Chapter 3 Methodology
3.8 Validation of Data Analysis
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
decision-making in teaching L2 pragmatics and students’ attitudes toward learning English. Concepts were first formed in the investigator’s mind, such as students’
interest, curiosity, practical and functional use of L2, etc. Second, categories emerged after combining subcategories (forming a pattern), such as extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, and hypotheses may be generated (e.g., How is motivation related to L2 pragmatics?) and finally theory emerged through constantly comparing different sources of data (i.e. field notes, classroom observations and semi-structured interviews). Simply put, the investigator compared different sources of data and looked for some recurrent patterns or themes identified in the classroom observations with field notes and teacher and student interviews to the end that an established theory in the extant literature could be used to analyze the data. The above-mentioned path of data analysis echoes the four types of activities during data analysis, including naming (ideas/concepts), grouping (categories), finding relationships/patterns/themes, and displaying (Freeman, 1998). As a consequence, no preconceived theory was proposed prior to the generation and analysis of data emerging from interviews and classroom observations. It was after the re-examination of the data that L2 motivation theory emerged.
3.8 Validation of Data Analysis
To validate the analyzed data, verbal interactions between teacher and students in the ten-time classroom observations were video-recorded and methodologically triangulated with three student interviews and one student focus group interview (see Appendixes E & F) given that multiple data sources were important to secure the trustworthiness in qualitative reports and to increase research credibility (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Freeman, 1998; Merriam, 2009; Sarah, 2010). In total, involved in the study were one teacher and ten students (three females in face-to-face interviews and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
seven male students in a focus group interview). The data of classroom observations were video-recorded, transcribed, and translated from Chinese to English and the classroom L2 pragmatics discourse was incorporated into data analysis (Freeman, 1998). In addition, semi-structured teacher interviews and student interviews were utilized. The summary of the reported data were corroborated through member check (Merriam, 2009). After data analysis, the effect of L2 pragmatics on the development of students’ pragmatic ability and both the observed teacher’s and students’ reactions to L2 pragmatics in EFL classes in Taiwan are presented in the result section.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.0 Introduction
Chapter Three described the methodologies that were chosen to empirically investigate the research propositions. This chapter reports on the results of the
data-gathering phase. The obtained data (i.e. interview and classroom observation) are analyzed in relation to the two central research questions raised in this thesis: (a) whether, if any, L2 pragmatics instruction was implemented in the target EFL class and (b) how the observed teacher and students reacted to teaching and learning L2 pragmatics in Taiwan.
Inherent in these two questions is the assumption that L2 pragmatics can be taught in communication-based classrooms to enhance students’ pragmatic ability (Canale & Swain, 1980; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009), and intrinsic motivation to acquire the authentic, pragmatic and functional/social use of the target language (Brown, 2007). The notion of motivation is operationalized that there is more than one valid type of presenting learners’
motivational experiences (e.g., see Brown, 2007; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dörnyei, 2005;
Vallerand, 1997). Investigating teacher-student classroom interaction, the study strived to achieve an illuminating understanding of L2 motivation in the chosen class. Specifically, one question was asked about their motivation-related experiences of L2 pragmatics in the chosen university EFL class.
Classroom observations and the interview data were utilized in that the central questions were qualitative in nature. This study yielded crucial findings on the factors that may affect the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics in the chosen EFL university class.
To address the first research question, this study described how the observed language teacher taught sociolinguistic skills in a CLT-based class according to classroom observations. The themes of the observed teacher’s and students’ classroom practices regarding L2 pragmatics in a four-skill integrated class include (1) insufficient instruction
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(i.e. limited time for teaching sociolinguistic skills) despite its importance in the learning and teaching of communicative competence; (2) students’ limited English proficiency probably due to the inadequate instructional materials/exposure to the target language used in the classroom or immediate environments (i.e. lack of immediate use of English in EFL contexts); and (3) exam-oriented instruction that dominated L2 instruction.
