Chapter 1 Introduction
1.8 Significance of the Study
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1.7 Motivations of the Study
Driven by the motivation to fill the gaps of the extant literature, this qualitative case study utilized interpretive qualitative paradigm to meet three functions (see Nunan, 1992). First, it aims to uncover the insiders’ stories of L2 pragmatics, empowering both observed teachers and students to narrate their educational
experiences concerning L2 pragmatics (Freeman, 1998). Second, this study hopes to understand the learning and teaching processes of language learning and teaching (Clandinin & Connely, 2000). Third, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, few process-oriented, descriptive studies have been conducted to reveal EFL teachers’ and students’ incentives about developing L2 pragmatics in a culture-specific setting. In brief, the major motivations to undertake the current study are driven by the
qualitative nature of the study, the extant few process-oriented studies and the gaps of the literature.
1.8 Significance of the Study
The significance of the study was twofold: (1) to provide an insightful
understanding for readers and the investigator to reflect upon and make sense of their prior English language teaching and learning practices on L2 pragmatics, and (2) to contribute to an informed understanding about L2 pragmatics in EFL classroom settings to transform current thinking about teaching and researching L2 pragmatics.
In short, this study extends the scope of EFL research to the sociolinguistic aspect of a university EFL class. The findings may inform current understanding about how English language teachers can assist EFL learners in developing their sociocultural ability and provide important educational implications for future research to implement L2 pragmatics instruction.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The following research reviews first introduce communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Asia, followed by the studies concerning the current instructional practices in the educational levels of Taiwan’s English Language Teaching (ELT) contexts. Second, frameworks of second language (L2) motivation employed to elucidate the learning and teaching of L2 pragmatics will also be reviewed to explain teachers’ and students’ teaching and learning L2 pragmatics in Asia. Third, endeavors will be made to explicate why sociolinguistic competence tends to be ignored in language classes, followed by
underexplored pragmatics studies implemented in EFL classes. Fourth, the advantages, limitations and prior research methods of doing pragmatics research will be presented (see Ellis, 2008; Kasper, 2000; Taguchi, 2011). Fifth, recent L2 pragmatics research on the effect of explicit and implicit learning on pragmatic ability will be described.
Lastly, the literature review ends with the research gap, rationale of the current study and research questions.
2.1 The Introduction and Implementation of CLT and TBLT in Asia
In the last quarter of the 20th century, the dominant teaching theories and practices arise from communicative approach. Concepts closely associated with it are communicative language teaching (CLT), content-based instruction (CBI), task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Brown, 2007; for detailed reviews of CLT, see Butler, 2011; for detailed historical development of the approaches and methods in language
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
teaching, see Richards & Rodgers, 2001), rendering CLT a bandwagon term in English teaching today.
2.1.1 The Premise of CLT
According to Butler (2011), the premise of CLT is on the grounds of developing learners’ communicative competence in social interactions, objecting to a mere focus on linguistic forms. Meaningful communication is regarded as both the means and the goal in CLT. Considering the theoretical broadness that invites various interpretations, CLT entails two versions on a communicative spectrum. One end of the spectrum drives at the strong version of CLT, which assumes that language learning is a natural process where learners discover the language. This strong version posits that the process cannot be directly controlled by the teacher whose role is to facilitate this process. On the contrary, the weaker version of CLT affords teachers a more direct role in students’ learning process, asserting that the teacher should present structured, meaningful communicative activities in a controlled manner in the classroom; thus, learners can gradually and freely express meaning in more naturalistic settings.
2.1.2 TBLT as an Adaptation of CLT
To understand CLT, it is important to know one of its most distinctive variants, task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). In TBLT, task was progressively used to supersede communicative activity during the 1980s (Skehan, 2003). Tasks can be defined as things people do where the connection with the real world’s activity is identified with the overall purpose of enhancing language learning through either process or product (Long, 1985). Various versions of TBLT have also been proposed, from a strong version (i.e. task-based teaching) to a weak version (i.e.
task-supported teaching). The former views tasks as the chief constituent of syllabus
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
design; the latter employs tasks for communicative practice together with a form-or-function-oriented syllabus (Butler, 2011).
