Is Communicative Language Teaching Practical in the...

144

Journal of Language and Learning Volume 4 Number 2 2006 ISSN 1475 - 8989

Is Communicative Language Teaching Practical in the Expanding Circle?

A Case Study of Teachers of Shiraz High Schools and Institutes

Seyyed Ayatollah Razmjoo

A. Mehdi Riazi Shiraz University, Iran

Abstract The Communicative Approach in language teaching originates from a theory of language as communication. According to this approach, the main objective of language teaching is to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as "communicative competence". The literature on language teaching suggests that EFL teachers' attitudes and practice toward communicative language teaching (CLT) vary depending on how they conceptualize CLT. Thus, the purpose of this study is, firstly, to explore high school and institute teachers' attitudes toward the CLT within the context of an expanding circle, Iran. Secondly, the study aims at exploring the extent to which the teachers of these two contexts materialize and substantiate their attitudes. To fulfill the objectives, a questionnaire consisting of five main factors was administered to 100 male and female explore high school and institute teachers. Moreover, a classroom observation scheme, designed on the basis of literature on CLT, was used to monitor how well and to what extent teachers practice what they believe. Descriptive and inferential analysis of the data indicated that high school and institute teachers' attitudes toward the CLT are positive, indicating a welcoming atmosphere toward the implementation of CLT. However, among the participants only the teachers of institutes practice a quasi-CLT type of approach in their classes. 1. Introduction English assumes a pivotal role in Iranian educational system. In recent years, an increasing demand for teaching and learning English as a foreign language has been witnessed in the society. It is now a recognized fact that English language and its influence is clearly visible. We can see its utility as a link-language, a library language and a medium of instruction in some private schools, colleges and universities. In addition to a service language, it is the language for international trade, commerce and communication. In spite of such a pervasive use, it is unfortunate to note that the system of education in Iran has produced students, the

145

majority of whom lack appreciable competence in communicating the language effectively. As a consequence, our students find themselves completely unsuited to the international competition forced by economic globalization (see, for example, Yarmohammadi, 2000; Moradi, 1996; Rahimi, 1996; Saadat, 1995; Rashidi, 1995; Zanganeh, 1995; Bagheri, 1994). In recent years, teachers of foreign languages in many countries, including Iran, have been encouraged to adopt an approach known as communicative language teaching (CLT). This approach advocates the development of communicative competence as a primary goal via the extensive use of the foreign language as a means of communication during classroom sessions. Understandably, education authorities and teacher educators are keen to know what teachers understand by CLT and how well they have incorporated this approach into their foreign language teaching. Since the concept of CLT is a Western idea and methodology, seemingly it might be ill-suited to other contexts. In addition, immense misunderstanding surrounds its theory and practice. As such, this exploratory study seeks to investigate the attitude of Iranian high school and institute teachers toward CLT and the amount they practice the approach. 2. Background Research The background to the study will be presented in two parts. In the first part, the origin of CLT along with its uses in different contexts and some principles of CLT will be discussed. In the second part, an overview of language teaching methods in Iran will be presented and discussed. 2.1 Where does CLT come from? Communicative language teaching originated from the changes in the British Situational Language Teaching approach dating from the late 1960s (Carter & Nunan, 2001; Richards & Renandya, 2002; and Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Stemming from the socio-cognitive perspective of the socio-linguistic theory, with an emphasis on meaning and communication and a goal to develop learners' communicative competence, CLT approach evolved as a prominent language teaching method and gradually replaced the previous Grammar-Translation (GT) and Audio-Lingual (AL) methods (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Communicative language teaching has been an influential approach for at least two decades now. The very term 'communicative' carries an obvious ring of truth: we "learn to communicate by communicating" (Larsen-Freeman 1986, p.131). Most teachers now claim to use a communicative approach in some way or other and it is hardly surprising that no one wishes to be called a non-communicative teacher (Karavas-Doukas, 1996). Despite the widespread adoption of communicative language teaching in ESL countries, research suggests that curricular innovations prompted by the adoption of CLT in EFL countries have generally been difficult (Li, 1998). The literature on curriculum innovation suggests that teachers’ understanding of an innovation is central to its success. According to Li (1998), a group of South Korean secondary school English teachers’ perceived difficulties in adopting CLT reveals that the difficulties have their source in the differences between the underlying educational theories of South Korea and those of Western countries. The results suggest that, to adopt CLT, EFL countries like South Korea will need to change their fundamental approach to education and that implementation should be gradual and adapted to EFL situations. In the long run, EFL countries should establish their own contingent of

146

language researchers in order to develop English teaching theories more suitable for their EFL contexts. Change agents must study teachers' perceptions of an innovation to ensure its success. The little evidence that is available points to teachers having incomplete and imprecise notions of what CLT entails and to substantial differences within teachers' understandings of CLT and between teachers and researchers. In similar vein, Karavas-Doukas (1996, p.187) concluded that "the few small-scale classroom studies that have been carried out seem to suggest that communicative classrooms are rare. While most teachers profess to be following a communicative approach, in practice they are following more traditional approaches." Moreover, Savignon (2002) confirmed the fact that there is a low correlation between what teachers state and their classroom practice. In addition, Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood & Son (2004) came to the same understanding that the evidence is not to be regarded as substantial enough to allow clear-cut answers to questions about how well teachers understand and use CLT. Yet such evidence is still urgently needed to allow a subsequent assessment of the effectiveness of programs of teacher education aimed at the preparation of teachers in the use of CLT principles. Berns (1990, p.104) summarizes the principles of CLT in the following way: 1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication; that is, language is seen as a social tool which speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing. 2. Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in second language learners and users as it is with first language users. 3. A learner's competence is considered in relative, not absolute, terms of correctness. 4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a model for learning and teaching. 5. Culture is seen to play an instrumental role in shaping speakers' communicative competence, both in their first and subsequent languages. 6. No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed. 7. Language use is recognized as serving the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual functions and is related to the development of learners' competence in each. 8. It is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language, that is, they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning. Learner expectations and attitudes have increasingly come to be recognized for their role in advancing or impeding curricular change. Moreover, Larsen-Freeman (2003); Brown (2001; 2000); Richards & Rodgers (2001); Mangubhai, Howard & Dashwood (1999); Williams (1995) and Chastain (1988) believe that communicative lessons are: 1. Task-oriented 2. Needs-based 3. Learning-centered 4. Contextualized 5. Authentic 6. Recursive Thus, to see whether a language class lends itself to the label of CLT, one might look for the degree to which principles outlined above are substantiated in class activity, and the extent to which lessons benefit from the above features.

