the L1 in English Classrooms Asma Zahoor 1.

Introduction

While in bilingual societies code-switching - alternating between two languages is a common practice, the use of the L1 in L2 learning is often frowned upon. In Higher Education in Pakistan too, L1 use during English classes is often seen to be undesirable. More recently, though, more positive views about the use of the L1 in L2 learning have emerged and this stimulated me to examine what teachers and students in my institution feel about using the L1 during English lessons.

2.

Code-Switching

Although the mainstream literature on English Language Teaching (ELT) has traditionally supported monolingual teaching and some educational systems around the world have adopted English-only policies, the reality is that in many educational contexts the use of students’ own language has remained the norm, especially where students share a common language with the teacher (Benson, 2000; Hall & Cook, 2012). This reality is being increasingly recognized and accepted in applied linguistics. Widespread migration and globalization in recent years mean that non-native speakers of English now outnumber native speakers globally (Crystal, 2003). English is now a lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2011) and rather than being a ‘single’ language it has now fragmented into new ‘Englishes’ (Seargeant, 2012). These developments have led to the re-evaluation of the importance of bilingualism and multilingualism and code-switching has become increasingly destigmatised and is now seen as ‘normal behaviour’ (Levin, 2009, as cited by Hall & Cook, 2012). Arther (1996) suggests that code-switching from English to students’ own language creates a ‘safe-space’ where learning can occur more effectively

Student and Teacher Views about Using the L1 in English Classrooms |

49

while Katunich (2006) regards an English-only teaching approach as a form of colonialism. Though research on code-switching shows a divide between monolingual and bilingual approaches to ELT, Stern (1992) suggests that these two approaches are not ‘opposites’ but rather form a continuum on which the students’ own languages will be used in different ways and to differing extents at various stages during instruction. For Cook (2001), Widdowson (2003) and Stern (1992), the need to maximize new language use in the classroom does not preclude the use of students’ own language, as it may provide eficient shortcuts within the learning processes. Butzkamm & Caldwell (2009) believe that their own language is the greatest pedagogical resource that a student brings to foreign language learning, as it provides the basis for any other languages they might want to learn. Widdowson (2003) argues that conventional monolingual teaching procedures fail to recognize the ways in which all bilingual users fuse their knowledge of two languages into a single system of compound bilingualism. He also considers it inevitable and natural to use L1 as a positive resource and a pedagogic advantage. Current theoretical perspectives such as cognitive and sociocultural orientations to language learning also support L1 use in ELT (Zuengler & Miller, 2006; Cummins, 2007). In terms of what happens in the classroom, Edstrom (2006) observes that whilst there is considerable variation in the reported quantities of own language use by teachers, the reported functions of own language use are relatively constant. Teachers’ use of students’ L1 also depends on departmental policies, lesson objectives, training and qualiications. Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain (2009) suggest that in the absence of clear research indings, teachers may be making up their own arbitrary decisions concerning code-switching. In contrast, it has also been argued that teachers and students are in fact best placed to make decisions about how to exploit the L1 in L2 learning (Rivers, 2011). In any case, it is likely that the extent to which teachers and students use the L1 will depend on their conception of the legitimacy, value and appropriate classroom functions of the mother tongue. For example, many studies have depicted L2 teachers’ sense of guilt when students’ own languages are used in the classroom (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009). There is evidence, too, that teachers’ beliefs about L1 use can change over time and McMillan & Rivers (2011) cite studies where teachers who originally advocated a monolingual approach to teaching later came to view the students’ own language as a resource for L2 learning. Iqbal (2011) has investigated code-switching in higher education in Pakistan, but not with a speciic focus on the teaching of English.

3.

Methodology

I addressed these three questions: vi. To what extent do Pakistani college teachers of English code-switch during lessons, according to students and teachers? vii.

Why do these teachers say they use code-switching in English classes?

viii. What is the impact of teacher’s code-switching in English language classes, according to the students?

50

| Student and Teacher Views about Using the L1 in English Classrooms

The study was conducted at my workplace - Government Post Graduate College for Women, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Participants were one of my classes of 20 English Studies students in the third semester of their four-year bachelor’s degree. Five of my colleagues, all teachers of English in the same college, also contributed to the study.

3.1

Data Collection

This was a mixed methods study, which is deined as one in which the investigator collects and analyses qualitative and quantitative data. The combination of data types is believed to provide a better understanding of research problems than either alone (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2010). I had two sets of data. Quantitative data were gathered from questionnaires, which, according to Gillham (2008), are the most commonly used instrument in social research. I also collected qualitative data through semi-structured interviews. As Gillham (2008) also notes, good research cannot be built on poorly collected data and therefore I paid careful attention to the design of my instruments and piloted them as well. The questionnaire was a two-page, self-administered pencil and paper instrument. I irst collected some background information about the respondents, then asked them whether they felt their English teacher(s) used code-switching or not. There were also questions about their attitudes to the use of Urdu in English classes and the impact this had on learning English. The instrument used a Likert scale having ive options ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Administration took place in class and 15 minutes were allowed for this purpose. The other instrument I used was the semi-structured interview. As Denscombe (2010) notes, this type of interview is lexible because it allows topics that emerge during the conversation to be pursued. Interviews are also useful to explore in some depth respondents’ perspectives on an issue. Five English-teacher colleagues of mine were interviewed and their teaching experience ranged from 7 to 23 years. All ive teachers were luent in Urdu and English, and some spoke other languages too such as Punjabi and Arabic. They were asked (see Appendix for full list of questions) about their own practices regarding code switching in English classes, the impact of the use of Urdu in English classes, students’ feelings about teachers’ code switching in English classes, their views about how much English is spoken by the teachers and students in English classes and what changes (if any) they would like to suggest to the current state of affairs regarding L1 use. The interviews were (with respondents’ written consent) audio recorded and transcribed.


51

4.

Findings

4.1

Questionnaires

Out of 20 participants, 19 (95%) said that their English teachers code-switch; the one student who said they never do also said she was not happy with this and wanted the ratio of L1 and L2 use in English lessons to be 50:50.

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Table 1: Students’ attitudes to L1 use (N=19)

Whenever my teacher uses Urdu, I understand the lesson better.

2

12

3

2

0

I would like my teacher to use Urdu more than she does.

0

0

1

17

1

I think my teacher should speak less Urdu during lessons.

2

11

1

5

0

I prefer to ask the teacher questions in Urdu than in English.

0

3

2

13

1

Students like teachers who allow the use of Urdu more than those who insist on English only.

0

9

4

4

2

When teachers let students use Urdu it creates a better classroom atmosphere.

2

5

3

8

1

Table 1 shows students’ responses to the questions about the use of Urdu by English teachers. Fourteen agreed that their teachers’ use of Urdu makes them understand their lesson better, but 18 would not like their teachers to use more Urdu than they already do. Thirteen actually think their teachers should speak less Urdu during lessons and only 3 said they prefer to ask questions in class in Urdu. Almost half of the respondents think that students like those teachers who allow the use of Urdu more than those who insist on English (6 disagreed and 4 were unsure). Only 7 students felt that when teachers let students use Urdu it creates a better classroom atmosphere; nine disagreed with this statement. Overall, while these responses suggest that students feel that teachers’ use of Urdu facilitates understanding during English lessons, the general picture that emerges here is that students would welcome more use of English by themselves and their teachers. The second set of questionnaire items asked students about the aspects of learning English that teachers’ use of Urdu supports and the results are given in Table 2.

52


Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Table 2: Teachers’ use of Urdu and learning English (N=19)

Speaking

2

3

2

11

1

Reading

5

6

0

6

2

Writing

5

6

1

5

2

Listening

5

7

0

6

1

Vocabulary

5

4

1

8

1

Grammar

4

1

1

12

1

My English teacher’s use of Urdu supports me in improving my English:

Disagreement was particularly strong with the statements that teachers’ use of Urdu supported the learning of English speaking and grammar, but opinions were more divided in relation to the other skills (e.g. vocabulary, where equal numbers agreed and disagreed).

4.2

Interviews

The data collected through semi-structured interviews were transcribed and thoroughly read. An inductive approach to the analysis was used to look for the common themes in the data and the following two main areas were identiied: ix.

Teachers’ and students’ use of Urdu.

x.

Suggestions regarding more use of English.

I discuss each theme below.

4.2.1

Teachers’ and Students’ Use of Urdu

In practice only one teacher said she adopts an English-only approach. Three further teachers believe that English-only is desirable but, as one of them explained, “... sometimes it becomes inevitable to use Urdu in class to make the message reach home effectively”. Only one teacher said she believed that using both Urdu and English was desirable. Teachers identiied several reasons for using Urdu. One noted that “… students feel shy and try to avoid talking in English and if the teacher (sic) does not accommodate their use of L1, then students would further shrink from making an effort to learn English”. Another said “I switch to Urdu occasionally to explain certain concepts further or to enhance the learning of them”, while another teacher also explained that “sometimes it becomes inevitable to use Urdu in classes to clear some points or concept to the students”. Another view was that an English-only approach sometimes puts too much pressure on students and hinders their participation, so code-


53

switching by the teacher can help the students relax. As one teacher said, “the general perception is occasional informed use of Urdu helps students feel more relaxed. It helps the students participate in class activities”. Regarding teachers’ use of Urdu in English classes, they all said that the other English teachers in the college use Urdu in their classes but their responses about the extent varied: three comments were “Yes time and again…”,”… considering the limitations of our students it seems that everyone would be using Urdu along with English in their classes”, and “They may be using Urdu for explaining things sometimes, but not always”. In relation to the students’ use of English, all ive interviewees said that their students use Urdu during English classes, though they also all said that they do encourage students to use English. Even the teacher who said she only spoke English admitted to students’ use of Urdu: “I always push them to talk mostly in English but well it is not a success story”.

4.2.2

Teachers’ Suggestions to Increase Use of English

All ive teachers were dissatisied with how much English is spoken in their classes. They would all like their students to use it more, and agreed about the kinds of changes that were needed to allow this. One teacher suggested that “A lot of things need change and improvement like syllabus, number of students in each class, and innovative techniques to help students become proicient, audio-visual aids, teacher training, assessment criteria”. Another explained: Yes, I would like a strict policy for the teachers regarding the use of L1 in language classes. English language learning should be promoted for all disciplines and substantial credit like speedy promotion should be given to those who gain good proiciency in English. More and more chances should be provided to teachers as well students to interact with English native speakers. Language courses should be regularly held free of charge both for the teachers and students during academic years.

5.

Discussion

Overall, the teachers in this study felt that maximizing the use of English during their classes was desirable and that Urdu use should be minimized. Students also recognized the value of increasing English use, though they were not of the view that Urdu use should be eliminated. Differences such as these in the perspectives of teachers and students are not unusual and highlight the value of research which tries to understand the views of different stakeholders in the learning process. Once these understandings are available, steps to minimize unproductive discrepancies can be taken. Apart from one teacher and one student, all other participants in this study acknowledge that Urdu use was a feature of English lessons. As noted above, the teachers did not feel this was always positive but they accepted it as somewhat inevitable - they have to use L1 to encourage students’ class participation, to clarify certain concepts, and to compensate for students low proiciency in 54


English. The students felt that teachers’ use of Urdu did facilitate understanding and supported them in developing certain aspects of English. These indings link to the literature discussed earlier which recognizes that in monolingual L2 classes where the teacher shares an L1 with the students, the L1 will always play some role. Also, as noted in the literature, this is not necessarily a bad thing and the challenge for teachers is to ind ways of using the L1 productively rather than allowing it to interfere with L2 learning. Teachers can be supported in this task by appropriate forms of professional development, as suggested by the teachers in this study. They can, too, beneit, by systematically studying their own practices, understanding their own beliefs, and learning more about what their students feel. This study has allowed me to take the irst step in such relective enquiry and enabled me to reconsider my original views that English-only is the best policy in my context.

6.

Conclusion

Theoretical arguments and reality often do not coincide in ELT. The case of L1 use in L2 learning suggests that, over time, it is reality that shines through; thus, we have moved beyond arguments for eliminating the L1 and are now focusing more on how the L1 can be used effectively as part of the process of L2 learning. This seems to be a much healthier position to adopt, particularly in a context such as my own where L1 use has always been a feature of English classes. Rather than creating feelings of guilt among teachers who, often for good reasons, need to use the L1, what we need is further classroom-based research of the type presented here and through which teachers of English can explore and share insights into how the L1 might be used, in a principled manner, as a resource in learning English. The emphasis here on the principled use of the L1 is important – it requires teachers to critically examine what they do and to question whether the reasons they sometimes cite in support of L1 use are in fact justiied..

References Arthur, J. (1996). Code switching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. Linguistics and Education 8, 17-33. Benson, M. (2000). The secret life of grammar translation – Part 2. Studies in Humanities and Sciences, XXXX (1), 97-128. Butzkamm, W. & J. Caldwell (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tubingen: Narr Dr Gunter. Cook, V. (2001). Using the irst language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(3), 402–423. Cresswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


55

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (4th Ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation Canadian Modern Language Review 63(2), 275–292. Gillham, B. (2008). Small-scale social survey methods. London: Continuum. Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271-308. Iqbal, L.(2011). Linguistic features of code switching: A study of Urdu/English bilingual teachers’ classroom interactions. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(14). Retrieved 23 October 2013 from http://www.ijhssnet.com/ journals/Vol_1_No_14_October_2011/26.pdf Katunich, J. (2006). Equity and English in South African higher education: Ambiguity and colonial language legacy. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re)locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 139-157). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. McMillan, B. & Rivers, D.J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward ‘English only’. System, 39(2), 251–263. Rivers, D.J. (2011). Politics without pedagogy: Questioning linguistic exclusion. ELT Journal 65(2), 103-113. Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring world Englishes: Language in a global context. London: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.) (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Deining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zuengler, J. & E. Miller (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds. TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 35–58.

56


Appendix: Interview Questions 38. How long have you been teaching at graduate level? 39. What languages do you speak? 40. In what situations do you use these different languages? 41.

What languages are used by you and your students during English lessons?

42. Do you know whether other English teachers in your college use Urdu in their classes? 43. There are different approaches to second language teaching like English-only or using both English and students’ own language - which approach do you follow in your teaching? 44. Would you please explain the rationale behind your practice … I mean English only or use of both English and Urdu? 45. How do you think your students feel about the use of Urdu and English in English classes? 46. Are you happy with how much English is spoken by the teacher and the students in your English classes? 47. If not, what would you like to change?


57

The Author Asma Zahoor has been teaching English in public sector colleges in Pakistan for 26 years. She holds an MA in English Literature and is doing a PhD at the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad. She is currently Assistant Professor of English at Government Postgraduate College for Women, Rawalpindi.

Editor’s Commentary A notable feature of this paper is the strength of the literature review, and the author has clearly invested not only in locating relevant readings but also in using them to provide a coherent rationale for the study. Methodologically, the study is strong too, utilizing a mixed methods approach; this dimension of the work could have been strengthened further if greater connections between the two data sets were made (e.g. the student questionnaire results could have informed the design of the teacher interviews). Thus it is not simply the presence of quantitative and qualitative data that creates a strong mixed method study but the ways in which these are interconnected and integrated throughout the work. The inductive analysis of the qualitative interviews could have also been explained more fully, It is also important in research of this kind to acknowledge (as the author does here) that the results refer to the attitudes or beliefs of the respondents. Thus, the study did not directly assess the relative impact on learning of English-only and codeswitching English classes (some kind of experiment would be needed for such purposes).

58

| Student and Teacher Views about Using the L1 English Classrooms

5 University Students’ Attitudes Towards CodeSwitching Amna Naveed 1.

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to investigate university students’ attitudes towards code-switching during English classes. Although maximizing the use of the target language is generally seen to be desirable in the foreign language classroom (and this is a belief I subscribe to myself), it is the case in my context that codeswitching is a common feature of English language teaching. I therefore wanted to examine students’ views about this issue (e.g. to see whether they shared my belief in maximizing target language use by the teacher and students). Understanding student perspectives on teaching and learning can I feel enhance our work as teachers of English.

2.

Using the L1 in L2 Learning

The role of the L1 in L2 learning continues to be an issue of discussion in the literature (see the recent review by Hall & Cook, 2012). Historically, two opposing positions on this issue are seen in the grammar-translation approach (where the L1 is widely used) and the audiolingual approach (where it is considered undesirable). More recently, within a communicative approach the role of the L1 has moved from initially being considered as a negative feature to more recent positions which recognise that the L1 may play a supportive role in L2 learning. According to some researchers, maximum input should be given in the target language because excessive exposure to the L1 means limited L2 input and output. Hammink (2000) views code-switching as incorrect and the result of incomplete mastery of the two languages involved. Al-Nofaie (2010) advocates the use of the foreign language only as it helps in achieving language competence. Fernandez (1990) also considers code-switching to be harmful, believing that the students will not be able to communicate effectively in either language. Halliwell & Jones (1991)

University Students’ Attitudes Towards Code-Switching |

59

claim that in the absence of L1 use learners can learn to speak and understand the L2 better. They further afirm that it is possible to promote almost exclusive use of the L2 as a realistic and normal means of communication in the classroom. In contrast, researchers such as Atkinson (1987) and Macaro (2001) believe that excluding the L1 from classrooms is impractical and at the same time deprives the learners of an important learning tool. Clanlone (2009) supports L1 use and asserts that this not only saves time but increases the conidence of the students as well. Schweers (1999) also believes that if students are allowed to use the mother tongue, it will improve their sense of security and better allow them to relate L2 learning to their daily lives . Stern (1992) further supports the use of the L1 and considers it more humanistic if the students are allowed to use their mother tongue in foreign language classrooms. Furthermore, Huerta-Macias & Quintero (1992) state that code-switching not only enhances communication in the teaching and learning process but can also facilitate the development of the language of a bilingual. Abbas et al. (2011) see code-switching or the use of the L1 as a catalyst for communication that helps students understand each other. Latsanyphone & Bouangeune (2009) also advocate the use of the mother tongue. They believe that if the L1 is used in the classroom it helps the students with a lower proiciency level. Sert (2006) adds that L1 use provides an opportunity for students to continue their communication by illing the gaps resulting from target language deiciency. Many others also argue for code-switching in the English classroom, considering it a useful tool in assisting learning. Clearly, there is no ‘right’ answer to the question of whether the L1 should be used in L2 learning; and although ‘banning’ it may be possible theoretically, in practice it is very likely that, especially in contexts where teachers and learners share a common language, some L1 use will always continue to be present. In this study I examine my students’ views about these issues.