2.1.3 Difficulties of Implementing CLT
Despite the aforementioned goal of developing students’ communicative
competence embedded in communicative approach, ample studies have revealed that Asian EFL students tend to learn English for exam purposes (Butler, 2004),
reinforcing exam-oriented language teaching in all grade levels of Asian English language education (for Taiwan: see Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; for China: see Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Hu, 2002; for Thailand: see Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2008; for Singapore: see Kirkpatrick, 1984; for Japan: see Gorsuch, 2000; Nishino, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004; Taguchi, 2003; for South Korea: see Li, 1998). The wash-back effect, or teaching-to-the-test effect, has generally been considered to be devoid of learner autonomy (Butler, 2011; Tsai & Kuo, 2008; Xu &
Liu, 2009).
Through the incorporation of CLT, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan aims to promote students’ general English proficiency level, meanwhile transforming Taiwan into an internationalized country to enable its people to communicate
confidently in English. Additionally, Taiwan’s MOE (2009) revised its curriculum guidelines by incorporating the concepts of the widely acclaimed pedagogical
principles embedded in CLT, for example learner-centered. However, it is not without challenges. The overall repercussion has been found discouraging in EFL contexts (Chang, 2009). Besides, huge gaps exist between theory and practice (Butler, 2011;
Liu, 2007). According to Butler (2011), initial concerns regarding the implementation of CLT and TBLT include three primary constraints that contribute to the limitation of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
implementing CLT in EFL contexts: (a) conceptual-level constraints, (b) classroom-level constraints, and (c) societal-institutional-level constraints.
2.1.4 Three Constraints of Implementing CLT
Butler (2011) synthesized prior studies that the first set of constraints arise from the differences between the major concepts of CLT and those of the traditional view of learning and teaching in Asia. From the earliest stages of implementing CLT in Asia, the communicative nature (e.g., oral-focused discussion activities, the
preeminence of group work, and teachers as facilitators) has been questioned since the views of learning and teaching in Asia are considered different from those of
Westerners. That is, the concept of communicativeness can be regarded as
Anglocentric ideologies, including the obsession with communicative activities and
mismatch in cultural values. However, Butler (2005) found that some EFL learners favored meaning-based communicative activities in elementary school classes. Thus, it is premature to attribute the failure of implementing CLT to the traditional cultural values in shaping Asian classroom practices at all grade levels across Asia (Butler, 2011). In addition, misconceptions about CLT (e.g., only oral without written practices and ignoring grammar instruction as well as the accuracy of language use) have been found regarding how CLT should be implemented (Li, 1998).
The second set of constraints refers to classroom-level constraints, such as huge class size, limited teaching hours, inadequate reliable and effective assessment tools (Butler, 2011). Teachers generally encounter such constraints to develop proper materials and reliable alternative assessments. As a result, materials and activities fail to accurately reflect the actual use of the target language in English-speaking
countries. Moreover, the classroom language students learn in expanding circle
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
countries is generally irrelevant to their language needs, which cannot meet the expectations for global communication (Butler, 2011; Kachru, 1992).
The third set of constraints refers to the societal-institutional level constraints, such as grammar-driven exams and the limited opportunity to use English outside of the classroom (Butler, 2011; Hall, 2002). CLT might not be the most efficient way to teach or learn grammar or to enhance literacy skills, especially with the extra pressure of college exams (i.e. improving students’ scores within limited instructional hours).
However, it is worth noting that a number of Asian countries, such as Taiwan, have recently attempted to include communicative components in their college entrance exams (e.g., listening and writing skills). It is scheduled to include the listening test in the 12-year national education as of 2014 to transform the current grammar-focused English education. Albeit teachers may be fully aware of such changes, research has identified the intended wash-back effects in language curricula (Gorsuch, 2000). In fact, it has already been indicated that relatively few opportunities to use English outside of EFL classrooms, which still remains a primary concern among TESOL educators in the expanding circle countries, such as Japan and Taiwan (Kachru, 1992).
Much variability, in addition, has been found regarding students’ use of English outside of the classroom in comparison with that in ESL contexts (Taguchi, 2011).
2.1.5 Example of Implementing CLT in Taiwan
Take Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, for example. Children born in a wealthy family are able to start learning English in kindergarten to receive bilingual or monolingual education (mostly English and Chinese). The major ways of teaching young learners are purportedly to arouse learners’ interest in learning English (Butler, 2005; MOE, 2009). However, for parents and school teachers in Chinese learning contexts, they generally display early concerns about children’ learning outcome of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
college entrance examination by emphasizing the content of school exams, mostly the reported drudgery of grammar drills, sentence substitutions, and test-taking strategies (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). To address such concerns, it is worth noting that cram schools provide custom-made service to students with various needs of taking relevant standardized exams (i.e. extrinsic motivation).