147

2.2 An overview of language teaching methodologies in Iran In this part, we are concerned with the methods used for language instruction in Iran. Saadat (1995) pointed out that one could not draw a clear-cut line to distinguish periods during which a specific teaching method was applied. Although a certain method might widely be used during a specific period of time, some features and techniques of other teaching methods could also be observed at the same time. English teachers in Iran have used a variety of approaches, methods and techniques at different times. Rahimi (1996) demonstrated that GTM was used in 1950’s all over the country. This being the case, one can find enough evidence for the practice of this method even more. Saadat (1995) stated that in 1960’s ALM was put into practice in English language classes in Iran, similar to those of other countries. Both Saadat (1995) and Rahimi (1996) claimed that GTM was used in most of the English classes in Iran in 1950's. Rahimi (1996) mentioned that ALM was not successful in Iranian English classes because of the shortage of qualified teachers, teaching aids, time, etc. Since the establishment of “Dar UL Fonun” (The House of Techniques), in which the foreign language instruction has been started, the Iranian educational system has been changed variously based on trends of the time. The present educational system of Iran includes the following levels: 1. Primary School; 2. Junior High School; 3. High School and 4. Pre-university. From the ages of 6 or 7, pupils attend primary schools. In these years, the students study a variety of subjects including Persian literature, Practical Sciences and Social Sciences. Excluding some private institutes, English is not practiced in Iranian primary schools. After five years, students proceed to junior high school for 3 years. English is one of the key subjects taught about 3 hours a week at this level. Dialogs, pattern practice and new words are the major components of the textbooks designed for this level to be taught based on the Audio-Lingual Method (Birjandi & Soheili, 1381/2002). After junior high school, students proceed to high school for 3 years. The textbooks taught about 2 hours a week at this level have adopted a combination of the SLT approach (to contextualize the language in relevant situations) and the Reading Method (to introduce the word lists and structural patterns in reading passages). On the whole, the adoption of such a two-fold methodology, though not specifically in line with the recently being practiced teaching methods throughout the world, seems to be fairly successful in serving the purpose of foreign language teaching in Iran as a member of the expanding circle (countries that use English as a foreign language for international communication, not as a first or second language in daily interactions). After high school, students start the pre-university level for 1 year based on a credit-semester system in which English is taught 4 hours a week (Yarmohammadi, 2000). The Pre-university English textbook has been developed on the basis of the Reading Method. There are no sections presented in dialog forms except for the “Sentence Functions”. Thus, the traces of the SLT approach have almost faded away in that no specific situations are provided for the contextualization of the topics in the word study or in the presentation of new structures.

Table 2.1 An outline of EFL instruction in Iran Age Levels Amount of instruction Methodology 7-11 Primary School - - 12-14 Junior High

School 3 hours a week Basic training in

reading and writing

148

15-17 High School 2 hours a week1 Reading 18 Pre-university 4 hours a week Reading

Given the two parts reviewed in the background to the study, and the crucial role teachers may assume in adopting a certain method, the present study set off to find out to what extent Iranian English language teachers are ready to use CLT in their classes and to what extent they practice it. 2.3. Objectives of the Study This study investigates the extent to which CLT and its main principles are welcomed by the teachers of pre-university centers and the amount they materialize the principles in real practice. The aim of the present study is two-fold. First, it investigates the overall attitude of high school and institute teachers toward the CLT principles. Second, it examines the amount they practice the CLT principles in their classes. Finally, some suggestions are offered on the basis of the findings of the study. 2.4. Research Questions Regarding the purpose of the study, the following research questions are posed: 1. What is the overall attitude of high school and institute teachers with respect to the

concept of CLT and its principles? 2. To what extent, are the CLT principles practiced in high schools and institutes? 3. Are there any significant differences among high schools and institutes in terms of

utilizing the CLT principles? 4. Which context/domain is closer to the CLT tenets? 3. Method 3.1. Participants The participants of the study were initially 100 English teachers from high schools and institutes located in the Educational District Two in Shiraz on the basis of their availability. The high school teachers (26 males + 24 females) ranged in age from 34 to 53 years with a mean age of 41. Their teaching experience ranged from 11 to 28 years with an average of 17 years. Thirty-eight of them held a B.A. degree and 12 were M.A. in Linguistics, Teaching English, and English Literature. The institute teachers (24 males + 26 females) ranged in age from 24 to 40 years with a mean age of 31. Their teaching experience ranged from 5 to 15 years with an average of 10 years. Twenty of them held a B.A. degree and 30 were M.A. in Linguistics, Teaching English, and English Literature. Due to practicality factors, from within the 100 participants, only 60 teachers were observed.

1 . First graders have three hours a week of EFL instruction.

