12.20.2011
KENISCAYAAN PENERAPAN TIK UNTUK E-LEARNING DAN E-ADMINISTRASI (Antara Harapan dan Kenyataan)
11.12.2011
SUMMARY: INTERLANGUAGE AND THE ‘NATURAL’ ROUTE OF DEVELOPMENT
THE ROLE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE
INTRODUTION
It is a popular belief that second language acquisition (SLA) is strongly influenced by the learner’s first language (L1).and the role of the L1 in SLA is a negative one. That is the L1 gets in the way or interferes with the learning of the L2, such that feature of the L1 are transferred into the L2.
The research literature reveals considerable disagreement about how pervasive the L1 is in SLA. On the one hand the popular belief is given support:
Taking a psychological point of view, we can say that there is never peaceful co-existence between two language systems in the learner, but rather constant warfare is not limited to the moment of cognition, but continues during the period of storing newly learnt ideas in memory (Marton 1981: 150)
On the other hand, the popular belief is rejected and the role of the L1 if not denied totally, is at least minimized.
Our data on L2 acquisition of syntactic structures in a natural environment suggest that interference does not constitute a major strategy in this area …it seems necessary to me to abandon the notion of interference as a natural and inevitable phenomenon in L2 acquisition. (Felix 1980b: 107)
In order to understand why there is such disparity regarding the role of the L1, it is necessary to examine the evolution of the notion of interference that Felix talks about behaviorist learning theory its development in terms of the constructive analysis hypothesis and the theoretical and empirical attack on this hypothesis which followed.
1. Behaviorist learning theory
Two key notions can be indentified in these discussions:
HABITS
The associations of a particular responses with a particular stimulus constituted a habit, and it was this type of regular behavior that psychologist such as Watson (1924) or Skinner (1957) set out to investigate. They wanted to know how habits were established.
Behaviorist psychologists attributed two important characteristic to habit
1. Observable
2. Automatic
The learning of a habit than could occur through:
1. Imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behavior sufficiently often for it to become automatic)
2. Reinforcement (i.e. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate ot otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given)
ERRORS
Behaviors theory predicts that transfer will take place from the first to the second language. Transfer will be negative when there is proactive inhibition. In this case errors will result. Transfer will be positive when the first and the second language habits are the same. In this case no errors will occur.
In behaviorist accounts of SLA, errors were considered undesirable. They were evidence of non learning, of the failure to overcome proactive inhibition. Some language teaching theorists even suggested that there was a danger of error becoming habit in their own right if they were tolerated.
The predict areas of potential error:
1. Classroom practice
2. Having examined
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
As Lado (1957), one of the prime movers of contrastive analysis, make clear, the teacher how has made comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what real problem are and can provide for teaching them.
Contractive analysis had both a psychological aspect and linguistic aspect. The psychological aspect was based on behaviorist learning theory, and the linguistic aspect, in the first place at least, on structuralism linguistic.
THE PSYCOLOGICAL ASPECT OF CONSTRACTIVE ANALYSIS
The psychological rationable takes the from of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. This exists in a strong and a weak form (Wardhaugh 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner first language. As lee (1968:180) notes, it stipulates that the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language is the interference coming from the learner’s native language. The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic.
Marton (1980) argues that whereas interference need not be a major in naturalistic SLA, it will always be present in classroom or foreign language learning. the difference of opinion represented in the two quotation in the introduction to this chapter can be explained in terms of this variable. Whereas Marton is writing about classroom SLA, felix is writing about naturalistic SLA.
