英語學術口語報告：臺灣醫學系學生之個案研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系博士論. 文. Doctoral Dissertation Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 英語學術口語報告：臺灣醫學系學生之個案研究. Academic Oral Presentation in English: A Case Study of Taiwanese Medical Students. 指導教授：張武昌博士吳美貞博士 Advisor: Dr. Wu-chang Chang and Dr. Mei-chen Wu 研究生：田康人 Kang-jen Tien. 中華民國一百零一年六月 June 2012.

(2) CHINESE ABSTRACT 中文摘要. 以社會理論觀點 (sociocultural view)為基礎，尤其以第二外語學習社會化 (second language socialization)為理論主軸，本研究主要的目的在研究臺灣醫學系學生如何參與以醫學主題的語言課程，尤其聚焦在他們如何學習參與及完成英語學術口語報告，以期能成為更純熟的口語報告者。此研究採用個案研究法，研究對象為六位大二醫學系學生。透過多樣的資料收集 (multiple methods), 參與者本身的訪談及兩次的書面回饋報告 (self-reported forms)為主要分析資料，其他包括問卷，課堂觀察，實地筆記，對老師的訪談，師生間的電子信件以及相關課程文件的蒐集同時也提供交叉分析的資料，以瞭解這六位學生在為期十八周的研究中，在完成兩次口語報告的活動中可能會有的變化。本研究主要發現: (一) 就口語報告本身而言，有兩點特徵可被歸納:在一方面，學生所參與的口語報告是一個特殊的社會化過程，因為它本身是非英語母語的參與者幫助學生進行社會化，在參與活動的互動過程中讓他們了解如何完成英文學術口語報告。另一方面，口語報告是一個參與者共構的社會活動。首先，在先前的口語研究中 (Morita, 2003, 2007; Kobayashi, 2003; Zappa-Hollman, 2007; Yang, 2010)，研究者大多檢視他們的非英語母語的學生是如何達到以英語為母語者所設定的標準(target form)，完成一場被認定是好的口語報告。但此研究並無設定學生該達到甚麼標準，相反的，根據結果顯示:參與者所認定好的口語報告標準不是事先設定的，而是透過和其他非英語母語的間接參與者(即:老師及同儕) 來幫助他們了解好的口語報告標準為何。而這樣的發現擴展了 Duff (2003) 對第二外語學習社會化模式的定義。(二)就此社群的參與者而言，表面看來一場口語報告似乎是報告者獨擔責任，但根據研究結果顯示:在此社群當中，所有的參與者都在不同階段扮演各自的社會合作角色來幫助報告者完成任務。更確切來說，透過老師及同儕的互相參與合作，分享學習經驗，不同的觀點及醫學專業知識， i.

(3) 所有的參與者都共同建構了此社群的互動特色。此發現與諸多社會理論 (如:Vygotskian sociocultural and activity theory) 及語言社會化 (e.g., Duff, 1995, 2002; Morita, 2000, 2004) 的主要論點不謀而合: 相信透過與其他社群成員合作能達到學習目的。然而在互動關係上，本研究卻顯示出不同的結果: 此社群成員的合作不是單方面的從專家 (expert) 傳遞知識給新手 (novice), 而是可以透過學生(即: 新手)之間的互動，建構屬於他們自己對學術口語報告的認識，進而成為更臻純熟的口語報告者。此一結果也擴大了社會文化理論中對專家及新手的二分定義 (expert-novice dichotomy). 綜觀而論，雖然參與者看似侷限在六位醫學系學生學習英語學術口語報告之過程，且課程本質較不同於其他研究的環境背景，但此聚焦的個案研究卻對第二外語的社會化過程提供了不同面向的討論，也揭櫫以醫學為主題的語言課程 (medical-theme-based language course) 在教學中的實際狀況。最後，此研究透過檢視學生如何參與口語報告活動亦發現: 學習者的多向互動關係呈現出他們在此一社群中扮演的多重角色。最後，根據以上結果，研究者提出相關的研究方向及實際上的教學建議。. 關鍵字: 第二外語學習社會化，學術口語報告，主題式語言課程 ii.

(4) ENGLISH ABSTRACT Framed in a sociocultural view and drawing upon a second-language socialization perspective, the present study attempted to capture a holistic understanding of how Taiwanese medical students, engaging in oral presentation activities in a theme-based language class, acculturated into academic discourse and culture and how they interacted with and interpreted academic oral presentations. This dissertation was designed to better understand the academic socialization process of six EFL second-year college medical students when acculturating to academic oral presentations.. With the use of alternative multiple methods, primarily. from the participants’ perspective through interviews and self-reported data, but also via supplementary sources such as questionnaires, observations, field notes, emails, and document records, several findings can be outlined. With consideration to the oral activity, two constitutive features can be concluded from this community: first, it is a process of non-native-speaker socialization and, second, it is a co-constructed social activity. Although earlier studies (Morita, 2003, 2007; Kobayashi, 2003; Zappa-Hollman, 2007; Yang, 2010) have taken the position of examining and evaluating how their non-native English participants. fulfill. the. standards. for. an. effective. presentation. set. by. English-native-speakers, the present study does not hold any assumptions regarding what qualities students should develop.. More specifically, according to the findings. in this case, the valued qualities of completing a good oral presentation are not pre-determined; instead, students developed their own realizations of what the valued qualities of an academic presentation are through the process of being involved in the socially-constructed activity with other indirect non-native-English speaking participants: the instructor and peers.. Such findings add to Duff’s (2003) second iii.