149

3.2. Instruments 3. 2.1. Questionnaire A questionnaire including the major principles of communicative language teaching, namely, group work, quality and quantity of error correction, the place and importance of grammar, the role and contribution of the learners and the role of the teacher served as the instrument of the study. This questionnaire which was originally developed by Karavas-Doukas (1996), consisted of 24 statements (12 favorable and 12 unfavorable) which followed the Likert technique of scale construction. According to Karavas-Doukas (1996), the maximum score that can be obtained in the attitude scale and the one indicative of the most favorable attitude toward the CLT is 120, whereas the minimum score and the one indicating the least favorable attitude is 24. As such, the participants' responses would fall within the range of 24 to 120, the neutral point of the continuum being 72. 3.2.1.1. Validity of the Questionnaire In order to determine the validity of the instrument, in a pilot study, the researchers randomized the 24 items of the questionnaire and distributed them among 104 teachers of high schools and institutes. Having collected the data, the researchers conducted the data analysis to calculate the validity coefficients in terms of Factor Analysis. As such, the following factors were determined:

Table 3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire 1 Quality and quantity of error correction (4 statements) 2 Group work/pair work (5 statements) 3 Place/importance of grammar (5 statements) 4 The role of the teacher in the classroom (4 statements) 5 The role and contribution of learners in the learning process (6

statements) As the table presents, the confirmatory factor analysis indicates the same classification of the questionnaire items as the original one despite the fact that some minor changes are noticed. For more information on the indices of the five factors in terms of factor analysis see Appendix A. 3.2.2.2. Reliability of the Questionnaire The reliability of the questionnaire was calculated by Karavas-Doukas (1996) utilizing the split-half method. The correlated split-half reliability coefficient was .81 which is a relatively high and acceptable index. Based on the data gathered for the study, the overall internal consistency of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach alpha (CA). It turned out to be .7924 pointed in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Coefficient Alpha or CA of the Questionnaire

Number of Cases Number of Items CA Index 50 24 .7924

3.2.2. Classroom Observation Scheme Studying several developed observation schemes (Allwright & Baily, 1991; Riazi, Lesourd-Clouston & Cumming, 1995) and observing a large number of classes, a classroom observation scheme, designed on the basis of literature on CLT, was used to monitor how well teachers practice what they theorize. After several pilot studies, the major features of CLT made up the observation scheme.

150

3.2.2.1. Reliability of observation scheme To get the reliability of the observation scheme, it was tried to gain both intra-coder and inter-coder reliability for the scheme. For intra-coder reliability, the researchers observed and tape recorded the same classes with time interval twice and the correlation between the observations and the recordings was computed. To gain inter-coder reliability, then two independent encoders who are sufficiently trained, skilled and familiar with the task accompanied the researchers. The classes were observed by the team of observers independently at the same time and the correlation of marking the activities done in those classes represented the inter-coder reliability. The intra-coder and inter-coder reliability of the observation scheme is provided in table 3.4.

Table 3.3 Intra-coder and Inter-coder reliability of the classroom observation scheme

Types of Reliability Reliability Index Intra-coder reliability .97 Inter-coder reliability .93

3.3 Variables of the Study Participants of the study differed in terms of a number of variables, namely, gender, age, major and teaching experience. In addition to teachers' overall attitude toward CLT and the amount they practice the approach, the researchers were willing to find out if any of these variables would affect teachers' views toward CLT. Thus, they were included in the analysis. 3.4. Data collection and Analysis Data collection sessions were arranged at times suggested by the high schools and institutes' permission, usually over a 9-month period, beginning with administering the questionnaire followed by the classroom observation of lessons each about two sessions of 90 minutes duration. All participants were encouraged to ask questions so that they did not have any problems with respect to the content and language of the questionnaire. Moreover, the observed principles were discussed with the teachers observed. The data collected through language teachers' questionnaire were subjected to descriptive statistics utilizing minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. They were, also, subjected to the independent t-test and Multiple Regression as the representation of inferential statistics. The data gathered by means of observation scheme were analyzed descriptively determining the amount of importance placed on to each principle of the communicative language teaching. A visual representation of the data was displayed through bar graphs. Moreover, the data were analyzed inferentially. 4. Results and Discussion In this part the results of the study are presented and discussed. The items of the teachers' questionnaires in the two domains were examined in terms of their percentage so as to see what their general attitude is toward the factors representing the CLT features. To illustrate better the pattern of the respondents' answers to the questionnaires, the first two alternatives (Strongly Agree and Agree)

151

and the last two (Disagree and Strongly Disagree) were combined. Table 4.1 presents the results of the public domain.

Table 4. 1. Public School Teacher Attitude in Terms of Frequency and Percentage

SA+A U D+SD Items F P F P F P

1. Grammatical correctness is one of the criteria to judge the learner's performance.

18 36% 9 18% 23 46%

2. Group work activities are essential 40 80% 10 10% - - 3. Grammar is as a means not an end 47 94% 1 2% 2 4% 4. Learners can suggest the content and activities of the lesson

14 28% 11 22% 25 50%

5. Training learners to take responsibility for their own learning

32 64% 6 12% 12 24%

6. The teachers' feedback must be focused on the appropriateness

31 62% 8 16% 11 22%

7. The teacher is no longer an "authority" and "instructor"

23 46% 15 30% 12 24%

8. The learner-centered approach to LT encourages responsibility

44 88% 2 4% 4 8%

9. Group work allows students to explore problems

30 60% 11 22% 9 18%

10. Errors are a natural part of learning language

28 56% 9 18% 13 26%

11. Organizing the teaching so as to suit the needs of all is impossible in a large class

13 26% 3 6% 34 68%

12. Knowledge of the rules of a language is not sufficient.

38 76% 4 8% 8 16%

13. Group work activities are practical 21 42% 14 28% 15 30% 14. Much correction is wasteful of time 33 66% 4 8% 13 26% 15. CLT learners are fluent and accurate 18 36% 15 30% 17 34% 16. The teacher has many different roles while teaching