Tylor (1975) argues that there are quantitative differences in errors produced by elementary and intermediate students
THE LINGUISTIC ASPECT OF CONSTRACTIVE ANALYSIS
A comparison of two languages can be carried out using any several different models of grammar. Initially the model used was that of structuralist linguist (e.g. bloomfield 1933; Fries 1952)
The differences (among languages) are great enough to prevent our setting up any system of classification that would fit all languages. (Bloomfield 1933) Chomsky’s (1967) theory of grammar proposed just such a model an as such offered a sounder theoretical basis for contrastive analysis (see Van Buren 1974 for fuller discussion of this point)
Most of contrastive studies carried out have been based on surface structure characteristic, such as those described by the structuralists, the procedure followed was:
1. Description (e.a. a formal description of the two languages; is made)
2. Selection (e.a. certain items, which may be entire subsystems such as the auxiliary system or areas known through error analysis to present difficulty, are selected comparison)
3. Comparison (e.a the identification of areas of difference and similarity)
4. Prediction (i.e. identifying which areas are likely to cause errors).
In (3), comparison, the simplest procedure was to identify which aspect of the two languages were similar and which were different. Here are some of the possibilities that comparison might reveal.
1. No difference between a feature of the first and second language
2. Convergent phenomena
3. An item in the first languages is absent in the target language
4. An item in the first language has a difference distribution from the equivalent item in the target language
5. No similarity between first language feature and the target language feature
6. Divergent phenomena
Such as (1) to (6) above, for classifying the way in two languages differ. It is quite another, however, to relate these linguistic differences to learning difficulty. Differences can be identified linguistically, but difficulty involves psychological considerations, Brown and martin (1965) and Prator (1967) has proposed that linguistic differences can be arranged in a hierarchy difficulty. Prator for example, suggests that (1) to (6) above are ordered from zero to greatest difficulty.
There several problems concerning the linguistic aspect of contrastive analysis:
1. The descriptive basis of the comparison has already been briefly considered.
2. Considered in the next section
CRITICISM OF THE CONSTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS
Since 1970s were of three major types of criticisms:
1. There were the doubts concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict error
2. There were a number of theoretical regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis.
3. There were reservation about whether contrastive analysis had anything relevant to offer to language teaching.
The crisis in contrastive analysis was the result:
1. Empirical
2. Theoretical
3. Practical considerations.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND THE PREDICTABILITY OF ERRORS
Brooks (1960) for instance, gives four casus for learner error:
1. The learner does not the structural pattern and sp make a random response
2. The correct model has been insufficiently practiced
3. Distortion may be induced by the first language.
4. The students may follow the general rule which is not applicable in a particular instance.
Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974a) they indentified four type of error according to their psycholinguistic origins:
1. Interference like error
2. First language developmental errors
3. Ambiguous errors
4. Unique error
Dulay and Burt (1973) calculated the frequencies these error types in speech data of Spanish speaking children learning English.
THEORITICAL CRITICISME
The different issues will be considered under this heading, these are:
1. The attack on behaviorist accounts of language learning which was given impetus by Chomsky’s (1959). Review of skinner’s verbal Behavior
2. The nature of the relationship between the notion of difficulty as predictive by contractive analysis and error.
3. The problem concerning the linguistic basic of contractive analysis in particular translation equivalence and the need to accommodate the variability of learner performance when predicting error.
Chomsky’s attack on behaviorism struck at the psychological basis of the theories of language learning. It was argued by Chomsky and others that extrapolating from studies of animal behavior in laboratory condition, as skinner did could so nothing about how human being learn language in natural condition, the terms stimulus and response ere dismissed as vacuous when applied to language learning, because it not possible to tell what constituted the stimulus for a given speaker response.
PRACTICAL CRITISMS
The final set of criticism concern weather contrastive analysis is of any practical worth in language teachers. Sanders (1981), it was necessary to present learners with items which were similar to their first language and which were not therefore predicted to cause difficulty, as well as which items analysis appears less certain.
REAPPRAISAL
The reappraisal took two forms:
1. The nature of language transfer was re-examined in order to state more precisely the conditions under interference took place and the type of L1 knowledge that was utilized.
2. The contribution made by the L1 recast in a more cognitive framework to make it more acceptable to the mentalist views which dominated discussion of language acquisition following Chomsky’s attack on skinner neo behaviorist theory. The key concept in this new framework was that of “ strategy”
LANGUAGE TRANSFER RE-EXAMINED
There were three noteworthy development of the contrastive analysis hypothesis:
1. it was recognized that the difficulty predicted by contrastive analysis might be realized as avoidance instead of error
2. Empirical evidence was forthcoming to show that interference was more likely to take place where there was similarity between L1 and L2 items and when there was total difference.