(5) language socialization model. Moreover, in terms of participants, despite an oral presentation task generally appearing to be performed solely by a presenter, it in fact entails multiple voices and contributions from all participants in the class and represents a social collaboration relationship among participants at different phases (i.e., before, during and after a presentation).. More specifically, all participants acted in multiple roles, contributed. various viewpoints, and supplied field experiences and levels of expertise within a shared repertoire, contributing to the presentation event in different ways at different stages.. These findings concur with the views of context-sensitive approaches such. as the Vygotskian sociocultural and activity theory (e.g., Lantolf, 2000), and language socialization (e.g., Duff, 1995, 2002; Morita, 2000, 2004), for their central spirit looks into the value and influence from social collaboration among all members in the community.. However, the current study went one step further to suggest that social. collaboration is not a unidirectional transmission pattern from expert to novice. Rather, in the researched context, the transmission pattern could possibly occur among novices, which is evidence of the re-constructed expert-novice dichotomy. To conclude, despite the limited number of participants engaged and the exclusive nature of the research context, the present case study contributes significantly to further understanding second language socialization and provides a different dimension for investigating a theme-based language course.. Through. examination of how participants engage in oral presentations, the multifaceted inter-relationships represent students’ learning and participants’ interactions within the situated context. This perspective merits further research attention and offers new possibilities in language course construction toward discipline-specific orientations. Key words: second language socialization, academic oral presentation, theme-based language course iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my great gratitude to a number of people, without whom it would not have been possible to accomplish this study. First and foremost, I am very grateful to Dr. Chern, Chiou-lan (陳秋蘭) whom I met in my college years at Tunghai University. She provided substantial help to pull me out from deep frustration when I was unable to find a supervisor; in the meantime, I was suffering from a striking life depression. When I asked for help from her, despite her extremely busy schedule, she instantly provided me with assistance which I will never forget for the rest of my life. Without her assistance and warm encouragement, it would not have been possible for me to have the courage to continue my research during that hard time. I am also greatly indebted to my supervisors, Dr. Chang, Wu-Chang (張武昌) and Dr. Wu, Mei-Chen (吳美貞), for their constructive criticism, guidance, and encouragement throughout this journey. In particular, I appreciate Dr. Wu’s countless hours of guidance and enlightening conversation which positively shaped my work in many ways. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Liu, Ching-Kang (劉慶剛), Dr. Teng, Huei-Chun (鄧慧君), Dr. Chern, Chiou-Lan (陳秋蘭) and Dr. Lee, Yi-Chien (李宜倩) for their insightful comments and participation in this project. I am enormously grateful for all the participants’ time, dedication, and their openness in sharing their experiences and insights with me. Without them, this study would not have been possible. Much appreciation also goes to my colleagues who have thoughtfully shared my teaching hours during the years of my pregnancy and study-leave. I am really very lucky to have their invaluable support and unfailing encouragement, in both work and personal life, throughout my long study years. In particularly, my special thanks go to Jane, Pei-lun, Fong-Yi, and Prof. Yang, who are always my best backup to provide encouragement and assistance. I would like to reserve my deepest heartfelt gratitude to my loving parents, 田祺達 and 風玉蘭 who have taught me to aim high and have been supportive and believed in me. They set a standard of which I will never be able to live up to as a parent. However, my biggest regret is that it could not be possible for my dad to see the completion of this dissertation, but I want to tell him, “Dad, I made it, as I promised you.” I know he would be proud of me. Also, I am deeply grateful for my mother, one of my best friends, for taking care of my kids (me as well) and allowing me to concentrate on my study over the years. My loving sister, Dawn-Lin, v.

(7) has also been of great support; I thank her for always being there when I needed help and being the best aunt my daughters could have! And my last but foremost feeling of gratitude goes to my husband, Fisher, and our daughters, Hana, Ruby, and Vivi. Fisher, thank you for being extremely caring, supportive and understanding: tolerating my emotional storms and long working hours, providing graphic support and computer advice patiently, taking care of the kids and most chores, and always being my strongest backup to face life’s ups and downs. My precious three little girls, thanks for your giggles, hugs, kisses, and company that got me through the hardest times and filled me with endless bounds of energy which I needed to embark on this academic journey. Thank you all!. vi.

(8) THIS DISSERTATION IS DEDICATED. To Mom, for her unwavering support and encouragement. To Dad, for his love and memories that lead my way. vii.

(9) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………. viii. List of Tables and Figures …………………………………………………………….. xi. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………......... 1. 1.1 Background and Rationale…………………………………………………………... 1. 1.2 Research Problem………………………………………………………………….... 8. 1.3 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………. 9. CHAPTER 2. SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON ACADEMIC ORAL TASK-BASED RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………………………………. 2.1 Conceptual Framework—Second Language Socialization Theory…………………. 14. 2.1.1 Comparing L1 Socialization and L2 Socialization……………………………. 15. 2.2 Ochs’ Concept of Activities………..………………………………………………... 19. 2.3 A Community-of-Practice Orientation: Taking Classroom as a Community ………. 21. 2.3.1 The View of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) on Learning ………... 22. 2.3.2 Classroom as a Community………………………………………………….... 26. 2.4 Second Language Research on Oral Academic Discourse………………………….. 28. 2.4.1 Research on Oral Academic Discourse………………………………………... 28. 2.4.2 Research Gaps in Oral Academic Discourse………………………………….. 38. 2.4.3 Discussion on Related Studies and Gaps…………………………………….... 41. 2.5 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………….... 45. CHAPTER 3. METHODS OF INQUIRY ……………………………………….............. 47. 3.1 A Qualitative Approach …………………………………………………………….. 47. 3.2 Research Design……………………………………….……………………………. 49. 3.2.1 Site……………………………….……………………………………………. 49. 3.2.2 Participants………...………………………………………………………….. 50. The Instructor……………………………………………………………….... 50. Student Participants…………………………………………………………... 51. 3.2.3 Class Routine…………………………………………………………………. 55. 12. 3.3 Data Collection and Database ………………………………………………………. 56. 3.3.1 Weekly Self-report (WSRs) by Presenters………………………...………....... 56. 3.3.2 Exploratory & Semi-structured Interviews ………………………………….... 57. 3.3.3 Classroom Observations and In- and After-class Field Notes……………….... 59. 3.3.4 Documents…………………………………………………………..……….... 60. 3.4 Data Analysis Procedure…………………………………………………………….. 61. 3.5 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………….... 63. viii.