In secondary schools, the teaching of language forms dominates Taiwan’s EFL classrooms. It has been reaffirmed that Asian EFL learners, such as Taiwanese
students, have been spending considerable time memorizing vocabulary and grammar relevant to exam preparations and test-taking strategies, evidenced in several earlier studies (Butler, 2011; Chen & Tsai, 2012; Chung & Huang, 2009). Exams have been reported to exert a negative wash-back influence on students’ academic performance and intrinsic motivation (Xu & Liu, 2009), possibly causing them to lose a genuine interest, a sense of achievement or sustained motivations to learn English (Dörnyei, 2005). For some learners in EFL contexts, taking exams is believed to be the major reason for learning English, a.k.a. instrumental and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 1985) in that English is generally not
considered a readily used language in daily life in EFL contexts, especially in expanding circle countries (see Kachru, 1992; Chen & Tsai, 2012).
Although exams play a crucial role in assessment for learning (i.e. understanding one’s learning to improve one’s ability) (Williams, 2001), it seems, however, that the benefit of assessment of learning (i.e. learning for exams only), does not always lead to assessment for learning. Learning anchored in such an exam culture that stresses exams appears to be a reality in EFL contexts, especially in Asian learning contexts (for Taiwan: see Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Chen & Tsai, 2012; for China: see Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Hu, 2002; Liu, 2007; for Japan: see Gorsuch, 2000; Nishino, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004; for South Korea: see Choi, 2000; Li,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1998). Although the trend of ELT now incorporates communicative elements into language classes, it has been reported that learning situated in Taiwan’s sociocultural context, such as the predominance of cram schools that cater to learners’ extrinsic needs of taking exams (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Tsai & Kuo, 2008) may affect teacher beliefs of teachers’ professional development. That is, if teachers’ conceptions are oriented toward preparing students for exam-taking (standardized paper exams on grammar and vocabulary), it is by no means easy for teachers to incorporate CLT into language curricula.
ELT has been progressively directing its attention from traditional focus on forms to social-functional use of the target language in CLT. However, the progress of the situated ELT in Taiwan’s EFL classes has been considered stagnant perhaps because current EFL teachers, if not all, did not receive continuous professional TESOL education training in second language teacher education programs (Ishihara
& Cohen, 2010; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009), which may be due to the lack of
intrinsic motivation for continuous professional development constrained by the local sociocultural context, such as the limited teaching hours and teachers’ low
self-efficacy and confidence in their ability to implement CLT (Butler, 2011).
In fact, to implement culture-embedded teaching in English-mediated classes, teachers are expected to have a good command of English and intercultural and pedagogical understanding to prepare an English lesson (Brown, 2007; Li, 1998;
Moran, 2001). Although it is not necessary for teachers to have profound knowledge of both culture-general and culture-specific knowledge (Hall, 2002), it is still a sufficient condition for every teacher to have intercultural communicative ability to teach students to use English appropriately (Hall, 2002; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010;
Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). The motivation to teach may be constrained by the reality of ELT in Asian countries (Dörneyi, 2005).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In a communication class, probably no one will deny the fact that students need ample opportunities to practice using English to perform various sociocultural functions, such as making requests and apologies, expressing gratitude and regrets, and showing agreement and disagreement in a culturally appropriate way (see Ellis, 2005). The above-mentioned comprise complicated skills of choosing correct vocabulary and sentence structures, understanding the social status, gender and distance of self and others, evaluating the context during interpersonal and
intercultural exchanges, and what not (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). If teachers do not have such a strong motivation to improve their own English proficiency (four skills), it is reasonable to argue that they may not spend additional time improving their own sociocultural understanding regarding the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics.
To be pragmatically competent, learners tend to orchestrate a wide range of commonly used request strategies by the target language users, for example the ability to understand an invitation as a closing remark, such as we should get together
sometime). However, learners, who do not understand the sociopragmatic norms, and
who have limited pragmalinguistic knowledge in a given speech community, such as mainstream Anglophone culture, tend to have difficulty understanding the real intentions in the target language (Pinto, 2011). As a result, communication tends to break down due to cross-cultural misunderstandings (Spencer-Oatey, 2000) and limited sociolinguistic competence (Hall, 2002; Taguchi, 2011).