3. Perhaps most important, it was recognize that error was multi factor phenomenon and that interference, as one of the factors interacted in complex ways with other factors.
AVOIDANCE
Schachter (1974) Schachter investigated the relative clauses produced by adult L2 learners from different language background. (e.g. Chinese and Japans). Bertkau also found that japans students scored lower of the comprehension relative clauses than Spanis learners. The criticism of contrastive analysis hypothesis advanced by Dulay and Burt on the basis of observed error frequencies was not fool-proof. Although contrastive analysis might fail to predict production error. It might still be successful in predicting comprehension error and avoidance of structures.
DEGREE OF SIMILARITY
The contrastive analysis hypothesis was founded on transfer theory, which stated that learning difficulty was the result of interference from old habits in the learning of new habit.
Lee (1968) reported that he experienced little interference from his mother tongue, English, when learning Chinese, and suggested that this was because the structures of the two languages were so different.
Interferences, in fact, appears to be more likely when there is a crucial similarity measure (Wode, 1976)between L1 and L2.he concluded that certain condition have to be met for what is commonly called interference to take place at all.
James (1980), notes that the Skaggs and Robinson hypothesis, framed in 1927, states that interference is greatest when there is certain degree of similarity, and cases when the learning task have what has been called “neutral resemblance”.
A MULTI FACTOR APPROACH
The early research that sought to challenge the role played by the L1 in SLA 9e.g. Dulay and Burt 1973) was conducted on the basis that an error was either the result of interferences or of some other factor such as developmental processing.
Hatch (1983a) explores in some depth the extend to which “naturalness” factors and interference can account for what is known about SLA. Hatch concludes that in the case of phonology and morphology both naturalness factor and L1 interference are at work, often in such a way that errors are doubly determined.
There are three sets of factors are involved in SLA
1. Universal Grammar
2. Specific factor about the learner’s L1
3. Specific factors about the L2
Gass (1980:180) proposes” the universal factors determine the general outline of learning. Language specific consideration (of either the native or the target language) can come into play where universal factors underdetermine the result.”
L1 INTERFERENCE AS ALEARNER STRATEGY
SLA as a process s in which the learner is actively engaged involves attributing to learners strategies for both sorting the L2 data into a form in which it can be stored and for making use of knowledge already in store.
As Srindhar (1981) points out, the notion of interference and strategy are no incompatible. Corder (1978b) outlines one away in which “interference” can be recast as a learner “strategy” in effect Corder’s proposal reframes the concept of interference as intercession. Whereas interference has been traditionally seen a feature of learning, intercession is to be considered, intercession is to be considered as a strategy of communication.
CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATICS
Contrastive analysis needs to consider not only linguistic contrasts but also pragmatics contrast such as the similarities and differences in the stylistic uses of items in the L1 and L2 and in form-function relationships. Contrastive pragmatics is a fairly recent development, although arguably it has its origins in Lados (1957) linguistic cross cultures, which sought to provide a frameworks for comparing cultural differences in the ways in which language are used.
Sajavarta (1981b) argues that the basic idea of contrasting language is a correct one. Riley (1981) suggested how this might be undertaken. One way is to take a particular function (e.g. suggesting). James (1981) notes that Widdowson (1975a) makes strong claims about the universality of specialized communicative functions such as those associated with scientific and technical discourse. James argues there can be such thing as contrastive pragmatics because there are no differences among languages at the level of use.
Contrastive pragmatics is not just about comparing the communicative functions of different languages. It is also about comparing how different languages express the same communicative function. Scharacter and Rutherford (1979), they observed these errors in the English of Chinese and Japanese learners.
1. Most of the food which is served in such restaurants have cooked already
2. Irrational emotion are bad but rational emotion must use for judging
3. Chiang’s food must make in the kitchen of the restaurant but Marty’s food could make in the house.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
1. How L1 language interference SLA
SLA is strongly influence by the learner’s first language. It is come from foreign accents in the second language (L2) speech of learners. For example when Frenchman speaks English, his English sound French.