To address the second research question: how the teacher and the students reacted to L2 pragmatics in a university EFL class in Taiwan. The current study showed that
students favored the socially appropriate use of the target language and enjoyed learning L2 pragmatics. However, to the observed teacher’s surprise, she did not expect students to enjoy learning L2 pragmatics, so student expectations may not be consistent with teacher expectations.
The following first illustrates the results of the effect of L2 pragmatics instruction on EFL learners’ development of their pragmatic ability. The second part presents teacher’s and students’ reactions to L2 pragmatics.
4.1 The Effect of L2 Pragmatics Instruction on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Ability The results of this study showed that the observed teacher did not focus her full attention on the sociolinguistic aspects in the language class. Based on the classroom observations plus follow-up interviews, the amount of L2 pragmatics (i.e. time spent on the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics) was scarce. The effect of L2 pragmatics instruction on students’ gains of their pragmatic ability may not be as significant as expected. According to classroom observation data, the instructional time was limited to 20-25 minutes in a single unit (around 10% to 12.5% in total instructional hours: 200 minutes). In addition, the instructor rarely evaluated students’ sociolinguistic skills.
Three important themes emerged from the data that possibly explained the limited amount of sociolinguistic instruction. The results include, but are not limited to, the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
following. First, university teacher’s insufficient L2 pragmatics instruction may be due to limited instructional hours. Second, students’ English proficiency and L2 pragmatics input were both inadequate. Third, exam-oriented teaching played a major role in L2 learning.
4.1.1 Teacher’s Insufficient L2 Pragmatics Instruction
Based on classroom observations, Yuan-Yuan was first limited by the instructional hours. Only two-hour English class was offered per week. The teaching focus was on reading strategy and four-skill training. Although the study pointed out that Yuan-Yuan truly taught L2 pragmatics, it was unknown about how much students learned from Yuan-Yuan’s L2 pragmatics instruction.
To illustrate L2 pragmatics instruction, common L2 pragmatics activities used by Yuan-Yuan included role-plays and mechanical drills (i.e. repetition of the commonly used phrases or expressions/chunks regarding a given social function, such as topic nomination, turn-taking and back-channeling in conversations). Based on the researcher’s observations, Yuan-Yuan did not devote much time to instructing and engaging students in the active use of the appropriate language use to raise students’ cultural sensitivity and awareness. When asked about the role of L2 pragmatics, Yuan-Yuan considered L2 pragmatics not popular in English classes island-wide. As L2 pragmatics was not fully addressed in the observed class, sociolinguistic instruction was thus ignored.
Having said so, the investigator did observe Yuan-Yuan teach L2 pragmatics. For example, Yuan-Yuan attempted to raise students’ awareness about the function of intonation to reveal language users’ intentions, explaining that one may sound less enthusiastic to end conversation according to the varied tone, stress, rhythm and intonation. As one part of the classroom excerpt explained:
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
T: Check whether this person is enthusiastic. We are going to hear a few sentences.
CD: (Woman) I am just doing one of the network sites. It’s called My World. Have you heard of it?
(Man) Yes! I am on My World TOO. I SPENT ALL my TIME there. I have TWO HUNDRED online friends to keep up with.
T: What do you think about the man? Is he enthusiastic or UN-enthusiastic?
Ss: Enthusiastic!
T: VERY enthusiastic! YESterday, I SAW... If he stressed a lot of words, probably he’s very enthusiastic about it.
In the excerpt, Yuan-Yuan informed students of the importance of the tone, stress and intonation, all of which carry important contextual meanings during conversation. She explicitly said that “you can vary the stress and the way you speak to show your emotion.” Yuan-Yuan tried to raise students’ awareness of the use of sounds to express social meanings, such as enthusiasm to engage in conversation as a way to continue the conversation, and vice versa. However, it is unknown whether students did understand the actual use of the meaning of the various tones, intonation, stress or rhythms partly
because students were not provided with plenty of time to role-play and partly because students were not evaluated. As Yuan-Yuan admitted, she did not evaluate students’ L2 pragmatics learning. She mostly provided students L2 pragmatics input, short of real classroom practices. In short, Yuan-Yuan did not spend much time on sociolinguistic instruction.
