Chapter 5 Discussion
5.5. Teacher’s and Students’ Attitudes toward Sociolinguistic Instruction
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
not serious about learning L2 pragmatics because when I taught them, they seemed not interested and they were paltering with me.” By paltering, it means that students did not pay attention to her L2 pragmatics instruction.
As Chung and Huang (2009) found out, their secondary school participants favored the use of the communicative practices and the learning of the functional use in the target language. However, no claims were made that teaching L2 pragmatics or culture could lead to positive motivation and acceptance. For example, students may find the learning of pragmatics irrelevant to their extrinsic needs for taking the exams in Taiwan (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). This study opens an array of avenues for future research to investigate the link between learners’ motivation and L2 pragmatics in EFL contexts. This study suggests that teacher and student attitudes should be documented at length.
5.5 Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes toward Sociolinguistic Instruction In this study, Yuan-Yuan and the students recognized the importance of communicative competence, revealing positive attitudes toward sociolinguistic instruction. However, their attitude toward L2 pragmatics instruction was not subject to external influences. First, Yuan-Yuan held the attitude that students do not have ample chances to use English in EFL contexts. Second, both teacher and students need to deal with the issue of exam-oriented teaching with a heavy focus on grammar and memorization (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). Incongruence exists between what students want and what teachers give. Students hoped to receive pragmatics instruction given its intrinsic joy of using language in real life. After the secondary school exam-oriented teaching, students appeared inclined to learn English for practical, intrinsically motivating purposes. Although the classroom teacher, Yuan-Yuan, implemented her lesson quite differently from what students used to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
receive in secondary school, students seemed to favor more communication activities in the textbook, echoing the study by Chung and Huang (2009). Students’
expectations were more communication-oriented and less on forms. However, to Yuan-Yuan’s surprise, she did not expect that students were interested in L2
pragmatics. Students seemed not enthusiastic about learning L2 pragmatics according to her understanding. After the interview, Yuan-Yuan was made aware that students expressed their needs for more L2 pragmatics instruction. Yuan-Yuan told the researcher that she was thankful to the researcher for recommending some teacher resources on L2 pragmatics to her (e.g., Ishihara & Cohen, 2010) because she expressed that she does not know the various activities and teaching techniques in teaching L2 pragmatics. Yuan-Yuan extended her gratitude to the researcher that she demonstrated a better sense of self-confidence in designing her lessons to develop students’ communicative confidence.
What Yuan-Yuan believes, in fact, was mostly realized in her practice. However, there may be some inconsistencies regarding the dynamic nature of teacher and student motivation. Like the multilayered construct of motivation, beliefs may be subject to change due to the socio-cultural and contextual influx in a given speech community. Since classroom is full of learners with various personalities,
characteristics, motivations, it may not be easy to realize one’s teaching philosophies and put them into real practice. This may be a reason for explaining why teachers cannot teach what they hope to teach in the classroom. On the other hand, students may or may not want to receive exam-oriented teaching. Some students may want to pass exams and never learn English afterwards; some learners may be more willing to learn English and show a stronger motivation to understand the target language and its culture, possibly studying in America or other English-speaking countries in the future.
It is believed in the study that understanding culture plays an important role in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
language learning. Without an adequate understanding of the target language, cross-cultural misunderstandings may occur (Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Wolfson, 1989).
In fact, learning the cultural aspect of the target language may be effective in
improving learners’ intrinsic motivation. From the pedagogical standpoint, if learners could benefit from both integrative and instrumental motivations, not only could students improve their learning, but they could continue to learn on their own.
In short, L2 pragmatics instruction could be explained by Williams and Burden’s (1997) social constructivist motivation theory, which underscores the importance of context and time in a given social situation. Although the classroom teacher and the students both agreed that learning should be based on interactive, practical, and functional use of the target language, there are still some challenges that may impede the learning and teaching of L2 pragmatics. First, exam-oriented teaching is still dominant in secondary schools in Taiwan (Chang, 2009; Chen & Tsai, 2012). Most students in the study reported on their dissatisfaction of learning English for exams, discrediting the so-called instrumental motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), or external regulation; rather, they favored learning English for authentic communication purposes in real-life, more integrative orientation motivation. Second, the collective experience of Chinese Imperative may be a crucial social factor that influences student and teacher conceptions of learning English for practical purposes (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). Students may perceive learning English to be equal to job promotions, career advancements or college entrance exams. Shaped by such a prevalent social value and attitude, teachers may consider the role of English to be a pragmatic means to achieve the desired goal: Students attend top-tier universities as a way to fulfill parental expectations and school administrative requirements. As for learning L2 pragmatics, it may become subsidiary compared to the practicality of learning English.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary of the Research Findings
To summarize, the research results showed that the effect of L2 pragmatics was primarily constrained by insufficient L2 pragmatics teaching, teacher’s limited sociocultural understanding, and learners’ low English proficiency, all of which may influence student and teacher motivations to teach and learn L2 pragmatics (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). Due to incorrect L1 transfer, learners’ limited English
proficiency, and negative L2 pragmatic failures (see Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Taguchi, 2011), cross-cultural misunderstandings and communication breakdowns may occur, which is in line with previous studies (Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Wolfson, 1989). In addition, some students may appear motivated to learn L2 pragmatics, to experience the intrinsic pleasure or joy of learning and to be assimilated into the target language culture (Williams & Burden, 1997) through the authentic, interactive and social use of the target language (Brown, 2001).