3.

Methodology

The aim of the study was to investigate students’ attitudes towards the use of Urdu in English classrooms. The two questions I addressed were: • What are students’ attitudes towards code-switching by teachers and learners during English lessons? • What are students’ views about the respective advantages and disadvantages of using the L1 and the L2 in the English classroom? Participants in this study were 200 students at four colleges and universities in Pakistan. They were from various educational backgrounds (English and Urdu medium schools) with different linguistic abilities, and all studied English as a compulsory subject as part of their courses. Fifty of the students were my own; the remainder were recruited with the help of colleagues I knew at three other universities. For all the students, English was their second or third language.

60

| University Students’ Attitudes Towards Code-Switching

Data were collected via a questionnaire (see Findings below), which was administered in English because student proicieny in the language was suficient for them to understand the questions. Questionnaires are widely used because “they are easy to construct, extremely versatile, and uniquely capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processable” (Dörnyei, 2003, p.1). Moreover, questionnaires are attractive because they are eficient in terms of the researchers’ time, effort and inancial resources (Foddy,1993). The questionnaire, which I designed for this study, was based on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) where the students chose the option that best relected their response to each statement about the use of the L1 (Urdu) and L2 in English lessons. Closed questionnaire items were used throughout because they are easier both to complete and analyse. As part of its development, the questionnaire was distributed to two English language teachers. After further revisions, based on the teachers’ feedback, the questionnaire was distributed to 40 students who were not the part of the actual study. Further revisions to the instrument were made based on the feedback from students. All students participated voluntarily. They were given information about the purposes of the study and assured that their responses would be kept conidential. The questionnaire responses were analysed quantitatively using SPSS, primarily through descriptive statistics (especially frequency distributions and percentages). The 28 statements were grouped into four groups as described below and the indings are organized according to these groups: • Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ code-switching • Students’ attitudes towards students’ code-switching • Reasons for code-switching • Reasons for not code-switching

4.

Findings

4.1 Attitudes Towards Teacher Code-Switching Students’ attitudes towards teacher code-switching were measured through six items questionnaire items. Table 1 summarizes the responses to these questions (SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly agree). All igures are percentages out of 200 (except where students did not answer all questions and in those cases percentages do not add up to 100%).


61

Table 1: Attitudes towards teacher code-switching Questionnaire items

SD

D

N

A

SA

1

I prefer my teacher to use Urdu in English lessons.

26.0

24.5

18.0

23.5

7.5

4

A teacher should explain English grammar, its rules and examples in Urdu.

28.0

24.5

14.5

22.0

11.0

5

New vocabulary of English should be explained in Urdu.

12.0

20.0

14.0

32.5

20.0

7

Use of Urdu by the teacher makes me listen more attentively.

7.5

22.0

29.5

26.5

14.5

17

I feel more comfortable if the exam instructions are given in Urdu.

28.0

32.0

12.0

19.0

9.0

23

I feel glad when my classmates demand the teacher to use English in English classes.

4.5

9.0

22.5

30.5

33.0

The table shows that 50.5% of the students disagreed with the statement that they preferred the teacher to use Urdu in English classrooms (31% agreed). Similarly 52.5% disagreed with the idea of explaining English grammar in Urdu (33% agreed). On the other hand 52.5 % agreed that new vocabulary and terms should be explained in Urdu, while 41% were of the view that if their teacher speaks Urdu in the English classroom they listen more attentively (for this item only 29.5% disagreed and 29.5% were neutral). Contrary to this, 60% of the students want exam instructions to be given in English; 63.5% also agreed that they like it when the students demand that the English teacher speak English only. Overall, then, these results indicate that the students were positive about maximizing the use of English by teachers during their lessons, although there was still support here for the use of Urdu.

4.2

Attitudes Towards Student Code-Switching

Two statements examined students’ views about whether they should use the L2 during English lessons. The results for these are given in Table 2. Table 2: Attitudes to student code-switching Questionnaire items

SD

D

N

A

SA

2

I prefer to ask questions in Urdu to my English teacher.

13.5

33.5

16.0

27.0

10.0

3

During English lessons I prefer to talk to my classmates in Urdu.

14.5

24.5

28.5

24.0

8.0

The table indicates that 47% of the students disagreed that they preferred to ask the teacher questions in Urdu during lessons (37%, though, agreed). Also, 39% 62


disagreed that they prefer to use Urdu when talking with their class mates, while 32% agreed. These responses do not suggest that students have negative attitudes towards their own use of Urdu during English lessons, although in both cases the percentages disagreeing with the statements were greater than those agreeing.

4.3

Reasons for Code-Switching

Several questionnaire items explored students’ views about why the use of Urdu by teachers and students might be considered beneicial. Table 3 presents the results for these items. Table 3: Reasons for code-switching Questionnaire items

SD

D

N

A

SA

6

Use of Urdu enables me to express ideas that I cannot explain in English.

4.5

14.0

13.5

49.5

18.0

8

Use of Urdu makes communication between the teacher and students easy.

3.5

16.0

24.0

38.5

18.0

9

Use of Urdu leaves a stronger impression on the mind than English.

12.0

27.0

20.5

24.0

16.5

10

During English lessons, when I am unable to communicate in English, I use Urdu.

5.0

8.5

13.5

50

23.0

11

Use of Urdu makes the topic of discussion (in the classroom) more interesting.

7.0

30.0

19.0

31.5

12.0

12

Use of Urdu helps in memorizing the question.

6.0

18.5

17.5

43.5

14.0

13

Use of Urdu helps in the low of communication.

6.5

18.5

17

43.5

14.5

14

Use of Urdu clariies a point that a speaker wants to make.

5.5

10.5

17.5

46.5

19.5

15

Use of Urdu makes boring topics very interesting.

16.5

32.5

19.0

17.5

14.5

16

It manifests skills in both (Urdu and English) languages.

5.5

12.0

33.0

38.0

11.5

The three items on which agreement was highest were ‘During English lessons, when I am unable to communicate in English, I use Urdu’ (73%), ‘Use of Urdu enables me to express my ideas that I cannot explain in English’ (67.5%) and ‘Use of Urdu clariies a point that a speaker wants to make’ (66%). Together these suggest that the students saw the use of Urdu as a backup device which allowed them to compensate when they did not feel they could manage satisfactorily in English. The three items where disagreement was highest were ‘Use of Urdu makes the topic of discussion (in the classroom) more interesting’ (43.5%), ‘Use of Urdu leaves a stronger impression on mind than English’ (40.5%), and ‘Use of Urdu makes the University Students’ Attitudes Towards Code-Switching |

63

boring topics very interesting’ (32%). These responses suggest that the students did not feel that Urdu had much impact on how interesting or memorable lessons were.

4.4

Reasons for not Code-Switching

Finally, students were asked for their views on the beneits of using English only. Their responses are summarised in Table 4. Three items attracted over 75% agreement: ‘Use of English in the classrooms motivates me to speak English’ (84.5%), ‘I feel more motivated if I use English in English classes’ (78.5%), and ‘Use of English in the English classroom boosts up my conidence’ (77.5%). Together these suggest that the students felt that speaking English in class had a positive impact on their motivation and conidence. The items which attracted less than 50% agreement were ‘Use of Urdu in the English class shows my lack of knowledge about English language’ (49.5%) and ‘Use of Urdu prevents me from learning English’ (45%). These responses indicate that while the students were overall positive about the value of using English, they did not feel strongly that using Urdu was a negative matter. Table 4: Reasons for using English only Questionnaire items

SD

D

N

A

SA

18

Use of Urdu prevents me from learning English.

21.5

25.5

8.0

23.5

21.5

19

Use of Urdu in the English class shows my lack of knowledge about English language.

11.5

18.5

19.5

31.5

18.0

20

Use of Urdu in English classrooms reduces my motivation to learn and speak English.

12.0

17.0

12.0

31.0

27.0

21

I feel less creative if I use Urdu in English classes.

7.0

18.0

12.0

39.5

23.0

22

It is not possible to learn the skills of English language if Urdu language is used in English classes.

10.5

22.5

12.0

26.0

28.5

24

I feel more motivated if I use English in English classes.

4.0

6.5

10.5

41.5

37.0

25

Use of English in the classroom motivates me to speak English.

3.0

3.5

8.5

43.0

41.5

26

Use of English shows that the speaker is more educated than others.

14.5

14.0

14.5

32.0

23.5

27

Use of English in the English classroom boosts up my conidence.

6.0

7.5

9.0

42.0

35.5

28

The use of English helps me in understanding the content of other subjects as well.

4.0

8.5

15.5

35.5

36.5

64


5.

Discussion

In the earlier discussion of the literature I highlighted arguments both for and against the use of the L1 in L2 learning. This is a complex issue which does not lend itself to deinitive answers but one general view that is gaining popularity (Hall & Cook, 2012) is that the L1 should be seen as a resource which can support L2 learning. This does not mean that the use of the L1 should dominate over the L2 but on the other hand it implies that attempts to ban the L1, particularly in classes where the teacher and students share a common language, are not likely to be productive. The results of this study seem to relect this position. The students expressed positive attitudes about the use of English by themselves and their teachers; they did, though, also identify situations where they felt that using the L1 was beneicial. For example, they felt that Urdu was useful to help them express ideas they could not express in English; it was also seen to be helpful when teachers were explaining vocabulary. The students, though, did want their teachers to speak English and they also wanted to speak English themselves during lessons. Overall, then, what these indings suggest is that teachers can beneit from understanding how their students feel about the use of the L1 in English lessons; armed with this understanding teachers can then consider how they can promote the use of the L1 in a way that, without denying a role for the L2, maximizes the opportunities students have to improve their proiciency in English.

6.

Conclusion

Teacher research provides language teachers with a strategy for investigating issues that are of personal relevance to them and their students. I started out this study with a strong belief that the use of English had to be promoted in my lessons at the expense of the L2. The results of this study, though, suggest that a more moderate approach on my part might be received more positively by my students. This does not mean that I will allow the use of the L1 to overtake the use of English in my lessons; I will, though, be more willing from now to investigate ways in which judicious use of the L1 by myself and my students can support them as they learn English.


65

References Abbas, F. A., Aslam, S. & Rana, A.M.K., A. (2011). Code mixing as a communicative strategy among the university level students in Pakistan. Language in India, 11, Retrieved 21 October 2013 from htp://www.languageinindia.com/jan2011/

codemixingfurrakh.pdf Al-Nofaie, H. (2001). The attitude of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools: a case study. Novitas-Royal (Research on youth and language), 4(1), 64-95. Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource. ELT Journal, 41(4), 241-247. Clanlone, E. (2009), L1 use in English courses at university level. ESP World, 8(22), 1-6. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fernandez, R. (1990). Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic issues. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308. Halliwell, S. and Jones, B., (1991). On target teaching in the target language. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Hammink, J.E. (2000). A comparison of the code-switching behavior and knowledge of adults and children. University of Texas. EI Paso. Huerta-Macias, A. & Quintero, E. (1992). Code-switching, bilingualism, and biliteracy: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 3-4. Retrieved 21 October 2013 from htp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/

download?doi=10.1.1.20.8491&rep=rep1&type=pdf Latsanyphone, S. & Bouangeune, S. (2009). Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low English proiciency level students: A case study at the national university of Laos. English language teaching Journal. 2(3), 186-193. Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548. Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6–9.

66


Sert, O. (2006). The functions of code-switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved 21 October 2013 from htp://iteslj.org/Aricles/SertCodeSwitching.html. Stern, H. H., 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Author Amna Naveed has been involved in the teaching of English to Undergraduate and Graduate students for 10 years. She holds an M.Phil. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Management Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, and currently works as a lecturer at COMSATS Lahore.

Editor’s Commentary This paper is another example of descriptive research, where the goal is to not to test a hypothesis or to achieve generalizable results, but to understand the way things are – in this case, students’ views about code-switching during English lessons. The paper has a sound theoretical background but is also driven by an issue of practical interest to the teacher. A questionnaire was the sole instrument used here, and while it was carefully designed, such instruments are inevitably limited in the insights they can provide. Therefore the judicious use of a small number of open questions would have added some qualitative depth to the questionnaire responses. A small set of interviews would have provided an even stronger qualitative dimension to the study. More detail about the administration of the questionnaire (e.g. how it was delivered to and collected from the other institutions that participated) would have also been instructive for readers and minimized the impression that collecting questionnaire responses is always a straightforward process – it rarely is.


67

68

|

6 Using Simulation in Teaching Oral Skills to Hotel Management Students Musarat Yasmin 1.

Introduction

The hotel industry in Pakistan is experiencing rapid growth (Pakistan Hotel Association, 2010) and this has created a demand for skilled employees in the sector. In response to this need, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes relevant to the hotel industry have started appearing and this study focuses on the teaching of English on one such programme – the Bachelor’s in Hotel Management and Restaurant (IHRM) at the University of Gujrat. Effective oral communication skills are particularly important in the hotel industry, and this is relected in the aims of the IHRM syllabus, where students must do a communication skills course called ‘Hotel English’. This study examines this course and in particular focuses on reactions to and the effectiveness of simulation as the teaching strategy it adopts.

2.

Simulation as Teaching Method

Tompkins (1998) notes that while the terms role-playing and simulation are often not clearly distinguished, simulation is seen to be a broader concept and to involve more complex activities than role-playing does. In role play, roles are ixed and assigned to participants for a speciic activity, while in simulation the focus is not on roles but on solving a problem in a real life situation. Simulation does not always involve role play but role play is always simulation (Crookall & Saunders, 1988). Role-playing and simulation are helpful in introducing students to real world situations by providing an opportunity to experiment in a safe, close to reality atmosphere, as noted by Oberle (2004) in his case study with undergraduate Geography students. He found that they made connections with the real world in a successful way. Schaap’s (2005) and Graves’ (2008) indings also show that role-

Using Simulation in Teaching Oral Skills to Hotel Management Students |

69

playing promotes active learning more than traditional lectures. One reason for this may be that, like simulation, it involves situated learning. Simulation is a widely-used teaching strategy in the ield of medicine and nursing (Eaves & Flagg, 2001; Rauen, 2001). Rush et.al (2010: 469) argue that high-idelity simulation (where “idelity refers to the extent to which simulation mirrors the reality”) promotes a high degree of meaningful learning. Okuda et. al. (2009) reviewed over 100 articles in the ield of medical education and found that simulation-based training showed more improvement in procedural performance than standard training. In the ields of engineering and industry management, Smeds (2003) concluded that the use of a combination of computational and social simulations accelerated student learning. There is also evidence that students value simulations. Teach & Govahi (1993) asked 602 graduates to rate four teaching methods - lectures, case studies, experiential exercises (including role-play) and computerised simulations – in relation to the development of 41 skills. Results showed that experiential exercises were felt to be most effective in developing skills like resolving conlict, interviewing, and speaking in public. Trapp et.al. (1995), in a similar study, found that role-playing was rated as the most effective strategy in general. In relation to skills such as ‘relective listening’, ‘motivating others’, ‘persuading’ and ‘speaking in public’, simulation was seen to be the most effective method. Simulation seems particularly relevant to the teaching of English in a vocational setting too and for this reason it was adopted as the key strategy in the design of a new Hotel English course which is the focus of this study. My broad purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of simulation by observing student performance and asking students for their views about this teaching method. 3. Methodology In this study I examined these two questions: 48. What kind of development is observed in the oral performance of students during a course based on simulation? 49. What are students’ views about the value of simulations in developing their oral communication skills? As explained above, the context for the study was the Hotel English course taught to undergraduate students at the University of Gujrat. I was the teacher, and data were collected from 20 students taking this course. Informed consent was obtained from the students throughout the study.

3.1

Data Collection

A mixed methods approach to the research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) was adopted and data were collected through observations, questionnaires and interviews. To evaluate the development in students’ performance during the course, they were observed participating in simulations three times (in the irst weeks of October and December 2012, and the last week of February 2013). The 70

| Using Simulation in Teaching Oral Skills to Hotel Management Students

observations were video-recorded to facilitate subsequent closer analysis than would have been possible in real time. To minimize students’ reactivity to the video camera, this was placed in the classroom a week in advance of the recordings to allow the students to get accustomed to it. The observations were then analysed using a modiied version of the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) grid (see htp://inyurl.com/qy5kwgx for a copy of this). Using this instrument, students’ oral skills were rated in the areas of vocabulary, grammar, luency and conversational strategies. To illustrate the work the students did I will describe one of the simulations. Students were asked to choose a hotel scenario in which they would have to deal with guests or other hotel professionals by communicating in English. They had two days to prepare (e.g. to decide on roles and prepare any supporting materials) and the simulation took place in a the coffee shop at our institution (this provided a setting close to that of a hotel reception). Four groups simulated taking a reservation over the phone while seven simulated a receptionist dealing with walkin guests. One group each simulated a restaurant situation where they took and served orders, a check-out situation, and room service respectively. Students also completed a questionnaire at the end of the course (see Findings below). This asked for their views about the use of simulations and about whether they felt their English had improved during the course. The questionnaire included factual, behavioural and attitudinal questions (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). Out of 32 questions, 21 were Likert scales, while the rest were multiple choice and rank-order items. The questionnaire was piloted with 10 students not involved in this study, then administered to the Hotel English students during class. Finally, I conducted two focus group interviews with a total of 10 volunteer students. Data from the questionnaires informed the design of the questions for the focus groups. The purpose of the discussions was to further explore students’ views about the strategies they found most helpful in the development of their oral communication skills, with a particular focus on comparing lectures and simulations. The focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed.