4.1.2 Students’ Limited English Proficiency to Learn L2 Pragmatics
Students’ English proficiency level was found to be closely entangled with how much students could learn from teacher’s sociolinguistic instruction. Therefore, English
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
proficiency level is believed to be instrumental to understanding sociolinguistic
instruction. The results already showed that only 10% was devoted to the sociolinguistic aspect, so students had few opportunities to practice English. As it takes time to develop sociolinguistic skills, students do not practice English often, so the effect of
sociolinguistic instruction was limited. If students already receive scant pragmatics instruction in L2 classes, it is not difficult to assume that students may lack relevant experience to use the language appropriately.
To illustrate, one female student expressed that she rarely received L2 pragmatics instruction. She could not recall when she learned sociolinguistic instruction. She could only share her experience of learning Japanese regarding the appropriate use in a given social context. In fact, she was concerned about her limited English ability. She noted that
“when I speak Japanese, I will think about the appropriateness of the language.” She illustrated her learning experience of Japanese instead of English because she did not have relevant experience of learning the social use in English before. In fact, all the participants’ accounts were mostly grammar-driven exams. By grammar-driven exams, it refers to the exams that lay a heavy emphasis on vocabulary, sentence structures and grammar. She articulated the importance of learning social functions in a language, expressing her adamant belief that using a language also entails learning the appropriate aspect in language learning. However, she considered her English proficiency to be weak, eager to practice her English skills. Constrained by her limited English proficiency, she was not able to carry out fluent conversation with people, not to mention understanding the appropriate use of the target language.
Another case in point is that one male student talked about his English learning experience. Similar to the female student’s story, he did not practice English a lot in oral and written forms. Much time was spent on explaining sentence structures and analyzing grammar. Although his teacher always told him to practice his conversation ability, he
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
remarked that “I feel that basically if your proficiency level is not that high, it does not work. Yeah. It is not effective.” He considered it ineffective because his limited English proficiency could not allow him to understand the target language, let alone its social use.
In brief, learners may not know how to express themselves in English and possibly find it difficult to understand the figurative propositions or implications. As one student explained:
I do not have any conversation ability. Basically [I know] some grammar and I use some words to express my meanings. If I want to distance myself, it is still not feasible.
She argued that she had some grammatical competence in English, but she could not express herself adequately due to her limited conversation ability. The learner indicated that to practice English, she needed to master that language to a certain extent. Otherwise, it is impossible for her to shift between different speech styles naturally, either to distance herself from others or to initiate a conversation with a stranger. In short, limited English proficiency could constrain their pragmatic development in the target language,
preventing them from communicating effectively with native English speakers.
Given the scant language practices both inside and outside of the classroom, one student commented that: “I think if we could implement English-mediated instruction, there would be more opportunities to use the language.” It is asserted by some informants that they hoped to implement English-mediated instruction to receive more input to learn English and to prevent negative pragmatic transfers.
The reason behind all-in-English lessons may be that the participating student wanted to use the language without relying on their mother tongue to prevent themselves from causing misunderstandings or making social mistakes. Also, linguistic interference may occur accordingly through direct English-Chinese translation. As one female
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
participant identified the importance of the English learning environment, “Now I seldom have exposure to English. It is a far cry from my proficiency in high school [the peak of learning English]. Now one English class per week, I read English magazine at most.”
She hoped to take more English classes and maintain her English ability. This concern of the infrequent use of English, though not surprising, was unanimously raised by students in the study.
To sum up, given that the L2 pragmatics has been found to be limited in language curricula, students did not practice using English in their daily life. Thus, their English proficiency and sociolinguistic competence were limited. To address the issue of students’
limited English proficiency, teachers may need to gauge the difficulty of the materials and the clarity of their presentation of sociolinguistic instruction in English (Brown, 2007;
Omaggio, 2001). In the EFL contexts, language learners may not improve their L2 pragmatic ability partly because students generally do not use English in their everyday life and partly because the language used in the classroom context cannot reflect the actual use of the target language. The instructional hours of L2 pragmatics, in addition, tend to be limited.