36 72% 8 16% 6 12%

17. Mastering the rules of grammar is not enough

38 76% 5 10% 7 14%

18. Language as a vehicle for doing something is more effective

38 76% 10 20% 2 4%

19. Activities such as explanations, writing and examples are not the only role of the teachers

21 42% 11 22% 18 36%

20. Tasks and activities should be based on the students' needs

46 92% 2 4% 2 4%

21. Small group work can replace whole class and formal instruction

11 22% 18 36% 21 42%

22. Through Group work the teacher can monitor the students' performance

19 38% 13 26% 18 36%

152


23. To communicate effectively, direct instruction in the rules and terminology of grammar is NOT essential

22 44% 12 24% 16 32%

24. The teacher must supplement the textbook with other materials and tasks

42 84% 4 8% 4 8%

The majority of the public school teachers agree with and appreciate the

principles of CLT such as "group work activities are essential", "grammar is as a means not an end", "training learners to take responsibility for their own learning", "the teacher's feedback must be focused on the appropriateness", "the leaner-centered approach to language teaching encourages learning" and "errors are a natural part of learning language". However, the majority of them state that in practice the CLT principles in large classes are impractical if not impossible. Overall, regarding the 24 items of the questionnaire, the public school teachers expressed positive attitudes toward the CLT principles with a mean of 81.86 and a standard deviation of 6.74. Since the overall mean is almost one standard deviation and a half above the neutral point (72), it can be concluded that the public school teachers have a positive attitude toward CLT. To present a clearer picture of the teacher attitude findings, the items of the questionnaire are categorized and summarized under the 5 principles of CLT.

Table 4. 2. Public School Teacher Attitude Regarding the Five Principles of CLT

SA+A U D+SD Principles F P F P F P

1. Grammar role 42 84% 8 16% - - 2. Group work task and activities 35 70% 13 26% 2 4% 3. Error correction 32 64% 18 36% - - 4. Learner role 33 68% 16 32% - - 5. Teacher role 39 78% 10 20% 1 2%

The same as Table 4.1 findings, Table 4.2 presents the point that the five principles of CLT are appreciated by the teachers of public institutes. Table 4.3 depicts the findings of private institute teacher attitude.

Table 4. 3. Private Institute Teacher Attitude in Terms of Frequency and Percentage


1. Grammatical correctness is one of the criteria to judge the learner's performance.

34 68% 3 6% 13 26%

2. Group work activities are essential 48 96% 2 4% - - 3. Grammar is as a means not an end 49 98% 1 2% - - 4. Learners can suggest the content and activities of the lesson

28 56% 8 16% 14 28%

5. Training learners to take 23 46% 1 2% 26 52%

153


responsibility for their own learning 6. The teachers' feedback must be focused on the appropriateness

34 68% 7 14% 9 18%

7. The teacher is no longer an "authority" and "instructor"

42 84% 1 2% 7 14%

8. The learner-centered approach to LT encourages responsibility

47 94% 1 2% 2 4%

9. Group work allows students to explore problems

36 72% 6 12% 8 16%

10. Errors are a natural part of learning language

20 40% 2 4% 28 56%

11. Organizing the teaching so as to suit the needs of all is impossible in a large class

16 32% 9 18% 25 50%

12. Knowledge of the rules of a language is not sufficient.

49 98% - - 1 2%

13. Group work activities are practical 22 44% 5 10% 23 46% 14. Much correction is wasteful of time 34 68% 5 10% 11 22% 15. CLT learners are fluent and accurate 14 28% 17 34% 19 38% 16. The teacher has many different roles while teaching

44 88% 6 12% - -

17. Mastering the rules of grammar is not enough

19 38% 2 4% 29 58%

18. Language as a vehicle for doing something is more effective

39 78% 10 20% 1 2%


18 36% 5 10% 27 54%

20. Tasks and activities should be based on the students' needs

46 92% 2 4% 2 4%

21.. Small group work can replace whole class and formal instruction

26 52% 8 16% 16 32%

22. Through Group work the teacher can monitor the students' performance

25 50% 5 10% 20 40%


21 42% 12 24% 17 34%

24. The teacher must supplement the textbook with other materials and tasks

49 98% - - 1 2%

The private institute teachers' viewpoints with respect to the CLT principles are

in line with the public school teachers' ideas. The teachers of this domain also favor the five principles of CLT and their subcategories; that is, they welcome the ideas that "errors are a natural part of language learning", "group work activities are essential and practical", "grammar should be considered as a means not an end", "the teacher should function as a facilitator" and "the learner-centered approach fulfills students' needs".

154

Since the overall mean is almost one standard deviation and a half above the neutral point (72), it can be concluded that the private institute teachers have a positive attitude toward CLT with a mean of 82.5 and a standard deviation of 7.15 as well. Table 4.4 summarizes the items of the questionnaire under the five principles of CLT.

Table 4. 4. Private Institute Teacher Attitude Regarding the Five Principles of CLT

SA+A U D+SD Principles F P F P F P

1. The emphasis on Grammar 38 76% 12 24% - - 2. Group work task and activities 33 66% 17 34% - - 3. Error correction 26 52% 24 48% - - 4. Learner role 40 80% 10 20% - - 5. Teacher role 42 84% 8 16% - - Table 4.4 shows that the private institute teachers favor the five principles of CLT under the titles of "grammar is a means to language proficiency", "group work activities are essential", "errors are natural the same as first language acquisition", "learners are able to suggest tasks and activities and determine the content" and "teachers are facilitators". This information is also shown in the form of a bar graph (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4. 1. Public and Private Teacher Attitude

155

FACTORS

teacher rolelearner role

error correctiongroup w ork

grammar

Valu

e

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

PUBLIC

PRIVATE

As the figure presents, the public school and private institute teacher attitudes toward the five factors representing the CLT principles are similar if not identical. Therefore, they do not vary significantly.