3.2

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from 20 questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics. The transcriptions of the interviews were analysed thematically to identify and categorise recurrent issues. The observational data were assessed against the checklist referred to above. Students’ performance in four areas of oral communication (vocabulary, grammar, luency and conversational strategies) was assessed on a scale of 1-5, with ‘5’ representing a high level of performance. The ratings assigned over the three observations were then compared for evidence of improvement.


71

4.

Findings

4.1

Observations

For each observed simulation, students received a total mark out of 20 (a maximum of ive marks each for grammar, vocabulary, luency and conversational strategies). Table 1 summarises the total marks for 20 students over three observed simulations. Overall, the mean score was 13.85 on the irst observation, 15 on the second and 16.95 on the third. This steady global improvement was relected in the individual scores as only four of the 20 students scored less on the second or third observations than they had on the previous one. Table 1: Oral performance on three simulations (max. score = 20) St. Obs1

12 11 15 15 12 15 12 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 17 16 10 17 14 16

Obs2

10 14 12 17 14 17 13 17 16 13 15 16 15 17 17 16 12 17 15 17

Obs3

15 17 17 17 15 16 16 17 18 15 17 17 18 17 20 17 15 19 16 20

In terms of the four areas of oral communication that were assessed, steady improvement was also found, as summarised in Table 2. The largest gains between the irst and last observations were found in vocabulary, followed by luency, then conversational strategies and inally grammar. Table 2: Mean scores by sub-skills on three simulations (max. score = 5) Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Grammar

3.20

3.25

3.75

Vocabulary

3.30

3.50

4.25

Fluency

3.15

3.20

3.95

Conversation

4.40

4.80

5.00

4.2

Questionnaires

Due to limitations of space I will focus here on the Likert scale items that asked the students to rate the relative effectiveness for their learning of lectures and simulations.

4.2.1

Lecture as a Teaching Method

Table 3 summarises students’ responses to the questions about lectures (all igures are percentages). Key points here are that students were generally positive about this mode of teaching, although they recognise that it may not support the development of their spoken English. Thus, 80% disagreed that ‘Lectures give me opportunities to speak English’ while 60%

72


agreed with the statement ‘I do not think that lectures help me improve my spoken English’. Students do feel, though, that lectures help develop their vocabulary and listening (80% agreement on both items 3 and 5).

Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Table 3: Student opinions about lectures (N=20)

1

I like having lectures during English lessons.

0

30

10

55

5

2

Lectures are an effective way to improve my spoken English.

0

60

0

30

10

3

Lectures help me improve my English vocabulary.

0

20

0

40

40

4

Lectures help me use English grammar more effectively.

5

20

10

50

15

5

Lectures help me improve my listening skills.

5

10

5

60

20

6

Lectures give me opportunities to speak English.

20

60

0

15

5

7

I do not think that lectures help me improve my spoken English.

15

25

0

55

5

8

I would like to have more lectures during English lessons.

15

45

5

20

15

9

I feel shy about asking questions during lectures.

5

10

0

60

25

10

I am excited when the teacher gives us a lecture.

10

35

20

20

15

4.2.2

Simulation as a Teaching Method

Table 4 presents the results of students’ ratings of simulation as a teaching strategy. 80% said they enjoyed simulations and they also rated very highly the impact of simulation on the development of their speaking (95% agreement on item 22 and 95% disagreement on item 27) and listening (90% agreement on item 25). 65% of the students (compared to 80% for lectures) felt that simulations helped with the development of their vocabulary.


73

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Strongly agree

Table 4: Student opinions about simulation (N=20)

5

15

0

60

20

I feel shy while participating in simulations.

30

35

0

30

5

21

I am excited when we are asked to do a simulation.

10

20

10

50

10

22

Simulations are an effective way to improve my spoken English

0

0

5

55

40

23

Simulations help me improve my English vocabulary

0

15

20

50

15

24

Simulations help me use English grammar more effectively.

5

45

0

40

10

25

Simulations help me improve my listening skills.

0

10

0

75

15

26

Simulations give me opportunities to speak English.

0

0

0

60

40

27

I do not think that simulations help me improve my spoken English.

40

55

0

5

0

28

Simulation method turns the class into challenging learning environment.

0

10

10

40

40

29

I would like to have more simulations during English lessons.

0

20

10

55

15

30

I would recommend this method for upcoming semester students.

0

5

5

30

60

19

I enjoy doing simulations during English lessons.

20

4.3

Focus Groups

During the focus groups the students expanded on many of the points highlighted in the analysis of the questionnaires above. These are summarised below.

4.3.1

Lectures

Students felt lectures were effective in developing listening skills but not speaking skills. They were of the view that they do not get the chance to participate in the class during a lecture and therefore do not develop the conidence to speak. Students also said they were afraid of speaking during lectures in case the teacher or their class mates laughed at them. Lectures were not seen to provide scope for the development of practical skills; as one student said, “in lecture we just listen to the teacher and we are not practising”. One student suggested that “we should remove that

74


lecture method. That is the only way to build conidence and to speak with luency”.

4.4

Simulation

Students identiied a number of advantages which they felt simulations had. The most commonly mentioned were that simulations were student-centred, they develop speaking skills (“simulation maximises our skills, speaking, body language, everything”), they minimize shyness and enhance conidence (“that’s the way students get conidence to speak”). Vocabulary development was also mentioned several times as a beneit of simulations. A number of other beneits mentioned less frequently by students related to the general idea that simulations provided a more concrete and active context for learning English. One student emphasised the importance of simulations to hotel industry students: We need simulation more than any other department of university. Our work is practical … If we don’t have these skills, we won’t be able to serve the industry well. We need this method more as our job is different from ofice job ... whichever department we are in, we need communication and conidence.

5.

Discussion

This study suggests that students appreciated the use of simulation during the Hotel English course. They valued the practical opportunities simulations provided for them to use English and to develop their oral communication skills. These indings relate well to those highlighted in the literature, where simulation has been found to support learning in a range of other practical disciplines. I am not suggesting that lectures are not a useful teaching strategy – they were clearly valued by the students; the point here, though, is that where the development of oral communication skills is a priority, lectures alone are inadequate, and the students seemed to realise this. The analysis of students’ actual performance during simulations on the course supported their views that such activities supported the development of their oral skills. Based on my analysis of three simulations, the students were found to have improved both overall and speciically in relation to grammar, vocabulary, luency and conversational strategies. I did not assess their conidence, but this was an issue that many students commented on during the interviews and where they felt simulations were also particularly beneicial.

6.

Conclusion

The primary motivation for this study was to examine a new course in my institution and to investigate students’ reactions to and performances during simulations during this course. As I was the teacher on this course the study was very relevant to my own professional practice and the indings will assist me in continuing to develop my use of simulations in teaching English to hotel industry students. Using Simulation in Teaching Oral Skills to Hotel Management Students |

75

Although the indings reported here were positive, caution is needed in interpreting them because I was obviously committed to making simulations work well and my students may have also understood that this was a teaching strategy I liked. Their positive responses, then, may have been partly a reaction to my own positive attitude, although, overall, I am conident that the study has generated trustworthy insights into how the students feel about simulations. It is a strategy, I believe, which deserves to be explored further in higher education in Pakistan generally.

76


References Creswell, W.J., Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crookall, D. & Saunders, D. (Eds.). (1989). Communication and simulation: From two ields to one theme. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Eaves, R.H., & A.J. Flagg. (2001). The U.S. Air Force pilot simulated medical unit: A teaching strategy with multiple applications. Journal of Nursing Education, 3(10) 110–15. Graves, E.A. (2008). Is role-playing an effective teaching method? Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Ohio. Oberle, A.P. (2004). Understanding public land management through role playing. Journal of Geography, 103 (5) 199-210. Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I. (2009). The utility of simulation in medical education: What is the evidence? Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine, 76(4), 330-343. Pakistan Hotel Association. (2010). Retrieved 16 October 2013 from www.pha.org. pk/hindustry.asp Rauen, C.A. (2001). Using simulation to teaching critical thinking skills: You can’t just throw the book at them’ Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 13(1) 93-101. Rush, S., Acton, L., Tolley, K., Marks‐Maran, D., & Burke, L. (2010). Using simulation in a vocational programme: Does the method support the theory? Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 62(4), 467-479. Schaap, A. (2005). Learning political theory by role-playing. Politics, 25(1) 46-52. Smeds, R. (2003). Simulation for accelerated learning and development in industrial management. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 14(2) 107-110. Teach, D.T. and Govahi, G. (1993). The role of classroom techniques in teaching management skills. Simulation and Gaming, 24(4) 429-445. Tompkins, P.K. (1998). Role playing/simulation. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(8). Retrieved 16 October 2013 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tompkins-RolePlaying. html. Trapp, J.N. et.al. (1995). Evaluating the effectiveness of role playing simulation and other methods in teaching managerial skills.’ Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, 22 116-123. Using Simulation in Teaching Oral Skills to Hotel Management Students |

77

The Author Musarat Yasmin has been involved in teaching English language at postgraduate level for ive years. She holds an MA from the University of Reading, UK and is enrolled in a PhD programme in Linguistics. Currently she works as lecturer at University of Gujrat, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary The author begins with a comparison of role play and simulation, though this could have been made clearer, especially for readers unfamiliar with these terms. Methodologically, though, this study makes effective use of a multi-method design to examine a central concern – the use of simulation – from different perspectives. In common with several other studies in this volume, questionnaires and interviews were employed, but it is the use of a structured observation instrument for assessing student performance that stands out here. This instrument allowed for the systematic analysis of student performance over time and generated interesting insights into students’ progress. A key issue in the use of such instruments is reliability – the extent to which the researcher assessed all the different simulations observed in a consistent manner – but this is not explained here. For example, a second rater might have been asked to assess some of the observations then both researchers’ results could have been compared; or the author could have rated one observation, then repeated the same analysis a few days later to check for consistency. One other dimension of the study which could have been further strengthened is the use of the qualitative data; rather few quotations from the focus group interviews are presented and it would have been interesting to give students’ voices a more prominent place here. Finally, it is worth noting how the author, in concluding the chapter, shows evidence of criticality by acknowledging one possible limitation of her work – the effect of her own enthusiasm on students’ responses. This is an issue teachers need to be aware of when they are asking students for their comments on innovations which the teacher may be obviously very committed too.

78


7 Language Anxiety in University Learners of English Saira Altaf 1.

Introduction

University courses seeking to develop students’ oral skills in English often use student presentations as a strategy for doing so. Yet the public nature of such activities is known to make them stressful, not just for foreign language learners, but even for speakers who are proicient in the language being used. I use presentations in my teaching, and the purpose of this project was to learn more about how students feel about them. In particular, I wanted to deepen my understanding of the factors which cause anxiety in my students when they are required to do a presentation in English lessons.

2.

Language Anxiety

Different researchers vary in how they deine anxiety. Wilson (2006, citing Twenge, 2002) argues that anxiety is adaptive and causes affective reactions by triggering “physiological and psychological reactions” (p.40). Chiang (2012) also suggests that when people get stressed, they may not make appropriate decisions, with negative consequences for their performance. With speciic reference to language learning, Clement (1980) deined foreign language anxiety as a complex concept that deals with learners’ psychology in terms of their feelings, self-esteem and self-conidence. Young (1992) notes that language anxiety is a “complicated psychological phenomenon peculiar to language learning” (p.157). The essence of foreign language anxiety, according to Horwitz et al. (1986), is the threat to an individual’s self-concept caused by the inherent limitations of communicating in an imperfectly mastered second language. Researchers also argue that serious language anxiety may adversely affect students’ self-esteem, self-conidence, and ultimately hamper proiciency in language acquisition (Crookall & Oxford, 1991; Von Worde, 2003; Tanveer, 2007).

Language Anxiety in University Learners of English |

79

2.1

Factors Causing Language Anxiety

Horwitz et al. (1986) identiied three anxieties related to foreign language learning: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Ayres & Hopf (1993) identiied another type of foreign language anxiety and called it fear of public speaking. Communication Apprehension, according to McCroskey (1984), is viewed as “a broadly based anxiety related to oral communication” (p.13). A contributing effect of communication apprehension is the resultant lack of conidence that may lead to unwillingness to communicate in a foreign language (Woodrow, 2006). According to Horwitz et al. (1986), fear of negative evaluation is triggered by the thought of being assessed by teachers and peers. Young (1992) argues that the reason why learners do not speak English is the fear of committing verbal errors. Moreover, Kitano (2001) suggests that language anxiety may also be caused by comparisons learners make between their speaking skills and those of others they feel are more competent. Fear of public speaking refers to public speaking anxiety and stage fright (Ayres & Hopf, 1993). In a language classroom, this refers to a fear of speaking the L2 in front of other students and teacher(s) where the presenter is the centre of everyone’s attention, causing anxiety that may result in the mind of the presenter going blank (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). Although much research has been conducted into foreign language anxiety, the issue has not been studied in Pakistan. Given the use of oral presentations in my teaching and the negative attitudes students seem to have towards these, I decided to conduct an analysis of foreign language speaking anxiety in the university context I teach in.

3.

Methodology

Horwitz et al. (1986) deine language anxiety as “a subjective experience” (p.125), which varies from individual to individual. Hence, in order to capture these individual experiences, I conducted case study research; this had a quantitative element but also involved qualitative research because this “begins with individuals and sets out to understand and interpret their experience of a particular phenomenon” (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 23). The two research questions below were investigated to observe language anxiety symptoms and to examine the reported experiences of the participants: 1. 2.

80

What signs of anxiety are evident when students give oral presentations in English in the classroom? According to the students, how does anxiety affect their performance in speaking English?

| Language Anxiety in University Learners of English

3.1


The participants were selected from among postgraduate students of environmental science who were studying English as a compulsory subject at the University of Sindh, Pakistan. Most of them were from a social background where English is not even the second language. There were 30 students in my class and ive of them (three female and two male) volunteered to take part in the study (all students, however, gave a presentation as a normal part of the course).

3.2

Data Collection

Students were required to give a presentation as a normal part of the course. The topic for all students’ presentations was ‘My University Life’ and they were allowed a maximum of ive minutes each, although none spoke for more than three minutes.

3.2.1

Observation Sheet

In order to record certain observable symptoms of students’ language anxiety during student presentations in the classroom, I identiied from the literature several symptoms of such anxiety – e.g. avoidance of eye contact, nervous gestures and quivering voice. Using an observation sheet (Appendix 1), I assessed these on a scale of frequency of occurrence ranging from always to never. The checklist provided a basic quantitative measure of the degree of anxiety observed during each presentation.

3.2.2

Interviews

This study used semi-structured interviews in English to investigate the students’ own understandings of their language anxiety in speaking English (see Appendix 2 for the questions). Semi-structured interviews were selected as one of the research tools because they provided an opportunity to analyse the views, thoughts, opinions, ideas, intentions or beliefs of the participants as reported by them (Ohata, 2005). The interviews also provided participants with an opportunity to select, reconstruct, and relect upon their experience (Ohata, 2005) of doing oral presentations in English.

3.3

Ethical Considerations

I ensured that the students participated on a voluntary basis with prior informed consent. They were told about the purpose and nature of study at the outset and conidentiality and anonymity were observed. Written permission for the study was also obtained in advance from the head of my institute.

4.

Results

In this section, the indings from the observation of presentations and the semistructured interviews are presented.

4.1

Evidence of Anxiety

As explained above, ive of my students were observed giving presentations in class and I used a checklist to assess the frequency of different symptoms of Language Anxiety in University Learners of English |

81

anxiety. From the female participants, presenter F1 did not avoid eye contact with the audience, but she frequently lost concentration and forgot what she had to say. Breathlessness, stammering, trembling legs, excessive sweating and nervous expressions were also observed. The second female presenter, F2, avoided eye contact, and her voice was quivering. Her hands were trembling, and she looked nervous throughout her presentation. She frequently lost concentration. However, her breathing seemed normal. Frequently avoiding eye contact, losing concentration, shortness of breath, and signs of shyness and forgetting what to say were observed in presenter F3 too. Symptoms which were also observed throughout her speech were stammering, shivering hands, and looking nervous. Turning to the male participants, presenter M1 frequently avoided eye contact, lost concentration, stammered and forgot his ideas. He looked nervous throughout his speech and his hands and legs were seen trembling while he was presenting his views in front of his classmates. However, he did not show any symptoms of breathlessness and sweating. The inal presenter, M2, also avoided eye contact ; he also lost concentration and forgot his words. Throughout the presentation, he looked nervous and frequently stammered and trembled. Overall, then, all ive presenters demonstrated frequent signs of a wide range of symptoms associated with foreign language speaking anxiety (and indeed with public speaking more generally).

4.2

Students’ Perspectives

I interviewed the students individually shortly after their presentations to discuss their feelings about the experience. The analysis below focuses on four areas of anxiety that emerged from our conversations.