4.1.3 Exam-Oriented Teaching that Constrained L2 Pragmatics
The following illustrates the predominance of exam-oriented teaching that
emphasizes grammar-driven exams in the current ELT environment. In secondary schools in Taiwan, most classes were grammar-driven. Speaking and listening practices were found to be the most neglected. Vocabulary and grammar were emphasized. Although students were asked to do skill practice alone, the effectiveness was still unknown in that
“we were asked to listen to English radio program, but did not understand at all,” said one student. Therefore, communicative competence may be limited due to grammar-driven exams without guided speaking and listening practices, which may constrain L2
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
pragmatics instruction in the classroom.
In such a learning context, the classroom teachers were reported to have low English ability to teach L2 pragmatics. For example, one female student complained that she did not understand her secondary school English teacher due to his inaccurate pronunciation and poor speaking ability. For some learners, they did not practice a lot. “Mostly the teacher had me listen to English radio,” recalled another female student. Still other female student asserted that “listening may be adequate, but oral skills are not.” By adequate, she argued that at least her teacher told them to listen to English. If teachers do not have adequate English ability, it could be challenging for students to develop oral skills and pragmatic competence.
Another student noted that “we only did sentence pattern drills and exercises in class.” Students in high school may not receive proper instruction in EFL classes, not to mention L2 pragmatics. Although the textbook may contain interactive exercises, how the high school teacher implemented their teaching remains to be seen. As the example illustrated:
The English textbooks are dialogue-based in junior high school. Reading was emphasized. Our English teacher asked us to read XYZ [outside reading].
Another student mentioned that “Reading may be reading the articles for exams. The teacher tested us based on the articles provided.” It seems that most of the classroom activities centered on exams. In fact, the aforementioned exams may not help students develop their L2 pragmatic ability in that the current tests do not reflect what students really want and it may not assess students’ sociolinguistic competence, as can be seen below:
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
It was in the 9th grade that we began to do this [exam teaching]. The teacher explained how to take the exam because our teacher found our reading speed poor. So, every day in the first period we began with reading one article before the class started.
Generally, teachers focused on exams. Given the practicality and effect of exam-oriented teaching on student learning and teacher instruction, some classroom activities may center on exam preparation. For example,
The teacher would explain the content and asked everyone questions about the article. They would teach us how to answer the questions as the priority and then they continued to cover the content.
In sum, teachers taught students test-taking strategies to answer exam questions and he/she would teach students the content of the article through the analysis of sentence structures and direct translation from English to Chinese. That is, almost every classroom activity was devoted to exams.
4.2 Motivation of Teaching and Learning L2 Pragmatics in Taiwan
It has been shown that exam-oriented teaching plays a major part in students’
learning experience. Seldom did learners receive proper sociolinguistic instruction and they tended to spend time memorizing vocabulary and analyzing grammatical structures in secondary schools. In university, the sociolinguistic instruction was found neglected (e.g., Yu, 2008). To reveal why sociolinguistic instruction was ignored, the second
research question was raised: How did the teacher and the students react to L2 pragmatics?
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Two important themes emerged during the data-gathering phase. They refer to the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation factors.
4.2.1 Extrinsic Motivation Factors
Exam-oriented teaching dominates the EFL contexts, especially in Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China and Hong Kong (Butler, 2004; Nunan, 2003).
This study reaffirms the popular belief that exam does exert a profound influence on student learning. The current study found the teaching-to-the-test effect the most prominent in secondary schools because students need to take the basic competence exams and joint college entrance exams (JCEE). To the best of the researcher’s
understanding, the teaching methods advocated in the ELT cannot address the concern of
understanding, the teaching methods advocated in the ELT cannot address the concern of