(10) CHAPTER 4. METHODS OF SOCIALIZATION IN ORAL PRESENTATION TASKS: THE INSTRUCTOR’S PERSPECTIVE………………………................. 64. 4.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 64. 4.1 Instructor Role in Previous Literature ……………………….................................... 67. 4.2 The Instructor’s Role in the Present Study………………………………………….. 69. 4.2.1 As an Editor with Approval Power……………………………………………. 71. 4.2.2 As a Councilor for Emotional Stability……………………………………….. 75. 4.2.2.1 The Teacher’s Awareness of Students’ On-going Development……... 76. 4.2.2.2 Being an Attentive Listener…………………………………………... 80. 4.2.2.3 Teacher’s Background: as a Learner and as a Teacher……………….. 84. 4.3 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………….... 88. METHODS OF SOCIALIZATION IN ORAL PRESENTATION TASKS: PEERS’ PERSPECTIVE………………………......................................... 91. 5.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 91. 5.1 Contribution of Peer during and after Presentation…………………………………. 93. 5.1.1 Contribution during Presentation……………………………………………... 93. 5.1.2 Contribution after Presentation……………………………………………….. 99. 5.2 Learning as a Result of Peer Influence…………………………………………….... 101. 5.2.1 Realization of Elements of Effective Presentation Strategies……………….... 101. 5.2.1.1 Awareness of Using Attention Getting Strategies……………………. 103. 5.2.1.2 Selecting Adequate Materials to Support Presentation……………….. 105. 5.2.1.3 Making a Presentation Emotionally Charged………………………... 107. CHAPTER 5. 5.2.2 Realization of the Responsibility as an Academic Presenter………………….. 110. 5.2.2.1 Updating the Information Provided by the Textbook………………... 110. 5.2.2.2 Knowing Best and Acting Professionally…………………………….. 111. 5.2.2.3 Employing Various Strategies to Engage Audiences in the Q&A Session………………………………………………………………... 112. 5.3 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………….... 114. CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ………………………………............ 115. 6.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 115. 6.1 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………... 115. 6.1.1 Discussion of the Oral Activity……………………………………………….. 116. 6.1.1.1 A Process of Non-native-speaker Socialization………………………... 116. 6.1.1.2 Adding to the Concept of Socialization……………………………....... 118. 6.1.1.3 A Co-constructed Social Activity…………………………………….... 120. 6.1.2 Discussion on Participants……………………………………………………. 123. ix.

(11) 6.1.2.1 A Broader View on Expert-novice Dichotomy………………............... 123. 6.1.2.2 The Instructor’s Contribution………………………………………….. 127. 6.1.2.3 Peers’ Multiple Roles………………………………………………….. 132. 6.2 Implications…………………………………………………………………………. 134. 6.2.1 Suggestions for Researchers…………………………………………………... 134. 6.2.2 Suggestions for Constructing a Theme-based Language Course……............... 135. 6.2.3 Suggestions for Teaching……………………………………………............... 137. 6.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research…………………………………….. 143. 6.3.1 Limitations…………………………………………………………………….. 143. 6.3.2 Directions for Future Research………………………………………………... 144. 6.4 Concluding Remarks………………………………………………………............... 146. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 148. APPENDIXES ………………………………………………………………….... 156. x.

(12) LIST OF TABLES 2.1. Summary of L2 Studies on Academic Oral Perspective……………………….... 34. 3.1. Participants’ Profiles……………………………………….................................. 53. 3.2. Interview Structure Continuum………………………………………………….. 58. 3.3. Documents in Database…………………………………………………………. 60. 3.4. Data Collection (Stage I)………………………………………………………... 61. 3.5. Data Collection (Stage II)…………………………………………….................. 61. 3.6. Data Collection (Stage III)………………………………………………………. 62. 4.1. Various Language Teachers’ Roles Discussed in Previous Studies……………... 69. 6.1. Key Informants’ Fluid Roles in Class-interaction & Negotiation……................. 133. xi.

(13) LIST OF FIGURES 2.1. Common View of Language Socialization (L1)…................................................ 16. 2.2. Common View of Language Socialization (L2)…................................................ 16. 2.3. Ochs’ Model for the Role of Activity in Language Socialization……………….. 20. 2.4. How Learning Occurs from a Community of Practice Perspective....................... 24. 3.1. Layout of the PBL Classroom………………………………………………….... 50. 6.1. How the Instructor and Peers Help Students Construct an OAP………............... 122. xii.

(14) Chapter 1 Introduction. 1.1 Background and Rationale The goal of this dissertation is to investigate the language and academic knowledge development of a group of EFL medical majors in Taiwan through oral presentation1.. Despite not being English majors, medical students in Taiwan are. usually expected and presumed as successful language learners since they have to achieve a satisfactory score in English in order to achieve an adequate integrated grade for the entrance examination.. However, attaining a superior grade in the. written examination does not guarantee good oral communicative competence, especially when they are obliged to participate in academic activities in university classrooms in English. This phenomenon could possibly be explained, however, through various reasons.. First, the language learning culture in Taiwan favors. lectures and rote memorization of vocabulary and grammar.. Oral practice is often. sacrificed because of its exclusion in entrance examinations, large class sizes, and/or time limitations; therefore, students in Taiwan prefer to listen to lectures since their priority is to achieve a superior score in written examinations.. Another possible. reason is provided by several studies, which have reported that due to sociocultural differences and/or their lack of language proficiency, Asian students do not take active speech roles in class (Chen, 2003; Cheng, 2000; Flowerdew, 1998; Littlewood, 2000). Indeed, students in Taiwan do share a similar nature with their Asian counterparts. Although the medical majors in Taiwan are assumed to have a good command of. 1. The oral presentation task discussed in this dissertation is an individual-based article presentation, including two tasks for thirty to forty minutes: giving an oral presentation and leading a whole-class discussion (i.e., Q & A session). Due to the nature of the course (rf. Chapter 2), the reported content is medical-theme-based. As for the presenter, they are all medical majors who are at their second year in college. Therefore, different from other academic presenters (e.g., graduate students), this group of students actually fulfill the requirement beyond the expectation of what sophomores can do. 1.

(15) English, oral academic activities in the university classroom, such as engaging in discussions or giving oral presentations in English, are demanding for them.. Further,. it is also very likely that only very few of them have had related experience or training for these activities in their high school education. Realizing this predicament and recognizing the importance of English for future careers, stakeholders in the researched medical school convened with English teachers and constructed a course (i.e., Medical English) in the fall of 1999. Over the past decade, the course construction and requirements have been modified several times due to different student needs and practical conditions; however, its pedagogical goal has never been changed: to enhance the English ability of second year medical students. It is expected that the said group of students, after this English training program, would have the English language ability to deal with the linguistic demands of their third year pre-clinical courses and future academic careers (i.e., publishing papers and attending international conferences), where they may need to enhance their credentials and develop their experience.. In the course, the team teacher selected a. medical-specific textbook as a guideline to direct their syllabus design and course construction.. With the guidance of the selected textbook, which deals with various. medical issues, such as cloning, the genome project, or ethical issues, the semester-long (eighteen weeks) class was organized so that students were required to do extensive readings, two individual oral presentations, and write a mini research final term paper. However, it should be noted that the course topics were not very medically-specific; rather, it focused on language learning for academic purposes but used medical content as the major topic for discussion.. Therefore, it differed from. typically recognized content-based classes, which emphasize subject-specific knowledge such as engineering, law, or business disciplines in an ESL learning context. In the observed class, the focus was laid on language learning, despite the 2.