However, some students may exhibit temporary introjected motivation (see Deci
& Ryan, 1985), i.e. learning English for meeting the requirements of graduation threshold or parental expectations. Thus, the student probably demonstrated some negative attitudes toward learning English. In addition, teachers’ limited English proficiency and students’ dissatisfaction with the teacher’s profession may demotivate them to learn English.
On the other hand, the classroom teacher, Yuan-Yuan, perceived students as not interested in learning L2 pragmatics. Consequently, she did not focus too much on teaching pragmatics in the classroom; rather, she focused more on reading strategy and students’ self-expression. Yet, this may not be in accordance with students’
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
expectations or learning needs regarding the motivation aspects of learning English, which refers to the pragmatic, interactive, and functional use of the target language (Brown, 2007). In addition, the textbook used in the classroom may not be designed systematically based on empirical studies, whereas it may be based on textbook writers’ intuitions (Taguchi, 2011). It may constrain Yuan-Yuan’s teaching. As Yuan-Yuan admitted, she did not have concrete ideas about how to design and
diversify L2 pragmatics activities that could motivate students to learn L2 pragmatics.
Regarding teacher and student motivation, students expressed their intrinsic motivation to learn the interesting elements in English for authentic communication.
Students generally regard learning English as an important means to real-life
communication. Therefore, motivation was conceived to be a salient issue among the participants in this study. Closely associated with student and teacher motivation is exam-oriented teaching that exerts a profound influence on students’ conceptions (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). It may have demotivating effects on learning and teaching L2 pragmatics in EFL contexts.
6.2 Pedagogical Implications for EFL Teachers and Students
To teach L2 pragmatics effectively, the study yielded three important implications.
First, the use of L1 in EFL classes suggests greater effectiveness in teaching students sociopragmatic conventions if students’ language proficiency cannot enable them to understand and handle the complexities of the L2 cultural norms or conventions (see Taguchi, 2011). Occasional explanations in Chinese, i.e. students’ mother language, may enhance their understanding of the cultural norms, so they may apply the communication strategies (see Dörnyei, 2005). Second, intrinsically motivating activities related to L2 pragmatics are suggested to be vital to the enhancement of student learning as research on intrinsic motivation (Deci &Ryan, 1985) has
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
corroborated the importance to maintain learner motivation (Brown, 2007; Dörnyei, 2005). In addition, L2 pragmatics teaching has been suggested to be related to the hidden cultural aspects of learning (i.e. integrative motivation), which has been shown to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and improve student learning (Moran, 2001).
As the MOE in Taiwan has advocated the importance of multicultural understanding and global competence in the newly revised curriculum guidelines (MOE, 2009) by teaching culture, students are expected to appreciate the differences of various cultures (Banks & Banks, 2007). In addition, they can also engage in cultural experience (for the culture-teaching model, see Moran, 2001) and improve their understanding about various cultures (Samovar, Porter, & MacDaniel, 2010). Third, it has been indicated that learning and teaching should complement its assessment practices (Lee, 2008; Williams, 2001). It has been shown that current exams place a heavy emphasis on vocabulary and grammar. To strike a balance between language form and function, learners’ communicative competence may be better developed (Canale & Swain, 1980). It is argued that intercultural communicative competence, involving the intercultural communication skills and abilities, should be enhanced in the current era of multiculturalism (Taguchi, 2011). It is also suggested that both top-down language teaching scheme and school administrative support are important to transform the current language teaching landscape into a more balanced language teaching in Taiwan. By changing the content of the tests, such as adding the L2 pragmatics and L2 listening elements to current English tests, i.e. assessment for learning (Williams, 2001), it is believed that the quality of current English teaching can improve.