Li (1998) pointed out that in communication-oriented classes, sociolinguistic competence was considered difficult to teach and learn for non-native English speakers who do not have much exposure to the authentic English learning environment regarding its cultural aspects in EFL contexts, mostly limited to classroom situations (see Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Taguchi, 2011). In addition, Omaggio (2001) also indicated that the teaching of culture tends to be
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
neglected by language teachers in the classroom. Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003) also found out that the acquisition of pragmatic skills could not occur without instructed learning. It has been reaffirmed that explicit pragmatics instruction can generally improve L2 pragmatic ability by EFL learners in recent empirical studies (Narita, 2012; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b; Takimoto, 2009, 2010).
However, factors that affect the acquisition of pragmatics were also suggested in the extant literature, such as learners’ ego/identity and cultural resistance (Hu, 2002;
Judd, 1999; Taguchi, 2011). Another factor refers to teachers’ lack of confidence in their ability to teach L2 pragmatics (Omaggio, 2001). Since EFL teachers may be constrained by their English skills in introducing the appropriate use of the target language, it may pose a challenge for them to teach students (Li, 1998). Still other factors refer to the EFL school textbook design according to textbook writers’
intuitions (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). Students’ limited English proficiency as well as individual differences may affect students’ motivations to learn L2 pragmatics (Taguchi, 2011). Although Yu (2008) found that L2 pragmatics was the least taught aspect in language learning (i.e. classroom-level constraints), the study maintains that there may be other, such as learning motivation, which can influence the teaching and learning L2 pragmatics in EFL classes.
2.2 L2 Motivation Theory and L2 Pragmatics
To address the issue of L2 motivation that may influence L2 pragmatics
instruction, it is important to operationalize motivation, an often discussed but elusive construct (Dörnyei, 2005). One of the most common and famous distinctions in motivation theories is that of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997).
Intrinsic motivation deals with behaviors performed to experience desire and
satisfaction, for example, the joy of learning American culture. Extrinsic motivation,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
on the other hand, refers to performing a behavior to accomplish a purpose or to receive some extrinsic rewards (e.g., parental praises, stickers and good grades).
Although intrinsic motivation has generally been regarded as a one-dimensional construct, three subtypes of intrinsic motivation were pointed out by Vallerand (1997), including (1) to learn (to explore the world and to satisfy one’s penchant for
knowledge), (2) to achieve (to engage in an activity for the satisfaction of surpassing oneself, overcoming challenges and accomplishing something), and (3) to experience stimulation (to engage in an activity to experience pleasant feelings). On the other
hand, extrinsic motivation encompasses external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation (see Deci & Ryan, 1985). External regulation refers to the least self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, arising solely from exterior forces, such as teacher’s rewards and tokens. Introjected
regulation involves externally imposed rules that the student obeys in order not to feel humiliated. Identified regulation occurs when the person engages in an activity
because he or she highly treasures and relates to the behavior, and perceives its usefulness (e.g., learning a language necessary to satisfy one’s job-related needs).
Integrated regulation, according to Deci and Ryan (1985), is the most
developmentally advanced form of extrinsic motivation, involving given behaviors associated with the individual’s values, needs and identity. For example, learning English is usually regarded as higher social status and greater job opportunities in EFL contexts.
In 1997, Williams and Burden proposed a social constructivist model, raising two fundamental issues in researching motivation—context and time. Different from Deci and Ryan’s (1985) motivation theory, this model is based on the social
constructivist conception of motivation, which is contingent upon social and contextual influences, including both external and internal factors. The external
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
factors include significant others, the nature of interaction with significant others and the learning environment as well as the broader context involving family networks, local educational system, conflicting interests, cultural norms and societal
expectations and attitudes. On the other hand, the internal factors encompass the intrinsic interest of activity conducted in the classroom, students’ perceived value of learning activity, sense of agency, mastery of the target language, self-concept and attitudes toward the target language, culture and community, and affective states, such as confidence, anxiety and fear.
In 1998, Dörnyei and Ottó proposed their all-inclusive process model of L2 motivation, capturing a process-oriented perspective of motivation, synthesizing various lines of research in a unified motivation framework, and building an
overarching framework. According to Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), their comprehensive model includes three phases: preactional, actional and postactional phases. In the preactional phase, it involves the process of choosing a course of action to be realized, the sub-processes include goal setting, intention formation and the initiation of
overarching framework. According to Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), their comprehensive model includes three phases: preactional, actional and postactional phases. In the preactional phase, it involves the process of choosing a course of action to be realized, the sub-processes include goal setting, intention formation and the initiation of