(16) discussion issues being medically-related.. Yet occasionally, the specialized medical. knowledge was beyond the language instructors’ comprehension.. More details. regarding the instructional framework and rationale of the course construction will be discussed in Chapter 3. Current literature investigating theories and practices for academic purposes in the second language (L2) learning of medical students in Taiwan has been noted and discussed from various perspectives, including needs analyses and surveys of students’ difficulties (Chia, et al., 1999; Hwang & Lin, 2010; Tseng, 2009), problem-based learning (PBL) English curriculum design and instruction (Chang, 2001), medical majors’ oral performance anxiety in an English PBL classroom (Chen, et al., 2008), preferred learning and teaching styles (Cheng, 2001), the washback and stakes of English benchmark policies for graduation for Taiwanese medical university students (Lien, 2007) and study skills and practice in terms of academic writing (Lai & Tien, 2009). The most frequently researched area is the investigation on medical students’ needs in relation to language learning.. Chia, et al. (1999) carried out an English. needs analysis of 349 college students and 20 faculties at Chung Shan Medical School in Taichung.. The most relevant finding to the present study is that students. considered oral/aural abilities as the most important English skills to improve.. In. 2010, another faculty (i.e., Hwang & Lin, 2010) in the Chung Shan Medical School conducted an updated study by expanding the previous questionnaire to include new items to re-examine students’ linguistic needs and perceptions. Hwang and Lin’s study is consistent with Chia, et al.’s result that poor English speaking skill (lowerclass students: 73.2%; upperclass students: 62.0%; faculty: 50.0%; original terms and statistics data were copied) was rated among the most difficult problems medical majors faced. Similarly, Tseng’s (2009) study was conducted in the same 3.

(17) context as the present study at Chang Gung University in Taoyuan, where 94 first-year and fifth-year medical majors completed her questionnaire.. Tseng’s (2009). findings also correspond to the previous two studies, indicating that medical students were primarily concerned with improving their speaking and listening abilities. Other than the required courses, they opted for training classes targeting English speaking and listening skills, which they regard as the least trained area to meet their job needs. From these three studies, we can see that medical students who are seen as upper-intermediate or advanced English learners are generally not confident in their oral competence and hope to have more opportunities to practice their oral ability. For more than ten years now, medical students have thought that their English oral ability as well as aural comprehension need a comprehensive investigation to help register improvements. The second most frequently researched area is language teaching in a PBL (Problem-based Learning)2 curriculum. As Chang (2001) indicated, collaborative learning in both PBL and language teaching reveals a shared epistemological belief in Dewey’s social constructivism that learners may best shape their knowledge or ideas through reflective inquiry with social communities or learning environments. However, in her study, Chang found that limited linguistic competence hinders some students’ willingness to cooperate with peers.. Besides language abilities, she further. indicated individual interests, personalities, and gender also impact students’ performance in the researched language class. In other words, collaborative learning seems to not be going as smoothly as it appears in this group of medical learners’ 2. Problem-based learning (PBL) was firstly introduced and used at McMaster University in Canada. PBL instruction in medical education is seen as one kind of pedagogical strategy of active learning. By being involved in a posed problem (e.g. a patient case), learners have to explore possible solutions which are often open-ended. It features collaborative learning among student peers rather than depending on an instructor’s lectures or given answers. By so doing, learners have self-directed autonomy and decide what they want to learn, which reflects characteristics of life-long learning. In recent years, PBL has been a very popular trend in medical education in Taiwan. 4.

(18) community.. The group of medical students, who are high achievers in academic. performance, distrust the effectiveness of group work.. Rather, they believe in their. own ability to solve problems alone, as Chang indicated, “because of this distrust in the group project, students were allowed to run their task on an individual basis” (p. 231). Therefore, in some way, it would be an interesting issue to explore how medical students perceive individual and group work in future studies. related study was conducted by Chen et al. (2008).. A second. The purpose of their study was. to investigate the nature of performance anxiety among Taiwanese medical students in an English-mediated PBL group.. Participants included 23 medical students (i.e.,. eighteen Taiwanese, one American, and four Asian students who were not specified by country) who enrolled in an international PBL workshop held by Kaohsiung Medical School.. The questionnaire and anxiety evaluation data of Taiwanese. participants were compared to that of the American student and four Asian students. In their findings, the researchers suggested that the Taiwanese students showed more anxiety than the American student, but less than the other four Asian students.. They. also concluded that giving a report, being the center of attention, and participating in oral discussions were the most common situations related to anxiety in PBL groups. Their findings imply the necessity to develop effective strategies to facilitate students to cope with performance anxiety in English discussions. In sum, the two above studies take different perspectives to discuss how language teaching can be incorporated and integrated into a PBL curriculum. Other studies that have not been discussed so far are mainly related to the areas of how medical majors experience English learning in their academic environment and possible implementations to reduce their difficulties and lead them to academic success.. To summarize, these studies have helped illustrate the reality of medical. students’ language learning experience in university classrooms in Taiwan. 5. The.

(19) medical majors, who are deemed academically superior to others, actually experience similar struggles as their peers who are non-medical-majors, especially when they need to fulfill a higher-level requirement in terms of being an academic member. They have their own specific needs in terms of language learning, and also need help from teachers through lectures and instructions. Reviewing these studies, most research (except Chang, 2001; Lai & Tien, 2009) was conducted by quantified data (e.g., SPSS system) to portray a generalizable phenomenon in medical language education. Qualitatively examining the medical school context for learning English has not yet been examined.. More specifically,. research which qualitatively describes the academic socialization of EFL medical students into the English-speaking university classroom culture seems to be lacking. Thus, questions such as what students have to learn in order to become a competent member of the academic community, who the participants are in the activity, and what factors influence students’ performance may all be quite important to examine.. In. addition, the type of interaction that occurs in such a medical learning context remains to be investigated.. This dissertation explores these issues in the context of medical. schools in Taiwan. In this study, it is compulsory for students in the observed class to engage in a variety of academic activities: listening to the lectures, reading extensively, doing two individual oral presentations, getting involved in oral discussions, and writing a research paper.. Hence, it seems impractical to take into account of all activities in. this study. Selecting from the classroom activities, I am mostly interested in the oral presentation task, which is therefore taken as the main analytical focus of this study. In terms of the descriptions of academic oral discourse in existing literature, oral presentation has been distinctly under-researched (Ferris & Tagg, 1996a, 1996b; Ferris, 1998; Kobayashi, 2003, 2004; Morita, 2002, 2004). In the restricted body of 6.