6.3 Limitations of the Study
This study is not without limitations. Since this is only a case study; thus the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
willing participants may not represent the entire population of the learning situation in Taiwan. However, it should be noted that no claims have been made that this
qualitative study could make a generalized claim that the English language education in Taiwan does not emphasize L2 pragmatics instruction. However, it is a reasonable claim that L2 pragmatics already received little attention in university (see Ishihara, 2009; Yu, 2008), where teacher autonomy is highly granted to university instructors (Butler, 2011), let alone the sociolinguistic instruction in secondary schools where grammar and vocabulary exams are prevalent (Chang, 2009; Chen & Tsai, 2012).
Perhaps the most important contribution of this study is to inform the current
understanding of EFL teaching and learning practices and raise students’ and teacher’s awareness of the neglected dimension of L2 pragmatics to make changes to the
landscape of English teaching in Taiwan.
6.4 Suggestions for Future Research
As suggested earlier in the Discussion Chapter, the direction for future research could be to address specific students’ and teachers’ needs of L2 pragmatics learning or to investigate the effect of L2 pragmatics training in L2 teachers’ professional teacher development programs in Taiwan through school-university partnership (e.g., Ishihara, 2009). It is hoped that endeavors could be made to address students’ increasingly diversified or special needs of learning L2 pragmatics and meanwhile to enhance teachers’ professional growth and understanding on L2 pragmatics. As Taguchi (2011) suggested, efforts should be made to meet the needs of various students’ English proficiency levels and goals to improve English education in the multicultural, multilingual, transcultural and glocalized society in Taiwan. Teachers and students need to continue to make a breakthrough not just in their linguistic repertoire on grammar and vocabulary but in their sociolinguistic and illocutionary competence.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417-435.
Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. De Pilar Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221-241). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Alcón-Soler, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). Pragmatics in foreign language contexts.
In E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 3–21). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (2007). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 233-262.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of State, Office of English Language Programs.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bell, (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134-159.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University.
Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching:
Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219-238.
Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain in order to teach EFL?: Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245-278.
Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
Language Teaching Research, 9, 423-446.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 27, 45-75.
Chang, W. (2009). Examining Taiwan English language policy. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chen, J., Warden, C., & Chang, C. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609-633.
Chen, S., & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004-2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), 180-201.
Choi, S. (2000). Teachers’ beliefs about communicative language teaching and their classroom teaching practices. English Teaching, 55, 3-32.
Chung, I., & Huang, Y. (2009). The implementation of communicative language teaching: An investigation of students’ viewpoints. The Asia-Pacific
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Educational Researcher, 18, 67-78.
Clandinin, & Connely, (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 275–301.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29(2), 61-80.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel, Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.196-219), England: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2009). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed). Beijing:
Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E, & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd Eds.). Sage Publications.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Teaching and researching motivation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (FLTRP).
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 9-24.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Frölich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 27-56.
Gorsuch, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 675-710.
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. London: Pearson Longman.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Zur Rolle der Kognition in Kommunikationskursen.
Die Neueren Sprachen, 80, 42-55.
Hsieh, M. (2010). Pre-service English teachers’ beliefs of sociolinguistic instruction in communicative language teaching: The Cinderella in Taiwan’s EFL classes.
Paper presented at the 27th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C., p. 153-163, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, May.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of
communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language
Awareness, 16, 21–40.
Ishihara, N. (2009). Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics.
TESOL Quarterly 43(3), 415-470.
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Pearson Longman.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language teaching and learning (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emergent beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452.
Judd, E. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 152–166).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1-14.
Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey Culturally Speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures
(pp.316-341).
Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 369-421.
Kirkpatrick, T. A. (1984). The role of communicative language teaching in secondary schools: With special reference to teaching in Singapore. In B. K. Das (Ed.), Communicative language teaching (pp. 171-191). Singapore: Singapore
University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends.
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703.
Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An intraview of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55-79.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
Liu, J. (2007). Critical period hypothesis retested: The effects of earlier English education in China. In J. Liu (Ed.), English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives and standards (pp. 170–191). London: Continuum
International.
LoCastro, V. (1997). Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Language Teaching Research, 1, 239–267.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hylstenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ministry of Education (MOE) (2009). The revised nine-year integrated curriculum guidelines.
Moran, P. (2001). Teaching culture: Perspectives in practice. Beijing: Cengage Learning.
Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1-29.
Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1-29.