4.2.1

Fear of Public Speaking

Fear of public speaking was reported by the students as a key cause of anxiety when they were required to speak English in front of others. One of the participants (M1) reported getting scared and forgetting what to say: I get scared of other people who look at me when I speak English [...] When I come in the front to speak English, I forget most of thing - most of words; my mind goes blank. Similarly, another participant (F2) also reported a high level of fear of public speaking that sometimes makes her mind go blank. She reported: [...] when I come in front of my class fellows, I feel nervous, and I get confused. And, at that time, my mind blocks and I cannot recall the vocabulary, and I cannot understand what to speak.

82


4.2.2

Fear of Negative Evaluation

A participant (M1) reported that whenever he is asked to deliver presentation in English in the classroom in front of his fellows, he gets stressed. He reported: They [other students] will consider me uneducated. This is a big problem for me when I feel that others will consider me uneducated when I cannot speak English. Moreover, they might say that I’m speaking wrong sentences.

A female participant (F2) also reported fear of the teacher’s evaluation and the resultant disappointment when she fails to speak lawlessly. She reported: I feel very bad [...] I look at my teacher [...] to see what his or her expression is when I cannot speak English!

4.2.3

Inability to Express Themselves

A male participant (M2) believed he felt anxious because he failed to ind suitable words while speaking English. He reported: I think of selecting proper and suitable words while speaking English. And this thing makes me nervous.

A female participant (F2) believed that when she forgets words and cannot speak English luently, she feels it is very hard to continue speaking English. She also compares herself with others and believes that others can speak English more accurately and luently. Therefore, she gets more nervous: I feel dificulty when I cannot recall English words and when I cannot speak English luently. When I see that other students are more luent than me, I become more nervous [...] I forget the proper words that I should use in order to make others understand.

4.2.4

Oral Communication Apprehension

Most of the students reported communication apprehension in speaking English as compared to writing. One of the respondents (M1) reported said that “I can write well. Speaking English is dificult for me”. Moreover, a female respondent (F1) reported a similar type of anxiety. She believed: I can write on any topic. I cannot say [speak] the same thing that I’m writing. To some extent, I feel dificulty in writing as well. But comparatively it is very dificult for me to speak on any topic rather than writing.

5.

Discussion

This study conirms my previous observations that my university students ind public speaking in English an anxiety-inducing experience. The results from this


83

study indicate that a number of L2 speaking anxiety symptoms do exist in the participants and that English-speaking anxiety negatively inluences students’ conidence to communicate in English in front of their teacher and/or other students. Many participants asserted they fear that others are constantly noticing their errors and that these may cause peer criticism and lower marks. These concerns link with issues highlighted in the earlier literature review. Particularly prominent was the impact that anxiety had on the students’ ability to remember what they wanted to say and to ind the words to do so. Many reported forgetting English words that they were supposed to use in their presentation. Further, they believed that this happens to them because of the pressure of a formal situation and also because they negatively compared themselves to others. In contrast, the students did not experience such pressures when they were writing in English and felt they were more capable of the latter compared to speaking. Overall, this study provides further evidence, in a speciic university context in Pakistan, that language anxiety is a psychological barrier that reduces the selfeficacy and self-conidence of students. The kinds of insights to emerge from this study can help educators better understand the experiences of their students and hence allow teachers to provide more support for their students as they seek to develop their oral communication skills in English.

6.

Conclusion

This small-scale study highlights the anxiety that university students in Pakistan may face when they are required to give oral presentations in class. Further research of this kind is needed in different university contexts in our country in order to better understand the issues examined here, to ascertain whether they are more widespread, and, consequently, to develop where necessary strategies through which L2 speaking anxiety can be reduced. I will certainly use these indings to inform my own work as a teacher because I am now aware of what the students experience when they are asked to give oral presentations in English. The insights I have derived from this teacher research project will allow me to empathise more with my students and to think about ways of making the process of oral presentations a less negative one for them.

References Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. (1993). Coping with speech anxiety. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Chiang, M.-C. (2012). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and foreign language speaking proiciency among elementary school students in Taiwan. Masters thesis. Ming Chuan University. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://ethesys. lib.mcu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0702112-122957 Clement, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W.R. Robinson & P.M. Smith (Eds.). Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford: Pergamon.

84


Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge. Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. (1991). Dealing with anxiety: Some practical activities for language learners and teacher trainees. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 141150). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 549-566. Maclntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305. McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J.A. Daly & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills: Sage. Ohata, K. (2005). Language anxiety from the teacher’s perspective: Interviews with seven experienced ESL/EFL teachers. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), 133155. Tanveer, M. (2007). Investigation of the factors that cause language anxiety for ESL. Masters thesis. Asian EFL Journal Theses. Retrieved 12 September 2012, from http:// asian-el-journal.com/thesis_M_Tanveer.pdf Von Worde, R. (2003). Students’ perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1), 21-40. Retrieved 18 May 2013, from http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiryspring2003/i-81-worde.html Wilson, J. T. (2006). Anxiety in learning English as a foreign language: Associations with students variables with overall proiciency and with performance on an oral test. Doctoral thesis. University of Granada. Retrieved 18 May 2013, from http://0hera.ugr.es.adrastea.ugr.es/tesisugr/16235290.pdf Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308-328. Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language specialist’s perspective: Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio, Hadley, Terrell and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 157-172.


85

Appendix 1 Presentation Evaluation Sheet/Checklist Speaker________No. ________Class ________________ Date_____________ In the space provided, please rate () the level of anxiety observed during the presentation of the student in the classroom.

Losing concentration

3

Quivering voice or stammering

4

Shortness of breath

5

Excessive sweating

6

Trembling hands/legs

7

Facial lushes (shyness)

8

Looking nervous

9

Forgetting what to say

86


Never

2

Sometimes

Avoiding eye-contact

Frequently

1

Always

Symptoms of L2 Speaking Anxiety

Appendix 2 Language Anxiety Questions for Interview 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

How long have you been learning English and how do you feel about your experience of learning English? Could you please tell me how you feel about speaking English in the classroom? What disturbs you when you speak English? What dificulty do you feel in speaking and learning English? What kinds of situations cause stress or anxiety for you? How do you react to them? What happens to you when you are in a stressful situation while speaking English? In which kinds of situations do you not feel anxiety or feel less anxiety while speaking English? Is there anything the teacher does that makes you feel more or less anxious? What would you like to suggest in order to reduce language anxiety in the learners? What do you feel when the teacher asks you to speak English in the classroom? What thing do you focus on while speaking English in the classroom? For what reasons do you become very conscious when speaking English in the classroom? Do you feel at ease while writing rather than speaking English it in the classroom? What do you think before coming into the language classroom? What do you feel when your class fellows speak English luently? Do you want to speak English with them? How can you overcome the stress that you feel while speaking English? How do you think people in your classroom will react if you make a mistake? When you ind yourself in a stressful or anxious situation, do you get worried or do you seek the solution? What ideas/feedback do you want to give to your language teacher?


87

The Author Miss Saira Altaf has been teaching English at tertiary level since 2010. She holds an MA in English Language Teaching from the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad and currently works as a lecturer at the Institute of English language and Literature, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary This study combines quantitative and qualitative data in order to understand, through ive small case studies, L2 speaking anxiety during class presentations in English. The quantitative data were collected through an observation sheet taking the form of a rating scale; including ‘rarely’ as an option here would have been desirable in deining a more balanced scale. These numerical data could have also been summarized in a table in addition to the narrative account of them author provides. This would have also extended what is a rather short Findings section. The absence of any measures (such as a second independent rater) to demonstrate reliability means that questions about whether the rating scale was used consistently remain unresolved, and while the interviews quotes were used effectively to make vivid the anxiety students’ experienced, this dimension of the study would have been strengthened further if the author had told us more about how the interviews were conducted and analysed. Case studies such as these do not seek to generalise and the author notes appropriate in concluding the paper that further research is needed to ascertain whether these indings have more general currency.

88

| Language Anxiety in Unversity Learners of English

8 Markers’ Criteria in Assessing English Essays Athar Munir Siddiqui 1.

Introduction

Research has shown that, in contexts where essays are assessed by more than one marker, discrepancies often exist among the different raters because they do not apply marking criteria consistently (Hamp-Lyons,1989; Lee,1998; Vann, Lorenz & Meyer,1991; Weir,1993). This study examines this issue in Pakistan, a context where composition writing is a standard feature of English assessment systems at secondary & post secondary level but where no research has been conducted into the criteria markers use in assessing written work. The particular focus of this project is a large-scale high-stakes examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) in the Punjab province of Pakistan. One factor that makes this context particularly interesting is that markers are not provided with formal criteria to guide their assessment and this makes it even more likely that variations in the criteria markers use will exist.

2.

Literature Review

Language testers and researchers emphasize the importance of reliability in marking since scorer reliability is central to test reliability (Hughes, 1989; Lumley, 2002). Cho (1999) believes that “rating discrepancy between raters may cause a very serious impediment to assuring test validation, thereby incurring the mistrust of the language assessment process itself” (p.3). Alderson & Bachman (2004), while openly acknowledging the dificulties raters face in assessing essays, consider writing to be one of the most dificult areas of language to assess. They note various factors which complicate the assessment process but believe that serious problems arise because of the subjectivity of judgement involved in rating students’ writing. The subjectivity of human raters, sometimes referred to as the rater factor, is considered the single most important factor affecting the reliability of scoring in marking essays - markers may come from different backgrounds, may have different systematic tendencies like rater severity/leniency (Wiseman, 2012), may have different attitudes to errors (Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008) and may have different expectations of good writing (Cho, 1999). Markers’ Criteria in Assessing English Essays |

89

Therefore language testing professionals (e.g. Alderson, 1995; Hughes, 1989; Weir, 2005 ) suggest routine double marking in order to achieve an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability. Research also supports the view that scorers’ reliability can be improved considerably by training the markers. (Charney, 1984; Cho, 1999; Douglas, 2011; Huot, 1990; Weigle, 1994) though it cannot completely eliminate the element of subjectivity (Kondo-Brown, 2002; Weir, 2005; Wiseman, 2012). In order to achieve an acceptable level of reliability, Weigle (2002), among others, has outlined detailed procedures to be followed while marking ESL compositions. Key to these is the provision of a rating scale, rubric or scoring guide, which functions as the yardstick against which the markers judge a piece of writing or an oral performance. The importance of a rating scale to help markers mark consistently is so well-established in the ield of language testing that it is taken for granted that one will always be available; the issue then becomes not whether to use a rating scale, but what form this should take (e.g. holistic or analytic – see Weigle, 2002 for a discussion of rating scales). In Pakistan, where essay writing is typically a key component in high-stakes examinations, no explicit criteria for the marking of essays exist (Haq & Ghani, 2009). Given this situation, this study examines the marking criteria markers actually use and the extent to which these vary across markers. As I am also a marker myself, the analysis of these issues is, additionally, of personal relevance to my own work as a language education professional.

3.

Methodology

3.1

Research Questions

Informed by the analysis of the literature and context above, I set out to address these questions: 50. What criteria do I use in marking essays? 51.

What criteria do other markers use in marking essays?

52. How consistent are markers in the criteria they apply? 3.2

Context

The context for the study is the Higher Secondary School Certiicate (HSCC) conducted by the BISE in the Punjab province of Pakistan. Out of a total of nine BISEs in the Punjab, three are responsible for conducting examinations in South Punjab (SP). These Boards, though independent, are closely interconnected at provincial level and every year thousands of students from private and public schools/colleges take the exams administered by these Boards. The compulsory English paper which carries 18% of the total marks has many essay-type questions.

90

| Markers’ Criteria in Assessing English Essays

3.3

Participants

I engaged a sample of markers working in the three different Boards in SP. Given the large number of markers working in the region, I chose ive markers from each Board, giving a total of 15 participating markers. All the markers had at least 10 years of experience as a marker on the aforementioned BISEs. Their ages ranged from 40-52, while nine were male and six female. Moreover, 30 students studying at a government college in the jurisdiction of SP were also part of the study. All of them were pre-engineering male students and were preparing to take the inal examination conducted by BISE. They were assigned ive essays to prepare for their send-up test2, and this test then contained four essay questions from which the students had to choose one. The essays were written under examination conditions. The essay titles were • My irst day at College. • Science, a mixed blessing. • My hero in history. • The place of women in our society. Of the 30 students, eight attempted ‘My irst day at College’ whereas nine each chose ‘Science, a mixed blessing’ and ‘My hero in history’. The remaining four students did not write an essay. Thus a total of 26 essays were produced. Out of this total one essay was randomly selected on each of the three topics. These three essays were anonymised, photocopied and given to the markers participating in the study.

3.4

Data Collection 3.4.1

Marking of Essays

3.4.2

Written Commentaries

The ifteen markers in this study were given the same three essays to mark and asked to mark them as they would do in real in marking centres (including giving a mark to each paper). I also marked all three essays. Each marker was also asked to submit a short written commentary in which they justiied the mark they awarded to each script. Here is an example of one such commentary: •

•

The candidate has attempted the given topic in somewhat appropriate way. But there occurred some spelling mistakes and the candidate overwrote the words. The candidate has not been successful in fulilling the required number of words as usually maintained by Intermediate student. Handwriting is plausible and pages are well margined. The candidate does not make use of capital and small letters in writing main heading /title. Overall impression on my part is that the attempt is just average.

2 Send-up tests are preparatory examinations conducted by the college(s) locally just before the students take the inal examination conducted by the BISE. These tests are modelled on the Boards’ examination.

Markers’ Criteria in Assessing English Essays |

91

3.4.3

Interviews

After the marking was completed, I interviewed each marker in order to examine the criteria they used in assessing the scripts (see Appendix 1 for the interview questions). I also asked a colleague to interview me about my marking criteria. The interviews were semi structured (Wallace, 1998 says these are the most popular form of interviews); this approach allowed me to address a set of themes I wanted to cover but also provided the lexibility to discuss any additional issues of interest that emerged during the conversation. Prior to the interviews I read the commentaries the markers had written and used these to inform the direction of our discussion.

4.

Findings

4.1

Consistency of Scoring

Table 1 summarizes the scores (out of a maximum of 15) given to each of the three essays by the 15 markers. These igures highlight variability in the assessment of these scripts. On essay 1, the scores ranged from 5 to 12, on essay 2 from 4 to 10 and on essay 3 from 6 to 10. Markers’ aggregates scores for the three essays ranged from 17 to 31. Table 1: Ratings of three essays by 15 markers

92

Marker

Essay 1

Essay 2

Essay 3

Total

MI

6

4

7

17

M2

7

6

8

21

M3

12

9

10

31

M4

11

8

10

29

M5

6

6

9

21

M6

7

6

9

22

M7

5

6

7

18

M8

7

6

9

22

M9

8

7

8

23

M10

10

9

9

28

M11

5

6

6

17

M12

6

7

6

19

M13

10

10

9

29

M14

8

7

6

21

M15

9

7

7

23


4.2

Markers’ Marking Criteria

An analysis of the interviews and the commentaries written by markers justifying the marks they gave showed that there is a great deal of variability in their assessment criteria. Even where they assigned the same score to an essay, the rationale for doing so was often quite different. Below I discuss the main criteria the markers referred to.

4.2.1

Grammar

Although all markers stressed the importance of grammatical accuracy, they disagreed on the relative weight that grammar should be given. Some markers were very particular about grammar and allocated nearly 50% of the total marks to it. For example, one respondent very ardently noted: “First thing is grammar. First of all we check whether the student has followed grammatical rules. If there are spelling, construction and grammatical mistakes, then we deduct half the marks”. Others were less concerned about grammar and gave good marks to an essay as long as the grammatical mistakes did not interfere with meaning.

4.2.2

Repeated Mistakes

4.2.3

Quotations

Markers also varied in how they treated repeated mistakes of form, such as spelling or grammar. When asked how they react if a student misspells a word again and again, some markers said that they counted it as a single mistake while others said they counted it as a separate mistake each time it occurred. For others, it depended on how serious they felt the mistake was. For example, one respondent explained that “generally I will count it as one but if there is a tense mistake - for example if he is using present indeinite tense incorrectly again and again - I will deduct marks each time”. For some markers, quotations and memorized extracts from literature were the “a vital means to support a viewpoint”; such markers thus gave more credit to an essay which had quotations. For example, one respondent explained that An essay … must have 5 to 6 quotations to support the arguments ….. Well, if the student is .… able to convince without quotations I give him credit …. But how this can happen? You see references are life line of your arguments.

Even those markers who were looking for quotations in the essays were not unanimous as to how many were required. Some thought there is no ixed number while others wanted at least six to seven quotations in an essay, Others thought that they were not even necessary and an essay could be convincing without having quotations. One marker noted that I reserve 50% marks for content and 50% for grammar and spellings. References and handwriting do not matter much and I give generous credit even if the essay is written in a very bad hand and has no quotations.


93

4.2.4

Handwriting

Some markers believed that one of the essential qualities of a good essay is good handwriting – the essay should be pleasing to the eye. Markers from this group said that they gave 2-3 bonus points to an essay which is written in a neat hand. One marker, while rationalizing the marks she deducted from an essay, observed that “the candidate overwrote the words. Besides there are so many cuttings and the handwriting is also not plausible”. Other markers, in contrast, did not consider handwriting to be an important criterion in the assessment of the essays.

4.2.5

Length

Though markers agreed that a well written essay should meet the prescribed word limit, they varied in the way they assessed this criterion. Some markers said that since they had been marking for a very long time their experience helped them judge whether the essay had the required number of words or not. Others said that if the essay had all the components it automatically had the required length. Still others said that the number of pages written gave them a clue to the length of essay – as one marker noted, “It’s quite obvious. A 300 word essay will be normally 3 pages of the answer sheet.”