(20) literature of academic oral discourse, surveyed topics include willingness to communicate (WTC), participation, seminar/discussion ability, classroom discourse or teacher and learner talk in general English-learning or a content course, peer feedback’s influence, and teaching pronunciation (further details are offered in Chapter 2).. Different from these topics, the present study resides in a. theme-specific3 classroom and investigates how medical college students learn to give oral presentations, which has rarely been discussed in the existing ESL and EFL literature. Furthermore, the major resource of participants in previous studies is from English as Second Language (ESL) learners who reside in English-speaking countries, particularly graduate students or immigrants.. These studies have explored. an academic community from the perspective of the needs of (international) students in an English-dominant ESL context.. Nevertheless, their needs and conditions may. be very different from learners in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context, such as the student participants in this dissertation.. Therefore, this study will shed. light on a different research dimension in academic oral discourse regarding its topic and participants. Third, as discussed at the beginning of this chapter, medical students are considered as successful language learners in Taiwan, but in fact, they may not 3. In the present study, I use the term, ‘theme-based class (classroom)’ several times. It is taken from Parkinson’s (2000) definition on theme-based instruction to explain how I view the content of oral tasks. Based on her definition, theme-based courses should contain “learning of academic skills, grammar…in a real topic and any reference to grammar or strategies for working out the meaning of new vocabulary” (p.374). It serves three purposes: to make the material genuine by involving authentic activities, to make the content relevant and interesting, and to make materials capable of teaching appropriate genres. In the researched scenario, the topics of oral tasks are all based on one textbook entitled An English Course for Medical and Nursing Professionals: Third Call (2003). It covers a wide variety of biology-related and health-related topics, for example, cloning and the genome project, emergency services, ethical issues, legal issues, patient-doctor relationship and public health service, etc., with specialized knowledge sometimes beyond the comprehension of English instructors. Apparently, the material is somehow relevant to the students’ major and it also builds on learners’ knowledge and experience in medical courses. But as aforementioned, medical content is the theme used in giving oral presentations and class discussions. The major focus of this class is language learning rather than acquisition of content knowledge. The word ‘theme’ in the present study is used to explain orientation of materials in the present study and its importance to direct the content of oral presentation. 7.

(21) undergo as smooth a journey as expected, especially in promoting their English oral ability in fulfilling their academic requirements.. Thus, the present study also. attempts to understand how the group of participants gains a better understanding of academic oral presentation task through their engagement in the social academic activity of oral presentations, which many participants perceive to be the most challenging task in the class.. It is hoped that the findings of this study can provide. pedagogical implications for in-practice language teachers who are situated in a theme-based language classroom. 1.2 Research Problem In light of the need for further research that focuses on the sociocultural aspects of language teaching, the present work looks at how EFL learners immerse themselves in a new academic community and become socialized through language learning. This study focuses on participants’ oral presentations as a major unit of analysis to examine their socialization process to be a better oral presenter. The purpose of the study is therefore to explore how this group of medical students prepares themselves to better fulfill the requirement of academic needs. Framed in the assumption of sociocultural theory to view oral presentation as a social activity, more specifically, the research question is as follows.. On the way to. become a better presenter, how do the indirect participants (i.e., the instructor and peers) influence the target students’ socialization process? In other words, while most oral studies (see detailed discussion in Chapter 2) focus on either student presenters or oral activities, the present study sheds light on how other participants who are also involved in the activity contribute to presenters’ understanding and influence their performance in oral presentations. 1.3 Significance of the Study In terms of the theoretical contribution of this study, framed in language 8.

(22) socialization theory, research on an EFL tertiary medical-issue-based course through oral presentation tasks is unique from two perspectives. On the one hand, scholars have only in recent years started to examine and theorize about the complicated, contingent nature of second language academic discourse socialization, so we have relatively limited knowledge about this area (Belcher, 1994; Belcher & Braine, 1995). While much of the previous work in ESL contexts is data-driven, this study attempts to make contributions by addressing the limited research into EFL learners’ acquisition of oral academic discourse qualitatively.. Accordingly, it adds to an. emerging line of research that examines EFL learner’s participation and socialization within academia by taking oral presentations as a socially-constructed academic activity within such a specific content course. Moreover, in this medical-theme-based language classroom, the issues of negotiating membership inside and outside the classroom have rarely been documented.. Inside the classroom, since the language instructor is not a medical. professional, how can she engage in and negotiate with medical majors?. The. medical majors, who play multiple roles (i.e., presenters, discussion leaders, listeners, and oral contributors), have better medical knowledge but less language knowledge than the instructor; therefore, how do they negotiate their expressions and ideas with the teacher and classmates?. Does their negotiation process follow the conventional. interaction mode in a traditional Taiwanese classroom: teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation, especially in a large-size language classroom? not, then what is the interaction and negotiation pattern in the classroom?. If. This. dimension is particularly significant because in the observed classroom, this student-dominant characteristic is very much in conflict with traditionally recognized Taiwanese classroom discourse.. Therefore, when students fulfill the overriding. position to control their oral presentation and lead discussions, the typically 9.

(23) acknowledged educational status of the teacher and students in Taiwanese culture is over-turned. Then, the question which follows could be of interest to find out how this occurs and in which perspective, the instructor activates (or yields) her mediating role during negotiation.. Outside the classroom, this study aims to better understand. how students prepare their oral presentation task. For example, do they work on an individual basis rather than depending on assistance from instructors and/or peers? If they need assistance, what format do they prefer (e.g., email, face-to-face communication, or scheduled oral conferencing)?. In Q & A session, how do they. undergo a discussion since everyone has different experiences and expertise?. To. summarize, this dissertation presents a multi-layered picture of the negotiating membership between the instructor and students inside and outside classroom. In addition to further exploring theoretical issues, this study also provides pedagogical implications regarding the importance of oral presentations in academia. Oral presentations are recognized as an essential ability for academic community members.. In the academic world, presentations take place in lectures, presenting. information or results, summarizing, sharing knowledge, and attending conferences, among other situations. Therefore, oral presentations in university classrooms serve the role of placing learners in contexts that require authentic use of language in academia.. Secondly, based on sociocultural theories in language learning, it is. especially significant for researchers and educators to examine how to carry out oral presentations in a language classroom, not only to observe how an individual is challenged and transformed through a dynamic and negotiated process, but also how students’ as well as the instructor’s roles in the academic community change. Meanwhile, from a practical perspective, the findings will be especially important for medical students because in their future careers, oral presentation skills are central to physician-physician communication; however, many studies have been 10.