2. Why “habits” and “errors” to be the key notions in behaviorism?
Because of Habit have two characteristic: Imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behavior sufficiently often for it to become automatic) Reinforcement (i.e. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate or otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given).
While errors were considered undesirable. They were evidence of non learning, of the failure to overcome proactive inhibition. Some language teaching theorists even suggested that there was a danger of error becoming habit in their own right if they were tolerated
3. In contrastive analysis had both psychological aspect and a linguistic aspect, what does those means?
Psychological aspect was based on behaviorist learning theory and linguistic aspect in the first place at least, on structuralist linguistics.
4. What is different between structuralists linguists and contrastive analysis?
Structuralist Linguist a comparison of two languages can be carried out using any several different models of grammar. While contrastive analysis is an area of considerable theoretical interest for general linguistic, those studies that are concerned with SLA.
5. Which aspects of the two languages were similar and which were different?
a. No difference between a feature of the first and second language
b. Convergent phenomena
c. An item in the first languages is absent in the target language
d. An item in the first language has a difference distribution from the equivalent item in the target language
e. No similarity between first language feature and the target language feature
f. Divergent phenomena
6. Why contrastive analysis hypothesis be criticism?
a. There were the doubts concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict error
b. There were a number of theoretical regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis.
c. There were reservations about whether contrastive analysis had anything relevant to offer to language teaching.
7. How many types of errors according to psycholinguistic?
a. Interference like error
b. First language developmental errors
c. Ambiguous errors
d. Unique error
8. What is the field discussion of reappraisal?
a. The nature of language transfer was re-examined in order to state more precisely the conditions under interference took place and the type of L1 knowledge that was utilized.
b. The contribution made by the L1 recast in a more cognitive framework to make it more acceptable to the mentalist views which dominated discussion of language acquisition following Chomsky’s attack on skinner neo behaviorist theory. The key concept in this new framework was that of “ strategy”
9. What is contrastive pragmatics?
Contrastive pragmatics is a fairly recent development, although arguably it has its origins in Lados (1957) linguistic cross cultures, which sought to provide a frameworks for comparing cultural differences in the ways in which language are used.
10. What is interference and intercession meaning according to Corder’s concept?
Interference has been traditionally seen a feature of learning, intercession is to be considered, intercession is to be considered as a strategy of communication.
10.22.2011
QUESTION AND ANSWER OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
QUESTIONS:
1.What is second language acquisition?
2.What is Language Acquisition?
3.What are differences acquisition and learning?
4.What are the second language acquisition barriers?
5.When is the best age to learn second language?
6.What is considered proficient in second language?
7.What is the ultimate goal in acquiring a second language and how does this affect at what age it is taught?
8.How an adult amnesia acquire second language?
Answer:
1.SLA is as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom.
2.Language acquisition is the study of how a person learns a language. In a baby this would be how they develop their communication and speaking skills. Sometimes it can refer to second language acquisition, which means how a person learns a second language.
3.The term acquisition is used to refer to picking up a second language through exposure whereas the term learning is used to refer to the conscious study of a second language.
4.Acquisition barriers:
1.Syntax structure.
2.Phonetics.
3.Morphemes.
4.Semantic concepts.
5.Lenneberg in vansikle proposed that natural language acquisition through exposure can only happen during the critical period (ages 2-puberty).Before age 2 the brain has not developed enough, and after puberty it is has developed too much, with the loss of “plasticity” and the completion of “lateralization” of the language function. While in The Brian Plasticity Hypothesis: Hypothesis: A child brain is plastic in comparison plastic in comparison to that of an adult, and after the age of about 9 after the age of the brain years, the brain progressively becomes “stiff and rigid. ”The child develops a conditioned The child develops a conditioned reflex “turn from one language to the other without confusion, translation or a mother translation or a mother- -tongue tongue accent.Lateralization:As the brain matures, certain functions are assigned to either the left or right hemisphere.Upon the completion of lateralization, it is believed to be difficult for learners to acquire fluency and authentic “native-like” pronunciation in a second language.