4.2.6

Creativity

Almost all markers looked for creativity in an essay and rewarded original writing in line with the Boards’ instruction to give generous credit to a creative attempt. But they noted with regret that creativity at intermediate level is virtually non-existent as the predictability of essay titles (similar titles were set each year) encouraged the candidates to memorize essays and reproduce these in the examination.

4.2.7

Organization and Cohesive Devices

Makers did not seem to give great weight to organization and cohesive devices in an essay at intermediate level since they believed that 99% of the essays written in the examination were memorized ones and were pre-organized. Only one marker mentioned it as a marking criterion. When I drew her attention to the point raised by other markers about the reproduction of memorised essays she observed that Some essays produced by students have superior organization as they are written by an expert. I always make it a point to give more credit to such essay as the student must be credited with the choice of memorizing a good essay.

4.3

My Marking Criteria

As I explained earlier, I marked the essays too and asked a colleague to interview me about the criteria I used in doing so. After analysing my interview I noticed that I gave great importance to accuracy and penalize those students who commit grammar and spelling mistakes. I also discovered that I did not give any extra credit if the essay is written in excellent handwriting. Moreover, like the majority of my colleagues, I think that quotations from great writers can be advantageously 94


used by students and they should get due credit for this. I also found that I reward creativity and will give the candidate maximum credit if the essay is an original attempt.

4.4 Markers’ Awareness of Inter-Rater Variability The indings presented above show that there was variability in markers’ scoring and also in the criteria they used in assessing essays. Additionally, the study also showed that markers were aware of these issues and felt the discrepancies were partly the result of the lack of proper written assessment guidelines. One marker noted that Well, you know human beings are not machines… and every individual marker has different experiences, backgrounds and of course he has …. quite different expectations. And they may look for different things in essay. Some may want good handwriting and others may look for some strong arguments. The markers, then, were not at all surprised by the possibility of limited inter-rater reliability in the marking of essays.

5

Discussion

The study shows that there exists a great deal of variability amongst markers, both in their actual scores as well as in the criteria they use to assess English essays. Even when they apply the same criteria, markers vary in the relative importance they give them. This conirms earlier studies (e.g. Bridgeman & Carlson, 1983; Lee, 1998; Weir, 1993) which suggest that different markers have different preferences. This research also lends support to earlier work (Connors & Lunsford, 1988; James, 1977; Williams, 1981) which noted that different markers react differently to mistakes. Given the high-stakes nature of the examination which the individuals in this study are markers for, the variability highlighted here is very problematic and suggests that there is much scope for the introduction of systems, including training, which would allow the assessment of BISE English essays to be more reliable. One particular issue to emerge here was markers’ preference for memorized excerpts in the essays. This is not an issue that appears elsewhere in the literature, but its salience here is quite understandable. Firstly, the majority of BISE markers have a Master’s in English literature. These teachers thus believe that an essay will be improved if it uses literary quotations to support its viewpoint. Secondly, in Eastern culture, age and wisdom command respect. It is thus generally believed that an argument will be stronger and more convincing if it quotes some celebrated author. Religious scholars and authors often quote from the Holy Quran and verses from famous poets to impress the audience in Pakistan. The issue markers raised about memorized essays here is also worth highlighting. If it is indeed the case that essays produced under examination conditions have Markers’ Criteria in Assessing English Essays |

95

been written in advance (not necessarily by the students) and memorized, then this brings into question the validity of the examination itself; it is not actually assessing how well the students can write in English but other qualities such as their memory. The study has some limitations. Since only experienced teachers from government institutes participated, these results cannot be generalized to novice markers or markers associated with private institutes. Moreover, the sample size was limited to ifteen markers and a set of three essays. More research with a larger sample is needed to better understand how markers with varied teaching and marking experience and from different socio-cultural backgrounds assess English essay writing. Given my knowledge of the context studied here, though, I am conident that the variability highlighted here is a more widespread phenomenon in Pakistan.

6.

Conclusion

The study has highlighted signiicant variability amongst markers working at the different Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education in one region of Pakistan. This small scale research project serves two purposes. Firstly, by pointing out the great differences in the marks awarded by different examiners to the same essays, it sensitizes different stakeholders to the gravity of the situation and by the same token urges for more research into the phenomenon. Secondly, it makes a case for using a rating scale, training the markers and taking other appropriate measures to achieve an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability in the marking of English essays on high-stakes examinations. The research has implications not only for the Board oficials, policy makers and examiners but also for me personally. Though I have been working as a marker for over a decade I never knew what actually it was I looked for in an essay at intermediate level. After analysing my own marking and my relections on this, I have become more aware of my preferences as a marker. I plan to make appropriate adjustments in my expectations and to discuss the common soughtafter features in an essay by the markers with my students to better equip them for the examination. I also hope to replicate on a larger scale the research presented here.

96


References Alderson, J.C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bachman, F. ,& Alderson, J.C. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bridgeman, B.,& Carlson, S. (1983). Survey of academic writing tasks required of graduate and undergraduate foreign students. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Charney, D. (1984). The validity using holistic scales to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1),65-87. Cho, D. (1999 ). A study on ESL writing assessment: Intra-rater reliability of ESL compositions. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing,8(1). Connors, R. ,& Lunsford, A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication,39, 395-409. Douglas, D. (2011). Understanding language testing. Chennai Micro Print(P) Ltd., India. Hamp-Lyons.L. (1989) Raters respond to rhetoric in writing. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (Eds.). Interlingual Process (pp. 229-244). Tübingen: Narr. Haq, N., & Ghani, M. (2009). Bias in grading: A truth that everybody knows but nobody talks about. English Language and Literary Forum . Shah Abdul Latif University of Sindh, Pakistan,11, 51-89. Hughes, A. (1989 ).Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237-263. James, C. (1977). Judgments of error gravities. English Language Teaching Journal, 2,116-124. Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance. Language Testing, 19(1),3-31. Lee, Y. (1998). An investigation into Korean markers’ reliability for English writing assessment. English Teaching, 53(1),179-200. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing, 19(3),246-276. Lunsford, A. ,& Lunsford, K. (2008). ‘Mistakes are a fact of life’: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59,81-806.


97

Vann, R.J., Lorenz, F.O., & Mayer, D.M. (1991). Error gravity: Faculty response to errors in the written discourse of nonnative speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 181-195). Norwood ,NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weigle, S.C. (1994). Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions. Language Testing, 11 (2),197-223. Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Weir, C.J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. New York: Prentice Hall. Weir, C.J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, J. (1981).The phenomenology of errors. College Composition and Communication, 32,152-168. Wiseman, C. S. (2012). Rater effects: Ego engagement in rater decision-making. Assessing Writing, 17,150-173.

98


Appendix 1: Interview Schedule for Markers • How long have you been working as a sub-examiner with the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education? • How many Boards/centres have you worked at as a sub-examiner? • Have you ever had any opportunity to work as a Paper setter/Head examiner /Random checker or in any other capacity with any Examination Board? • Do markers receive any instructions regarding marking of essays, prior to the marking or during the marking? • If yes, what kind of instructions are usually given? • How far are these instructions useful in marking especially essays? • If no, what criteria do markers use in evaluating essays? • Do the Board(s) arrange any training for the sub-examiner or head examiners? • What happens on the irst day of marking? • In your opinion what qualities should a well written essay at Intermediate level have? • What do you usually look for when you are marking essays at the Intermediate level? • Do you deduct marks for grammar and spelling mistakes? • How do you count spelling mistakes? If a student misspells a word three times will you count it as one mistake or three? • Do you distinguish between pen mistakes and serious mistakes? If yes, how you do it? • Do you credit or discredit on the basis of handwriting? • If an essay is well written and you are fully satisied, what maximum score will you award it? • How much time do you usually spend in marking an essay? • Do you read minutely or make quick judgments by the overall impression the essay has on you?


99

The Author Athar Munir Siddiqui has been involved in the teaching of English to graduates and undergraduates for 15 years. He holds an M.Phil. (Linguistics) from Bahauddin Zakaria University, Multan and is currently pursuing a PhD in Linguistics with a focus on English Language Testing from the University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary The focus of this paper should be of national interest in Pakistan given the role that English essays play in high-stakes examinations. The design is logical, providing insight not only into markers’ assessments, but, vitally, into the thinking behind these. The value of relective writing and, especially, of interviews in revealing the bases of professional actions emerges very clearly here, and quotations in the markers’ own words add vitality to the account. It would have been useful to know, though, which quotes were from the interviews and which from the written commentaries; in fact, separate analyses of these different data sources might have added further depth to the study. The author is careful not to over-generalize, but the indings do suggest a need for much further work of this kind to ascertain whether inter-rater reliability more generally is as lacking it seems to be in this study. The author included himself in the study (as is generally required by teacher research), and raised self-awareness through doing so, but this was a minor issue which was overshadowed by the much more prominent focus on the work of other markers.

100


9 Improving Writing Skills through Written Corrective Feedback Ghazala Tabbasum 1.

Introduction

All through my teaching career my students have responded well during their English literature classes. They answer my questions and often ask relevant questions of their own and which show their understanding of literary ideas. Moreover, they generally do well in objective quizzes or comprehension exercises. But, in contrast, their written expression in their open written assignments shows a lack of clarity and coherence. In this project I explore why this is the case and consider ways of improving the written work of my students.

2.

Feedback on L2 Writing

According to Amiran & Mann (1982), of all the academic skills, writing remains the most dificult area for the majority of students. English grammar, especially tenses, subject-verb agreement and sentence structure, pose a particular challenge for ESL students irrespective of their cultural background (Maros, Hua, & Khazriyati, 2007, cited in Musa, Lie, & Azman, 2012). Pakistani university students usually know how to form tenses, but they confuse them in their writing and struggle to use them to create coherent text (Farooq et al., 2012). In response to students’ writing teachers normally provide corrective feedback (CF). There have been claims that corrective feedback does not support writing development (Truscott, 1996) but such views have been contested (Ferris, 1999) and CF is generally seen to have a useful role to play. Key questions L2 writing researchers have thus far focused on are if and how CF can help students to become better writers (e.g. Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006). CF can be provided orally and/or in writing (and various direct and indirect strategies are available for doing so – see the papers in Hyland & Hyland, 2006).

Improving Writing Skills through Written Corrective Feedback |

101

According to Bitchener & Knoch (2009), written CF does contribute to enhanced accuracy in L2 writing. This study also stresses the importance of selective or focused feedback rather than feedback on every error. Van Beuningen (2010) also argues for the eficacy of CF in developing the writing skills of L2 learners and suggests that by “offering learners opportunities to notice the gaps in their developing L2 systems, test interlanguage hypotheses, and engage in metalinguistic relection, written CF has the ability to foster SLA and to lead to accuracy development” (p.21). In Pakistan there has not been much research into corrective feedback on writing. In one study of undergraduate students’ writing errors, Sarfraz (2011, p.38) suggests that L2 learners can be demotivated by teacher behaviours which involve “overly correcting the errors and treating them as an object of undesirability” (this is a common teacher response to errors in writing in our context). This connects with the point above about the need for teachers to be selective in the CF they provide; teachers also need to acknowledge the challenges that L2 writing involves and to seek ways of using errors as a means to motivate learning rather than a reason to berate students.

3.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to learn more about the problems that occur in my students’ writing in English and to assess the extent to which corrective feedback strategies might help students address these problems. My speciic research questions were: 53. What problems characterize the written work of English Studies students? 54. What changes to my teaching might address some of these problems? 55. How effective are these changes in helping my students write more effectively? I conducted my study at the Government Post Graduate College for Women, Satellite Town Rawalpindi, and the participants were a group of my English Studies students (there were 24 in the class but numbers varied during different phases of the study, as explained below). In line with the ethical requirements of social research (Denscombe, 2002), the participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the project and gave written informed consent to take part.

3.1

Data Collection

This was an action research project. Action research deals with practical issues and it is particularly useful in educational research (Denscombe, 2010). Action research allows a teacher to learn and grow by relecting on their experience (Rust & Clark, 2007) and this related well to my purposes in doing this project. Data were collected using a mixed methods strategy (Creswell, 2008). The combination of quantitative and qualitative data improves validity because one strategy for

102

| Improving Writing Skills through Written Corrective Feedback

collecting data can compensate for weaknesses in another (Bryman, 2006). This is the procedure I followed: 1.

I delivered lectures on literary content regularly for 12 credit hours. I designed quizzes and comprehension exercises for each lesson and gave home assignments to my students (once a month) to assess their understanding of the lessons.

2.

The scores obtained by the students in the objective quizzes and comprehension exercises were used as quantitative data and their analysis veriied that students’ understandings of literary concepts were clear. The home assignments (of which I analysed 34 – two essays each for 17 students), though, had multiple weaknesses, such as grammatical/lexical mistakes, and more frequently the writing lacked coherence and clarity.

3.

To explore the factors that may contribute to this gap between understanding and written expression l designed a questionnaire. Following the advice of Dörnyei & Taguchi (2010), I asked behavioural and attitudinal questions. Behavioural questions were used ind out about the strategies students employ to learn English; attitudinal questions asked students for their views on how I could support them. The questionnaire was piloted and revised several times before administration. Fourteen students completed the questionnaire.

4.

On the basis of the results of the questionnaire together with the earlier analysis of students’ written work, I made three changes to my teaching: I assigned fewer objective tests and more open-ended written assignments; I increased the frequency of written homework assignments from once a month to once a week; and I started giving intensive written feedback. This feedback was focused, attending to the most common weaknesses in the writing. This phase of focused written corrective feedback (WCF) continued for six weeks.

5.

The last stage of my investigation was the analysis of the written work students produced after I provided WCF. It helped me ind out if the above changes in my teaching had helped my students in improving their written work. In this phase I analysed three essays each produced by seven students (i.e. 21 essays in total).

4.

Findings

4.1

Test Scores

Table 1 shows students’ scores on three objective tests (T1, T2 and T3) I set during the irst part of the course. The course focused on literature and the questions (gap-illing, true/false, matching, multiple choice) thus tested students’ knowledge of relevant literary subject matter. The maximum score on each test was 10 and the mean scores were 8.6 for T1, 8.1 for T2 and 8.5 for T3. These scores suggest a good level of knowledge among the students..


103

Table 1: Student scores on three objective tests (N=17) St.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

T1

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

9.0

9.0

10

7.0

10

10

7.0

9.0

9.0

T2

7.5

8.0

9.0

7.0

7.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

9.0

8.0

10

7.0

9.0

10

7.0

7.0

9.0

T3

9.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.0

8.0

10

10

10

6.0

8.0

10

8.0

9.0

9.5

Table 2: Student scores on three essays (N=17) St.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

T1

5.0

6.0

6.0

5.5

4.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

6.5

5.5

6.0

4.0

6.0

6.0

4.0

6.0

6.0

T2

5.0

5.5

4.5

5.5

3.5

5.5

5.0

4.0

6.0

5.5

7.0

4.0

5.0

7.0

4.0

5.5

5.0

T3

4.0

5.5

4.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

5.0

5.0

6.5

5

5.5

4.5

4.5

7.0

4.5

5.5

7.0

Table 2 shows students’ scores on three essay assignments I set during the irst part of the course. The maximum score on each test was again 10 and the respective mean scores here were 5.4, 5.1 and 5.1. These igures suggest a lower level of knowledge among the students. Of course, as the objective tests indicated that students do know the subject matter the explanation for their lower performance on the essays lies with their ability to write in English.

4.2

Error Analysis

I analysed 34 student essays (two each for 17 students) and identiied three recurrent areas of dificulty.

4.2.1

Vocabulary

A common problem was that ideas were not expressed clearly due to the wrong choice of words. For example, one student wrote “she is a woman who loves to buy new clothes but promises to economize at the cost of her husband’s separation”. What she wanted to say is that the woman changed her attitude when she faced the threat of separation from her husband. In another example, a student wrote “he was a contemptuous man and was satisied with what he had.” Actually she wanted to write that he was a contented man.

4.2.1

Lack of Organization

Essays suffered from a lack of a logical layout. Organisation into introduction, main body and conclusion was often absent and different ideas were not divided into separate paragraphs. The limited use of connecting devices also hindered the organisation of the work. For example, one student wrote “To get something instantly makes one happy for a moment or two. The joy we get from ordinary things can be as small as a drop of water. The sources of happiness are countless”. Another wrote “she loves to wear new clothes. She seems very loving wife. She cares about her husband. She is extravagant according to Andy Paige”. In both 104


cases linking devices would have made the connections between the ideas clearer.

4.2.3

Lack of Critical Analysis

In many cases students provided factual information about the literary works under discussion without any critical commentary. In one example, a student described all the physical features of the Prioress (from Chaucer’s Prologue to The Canterbury Tales) without noting that these details give individuality to the character or that the hypocrisy of her conduct is a comment on the institution she represents. Another student, while comparing Donne’s sonnet with a poem by Emily Dickens, wrote summaries of the two works without commenting on the parallel themes in them.

4.3

Questionnaire

The questionnaire had two sections. The irst asked students about their learning behaviours during the course and the results are given in Table 3. Students’ responses here were quite positive, although 50% said they seldom discuss ambiguities with classmates to seek clariication and the same percentage said they seldom seek out extra coaching. Interestingly, 12/14 respondents felt that they can write in their own words what they understand in class. Clearly, their performance on the essays, whose results I presented earlier, do not support this view. Table 3: Students’ learning behaviours (N=14) Statements

Always

Often

Seldom

Never

1.