(24) done regarding general English learning or graduate-level seminar classes (see detailed discussion in Chapter 2), but very little is known about how these skills are learned and about the doctors’ dilemma in making a definitive English oral presentation (Haber & Lingard, 2001).. In the present study, how this skill helps EFL. medical students in the academic community is investigated as well as the journey they experience to be a better presenter.. Therefore, the medical major participants’. reflection on results can contribute to both medical and higher education. In short, the primary goal of this study is to provide an in-depth examination of the learner experiences and of the development that occurs with oral tasks in an English medicine-related course in an EFL context.. By drawing on various. sociocultural theories, this study attempts to explore how these issues manifest themselves in the experiences of the medical students who participate in new academic communities, through oral presentations, and in a variety of ways.. 11.

(25) Chapter 2 Sociocultural Perspectives on Academic Oral Discourse Research: A Review of the Literature Among the various oral activities in tertiary courses across disciplines, such as seminars, interviews, oral examinations, participation in discussions, etc, oral presentations can be seen as one of the most pervasive oral activities in regular university classes.. Surprisingly, in reviewing the literature, it was found that oral. academic discourse is peculiarly under-researched.. Among the limited literature,. most studies have been carried out with indexicality (e.g., deictics, speech acts, pronouns, turn-taking, etc.) to analyze oral linguistic characteristics (Basturkmen, 2002; Bygate, 1999) or quantify results by using questionnaires (e.g., Ferris & Tagg, 1996a, 1996b; Kim, 2006). Differing from those research foci, this dissertation’s interest lies in the exploration of what and how students’ learning of academic oral presentations occurs ‘behind the scenes’.. Framed in a sociocultural theory, it seems that depending solely. on linguistic analysis or counting results in surveys is not sufficient to illustrate what the exact causes that influence students’ performance, which I view as an outcome derived from various factors.. In this sense, sociocultural theories which view. language learning as a fundamentally social, cultural, and temporal activity provide a relatively strong and mature stance to sustain the present study.. The value of. conducting studies from a sociocultural stance is well supported by Wertsch’s (1991) quote: “the basic goal of a sociocultural approach to mind is to create an account of human mental processes that recognizes the essential relationship between these processes and their cultural, historical, and institutional settings” (p. 6; see also Wertsch, 1990, 1998). From such a perspective, learners’ development and process of learning are taken to be situated within particular contexts or the social, cultural 12.

(26) world which is “constituted in relation with persons acting,” (Lave 1993, p. 5; see also, Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, to better portray a holistic picture, I will discuss below some important aspects or concepts related to the theoretical perspective of language socialization and other sociocultural approaches.. First of all, this study borrows. from mainly language socialization theories as a conceptual framework.. Some of. the important theoretical constructs include second language socialization theory (Duff, 2003), the role of activity proposed by Ochs (Ochs, 1988), legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) on learning and taking classroom as a learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).. In the following sections, explanation will be. provided on each of the above mentioned constructs. First of all, in Section 2.1, an overview of second language socialization to emulate an orientation as the theoretical conceptual framework to answer research questions and support the entire study is introduced.. Considering second language. socialization as a dynamic and complex process (Duff, 1996, 2003, 2007; Duff & Hornberger, 2008), characteristics of the researched language classroom will be described. In addition, the features of key informants’ interaction in the classroom will be explained.. The use of second language socialization theory will also help. provide a strong stance to capture and illuminate various dimensions of socialization experiences. In Section 2.2, I further explore how sociocultural theories discuss the importance of activity (i.e., activity theory) which is essential to the present study because it helps validate my explanation for taking oral presentations as a socially constructed activity.. Following this and framed in sociocultural theory, Section 2.3. employs community-of-practice (CoP) theory to re-examine the typically recognized teacher-student position (i.e., expert-novice position) in a traditional Taiwanese 13.

(27) education setting. Also, it helps define the investigated classroom as a reduced version of an authentic academic community. Finally, in Section 2.4, I review recent studies on academic oral discourse to indicate the imperative need to expand research on academic oral discourse. By doing so, we can have a better understanding of how this area has been studied. Later, a review is provided with a focus on key traits and findings of several studies which have informed this investigation.. All studies reviewed have framed. themselves in a sociocultural stance, discussing how ESL learners’ acquisition of academic oral discourse influences their socialization into academia.. Sharing a. common orientation, a discussion is offered to distinguish reviewed studies and the present one in order to add further theoretical contributions to the existing body of work.. At the end of this chapter, Section 2.5, a chapter summary is given.. 2.1 Conceptual Framework—Second Language Socialization Theory Background Language socialization is a framework initially developed in the early 1980s by linguistic anthropologists Bambi Schieffelin and Elinor Ochs (1986a, 1986b) and their colleagues. It was developed with first language learners and currently considered among the most promising theories to explore second language learning from a sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspective, with numerous studies having already been produced by two generations of L2 socialization researchers (for a detailed review see Duff & Hornberger, 2008).. In the 1970s, linguistic anthropologists, such. as Schieffelin &Ochs (1986a), Ochs (1988), and Heath (2007) were influenced by Hymes’ (1972) insights about communicative competence, while other groups of researchers, including Rogoff (1990) and Lave and Wenger (1991), were influenced by Vygotsky’s (1978) belief in sociocultural and sociohistorical contexts of learning. They highlighted the importance of apprenticeship in learning activities, emphasizing 14.

(28) the role of more capable peers, caregivers, or instructors. Along with this research track, language is considered to be both a major object and a medium of learning and socialization.. To achieve communicative competence,. membership, identity, stance and ideologies in a group, novices and newcomers get involved in explicit or implicit socialization through linguistic and social interaction into relevant local communicative practices, and thereby integrate themselves into particular cultures or communities.. The socialization approach views language. learning and sociocultural learning as being intertwined. This stance of viewing language itself and language learning is fundamentally different from the psycholinguistic approach which views language as a linguistic code, where the ultimate goal of language learning is the development of linguistic competence.. By. contrast, the language socialization approach considers social and cultural factors as an inseparable part of language learning. 2.1.1 Comparing L1 Socialization and L2 Socialization Dating back to the early 1990s, a considerable number of studies were conducted on second language (L2) socialization.. Even though L1 and L2. socializations share many similar principles, L2 socialization constitutes a more complex process than its L1 counterpart. Their relationship can be shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 below (Duff, 2003).. 15.