6. Children are considered fluent when they can communicate at a level appropriate for their age. An adult must communicate with other about much more complicated issues, where deficiencies in vocabulary and syntax show more readily. more readily.” Reading, writing, speaking and listening are all important factors in language acquisition. Adults are expected to be more competent than children because of age and maturity, and “adult” conversations may vary greatly from those of children. ”
7.The ultimate goal of acquiring second language
According to (Ausubel, 1964 in Vansickle) Adults have a much greater vocabulary and Conscious grammatical generalizations while the age of second language taught; Some research has shown optimal ages around 7-8 years and 10-12 years, and Scovel (1999) in Vansickle suggests that Younger=Better is a myth supported by the media and “junk science.”
8.Amnesia is losing their long-term memory but their short-term memory and their ability to speak and understand are entirely unimpaired. So they able to acquire second language as well as normal peoples.
REFERENCES:
Amnesia Is The Main Moduler. Posted September 29 2011. Accessed. 18 October 2011. Available online at inside-the-brain.com.
Ellis. R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press
VanSickle, Julia & Ferris, Sarah. (No Year). Second Language Acquisition the Age Factor. Avaolable online at lilt.ilstu.edu/rlbroad/teaching/.../smith.pdf
10.03.2011
THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT) APPROACH Key Words: Controversial, CLT, character, problems, and approach
1.INTROCUCTION
Many approaches and methods has been applied in teaching such as the Translation Method, the Situational Language Teaching, the Audio-lingual Method, the Communicative Language Teaching, and other approaches although with less influence which can also give us much inspiration. All of them were once quite the rage, but till now, the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is more and more popular and becoming the mainstream in the second language teaching classroom, (Yuan. 2011). although have controversial and resistance of CLT from education stakeholders. While they oppose It spreads widely and constantly develops.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. It is also referred to as “communicative approach to the teaching of foreign languages”. (elt.wikia.com)
Bearing all these issues in mind the study aims to draw a clearer picture of communicative language teaching. It will be carried out through the following questions:
1. What are the controversial issues to stakeholders (teachers, students, school administrators, parents) in implementing communicative language teaching (ELT) as an approach?
The significance of this study is to know and identify the problems of CLT to stakeholders and identify the characters and methodology of communicative language teaching for English foreign language teachers.
2. DISCUSSION
2.1. Brief view of communicative language teaching (CLT)
According to Chomsky’s (in Savignon, 2002) the characterization of the linguistic competence of the ideal native speaker and, distinction between competence and performance, proposed the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to represent the ability to use language in a social context, to observe sociolinguistic norms of appropriateness. Hymes’s (in Savignon, 2002). ‘‘communicative competence’’ can be seen as the equivalent of Halliday’s ‘‘meaning potential.’’ Similarly, Hymes’s focus was not language learning but language as social behavior. In subsequent interpretations of the significance of Hymes’s views for learners, methodologists working in the United States tended to focus on the cultural norms of native speakers and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of duplicating them in a classroom of non natives. In light of this difficulty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an instructional goal.
Communicative language teaching derives from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and educational research.(Savignon, 2002)
The communicative approach could be said to be the product of educators and linguists who had grown dissatisfied with the audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods of foreign language instruction.
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching are to be found in the changes in the British languages teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Interest in and development of communicative style teaching mushroomed in the 1970s; authentic language use and classroom exchanges where students engaged in real communication with one another became quite popular.
a. The Principal Characteristics of CLT
Learner-Centered
The role of the instructor in CLT is quite different from traditional teaching methods. In the traditional classroom, the teacher is in charge and "controls" the learning. In CLT the teacher serves as more of a facilitator, allowing students to be in charge of their own learning.
Communication
Language is used for communication. For this reason, CLT makes use of communication to teach languages. CLT emphasizes real-life situations and communication in context. While grammar is still important in the CLT classroom, the emphasis is on communicating a message.