To find out whether the difference between the two domains in terms of teacher attitude is significant or not an independent t-test was run. The results showed that this difference is not statistically significant as shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4. 5. Independent Samples T-Test for the Domain Variable

Domain N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation t

Sig. Public 50 66 94 81.86 6.740 Private 50 66 99 82.50 7.157

.460 .646

Therefore, it can be concluded that regarding teacher attitude toward CLT,

teachers in both domains have a positive attitude toward its principles.

In order to find out whether the differences among the means of the five factors of the questionnaire for the participants of each domain are significant or not, one-way ANOVA was run. Wherever the differences were significant, a Scheffé test was used to show where the differences were.

Table 4. 6. One-Way ANOVA for the Public School Teacher Attitude

Source of Variance D. F. SS MS F Sig. Between Groups 4 1727.184 431.796 62.85 .000* Within Groups 245 1683.220 6.870

156

Total 249 3410.404 *p< .05

This table demonstrates that there are significant differences among the means of 5 factors for the public school teachers. The Scheffe’ test shows where the differences are.

Table 4. 7. Scheffé test for Table 4.6

Principles GR GW EC LR TR GR * * * * GW * * * * EC * * * LR * * * * TR * * *

Similar results were obtained for the private institute teachers (Table 4.8).

Table 4. 8. One-Way ANOVA for the Private Institute Teacher Attitude

Source of Variance D. F. SS MS F Sig. Between Groups 4 2138.720 534.680 91.11 .000* Within Groups 245 1437.780 5.868 Total 249 3576.500

*p< .05 As the table indicates, there is a significant difference among the five

principles of CLT regarding the teachers' attitudes. The Scheffe’ test shows the exact differences.

Table 4. 9. Scheffé test for Table 4.8

Principles GR GW EC LR TR GR * * * GW * * * EC * * * * LR * * * * TR * * * *

In order to present a clearer picture of the questionnaire items, using the following scale (Mohammadi, 2004/1383), the items were evaluated.

Figure 4. 2. Scale for Weighing the Items

The highest weight The lowest Weight 5 3.66 2.33 1 Favorable Rather Favorable Unfavorable

157

As the scale indicates, items can be classified into three categories: favorable, rather favorable and unfavorable. The favorable items range from 3.66 to 5, the rather favorable items range from 2.33 to 3.66 and the unfavorable ones range from 1 to 2.33. Tables 4.10 and 4.11 present the weighing of the teachers' attitude on different items in the two domains.

Table 4. 10. Weighing of Public School Teacher Attitude

Items W F 3.67-

5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-

2.33 1. Grammatical correctness is one of the criteria to judge the learner's performance. 3.14 √

2. Group work activities are essential 4.04 √ 3. Grammar is as a means not an end 4.52 √ 4. Learners can suggest the content and activities of the lesson 3.36 √

5. Training learners to take responsibility for their own learning 2.46 √

6. The teachers' feedback must be focused on the appropriateness 3.60 √

7. The teacher is no longer an "authority" and "instructor" 3.40 √

8. The learner-centered approach to LT encourages responsibility 4.14 √

9. Group work allows students to explore problems 3.67 √

10. Errors are a natural part of learning language 2.64 √

11. Organizing the teaching so as to suit the needs of all is impossible in a large class 3.70 √

12. Knowledge of the rules of a language is not sufficient. 3.98 √

13. Group work activities are practical 2.86 √ 14. Much correction is wasteful of time 3.57 √ 15. CLT learners are fluent and accurate 3.12 √ 16. The teacher has many different roles while teaching 3.76 √

17. Mastering the rules of grammar is not enough 2.08 √

18. Language as a vehicle for doing something is more effective 3.90 √


2.88 √

20. Tasks and activities should be based on the students' needs 4.26 √

21. Small group work can replace whole class and formal instruction 3.22 √

22. Through Group work the teacher can 3.08 √

158

Items W F 3.67-

5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-

2.33 monitor the students' performance 23. To communicate effectively, direct instruction in the rules and terminology of grammar is NOT essential

2.80 √

24. The teacher must supplement the textbook with other materials and tasks 4.32 √

As the table shows, items 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20 and 24 are favorable, items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23 are rather favorable while only item 17 is unfavorable because the majority of the participants believe that grammar is very important in EFL contexts. As such, it can be concluded that the majority of the items are appreciated by the participants. Table 4.11 presents a clearer picture of the results focusing on the major principles of CLT categorized and synthesized.

Table 4. 11. Summary of Weighing of Public School Teacher Attitude Regarding the CLT Principles

Principles W F 3.67-

5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-

2.33 1. The emphasis on Grammar 3.96 √ 2. Group work task and activities 3.68 √ 3. Error correction 3.70 √ 4. Learner role 3.82 √ 5. Teacher role 3.82 √

159

Table 4. 12. The Internal Evaluation of Private Institute Teacher Attitude

Items W F 3.67-

5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-

2.33 1. Grammatical correctness is one of the criteria to judge the learner's performance. 2.12 √

2. Group work activities are essential 4.50 √ 3. Grammar as a means not an end 4.58 √ 4. Learners can suggest the content and activities of the lesson 2.44 √