(29) FIGURE 2.1 COMMON VIEW OF LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION (L1) (Duff 2003:3) PROCESS & OUTCOMES       . monolingual (until school) inevitable linear, complete bidirectional accepted, expected, desired by self/others facilitated accommodated. Family NEW/PRIMARY CULTURE(S) & COMMUNITIES, TARGET LG.. School (University). Community Experts. (NEW) LEARNER. LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION  . Traits  neurobiological  maturational  cognitive  psychological  personality. language is both means and outcome of socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986); interaction with more capable, competent members of society appropriation of members’ attitudes, worldviews, dispositions, (socio)linguistic practices, etc. movement from periphery/margins to mainstream of culture/group. FIGURE 2.2 COMMON VIEW OF LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION (L2) (Duff 2003:3) PROCESS & OUTCOMES      . Work. access issues acceptance accommodation resistance rejection ambivalence. TARGET CULTURE(S) & COMMUNITIES L1, L2,L3…. School/ University. termination/interruption possible OTHER. Other: virtual etc.. Leisure. Communities, lgs, cultures values, etc.. LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION (NEW) LEARNER.       . Experts NNSs?.             . agency identities affiliation desires/needs trajectories, goals (local & global) options resources (and other traits). 16. dynamic, negotiated unstable, changeable, incomplete bi/multidirectional lifelong/lifewide/erratic political (i.e., power, resistance, agency) socially contextualized contingent (accommodation) multilingual/multicultural partial, selective additive/subtractive contested complex gendered.

(30) As we can see from the two figures, L1 and L2 socializations differ from each other in several perspectives. L1 and L2, respectively.. First, socialization occurs through different accesses in L1 socialization mainly discusses the congruence or. incongruence of interactional practices or speech acts at home relating to oral and written texts and emphasizes the importance of formal education (e.g., see many studies of Heath, S. B).. Embracing their first language, culture, and values, in L2. socialization, one is socialized through alternative routes, including apprenticeship or informal education.. Considering learners of L2 socialization who already possess a. repertoire of linguistic competence, identity to L1 cultures and values, affiliations, goals, needs, ideologies and even their own habitual learning resources or traits, they have to change participation according to changing practices through a negotiating process in order to comfortably fit into a new community. Secondly, due to this different developmental track, L2 socialization studies over the past ten to fifteen years have taken a divergent path in research work from previous research on L1.. According to Duff (2007), the learners that have been. studied in L2 socialization undergo similar traits as their L1 counterparts, such as at home, school, peer-group, university, vocational or workplace contexts, but up until now, research has focused more on school-aged children and adolescents than on adults (see also, Cole & Zuengler, 2003).. In particular, studies have typically. centralized on minority students’ integration into a new domain culture by analyzing their oral and written practices. Several studies have targeted life in bilingual and multilingual communities by examining the issue of code-switching and language choice in communities, while other studies have focused on the integration of immigrants in elementary and second language content classrooms (Cole & Zuengler, 2003; Duff, 2002; Schecter & Bayley, 1997; Toohey, 2000). These studies have also 17.

(31) examined what the majority of students’ experiences are like when they struggle, transform, and finally immerse themselves in the second-language-mediated educational or work settings.. Directing attention to this perspective, some studies. have discussed how students are socialized into academic discourse(s) in postsecondary programs by examining how university students learn to give oral presentations or engage in new academic literacies in L2 academic communities (Casanave, 1992; Kobayashi, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2002).. Other research has focused. on professional programs and workplaces (Duff, Wong & Early, 2000; Flowerdew, 2000; Goldstein, 1997; Li, 2000) and investigated how workers in specific disciplines, such as lawyers, doctors, or pilots, are expected to speak and act in a new community or culture as well as their transformation of ideology and identity. Thirdly, whereas L1 socialization is seen as a linear, straightforward learning process, L2 socialization can lead to various outcomes resulting from different degrees of access, acceptance by the new domain society/community, or accommodation.. Research into L2 socialization has often discussed misgivings,. conflicts, contradictions or rejections to integration into the new L2-mediated social worlds.. In other words, L2 socialization is much more complex than L1. socialization, including perspectives in cognitive and psychological elements, linguistic repertoire (i.e., pragmatics, grammatical and cultural meaning), and even sociopolitical issues. Generally speaking, language socialization refers to [T]he lifelong process by means of which individuals—typically novices—are inducted into specific domains of knowledge, beliefs, affect, roles, identities, and social representations, which they access and construct through language practices and social interaction. (Duff, 1995, p. 508, citing Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986a, 1986b) From this view, the socialization process is initiated from the moment individuals come into contact with other people, as Duff indicates above. 18. From the.

(32) above discussion, we also learn that L1 socialization is distinguished from that of L2 in terms of their individual socialization processes.. Over one decade, new trends in. L2 socialization theory, however, challenge certain assumptions proposed by earlier language socialization research.. For instance, the stability of the target language. norms should be modified by individual newcomers when they are immersed in fluid, hybrid, dynamic, multilingual and different sociocultural contexts.. As Duff (2003). noted in this regard that Language socialization is a process marked by peaks and valleys, progression and regression, times of learning and forgetting, of belonging and not belonging, of speaking and being silent, and all the tensions, confusion, and points in between. (p. 333) What has been discussed so far is concerned with L1 and L2 socialization. According to Duff (2003), each model has its own pattern to explain its complexities. However, foreign language learners such as the participants in the present study have not been included in the model.. That is, this group of medical EFL learners may. experience a very different process of accommodation in socializing themselves to be more competent English academic members through engaging in oral presentation activities.. However, how they accommodate or refuse to adjust to the. English-learning academic context has not been discussed in existing literature.. In. addition, since the participants are medical majors in an EFL context, it is very likely that these participants’ learning would be very different from Duff’s ESL participants. More specifically, how this group of medical students builds their community of learning could be an important topic to examine.. This community building could. help to add to Duff’s model by offering an example of how second language learners can build their own learning community. The present study, framed in language socialization theory, is expected to address the lack of culture in previous language acquisition studies and examine how participants negotiate and achieve the language. 19.