I attend English literature classes.

10

4

0

0

2.

I understand literary contents taught in the class.

6

5

0

0

3.

I take written notes during class lectures.

7

5

2

0

4. I discuss ambiguities about class lectures with my class fellows for clarity.

0

7

7

0

5.

0

10

4

0

6. I ask my teacher to repeat whatever I have not understood during class.

4

7

3

0

7. I seek extra coaching from my teacher whenever she is available.

0

3

7

3

8.

2

8

4

0

9. I can write in my own words whatever I understand in the class.

7

5

2

0

10. I read books (English novels, stories etc.) to increase my knowledge.

2

6

6

0

I ask relevant questions in the class.

I observe study hours at home regularly.

(There are fewer than 14 responses for some questions because students did not answer them.)


105

The second part of the questionnaire asked students for their views on aspects of teaching and learning during the course and the results appear in Table 4. The majority (12/14) agreed that writing critical assignments on literary topics was a major challenge, while all students agreed both that two longer essays a semester are insuficient for developing their writing and that additional shorter writing assignments would be valuable. In terms of corrective feedback, while all students agreed that the teacher’s written feedback helps them improve their writing, only 9/14 felt that oral feedback was desirable. Table 4: Students’ views about teaching and learning (N=14) Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Statements

11. As student of English literature, writing critical assignments on literary topics is the major challenge for me.

9

3

1

1

0

12. The two subjective type assignments per semester that you are required to write are insuficient in improving your writing skill.

9

5

0

0

0

13. Writing short subjective answers such as writing main idea or theme in the class is a useful activity helping you write better.

9

5

0

0

0

14. Teacher’s oral correction of your mistakes during class discussion is desirable for students.

6

3

2

3

0

15. Teacher’s written corrective feedback is valuable in improving your written expression.

11

3

0

0

0

4.4

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback

On the basis of the results presented so far I made some changes to my teaching, as described earlier. One key change was that I started to provide regular focused written corrective feedback (WCF) on my students’ work. I also assigned written work more frequently. This phase lasted six weeks and my analysis of 21 essays produced during this phase does point to several improvements in students’ writing compared to the work they produced earlier in the course. All seven students who I focused on in this stage were able to organise their essays more effectively, with a clear introduction, division of paragraphs and a summative conclusion. Their understandings of the use of connecting words also improved. To a lesser extent, their analytical skills were better too and some of them were able to go beyond reproducing factual descriptions of literary works and to also provide deeper commentary on the signiicance and meaning of particular features of these texts. Word choice remained the area least improved and even in the essays produced later in the course there were many cases where students did not communicate clearly as a result of incorrect use of vocabulary.

106


5.

Discussion

In this study I have examined: • common writing problems of English Studies students • changes in my teaching to address these problems • how effective these changes were From my analysis I found that the problems that EFL students generally face while writing in English are somewhat different from the challenges that my students who study English as a subject have. EFL students ind English grammar the most dificult area to handle, i.e. tenses, correct sentence structure, punctuation, subject-verb agreement. They also struggle with spelling. The students in my English literature class have better understandings of tenses and spelling but they struggle with vocabulary, and the paragraph development necessary for coherent and critical writing. I tried to help them to overcome these dificulties through written corrective feedback (WCF). Researchers such as Bitchener & Knoch (2009) and Van Beuningen (2010) believe in the positive role of WCF in developing writing skills. I gave extensive WCF on the written work of my students over a period of time and then analysed their work. My indings in this regard are mixed and show that WCF has deinitely worked in helping students organise their work better - i.e. their writing exhibited a clear introduction to the topic, summative conclusion and division of paragraphs with topic sentences. Teacher’s WCF also helped some of the students in conducting a critical analysis of literary content, but for others this remained a problem. Lastly vocabulary remained the area where least improvement was found. Overall, though, these results support the view that corrective feedback does support L2 writing development; they also support the view of Bitchener & Knoch (2009) that focused feedback can support the development of L2 writing more effectively than feedback which covers every error. features.

6.

Conclusion

This study has provided many interesting insights into my work. Like many university teachers of English, I want to improve my students’ writing in English because that is the basis on which they are assessed. What I discovered in the irst part of this study, though, is that my teaching methodology (and particularly my approach to providing corrective feedback on writing) was not addressing my aspirations effectively. I now appreciate the value of making a focus on language a more central part of my literature courses (in the past a focus on literary content had always dominated). I have come to understand that the quality of expression and analysis in literary writing can be improved through corrective feedback and that a command of English language is necessary for students to communicate clearly their understandings of literary texts. As a result of this study my focus on


107

explaining literary concepts to my students has shifted to some extent towards language issues too, including vocabulary-building exercises. Another very interesting fact that emerged from this study is that I have been giving feedback on students’ work for many years without a systematic understanding of how to use WCF effectively. My emphasis used to be mostly on conceptual issues related to literature, but now I appreciate that attention to layout, organisation and vocabulary are also important if the feedback I provide is to support the development of my English Studies students’ writing in English.

108


References Amiran, E. & Mann, J. (1982). Written composition, grades K-12: Literature synthesis and report. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009) The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. Chandler, J. (2003). The eficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and luency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–96. Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. (4th Ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, K. & F. Hyland. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Farooq, M. S, Uzair-Ul-Hassan, M. & Wahid, S. (2012). Opinion of second language learners about writing dificulties in English language. South Asian Studies, 27(1), 183-194. Musa, C.N., Lie, Y.K., & Azman, H. (2012). Exploring English language learning and teaching in Malaysia, Journal of Language Studies. 12(1), 35-51. Rust, F. & Clark, C.M. (2007). How to do action research in your classroom. New York: Teachers Network. Sarfraz, S. (2011). Error analysis of the written English essays of Pakistani undergraduate students: A case study. Asian Transactions on Basic & Applied Sciences, 1(3), 29-51.


109

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.

The Author Ghazala Tabbasum has been involved in the teaching of English for 24 years. She holds a Master’s degree in English Literature from Islamia University, Bahawalpur, and currently works as an Associate Professor of English at Government Postgraduate College, Rawalpindi.

Editor’s Commentary This study examines a theme – improving students’ writing - that is of broader relevance to the teaching of English in higher education in Pakistan. The author’s approach illustrates very clearly how action research provides teachers with a systematic strategy for studying their own work. Multiple sources of data were collected and analysed in a logical sequence, such that the analysis of test scores, essays and questionnaires in the irst phase of the study provided the basis of the changes to her teaching the author subsequently made and evaluated. The conclusion suggests that written corrective feedback was effective in supporting the development of students’ writing; other than the author’s commentary, though, evidence to support this conclusion is not presented, and the study would have thus been stronger if a deeper analysis had been included (with examples) of the written work produced after the teacher’s intervention. It would have also been useful to see some examples of the written feedback the teacher gave – this would have provided readers with more speciic understandings of what the teacher did to support the students. Overall, though, this paper demonstrates very clearly how systematic research can be conducted by teachers in their own classrooms and in order to support learning.

110


10 Improving Coherence in University Students’ Writing Nasiba Bibi 1.

Introduction

Many L2 teachers consider writing more dificult than other language skills (Zheng, 1999). Essay writing is also considered the most challenging area of learning English in Pakistan. While teaching writing skills to my graduate students I have in particular noticed recurrent problems with coherence and this has a negative effect on their work. The purpose of this teacher research project is to investigate this issue and to try to learn more about the kinds of problems regarding coherence my students face and how I might help them to address these.

2.

Coherence

Coherence is very important to writing but the term itself is often vaguely deined. Two views of coherence can be distinguished - text-based and reader-based (Johns, 1986). Traditionally, in the text-based deinition, coherence is seen as something internal to a text. Hodges & Whitten (1972) divide this into two features i) cohesion (linking of sentences) and ii) unity (sticking to the point). However, on the basis of schema theoretical models, others claim that coherence is readerbased – i.e. the meaningfulness of a text cannot be considered without reference to the reader, and thus coherence requires successful interaction between the reader and the discourse to be processed (Carrell, 1982; Rumelhart, 1977). According to Johns (1986), both text-based and reader-based views of coherence should be introduced to students in order to promote attention by L2 writers both to the structural features of texts and to the audience it is being written for. In many contexts, only text-based notions of coherence are addressed in writing classes and EFL students often focus unduly on word and sentence level links within their writing (Hamzah & Karuppiah, 2007) without suficient attention to its meaning more generally in relation to the reader. Enkvist (1990) also notes

Improving Coherence in University Students’ Writing |

111

this tendency for students to pay almost exclusive attention to vocabulary and grammar while writing an essay. So one aim for the teacher in helping students produce more coherent writing is to divert some of their attention from sentence level grammar to textual unity and structuring more generally. Much practical advice for promoting coherence in writing is available in the literature and on-line. Below is a brief discussion of some of the strategies that are recommended. One way to improve coherence in writing is through the repetition of key words (http://grammar.about.com/od/developingparagraphs/a/cohrepetition.htm). This is because repeating words adds to the sense of a paragraph’s message and to its overall unity. However, students should be aware that repetition can become monotonous and that meaning that cannot be achieved through repetition alone. Coordination and subordination are also useful for linking sentences in a paragraph. Subordination shows how some thoughts are secondary to others while coordination shows how thoughts are equal. The balancing of ideas is very important for a smooth low of sentences within a paragraph (http://www.csun. edu/education/doctorate/writing-mentor/assets/docs/Paragraph-coherence.pdf). Without careful subordination and coordination, the paragraph will become only a list of sentences. Again, though, well-constructed individual paragraphs do not guarantee overall coherence but they do contribute. Parallel structure is another way of creating coherence in an essay. Parallel structures are created by giving two or more sentences the same grammatical structure and using in them the same parts of speech. Through parallel structures, sentences become clearer and easier to read. In addition, repeating a pattern in a series of consecutive sentences helps the reader see the connections between ideas (http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/ilm/paragraphs.htm). The teachers’ use of tree diagrams (Nair et al. 2012) in class can also help students to diagnose their own writing problems and hence improve their grades. In addition, this motivates the students to use the tree diagram to plan their writing too and this will make them more coherent and eficient in writing because if all the ideas are organised then it is easy to write in a manner that lows. Furthermore, tree diagrams allow ideas to be reorganised if in the process of writing more interesting ideas are discovered. A concept map is another way of showing a hierarchy of ideas in an essay (http:// www.ehow.com/how_7888997_create-concept-map-writing-essay.html). In addition, these graphic organizers can be easily modiied due to the lexibility they have. It is important for students to understand, though, how using a graphic organiser can help them improve their writing. Concept maps must also meet the students’ needs and must be introduced in a way that makes their beneits for writing clear to the students.

112

| Improving Coherence in University Students’ Writing

Outlining is one inal strategy I will mention here. Outlining their ideas allows students to organise ideas in a logical manner and to decide which are main ideas and which play more of a supporting role. This is a key strategy I used in this study. (http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/studentservices/els/pdf/ELS_Essay_Outline1. pdf)

3.

Methodology

The aim of this study is to analyse coherence in the essay writing of my students and to explore instructional strategies for improving it. My speciic research questions were: 56. What aspects of my students’ writing create problems of coherence? 57. Does teaching students about coherence improve the quality of their writing?

3.1


The project was conducted at the National University of Modern Languages Peshawar, Pakistan. There were ifteen students enrolled in the Diploma-Level Functional English course. This course covers the four language skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking, together with grammar. The course lasts four months and students have 50 minutes contact per day for writing lessons. Seven students from this course volunteered to take part in this study (see Table 1). Some had failed one or more subjects in their ield, others were passing but without high grades. All participating students felt that their low standard of writing played a part in their lack of success and were seeking ways of improving. Table 1: Participant details Students

3.2

Degree

Age

1

M.Sc.

24

2

MA.(Journalism)

27

3

MA (Political Science)

24

4

BA

24

5

MA (Economics)

29

6

Intermediate Arts (FA)

21

7

Intermediate Sciences (F.Sc.)

18

Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this study consist of essays written by seven students on the course described above. Each student wrote three essays and before the second and third of these I provided input related to coherence. I also analysed all the essays in order to ascertain whether there was any evidence of improvement in the students’ writing. These were the speciic steps I followed during the study:


113

1.

Early in the course (week 2), I assigned my students an essay on the topic ‘Modern Weapons are a Blessing in Disguise’. This was assigned in the normal manner and without any additional preparation or special brieing. I analysed these essays with attention to how coherent they were. Essays were written using a conventional Introduction-Body-Conclusion structure. In assessing this irst essay I focused on the sequencing and linking of sentences. As withall three essays, students received detailed individual feedback on their work and the essays were also discussed in class.

2.

I then introduced outlining as a planning and writing strategy and gave the students opportunities to apply this to their own work. To clarify the concept, I used examples of daily activities – e.g. before going shopping one should list the items one is going to buy. Along with this they were given input on how to develop an argument in the text. I explained that an argument starts indirectly and ends with examples. These tactics made them think systematically about the overall purpose and structure of their work.

3.

The second essay (week 7) was on ‘The Role of Media’. This was written one month after the irst essay. Once again, I collected the essays and analysed them for evidence of coherence. My focus in assessing this piece of work was links between paragraphs.

4.

In class we did some further work on outlining, discussing how an outline can be used to improve links between paragraphs. I taught them that before ending paragraph a hint of the next paragraph should be provided.

5.

Six weeks later (week 13) I collected the third essay on the topic of ‘Female Education’. Here I looked at overall coherence within, between and across paragraphs.

For each essay, which students wrote at home, they were told to write at least 1500 words made up of introduction, conclusion and 4-5 paragraphs making up the body.

3.3

Ethics

The consent of the university administration was taken in order to conduct the study during university hours. The consent of the participating students was also obtained and they took part voluntarily. Respondents’ names have been kept conidential and the data collected from the students has been used only for the purposes of this study.

4

Findings

The analysis of the irst essays highlighted various problems. Four of the students did not know about coherence in essay writing because (they told me) they had never been taught about it before. Two of them knew about it, but had never 114


practised it in their writing. Two students showed some awareness of coherence in their writing but they were still having problems connecting paragraphs. Two also had problems with the unity of the introduction and conclusion to their essay. Here is an example from the irst essay which highlights this latter problem.

Topic : Modern weapons are a blessing in disguise Introduction

Modern world is always at terror because of war and its role in world politics. It is standing on such a diversity where the same weapons are not only saving humanity but taking it to havoc. Since it is the need of hour so heavy measures must be taken to take it to the fruitful way.

Body

Twenty irst century is the century of high terror and war, where it has become a custom for everyone to accustom with warfare, artillery, missile and bomb to get secure from rivals. Weapons can secure a nation from a sudden attack of enemies and create balance of power among nation. Not only are they playing positive but some negative roles as well. Previously while a person could kill one person at a time, now one click can take one thousand lives, this modern weaponry has taken life to the maximum insecurity where none is happy none is safe. Since it has to be there with us so its usage must be appropriate. Every country should work on its progress and security but should not target others for their artillery. If not like this then there is little time where this world will become a battleield where everyone will be the victims of it.

Conclusion

Resultantly, it can be highlighted that modern weapons play an important role in our life, without them life is inevitable. Government should work for the betterment of country and should promote sense of security.

In this essay, while the body is appropriately written as a irst draft, the introduction and conclusion lack coherence, both internally and in how they relate to the body of the essay. Outlining can address such problems by making students think from the outset about how the different parts of their essay will be connected. The second essay (on the role of media) highlighted further speciic examples of the problems students were having. In one example, a student wrote: Media is an essential part of government. It plays an important role in terms of awareness. It has many negative aspects also. The text is clear and different ideas are presented, but these are not suficiently developed. Explaining why media is essential in government, how it promotes awareness, and what its negative aspects are would have improved the overall meaningfulness of this part of the essay.


115

By the third essay most students were showing signs of improvement in the coherence of their writing, though in two cases paragraph unity remained a problem. Here is an example from one of the essays: Importance of female education can never be ignored. There are equal right both for man and woman. A country can progress only if equal opportunities are provided to them, history is a criterion which has shown that women played integral role in the development of life, not only in education but women can prove to be the best in politics, business, PIA, medical etc. Conservatism has brought a big hindrance in the way of female education. They are conined to the four walls where they with limited opportunities cannot move forward and are the victims of insecurity and traditionalism. These two paragraphs present contrasting ideas but this is in no way signalled to the reader. This student had not yet grasped the idea that creating meaningful and logical links between paragraphs is an important way of creating overall coherence in an essay.

5.

Discussion

Writing skills need time to develop and I would, therefore, not expect to see dramatic improvements in the work of my students over a period of weeks. Most of the students had not heard of coherence before or knew it by name but not in practice. Thus consciously thinking about ways of making their essays more uniied and meaningful was a novel task for these students. Their initial essays, as expected, highlighted various problems with connections within and across paragraphs. I responded to these via explicit interventions in class which drew students’ attention to the strategies they could use to plan their essays more effectively. In particular, we focused on outlining. Some evidence of improvement was discernible in students’ second essays, though problems in connecting paragraphs (and in particular connecting the introduction and conclusion to the body of the essay). remained. The third essays also showed that the students were paying more attention to coherence in their writing (e.g. by considering how to put ideas in a logical order) but it would be inaccurate to claim that the problems identiied in the irst essays had been totally erased. Overall, then, I cannot say that my attempts to support students’ writing through direct input on coherence were wholly successful. I think that the strategies I introduced them to were valuable and there were clear examples of improvements in students’ work brought about by their application of these strategies. However, the students I think would have beneited from more opportunities to apply these strategies and to discuss them in class. More practical examples, too, of examples of coherent writing would have given students models to consider. In the absence of these, some of my input may have been rather theoretical. And, as noted earlier, 116


writing takes time to improve and signiicant gains should not be expected in a matter of weeks.