5. Training learners to take responsibility for their own learning 1.96 √

6. The teachers' feedback must be focused on the appropriateness 3.62 √

7. The teacher as is no longer an "authority" and "instructor" 3.90 √

8. The learner-centered approach to LT encourages responsibility 4.32 √

9. Group work allows students to explore problems 3.82 √

10. Errors are a natural part of learning language 1.76 √

11. Organizing the teaching so as to suit the needs of all is impossible in a large class 2.90 √

12. Knowledge of the rules of a language is not sufficient. 4.40 √

13. Group work activities are practical 1.80 √ 14. Much correction is wasteful of time 3.58 √ 15. CLT learners are fluent and accurate 2.82 √ 16. The teacher has many different roles while teaching 4.08 √

17. Mastering the rules of grammar is not enough 1.58 √

18. Language as a vehicle for doing something is more effective 4.18 √


2.60 √

20. Tasks and activities should be based on the students' needs 4.42 √

21.. Small group work can replace whole class and formal instruction 2.58 √

22. Through Group work the teacher can monitor the students' performance 2.00 √


2.38 √

24. The teacher must supplement the textbook 4.44 √

160

with other materials and tasks As the table presents, items 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 20 and 24 are favorable, items 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23 are rather favorable while items 1, 5, 10, 13, 17 and 21 are unfavorable. Most of the items are considered favorable by the teachers of the private domain. Table 4.13 categorized and weighted the teacher attitude based on the CLT principles.

Table 4. 13. Summary of Weighing of Private Institute Teacher Attitude Regarding the CLT Principles


5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-


4.2. Findings of the Classroom Observations Classroom observations were first subjected to descriptive statistics utilizing frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation. Second, a visual representation of the data is presented through the bar graph. Moreover, the results were analyzed inferentially using an independent t-test. To illustrate better the pattern of the different principles in observed domains, the first two alternatives (Very Much and Much) and the last two (A Little and Very Little) were combined. Table 4.14 presents the amount of importance attached to the features of CLT in public domain.

Table 4. 14. Descriptive Statistics for the Observation of Public schools

VM+M A Al+L Items F P F P F P

1. Focus on language as a medium of communication

- - - - 30 100%-

2. Classroom activities maximizing communication opportunities

- - - - 30 100%-

3. More pupil-oriented - - 1 3.3% 29 96.7% 4. Tolerating error correction - - - - 30 100%

- 5. Rehearsal of real-life situations and for real-life communication

- - - - 30 100%-

6. More emphasis pair-work and group-work.

- - 3 10% 27 90%

7. Emphasis on both oral skills & written skills

- - 2 6.7% 28 93.3%

8. Teaching grammar but less systematically

- - - - 30 100%-

9.Use of idiomatic/everyday language - - - - 30 100%-

10. Use of authentic resources - - - - 30 100%

161


- 11. Emphasis on Inferential questions - - 1 3.3% 29 96.7% 12. Emphasis on meaning - - - - 30 100%

- 13. Use of variety of language structure - - - - 30 100%

- 14. Emphasis on both fluency and accuracy

- - 2 6.7% 28 93.3%

15. The teacher as the facilitator - - 4 13.3% 26 86.7% 16. Focus on all the components of CC (G, D, S, S)

- - - - 30 100%-

Table 4.14 presents the fact that in real practice, the public domain teachers

attach the least amount of importance to the representative tenets of CLT; that is, "the target language is not used as the medium of communication", "error correction is done directly and on the spot", "the use of idioms, authentic sources and oral skills is the least" and "grammar is taught systematically and in details" This result is in total contrast with the public domain teachers' ideas regarding the CLT principles. There might be two possibilities for such contradictory results. Either the teachers do not practice what they claim or they have some limitations to substantiate their viewpoints in real practice. Table 4.15 depicts the results of the observation of the public domain classes in terms of the five principles of CLT.

Table 4. 15. Summary of Practicing CLT Principles in Public schools

VM+M A Al+L Principles F P F P F P

1. Grammar role - - 15 50% 15 50% 2. Group work task and activities

- - 13 43.3% 17 56.7%

3. Error correction - - 14 46.7% 16 53.3% 4. Learner role - - 1 3.3% 29 96.7% 5. Teacher role - - 4 13.3% 26 86.7%

Based on the results of Table 4.15, it can be stated that in real practice the five major principles of CLT are missing to great extent in the public domain. Table 4.16 shows to what extent the CLT features are practiced by the teachers in the private domain.

Table 4. 16. Descriptive Statistics for the Observation of Private Institutes


1. Focus on language as a medium of communication

29 96.7% 1 3.3% - -

2. Classroom activities maximizing communication opportunities

28 93.3% 1 3.3% 1 3.3%

3. More pupil-oriented 29 96.7% - - 1 3.3% 4. Tolerating error correction 10 33.3% 19 63.3% 1 3.3% 5. Rehearsal of real-life situations and 28 93.3% 2 6.7% - -

162


for real-life communication 6. More emphasis pair-work and group-work.

10 33.3% 15 50% 5 16.7%

7. Emphasis on both oral skills & written skills

28 93.3% 2 6.7% - -

8. Teaching grammar but less systematically

7 23.3 21 70% 2 6.7%

9.Use of idiomatic/everyday language 10 33.3% 18 60% 2 6.7% 10. Use of authentic resources 30 100% - - - - 11. Emphasis on Inferential questions 10 33.3% 17 56.7% 3 10% 12. Emphasis on meaning 12 40% 17 56.7% 1 3.3% 13. Use of variety of language structure 24 80% 3 10% 3 3% 14. Emphasis on both fluency and accuracy

28 93.3% 1 3.3% 1 3.3%

15. The teacher as the facilitator 20 66.7% 9 30% 1 3.3% 16. Focus on all the components of CC (G, D, S, S)

- - 2 6.7% 28 93.3%

Private domain teachers materialize a large number of CLT factors namely 1, 2,

3, 5, 7, 10, 13 and 15 to a great extent. Except for the last factor (components of CC), the teachers apply the rest of the factors moderately. This indicates that there is a moderate harmony between what private institute teachers claim and what they really practice. In other words, the results of the observation present that private domain teachers try to substantiate their attitudes. Table 4.17 shows the summary of the five principles.