(33) norms belonging to the observed context itself. 2.2 Ochs’ Concept of Activities After the discussion of how language socialization recognizes the importance of investigating the sociocultural context of language development, this section will explain how this school of thought regards activity as a mediating role to transmit linguistic and sociocultural knowledge.. According to sociocultural theories,. sociocultural activity in which members of a social group actively participate is the basic unit of analysis.. In L1 socialization, Ochs (1988) argued that children acquire. linguistic and sociocultural knowledge through participation in socially and culturally organized activities or practices. She provides a model (Fig. 2.3) which illustrates that “activity mediates linguistic and sociocultural knowledge and that knowledge and activity impact each other” (p. 15).. In other words, by engaging in activities,. language acquisition means gaining not only linguistic knowledge but also sociocultural knowledge. Linguistic knowledge  activity  sociocultural knowledge Figure 2.3 Ochs’ Model for the Role of Activity in Language Socialization. The concept of activity found in L1 socialization is rooted in the work of Vygotsky (1978) who advocated the experimental-genetic method, which focuses on process and supplying maximum opportunity for learners to engage in a variety of activities. The Vygotskian School of psychology or sociohistorical approaches to cognitive development promotes the idea that higher mental functions of individuals develop through their participation in socially and culturally organized activities. When implementing activities, language is seen as a tool used to engage in activities which mediate the development of higher mental functions. be related to language learning?. But how can this claim. As Lantolf (2000) indicated, the task of psychology 20.

(34) is to realize how human social and mental activities interact through “culturally constructed artifacts” (p. 1) whose fundamental concept of theory is mediation, i.e., symbolic artifacts—most importantly language—to establish a mediated relationship between individuals and the external world. Similarly, Schieffelin (1990) made the following statement to indicate two components of language socialization in terms of L1 acquisition, which appears appropriate to be applied to L2 socialization as well. The study of language socialization has its goal of understanding how persons become competent members of their social groups and the role language has in this process. Language socialization, therefore, concerns two major areas of socialization: socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language. (p. 14) Framed in this view, then, language is seen as a major and powerful medium of socialization, and by the same token, socialization is a key to language learning. Therefore, from this viewpoint, learning is taken as a process mediated through activities and language.. The present study also takes two assigned oral presentations. as socially constructed activities constituting the basic unit of analysis. Specifically, examining the two oral presentation activities not only mediates language learning under a medical-content theme but also facilitates students to gain sociocultural knowledge in the English academic field.. At the same time, students also learn some. formulation of how to do an oral presentation by engaging in the oral activity. 2.3 A Community-of-Practice Orientation: Taking a Classroom as a Community While drawing generally from the various sociocultural perspectives outlined above, we come to realize that this investigation focuses on language socialization theory: taking oral presentations as a socially constructed activity to fit the requirement of being a more competent academic member and viewing English as the major mediating language to construct sociocultural knowledge.. In this section,. another sociocultural theory will be discussed: community of practice (CoP). The present study views context as important in examining how students carry out 21.

(35) activities. In this study, context is defined as the classroom community in which activities are carried out.. Central to this notion of classroom as a community, the. section that follows will explain how this study uses Lave & Wenger’s idea of legitimate peripheral participation on learning. 2.3.1 The View of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) on Learning Traditionally, the mainstream cognitive psychologists’ conceptualization of learning is regarded as an individual achievement.. During the early ‘90s, Lave and. Wenger’s (1991) revolutionary situated learning theory extended learning to involve the social nature of learning.. For them, knowledge is not incrementally stored in the. mind, but is the result of becoming involved in activities and located in societies. Haneda (2006) interpreted Lave and Wenger’s idea in a very comprehensive way by saying that, [I]ndividuals do not simply receive, internalize, and construct knowledge in their minds but enact it as persons-in-the-world participating in the practices of a sociocultural community. Accordingly, learning is an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of any social practice, not the goal to be achieved, and it occurs when people engage in joint activity in a CoP, with or without teaching. (p. 808) Such learning is what Lave and Wenger (1991) defined as legitimate peripheral participation (LPP).. ‘Legitimate’ indicates that anyone could potentially become a. member of a community of practice or in a discourse community.. ‘Peripheral’. explains how the marginal participants, starting from peripheral to central, acquire knowledge through their involvement (i.e., participation) with activities or practices. Gaining knowledge thus is viewed as a process, not a product.. Therefore, treating. learning as legitimate peripheral participation implies that learning is regarded as “itself an evolving form of membership” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53).. Lave and. Wenger view learning as an integral part of social practice. In their theory, learning cannot be separated from social context. Apprenticeships, which they regard as “a. 22.

(36) common structured pattern of learning experiences” (p. 30), illustrate their theory of learning. They both believe that knowledge is not taught, nor examined, and neither is the apprentice of a mechanical copier of patterns.. Learning is part of the. apprentice’s everyday existence which does not happen in a formal educational setting. Based on this rationale, Lave and Wenger (1991) gave examples of CoP from various scenarios: Vai and Gola tailors, Yucatec midwives, and meat cutters to explain how learning could possibly occur. Through multiple social networks, relations and interactions with other members in a situated community, Lave and Wenger also argue that “identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another” (p. 53). In 1996, Lave further elaborated discourse on the fact that this connection entails that “crafting identities in practice becomes the fundamental project subjects engage in” (p. 157).. This concept. of multiple social networks also corresponds to what has been discussed elsewhere in the previous section, i.e., that first language socialization emphasizes the importance of formal education, whereas researchers in second language socialization, especially in a community-of-practice perspective, consider learning as occurring everywhere. To summarize the above, socialization is not a matter of learning pre-determined knowledge or skills, but a back-and-forth process involving negotiating interactions, activities and practice; it is expected that learners can finally become a full-fledged member in the community of practice.. Their relationship can be depicted as follows. in Figure 2.4.. 23.

(37) ss). Peripheral participants: newcomers. al p. ro c e. Th e id e wa y n tit y o to g a f m in m (a c ast ont e ry e m b e in u r. s hi p&. Figure 2.4 How Learning Occurs from a Community of Practice Perspective. Emerging Constituent of Learning. Practices & activities. Social network. Central participants: old-timers. Interaction with others who are in this community. Negotiating identities. A situated community. From this figure, we can see that newcomers are seen as peripheral participants in their respective new communities who move from partial participation to full participation by means of the guidance provided by more experienced CoP members (referred to as “old-timers” in Lave and Wenger’s CoP theory).. In the present study,. we can view the instructor and experienced presenters as “old-timers”.. However,. traditional models of expert-novice relationships have been questioned, since the assumption that experienced individuals are experts and newcomers are novices. But as Wenger’s (1998) later elaboration on multimembership indicated, community of practices can be accomplished through mutual engagement, joint activity involving a collective process of negotiation, and shared repertories. Why is the concept of 24.