Conclusion The primary value of this project is that it gave me the opportunity, for the irst time, to conduct systematic enquiry in my own classroom and on a topic that is of immediate practical relevance to myself and my students. I had always thought of research as a complex activity concerned with theoretical issues but now I appreciate how teachers can be researchers and how they can use classroom research to support their professional development. I will continue to relect on my teaching in this manner and examine different ways of supporting the development of my students’ writing.

References Carrell, P.L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479- 488. Enkvist, N.E. (1990). Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 9-28). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hamzah, M & Karuppiah, M.(2007). Improving coherence in paragraph writing among ESL learners: A case study. Faculty Of Education. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved 25 October 2013 from http://eprints.utm.my/10672/1/ IMPROVING_COHERENCE_IN_PARAGRAPH_WRITING_AMONG_ESL.pdf Hodges, J.C., & Whitten, M.E. (1972). Harbrace College handbook. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Johns, A.M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some deinitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265. Nair, G., Abdul Rahim, R. Setia, R. Adam, A.F., Husin, N, Sabapathy, E., Mohamad, R., So’Od, S.M.M., Yusoff, N.I.M., Jalil, N.A.A., Husain, A.A, & Seman, N.A. (2012). Writing descriptive essays using ‘the tree diagram’ as a tool. Asian Social Science, 8(7). Retrieved 23 October 2013 from www.ccsenet.org/ass Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Zheng, Y. (1999). Providing the students with effective feedback in the writing process. Teaching English in China, 36, 41-45.


117

The Author Nasiba Bibi has taught English for eight years. She is currently completing an M.Phil. in English Literature and is a lecturer as well as coordinator at the National University of Modern Languages.

Editor’s Commentary As we have seen in many of the chapters so far, the author’s starting point here was a practical issue in their own teaching – the lack of coherence in students’ writing. The research design adopted in exploring this issue was sound – a baseline analysis of a irst set of essays, then two cycles of intervention each followed by further analyses of students’ work. This design allows comparisons over time and the assessment of any improvements in students work. A limitation of the paper, though, is the lack of detail provided about the analysis of the data, and the criteria the teacher used in assessing the papers could have been explained more explicitly. The paper would have also been strengthened by a more detailed analysis of the seven essays at each stage of the process, together ith details of how the teacher intervened after essays 2 and 3. In concluding, the author is candid in her assessment that signiicant gains were not observed in the levels of coherence in students’ writing. Such lack of impact in intervention studies such as this one can of course be interesting in its own right, and the author relects appropriately on this outcome and suggests it will inform her continuing explorations of how to support her students’ development as writers.

118

| Improving Cherence in University Students’ Writing

11 Dropout of Students from English Language Courses Sabeen Hayat 1.

Introduction

Language institutes in Pakistan attract large numbers of students who, for various reasons related to education and employment, want to improve their English. In most of these institutes, though, the dropout rates are high, and this is a trend I have also noticed in the three language institutes where I have worked. This study was prompted by this phenomenon and my aim here is to explore why students drop out and to consider ways of improving the situation.

2.

Dropping Out

Much has been written about adults withdrawing from higher and further education (e.g. Mackie, 2001) and there has also been some research on students’ dropout from English language courses. High dropout rates harm the reputation of language institutes, as the most commonly assumed cause of student withdrawal is poor quality teaching. One of my goals here is to question this assumption and to examine other factors that may contribute to student dropout. If other factors are responsible then it is important to create an awareness of these. The literature does in fact suggest a number of causes of dropout. One interesting point to note here is that the same factor may either compel students to continue to study or cause them to drop out (Reimann, 1999; Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). For instance, family support and encouragement can boost a language student to complete the course (Heydon& Reilly, 2007) but may also create pressure which the student cannot handle and which leads to drop out. In understanding dropout then, it is important to understand how different factors are perceived by the students themselves.

Dropout of Students from English Language Courses |

119

In this study I use a framework from Mackie (2001) to analyse the causes of student dropout from language institutes. Mackie used a force ield analysis (see http:// www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm for an explanation of this decision-making tool) to examine the forces which compel students to drop out or continue. These forces are: organizational, social, external and individual.

2.1

External forces

These are forces which are beyond the control of the student and the institution. The literature gives four main external factors that affect a student’s decision to drop out. These are personal issues, health, social services, and work. Personal issues like family and friends’ support can help persistence in all areas of learning, including language learning. Some researchers consider personal health as a cause of students’ dropout (Milligan, 2007; Purcell, 2006). In a study in the UK, Kambouri et al. (1996) concluded that lack of childcare and work issues were important reasons for adult students’ dropout from language courses.

2.2

Organizational forces

Organizational forces can be further divided into factors related to the institution and those related to pedagogy. The Institution not only decides course content but it has other responsibilities like timetabling, budgeting, personnel, and training (Jilg, 2008). But, unfortunately, institutions are not always successful in carrying out these responsibilities and this can lead to dropout. Providing course content is the most important responsibility of a language institute, so some researchers report misinformation (i.e. not describing accurately the content of the course) as the cause of student dropout (Watts, 2004; Sidwell, 1980). Lack of certiicates also lowers the students’ motivation to stay on a course and Roberts (2006) suggests that distributing certiicates mid-way through a course will improve completion rates. Teachers obviously also have an impact on completion rates. They not only transmit knowledge but also inspire and motivate students. So, if teachers are not trained well than they would not be able to encourage and inspire the students, which can affect students’ decisions to continue with their course. Watts (2004) adds that poor teaching practices lead to poor learning which in turn causes poor commitment on the part of the student to continue.

2.3

Individual forces

Students’ individual forces – personal characteristics such as motivation and commitment - also affect dropout rates. Every student has their own cognitive and affective characteristics which shape motivation and affect their decision to stay on or leave L2 courses (Skehan, 1989). There is a vast literature on L2 learning motivation and it is seen as the most important predictor of student persistence. Motivation can be integrative or instrumental (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Although the former is important, in contexts where English is an international language students may be driven mainly instrumentally (i.e. they want to learn English to achieve some external goal). Motivation can also be extrinsic or intrinsic. Students

120

| Dropout of Students from English Language Courses

with less or no intrinsic motivations for language learning are most likely leave the course before it ends.

2.1

Social forces

Language cannot be learnt in a vacuum and one has to interact with others in order to learn. Therefore the social context of language learning affects students’ persistence (Jilg, 2008). Integration is very important in language learning, and the degree to which group members are integrated can affect students’ decision to persist or to leave a course (Mackie,2001). While there is an international literature discussing reasons for L2 students’ dropout, it has not been examined in Pakistan, a context where, as noted above, dropout rates for language institute courses are high. An interest in exploring this issue in my context was the motivation for this project.

3.

Methodology

This study addressed two research questions: Q1: Why do students drop out of English language courses? Q2: What factors encourage students to complete the course?

3.1

Context and participants

The project was conducted at ive English language institutes in KPK, including my own institute the National University of Modern Languages (NUML). In all ive institutes there are three major proiciency levels - beginners, intermediate and advanced. The duration of courses (for which students pay a fee) varies across the institutes, ranging from three to 18 months. For this study I identiied both dropouts and students who had completed their courses. These students represented all three levels of proiciency and were between 17 and 35 years old.

3.2

Data collection

This was a qualitative study and I conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 former students in total - 11 who had dropped out and 11 who had completed the course. Two different interview schedules were designed for this purpose (Appendices 1 and 2). The interview schedule was piloted with English language students both enrolled in and who had dropped out from other institutes and it was observed that the respondents had no dificulty in understanding the questions. However, after the piloting one of the questions was split into two and the voice recorder was replaced as that originally used was not of suficient quality. In addition, I abandoned the idea of doing interviews via mobile phone as I found in the piloting that my phone on-call recording quality was not good. All interviews were thus done face-to-face. The university administration and faculty at NUML approved this study. Participants were also fully informed about the study and participated willingly. The names of


121

the respondents have been kept conidential and pseudonyms are used in this report.

4.

Findings

4.1

Joining the Course

Six out of eleven dropouts joined an English course because English was the medium of instruction in their university. Four of them joined for work and business as they “needed a language that is known to many”. There was only one participant who joined the course because he had “nothing else to do”. On the other hand, six out of eleven persistent students joined the course because they wanted to improve their speaking skills. They wanted to improve their spoken English because “it is necessary to know how to speak in English”. Five of them joined because they needed English for their degree classes. Fahad said he wanted to learn English because he has “taken admission in ACCA [an accountancy degree]” and he “can’t pass exams without learning this language”. Two of the persistent students joined because they needed English at work. Ten of the dropouts said they were “highly motivated and enthusiastic” at the start of the course and they “wanted to complete it at any cost”. One, though, joined because his friends joined and he himself had “no interest in learning or completing the course”. On the other hand, ive of the persistent students joined the course with the aim of completing it. The rest had not made up their mind at the start of the course and wanted to see what the course was like before deciding. As one explained, she would “continue if she liked [it] otherwise she will leave the course”.

4.

Dropout Students

All of the dropouts attended at least 30% of their course, with an average attendance rate of just over 50% of the total course duration. One participant attended almost 90% of the course before leaving. Six of the dropouts felt the decision to leave the course was a very dificult one while for ive of them “it was an easy decision”. Jafar said “it was very dificult to withdraw but I had to take the decision due to some reasons”. The dropouts gave many reasons for leaving the course. Table 1 summarizes these reasons, which are grouped under four main forces: external, organizational, individual and social. The number of times each force was mentioned by the interviewees is also given (some dropouts gave more than one reason for leaving). External forces such as the lack of inancial support, transportation, and clashes of timing with work and other courses were mentioned by most dropouts. Organizational forces include crowded classes, teachers’ rude behaviour, strict administrative rules, and lack of course objectives. One of the students left because he had no interest in learning the language, while another dropped out because his friends did so.

122


Table 1: Forces causing students’ dropout Forces

N

External

9

Sample Quotes • ‘no inancial support’ • ‘the institute was far away from my village’ • ‘I had no house. It was destroyed in the lood.’ • ‘I had to appear in my DAE exam.’

Organizational

4

• ‘crowded classes’ • ‘proud listening skills teacher’

Individual

2

• ‘no interest in language learning’

Social

1

• ‘My friends left the course. I did the same.’

4.3

Persistent Students

Ten of the persistent participants found the course “very interesting” while nine believed that the course had improved their language skills considerably. Some students were not wholly satisied with their progress, though. For example, Saira said, “when I joined I was sure that at the end of the course I will be able to speak this language luently like native speakers. Of course I did improve but it did not meet my expectations”. While six of the persistent respondents did not identify any course or institutional problems, others did. Sajid had a problem with the speaking class. He said, “It was actually problem with the students not with the teachers. The problem was that at the same time more than one student spoke. So we were unable to get the idea what the guy is trying to say”. Ambar did not like some teachers’ rude behaviour whereas Arshad was not in favour of student-centred classes. He suggested that the language classes should have been lecture-based. One of them did not like the building where the course was run. Despite these complaints, though, all of these students completed their courses and this suggests that other more positive factors outweighed the negative ones mentioned here. Nine of the respondents in fact said that they completed the course because they were motivated by their teachers, while seven believed that they continued because they were learning. Four said that “family played a vital role” in motivating them to complete the course. For example, Aslam said: My uncle who lives abroad always supported and motivated me. He used to send me English books from different countries. He always motivated me to study English. He made me to fall in love with this language. He morally and inancially supported me during the course.


123

All 11 students who completed their course considered their personal interest to be a great motivating factor. When they were asked about the reasons for this personal interest, nine referred to the importance of English in Pakistan today – for example, one said that “English is the need of the time and especially in Pakistan one cannot survive without learning this language”. Two students were motivated to complete the course because they liked the language.

5.

Discussion

Students’ decision to leave or complete a course will normally be inluenced by more than one factor. In this study of 22 students from ive language institutes, one common factor behind their decision to enrol for an English course was its instrumental value – mainly to support their degree studies but also in some cases for work. Some students did afirm their love of the language, and this was seen to be a factor in their completion of the course, while several said they wanted to improve their speaking (though this seemed to be a more instrumental drive); but external forces seemed to be the most powerful here, for both dropouts and persistent students. For the dropouts, inancial issues and lack of time (due to conlicts with other courses and/or family responsibilities) were key reasons for dropout, although institutional and pedagogical issues were also mentioned. For the persistent students, their initial instrumental drives were supported by motivating teachers and by the sense that they were learning. For some persistent students family support was also a strong motivating factor. It was interesting to note that not all the students who completed their courses were wholly satisied with them and some did experience problems. However, the power of these negative forces was outweighed by their more positive drive to learn, supported by motivating teachers, and in the belief that improving their English would improve their success in their degree studies.

6.

Conclusion

A certain level of dropout will always be inevitable and so realistically our aim should be not to eradicate it but to understand its causes in an effort to minimize it. For example, changes in students’ personal circumstances can be unpredictable, as may changes to their degree class schedules and when these clash with their English classes it is the latter that will be dropped. However, one important factor to emerge here is the inluence of the teacher. Persistent students identiied motivating teachers as an important inluence on their decision to continue the course. This is not to say that teachers were the only reason that students inished their course and it is likely that without the strong instrumental drives noted above even motivating teachers would not have enabled all these persistent students to complete their course. However, there is no doubt that teachers can play a key role in determining whether students complete a language course. There is a clear message here, then, for language institutes, who can beneit by thinking about the extent that their teachers are providing a motivating environment for learning. Where this is not felt to be the case, then professional development for teachers which focuses on how to motivate students would be appropriate. One inal suggestion here is that institutes can better support students if the latter 124


are asked to talk about their motivations for joining the course when they enrol. Understanding these motivations can allow institutes and teachers to address students’ needs and, where necessary, to help students set themselves realistic goals.


125

References Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972).Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Heydon, L. & Reilly, J.(2007).Professional development for family learning programmes: a rationale and outline curriculum. Literacy, 41(3), 155-160. Jilg, T. (2008). Staying the course: Factors inluencing L2 dropout and suggested remedial action. Retrieved 23 October 2103 from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/welsh/ resources/Stayingthecourseinalcopy.pdf Kambouri, M., Toutounji, I. & Francis, H. (1996). Where next? Drop out and progression from ESOL provision. The Basic Skills Agency, London. Retrieved 27 October 2013 from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000 019b/80/17/1e/f7.pdf Mackie, S. A. (2001).Jumping the hurdles – Undergraduate student withdrawal behaviour. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(3), 265-276. Milligan, K. (2007). Where have all my students gone? Netword, 40, 10. progression from ESOL provision. The Basic Skills Agency, London. Purcell, S. (2006).Minimising drop-out in adult language classes. Netword, 39, 7. Roberts, M. (2006). Student persistence in the adult ESL classroom. Retrieved 27 October 2013 from: http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/download/adulted/persistence.pdf Reimann, N.(1999). Ab initio German: Trends and perspectives. Interface: Bradford Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 4, 163-180. Sidwell, D.(1980).A survey of modern language classes. Adult Education, 52(5), 309317. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002).Should I stay or should I go? Investigating Cambodian women’s participation and investment in adult ESL programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 53, 9-26. Watts, C. (2004).Some reasons for the decline in numbers of MFL students at degree level. Language Learning Journal, 29, 59-67.

126


Appendix 1 Interview Schedule for Dropouts 58. Why did you take admission in a language course? 59. How motivated were you to take the course at the start? 60. What was the total duration of the course? 61. At what point in the course did you leave? 62. How did you feel about leaving the course - was it an easy decision? 63. Why did you leave the course? 64. Were there any other course related or personal reasons behind your dropout? 65. If the reasons were about the course, what do you think could be changed on the course to make dropouts less likely?

Appendix 2 Interview Schedule for Persistent Students 16.

Why did you join the language course?

17.

How motivated were you to take the course at the start?

18.

Did you ind the course interesting?

19.

Did you feel the course improved your English?

20. Was there anything about the course that you did not like? 21.

Was there anything about the institute that you did not like?

22. How did you overcome those problems? 23. You were able to complete the course. What gave you the motivation to keep going? 24. Did the motivation come from you or were there also other factors that motivated you to continue?


127

The Author Sabeen Hayat has been involved in the teaching of English for three years. She holds a M.Phil. degree and currently works as a lecturer at the National University of Modern Languages.

Editor’s Commentary An interest in understanding students’ perspectives on learning English is one of the recurrent themes in this volume and this paper’s particular focus is dropout in language institute courses. Qualitative interviews were used with both dropouts and persistent students to explore the factors in each case that affected students’ decision to leave or complete the course. The research design was simple but appropriate, and piloting played in important role in enhancing overall quality by allowing the researcher to test out both her questions and the recording equipment. Additional detail of the conduct of the study, though, was desirable. For example, it is not clear how participants were chosen or how long the interviews lasted; the processes through which the data were analysed also merited further explanation. It is important to provide such detail to give the readers fuller insight into the research process and to enhance their conidence in the results. There are some interesting implications here regarding the impact that motivating teachers can have on completion rates and language institutes may beneit from a consideration of these indings and by replicating this study with their own students.

128

| Dropout of Students from Engiish language Courses

12 Student and Teacher Perspectives on the Use of Technology Ahsan Bashir 1.

Introduction

The vast majority of teachers in my institution use technology in the classroom and we seem to take it for granted that technology enhances the educational experience of our students. The purpose of this study is to analyse this assumption by relecting on my own use of technology in teaching English and, in particular, by investigating my students’ perspectives on the different kinds of technology I use.

2.