Table 4. 17. Summary of Practicing CLT Principles in Private Institutes

VM+M A Al+L Principles F P F P F P

1. Grammar role 26 86.7% 4 13.3% - - 2. Group work task and activities

29 96.7% - - 1 3.3%

3. Error correction 28 93.3% 2 6.6% - - 4. Learner role 29 96.7% - - 1 3.3% 5. Teacher role 20 66.7% 9 30% 1 3.3%

The results indicate that there is a high correspondence between teachers' attitudes and what they really practice regarding the major principles of CLT. Table 4.18 shows the mean and SD of public and private domains.

Table 4. 18. Basic Descriptive Statistics for the Observation of CLT Principles in Public Schools and Private Institutes

Domain N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

Public 30 23 44 34.23 5.02 Private 30 41 65 58.26 4.448

163

Since the overall mean of observing the CLT principles in public schools is 2.75 standard deviations below the neutral point (48), it can be concluded that the teachers do not practice CLT in this domain. However, since the overall mean of the observation is 2.30 standard deviations above the neutral point (48), it can be concluded that the private school teachers practice CLT to a great extent.

To show whether the difference between the two domains is significant, inferential statistics was run. Table 4.19 contrasts the results of the two domains inferentially utilizing an independent t-test.

Table 4. 19. Independent Samples T-Test for the Observation of the Domains

Domain N Mean Std.

Deviation t

Sig. Public 30 34.23 5.028 Private 30 58.26 4.448

19.58 .000

As displayed in Table 4.19, the significance computed is 0.000 which is much smaller than 0.05 (the significance level). So, there is a statistically significant and meaningful difference between the two groups regarding the really observed principles of CLT. Figure 4.3 also indicates the same findings.

Figure 4. 3. Public and Private Teacher Observation

164

FACTORS

teacherlearner

error correctiongroup w ork

grammar

Valu

e

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

PUBLIC

PRIVATE

As the Figure depicts, in public domain, there is little emphasis on the CLT principles, whereas the teachers in the private domain materialize the CLT tenets to a great extent.

The same as the teachers' questionnaire, the principles included in the classroom observation were evaluated to determine the extent to which they are favorable. Table 4.20 presents weighing the CLT principles in the public domain.

165

Table 4. 20. Weighing of Public School Observation

Items W F 3.67-5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-2.33

1. Focus on language as a medium of communication 2.10 √

2. Classroom activities maximizing communication opportunities 1.76 √

3. More pupil-oriented 2.40 √ 4. Tolerating error correction 2.13 √ 5. Rehearsal of real-life situations and for real-life communication 2.13 √

6. More emphasis pair-work and group-work. 2.56 √

7. Emphasis on both oral skills & written skills 2.20 √

8. Teaching grammar but less systematically 2.30 √

9.Use of idiomatic/everyday language 1.66 √ 10. Use of authentic resources 1.63 √ 11. Emphasis on Inferential questions 2.43 √ 12. Emphasis on meaning 2.23 √ 13. Use of variety of language structure 2.30 √ 14. Emphasis on both fluency and accuracy 2.36 √ 15. The teacher as the facilitator 2.56 √ 16. Focus on all the components of CC (G, D, S, S) 1.43 √

As table 4.20 shows, none of the principles are considered as favorable in the classes of the public domain. Principles 3, 6, 11, 14, and 15 are evaluated rather favorable while the rest are unfavorable. Therefore, it can be concluded the lowest weight is assigned to the CLT principles in the public domain. The five principles of CLT are weighted as the following.

Table 4. 21. Summary of Weighing of Public School Observation Regarding the CLT Principles


5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-


166

Table 4. 22. Weighing of Private Institute Observation

Items W F 3.67-5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-2.33

1. Focus on language as a medium of communication 4.26 √

2. Classroom activities maximizing communication opportunities 4.06 √

3. More pupil-oriented 4.13 √ 4. Tolerating error correction 3.30 √ 5. Rehearsal of real-life situations and for real-life communication 4.10 √

6. More emphasis pair-work and group-work. 3.30 √

7. Emphasis on both oral skills & written skills 4.33 √

8. Teaching grammar but less systematically 3.16 √

9.Use of idiomatic/everyday language 3.46 √ 10. Use of authentic resources 4.10 √ 11. Emphasis on Inferential questions 3.23 √ 12. Emphasis on meaning 3.36 √ 13. Use of variety of language structure 3.73 √ 14. Emphasis on both fluency and accuracy 3.90 √ 15. The teacher as the facilitator 3.76 √ 16. Focus on all the components of CC (G, D, S, S) 2.03 √

In contrast to the assigned weight to the CLT principles in the public domain, the majority of the principles are evaluated as favorable and rather favorable in classes observed in the private domain. As such, it can be concluded that CLT principles are welcome practically by the teachers in the private domain. The five principles of CLT are weighted in Table 4.23.