Technology in Language Teaching

The use of technology in language teaching has generated extensive debate in the last twenty years. Many educators advocate the enhancement of learning with technology (Jonassen et al., 2008; O’Bannon & Puckett, 2007) while others are apprehensive about the impact of technology integration in classrooms (Drier, 2001). Clearly, though, the effectiveness of using technology depends a great deal upon the context of its use and especially the attitudes towards it of teachers and students. Bullock (2004) found that teachers’ attitudes are a major enabling/disabling factor in the adoption of technology. Similarly, it is noted by Kersaint (2003) that teachers who have positive attitudes toward technology feel more comfortable using it and usually incorporate it into their teaching. Teachers might also suffer due to issues such as lack of motivation, which is a major hurdle for a teacher performing in a technology-enhanced classroom (Whetstone & Carr-Chellman, 2001). Feelings of fear and anxiety, (Hardy, 1999) along with a lack of training in the use and integration of technology in the teaching-learning process also have limiting effects on the performance of a teacher. The development of teachers’ positive attitudes toward technology is, thus, according to Watson (1998), a key factor not only for enhancing its integration but also for avoiding teachers’ resistance to its use.

Student and Teacher Perspectives on the Use of Technology |

129

However, while the points made above suggest that positive teacher attitudes to technology will ensure its effective use in the L2 learning classroom, this will only be the case if students too are positive about the kind of technology teachers use and the manner in which they use it. There has been some research into the attitudes that students, as the major stakeholders in the teaching-learning process (Stepp-Greany, 2002) have towards technology. Several researchers (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Nugent et al., 2006; Pelgrum & Plomp, 1996) have claimed that the use of technology for teaching purposes can have motivating effects. For example, technology offers students access to a large range of online resources (Ng & Gunstone, 2002). This not only improves their learning but at the same time enhances the technical skills of the students. More recently there has also been increasing research interest in the attitudes to technology of English language learners (Alhabahba et al., 2012; Aljumah, 2012) and it is this strand of work that I will explore further in this study with my own university students.

3.

Methodology

The research project addressed these two questions: • How do I feel about the use of technology in my classroom? • How do students feel about the use of three types of technology in the classroom (computers, multimedia projectors and video conferencing)? To answer these questions I adopted a mixed methods approach. This is deined as research “in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al., 2007, p.123). The types of data I collected are described below.

3.1


The research was conducted at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore. COMSATS is a higher education institution offering education mainly in Management Science, Computer Science and Engineering. Classrooms are well-equipped with multimedia projectors, computers, and high-speed internet connections. The participants in this study were a class of 30 students in the management sciences department studying for an undergraduate degree in economics. I taught English to these students for two sessions of 90 minutes each per week. Although the students were already familiar with some kinds of technological tools in the classroom (such as computers and multimedia projectors), for this study I also introduced new tools such as video conferencing to see how students react. The video conferencing session was held in a room specially equipped for this purpose and the students were linked with a lecturer in the management sciences department at Lancaster University.

130

| Student and Teacher Perspectives on the Use of Technology

3.2

Data Collection

The following methods were used to collect data for my study: a. b. c.

Teacher journal Questionnaires Focus group interviews

I kept a journal about my own teaching in order to ind out how I feel about the use of technology in the classroom. According to Nunan (1992), teacher journals are important introspective research tools. I wrote notes in my journal right after each class and this activity continued for a period of three months. To ind out how students feel about the use of technology in the classroom, I used questionnaires and focus group interview techniques. I irst administered the questionnaires then used interviews to follow up students’ responses in more detail. Three questionnaires were designed to elicit students’ feelings about the use of three different types of technology. Each questionnaire consisted of ten Likertscale statements. The types of technology used in the lessons were computers, multimedia projectors and video conferencing. Each technology was used in class for three weeks and the relevant questionnaire administered before the next technology was introduced. The exception here was video conferencing, which I only did once. The focus group interviews were conducted a few days after the students had illed in the inal questionnaire. A focus group interview method was adopted because attitudes, perceptions and feelings can be explored properly in a small and manageable group (Denscombe, 1998). Two groups of students consisting of six students each were selected randomly. Questions in the interview were informed by my prior analysis of the questionnaires. Each interview lasted about an hour.

3.3

Ethical Concerns

In doing research, a researcher is not supposed to threaten the rights of their subjects (Cohen et al., 2011). To address the ethical issues in this study I took the following steps: • Before obtaining data students were briefed about the project. • The consent of students was taken, orally, before asking them to complete the questionnaires. • The consent of students was taken, orally, before they were invited to take part in an interview. • Permission to record the interviews was obtained from the students. • The identity of the participants will not be revealed. • The data collected will only be used for the purposes of this project. Student and Teacher Perspectives on the Use of Technology |

131

4.

Findings

4.1

Teacher’s Journal

My teaching journal revealed that as a teacher I felt technology was quite helpful in conducting a lesson. Engaging students in various activities in the classroom is one of the challenges of a language teacher and I felt that teaching through technology had been quite helpful in meeting this challenge. This motivated me a great deal and I spent a plenty of time exploring new ways to exploit technology for students in classroom. More often than not, using technology requires a lot of preparation, organisation and rehearsal before actually delivering a lesson. This always gave me a sense of conidence and kept me relaxed and creative during the lesson. Since the use of technology is a huge area and its utility for my class was also encouraging, I found myself always willing to participate in relevant training programmes. Whenever students were given a chance to do presentations or other class activities, their desire to show off their technology skills gave me immense pleasure. It was reassuring for me to see that students were also learning about technology and not just through technology. Another satisfying factor was the progress of weak students in the class. I noticed that they were more willing to work, get involved in group work and other activities and engage actively in the classroom. To deliver a lesson through technology required a lot of hard work which at times was quite taxing. Concerns about whetherdevices would work properly during the lesson caused anxiety sometimes. Furthermore, I was never comfortable when I had to be dependent on others (e.g. technicians) for the preparation or delivery of my technology-based lessons.

4.2

Questionnaires 4.2.1

Use of Computers

I used computers for listening, speaking, reading, grammar and vocabulary work. For example, students listened to native speakers online and performed different activities like information gap illing and answering open ended questions. Or for speaking, they found information online about a given topic then recorded a short presentation about it and listened to this again to work on pronunciation and tone.

132


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure

Agree

Strongly Agree

Table 1: Students’ attitudes towards computers in English lessons (N=30)

30.0

20.0

0.0

26.7

23.3

26. Computer work in class makes me feel tired after some time.

3.3

33.3

23.3

36.7

3.3

27. I enjoy it when I learn new things using internet on the computer.

6.7

26.7

3.3

23.3

40.0

28. I feel computer opens up new and exciting knowledge for me.

0.0

23.3

13.3

33.3

30.0

29. Computer use in classroom makes my life dificult as I have to deal with a lot of information.

0.0

63.3

20.0

10.0

6.7

30. My creative ability suffers due to computer use.

6.7

43.3

33.3

16.7

0.0

31. I feel I can learn more from books than computers.

3.3

46.7

30.0

20.0

0.0

32. At times I have to deal with computer errors, it really frustrates me.

0.0

13.3

16.7

43.3

26.7

33. I feel trouble shooting computer problems enhances my computer knowledge.

0.0

46.7

16.7

33.3

3.3

34. I believe computers are changing the way we learn too rapidly.

0.0

6.7

10.0

53.3

30.0

Statement 25. I enjoy working on a computer in classroom.

Table 1 summarises students’ reactions to the use of computers in English lessons (all igures are percentages). Students were equally divided in their opinions about whether working on a computer in the classroom was enjoyable, although a majority (63.3%) agreed that they enjoyed learning new things on a computer. While only 16.7% agreed that computers limit their creative ability,70% also agreed that computer errors are a source of frustration. Over 83% also felt that computers are changing the way we learn too rapidly. Only 50% disagreed that they can learn more from books than computers. Overall, these responses indicate that the students’ appreciated some of the beneits of using computers to learn without, though, being overwhelmingly positive about them.

4.2.2

Use of Multimedia Projector

Table 2 summarises students’ responses to the use of the multimedia projector (particularly with PowerPoint) during English lessons. Overall, these results point to positive attitudes. For example, over 66% agreed both that projectors make ‘life a lot easier’ during lessons and that multimedia should be used. At the same time, though, over 73% said they


133

would welcome fewer slides and over 43% felt that projectors are not needed if the whiteboard is used properly.

Statement

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure

Agree

Strongly Agree

Table 2: Students’ attitudes towards the multimedia computer in English lessons (N=30)

1.

Lessons delivered using a multimedia projector make my life a lot easier.

6.7

13.3

13.3

30.0

36.7

2.

Multi-media should be used to deliver lessons in class.

0.0

16.7

16.7

13.3

53.3

3.

I feel ease in following points one after the other.

13.3

10.0

13.3

23.3

40.0

4.

I don’t have to worry about note taking, teacher gives us the slides.

6.7

26.7

13.3

20.0

33.3

5.

Too many slides make the lesson very tiring.

0.0

33.3

30.0

30.0

6.7

6.

Sometimes I feel teachers using multimedia projectors teach more.

6.7

13.3

20.0

53.3

6.7

7.

Images and tables make a slide look pleasant.

6.7

20.0

6.7

36.7

30.0

8.

Slides with a lot of text and data are offputting.

0.0

26.7

43.3

23.3

6.7

9.

I feel good if fewer slides are used.

0.0

6.7

20.0

56.7

16.7

0.0

26.7

30.0

40.0

3.3

10. If white board is used properly, multimedia projector is not needed.

4.2.3

Video Conferencing

As explained earlier, video conferencing was used once during my course. During that lesson the students were connected with a lecturer in the UK. Students’ reactions to this experience are summarized in Table 3. No very strong feelings of agreement or disagreement stand out, with divided opinions and a level of uncertainty associated with most items. Over 56% felt that interacting with a different teacher was exciting (over 23% disagreed though) while the highest level of agreement was for statement 9 regarding the lack of eye contact with a remote lecturer – 60% agreed they did not like this. Only 40% agreed that video conferencing should be arranged more often (almost 27% were unsure, and 33.3% disagreed).

134


Not Sure

Agree

Video conferencing is an enjoyable activity.

0.0

50.0

13.3

33.3

3.3

2.

In video conferencing I feel less interactive.

0.0

36.7

16.7

43.3

3.3

3.

Interacting with a different teacher is exciting.

10.0

13.3

20.0

50.0

6.7

4.

In video conferencing I don’t feel the real class atmosphere.

10.0

13.3

20.0

40.0

16.7

5.

I ind it dificult to bond with the distant teacher.

16.7

20.0

16.7

23.3

23.3

6.

This activity should be arranged more often.

13.3

20.0

26.7

30.0

10.0

7.

Technological problems cause a lot of frustration.

6.7

20.0

16.7

26.7

30.0

8.

Difference in teaching methods kept me quite involved.

0.0

16.7

26.7

23.3

33.3

9.

I don’t like lack of eye contact with the teacher on the other end.

0.0

20.0

20.0

53.3

6.7

6.7

13.3

36.7

36.7

6.7

10. I think matching with the distant teacher’s expectations is sometimes dificult.

4.3

Strongly Agree

Disagree

1.

Statement

Strongly Disagree

Table 3: Students’ attitudes towards video conferencing in English lessons (N=30)

Focus Group Interviews

Views expressed in the focus group interviews showed that students have positive views about innovative ways of teaching through technology. They said that the use of various technologies in a classroom environment is not only enjoyable but also motivating for them. Students feel that understanding complicated ideas is not only easier but also less time consuming when these are taught with the support of technology. At the same time, they felt that because technology speeds up teaching, this means they are expected to learn even more content, which puts pressure on them. They noted also that the use of technology in the classroom helps students learn about technology too. They were happy about this because an understanding of technology will be an advantage in their future. Students also shared their concerns about the negative impact that the easy availability of information on-line has on their creative abilities. Another concern voiced by students was the time consumed in setting up the technology in the classroom as this reduced the teaching time available to the students.


135

With speciic reference to video conferencing, students said they found it exciting and considered it a big opportunity to interact with another expert on a topic related to their studies. However, students were unable to connect and bond with the distant teacher in the environment of a video conferencing activity. Students felt isolated and ignored as they could not get the usual eye contact from the teacher and on top of everything else, the activity was not as interactive as they expected it to be. They also commented that for video conferencing sessions, larger screens, sensitive microphones and good quality speakers must be used.

5.

Discussion

My diary revealed my positive attitudes and commitment to using technology in the English classroom. As noted earlier (e.g. Bullock, 2004), such dispositions in teachers make it more likely that they will persist in their efforts to use technology. I was motivated and willing to invest time in learning new ways to exploit technology for academic purposes in the classroom. I felt that technology use offered me varied ways to be creative and to innovate. Of course, I also experienced the anxiety that is a normal part of trying out new ways of teaching, especially in relation to the correct functioning of the technologies I was using. The indings from the questionnaires and interviews suggest that students feel motivated while working on computers for academic purposes. Interestingly, students are positive about the use of the computer as a tool for learning purposes but some of them are not very convinced about the computer as a tool for classroom purposes. There could be many reasons for this attitude. One reason, as hinted at in the focus group interviews, could be the time consumed in setting up the equipment and problems due to electricity cuts (we had generators, but there was always an interruption to the lesson when these were needed). Students also had positive views about the use of the multimedia projector. They believe that it is a powerful tool which helps them to learn effectively and in a more organized way. Their only reservation is that at times they are overburdened as the teacher uses the time saved by not writing on the board to include more topics to teach. About video conferencing, students felt a lot of excitement and expectations. They believe this technological tool can help them to gain access to a teacher or scholar from a different culture and environment with different resources and teaching methods. Students had a mixed experience, though, due to problems regarding technical issues, like internet connectivity, voice quality, and screen size, as well as problems regarding the communication environment. They found it hard to build a connection with the distant teacher and they also disliked the absence of eye contact and limited opportunities for interaction with him. The issue of relationships between teachers and students in computer-mediated learning environments is a current issue of research interest (e.g. Kucuk, 2009) which merits further study in Pakistan.

136


6.

Conclusion

The study suggests that the use of technology in my English classroom was seen to be useful but that there are also potential problems which need to be considered. I am very positive about the use of technology but my students, while positive, were not always as enthusiastic; this is an important reminder that while teacher interest in technology is essential for its successful use in the classroom, the attitudes of students must also be taken in to account. This is perhaps the most important learning point that I am taking away from this teacher research project.


137

References Alhabahba, M. M., Ziden, A. A., Albdour, A. A., & Alsayyed, B. T. (2012). The horse before the cart! The English language learners’ experience of using e-learning system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 7(2), 4-12. Aljumah, F. H. (2012). Saudi learner perceptions and attitudes towards the use of blogs in teaching English writing course for EFL majors at Qassim University. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 100-116. Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100. Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during ield placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211-237. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge. Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good research guide. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Drier, H. S. (2001). Teaching and learning mathematics with interactive spreadsheets. School Science and Mathematics, 101(4), 170-179. Hardy, J. V. (1999). Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technology. Computers in the Schools, 14(3-4), 119-136. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a deinition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J>L., Marra, R.M., & Crismond, D.P. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd Ed.). Boston: Pearson. Kersaint, G. (2003). Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education faculty. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 549-577. Kucuk, M. (2009). Teacher immediacy behaviors and participation in computer mediated communication. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 225235. Ng, W., & Gunstone, R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the World Wide Web as a research and teaching tool in science learning. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 489-510. Nugent, G., Soh, L.-K., & Samal, A. (2006). Design, development, and validation of learning objects. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(3), 271-281. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning: Cambridge University Press. 138


O’Bannon, B., & Puckett, K. (2007). Preparing to use Technology: Guiding teacher candidates to integrate technology into the K-12 curriculum. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. (1996). Information technology and children from a global perspective. In B. A. Couis, G. A. Knezek, K. W. Lai, K. T. Miyashita, W. J. Pelgrum, T. Plomp & T. Sakamoto (Eds.). Children and computers in school (pp. 2342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-180. Watson, D. (1998). Blame the technocentric artefact! What research tells us about problems inhibiting teacher use of it. In G. Marshall & M. Ruohonen (Eds.), Capacity building for it in education in developing countries (pp. 185-192): Springer US. Whetstone, L., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2001). Preparing preservice teachers to use technology: Survey results. TechTrends, 45(4), 11-17.


139

The Author Ahsan Bashir has been involved in the teaching of English for 18 years. He holds a PhD in applied linguistics from Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan, and currently works as an Assistant Professor at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.

Editor’s Commentary Technology-enhanced language learning is a very topical issue and it is very easy to assume that teachers and students will be unanimous in supporting it. The author here though, despite his commitment to technology, adopts a critically relective stance by examining his own technology-related practices and the reactions of his students to these. A mixed methods design was employed to collect qualitative and quantitative data through a teacher journal, questionnaires and interviews. The quantitative data dominate somewhat though, and no direct extracts from the teacher journal and focus groups are made available to readers. The author does provide summairies of these, but these are much more effective as a source of evidence when they accompanied by actual quotations from the data. The teacher journal, in particular, may be a novel data collection method for many readers, and examples from it would have allowed the author to illustrate more effectively how journals can be used to support teacher research. More details about the conduct and analysis of the focus group interviews could have also been provided. Describing research procedures in detail is important for two key reasons: accountability (it allows readers to judge the quality of the work) and instruction (it can teach readers about doing research). Overall, the study provides further evidence of the value to teachers of systematically investigating teaching and learning in their own classrooms; in this case the outcome for the author was an awareness that his enthusiasm for technology may not always be fully shared by his students.

140



141

142



143

144