Table 4. 23. Summary of Weighing of Private Institute Observation Regarding the CLT Principles


5

RF 2.33-3.66

UF 1-

2.33 1. The emphasis on Grammar 3.86 √ 2. Group work task and activities 4.03 √ 3. Error correction 3.93 √ 4. Learner role 4.13 √ 5. Teacher role 3.76 √ The overall findings indicate that Iranian English teachers have a positive attitude toward CLT. As such, it seems that the teachers strongly favor the use of CLT principles in their classes. However, only the institutes' teachers apply partially the CLT principles. Moreover, the findings of some studies done in Iran are in line with the results of the present research (Yarmohammadi, 2000; Moradi, 1996; Rahimi,

167

1996; Saadat, 1995; Rashidi, 1995; Zanganeh, 1995; Bagheri, 1994); that is, they do believe that classroom practices are not necessarily a reflection of teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning. Theory and practice are often at odds for a number of reasons (Savignon, 2002). Teachers may encounter resistance on the part of their students, school principals and the educational system. Therefore, the Iranian teachers need to modernize, not westernize, English teaching. The results and findings of this chapter can be summed up as the following.

Figure 4. 4. The amount of Representing Communicative Principles in High Schools and Institutes

More Communicative Less Communicative

Institute Teacher Attitude High School Teacher Attitude

Classes in Institute Classes in High School 5. Conclusions The present study intended to investigate what the English teachers attitudes toward CLT are and to what extent they implement CLT in a prominent province of Iran, i.e., Fars province. As such, the following questions were proposed and answered as follows: 1. What is the overall attitude of high school and institute teachers with respect to the concept of CLT and its principles? The data analyzed both descriptively and inferentially indicated that Iranian teachers in Fars province have a high and positive attitude toward the CLT and its principles. 2. To what extent, are the CLT principles practiced in high schools and institutes? While institutes teachers implement the CLT approach partially in their classes, the high school teachers attach no importance to CLT and its principles in real practice. 3. Are there any significant differences among high schools and institutes in terms of utilizing the CLT principles? There is a significant and meaningful difference between the two settings in terms materializing the CLT features. 4. Which context/domain is closer to the CLT tenets? Institute context applies the CLT principles above an average extent and try its best to substantiate these tenets more and more in contrast with high school context. Finding answers to the questions about the extent to which teachers understand and use CLT approaches or, for that matter, other innovative pedagogies, is a fact that must be pursued in the interests of learners, teachers, teacher educators and society as a whole. Hopefully, the research outlined in this paper will encourage an extension of research into teachers’ knowledge and understanding of CLT. A range of conceptualizations and exemplars, rich in detail, is needed to provide both pre- and in-service teachers with frameworks and models that they can follow in their own practical classes. This need is all the more urgent given the contemporary, widespread acknowledgment of the important role that practical theories play in shaping practice, learning to teach and determining the effectiveness of teachers (Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood & Son, 2004). A long-term study of these teachers' classroom would need

168

to be carried out more effectively by researchers, practitioners and authorities who have responsibility for the ongoing in-service programs.

6. Acknowledgements A special thanks goes to the anonymous participants who willingly cooperated in various stages of this study. 7. References Allwright, D. & Baily, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bagheri, H. (1994). A Profile for Teaching and Teaching English in Pre- university Schools of Sistan and Baluchestan: Problems and Solutions. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz. Berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of Competence: Social and Cultural Consideration in

Communicative Language Teaching. New York: Pleneum Press. Birjandi, P. & Soheili, A. (2002). Right Path to English. Tehran: The center for

Printing and Publishing of Textbooks. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.).White

Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001). (Eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory and Practice (3rd

ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes

(eds.), Sociolinguistics, Harmondswortth: Penguin. 269-93. Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using Attitude Scales to Investigate Teachers' Attitudes

to The Communicative Approach. ELT Journal, 50(3), 187-98. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. In

Campbell, R. N & Rutherford, W. E. ( eds.), Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (pp.1-189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, D. (1998). It's always more Difficult than you Plan and Imagine: Teachers'

Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677-703.

169

Mangubhai, F., Howard, B., & Dashwood, A. (1999). Primary LOTE teachers’

understandings and beliefs about communicative language teaching: Report on phases II and III of the project. Toowoomba: Centre for Research into Language Teaching Methodologies/National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. B. (2004). Teaching a foreign

language: One teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 291–311.

Moradi, F. (1996). An Investigation into the Problems of Teaching & Learning

English in Tehran Province. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Musavi, Z. (2001). An Overview of the TEFL Situation in Varou Countries. Available

at: http://www. asahi- net.or.jp/ykt/overview4.html. Rahimi, M. (1996). The study of English Language Instruction at the Secondary

Schools of the Isfahan Province. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Rashidi, N. (1995). Teaching and Learning English in Guidance and High School in

Kordestan: Problems and Suggested Solutions. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Riazi, A.M., Lesourd-Clouston & M., Cumming, A. (1995) Observing ESL Writing

Instruction: A Case Study Analysis of Four Teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (1), 19-31.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An

Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saadat, M. (1995). An Investigation into the Problems of Teaching and Learning

English in the Guidance and High Schools of Fars Province. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts

and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven: Yale University Press. Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form on communicative language teaching: Research

findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 12–16. Yarmohammadi, L. (2000). Reflections on the Treatment and Contextualization of

Pronunciation Practices and Language Functions in the Pre-university textbooks in Iran. Journal of Teaching Languages, 1 (3) 1-21.

170

Zanganeh, M. (1995). Analysis of Problems of Teaching and Learning English in the High Schools of the Kermanshah Province. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

171

APPENDIX A The Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation

Factors Items

Error Correction

Group work

Grammar role

Teacher's role

Learner's role

6 .578 10 .730 14 .463 15 .437 2 .424 9 .537 13 .735 21 .453 22 .840 1 .600 3 .636 12 .431 17 .315 23 .627 7 .314 16 .606 19 .666 24 .315 4 .753 5 .538 8 .446 11 .388 18 .610 20 .590

Factor analysis of the questionnaire yielded five main factors the same as the original one with some slight modifications. The loadings above .30 are considered.

Is Communicative Language Teaching Practical in the...

Documents

Transcript of Is Communicative Language Teaching Practical in the...