Social Context
CLT also stresses social and situational contexts of communication. In CLT, students learn about language in social contexts, such as the difference between speaking with an elder and a peer. (Li Shengxi)
Comparison of Different Teaching Method
Method Teacher’s Roles Learner’s Roles
Situational language Teaching Context Setter
Error Corrector Imitator
Memorizer
Audio-lingualism Language Modeler
Drill Leader Pattern Practicer
Accuracy Enthusiast
Total Physical Response Commander
Action Monitor Commander
Action Monitor
Community Language Learning Counselor
Paraphraser Collaborator
Whole Person
The Natural Approach Actor
Props User Guesser
Immerser
Suggestopedia Auto-hypnotist
Authority Figure Relaxer
True-Believer
Communicative Language Teaching Needs Analyst
Task Designer Improviser
Negotiator
Resource: Li Shengxi, hand out)
1.2. Controversial to Educational Change
In education the term controversial often couples up with change. In fact, controversial marks open or hidden opposition to a change issue for the purpose of stopping or slowing it down for self-conservation measures. As such, controversial is a strategic device put forward by the resistant who is not convinced enough or who does not perceive the benefits or the nature of change. In the literature, many factors are said to bring about controversial in the educational field (Rogers, 1995. Fullan, 1991, Graeme & Kevin, 2002 in Drame). The following ones will be mentioned for illustrative purposes:
1. Misunderstanding of the change context;
2. Lack of interaction and communication;
3. Inadequate training and development;
4. Inappropriate instructional materials/input;
5. Violation of social, cultural, behavioral norms;
6. Fear of the unknown;
7. Loss of control, social status or power;
8. High operating costs;
9. Time constraints;
10. Etc.
Given these factors, how does controversial operate in an educational context? If the school is taken as "a change unit" as suggested by Muncey & McQuillan in Drame 2004, controversial can operate at three overlapping levels: (a) the school, (b) the classroom and (c) the individual stakeholder.
1. The school level
At this level, school administrators often argue against change on the grounds of curriculum constraints, school environment and equipment, school rules and regulations, exams requirements and standards, shortage of rooms, large classes, time-tabling problems, etc.
2. The classroom level
Very often, teachers and students hide behind the following factors in order to resist change (Tsui, 1996 in Drame): syllabus specifications, class size, classroom physical context, instructional materials, activity/task types, students' learning modes, learning styles, the school head's management style, etc.
3. The stakeholder level
As argued earlier, stakeholders always have different interests in any educational change project. So, they usually fall into different pressure groups ready to fight their interests to prevail over others. These struggles can, sometimes, be aggravated by social, cultural or professional differences or conflicts which must be taken into account. Therefore, both change agents and stakeholders are advised to ponder over these words of wisdom: "The road (to change) won't always be easy and everyone won't always agree which path to take when the road forks... but with mutual respect, honest work and understanding that we all have to live with the results, we can get where we need to go". (Ellsworth, 2000:3 in Drame 2004).
According to researched of Drame, 2004. He have two questionnaires research instruments to know the resistance of teachers and students in applying communicative language teaching: one destined to English teachers and the other to students of different levels and streams. Both questionnaires aim to assess teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of communicative language teaching in their working situations. In the teachers’ questionnaires, respondents are requested to spell out their standpoints with regard to identified potential sources of resistance by ticking one of the boxes ranging from: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. As for students, their questionnaire aimed to rate activity effectiveness (I learn very much; I learn much) or ineffectiveness (I learn little; I learn very little) among the most currently used ones.
2.2 Results of Drame, research Instruments for teachers' and students questionnaires in Dakar. Senegal
There were 66 teachers took part in the study. Here teachers are asked to say whether they have positive perceptions (strongly agree; agree) or negative perceptions (disagree; strongly disagree) of areas identified as being potential sources of resistance. Below are the results of their responses expressed in percentages.
Results of teachers’ questionnaire
No Potential sources of
resistance Teachers’ positive perceptions of identified sources of resistance
Teachers’ negative perceptions of identified sources of resistance
1 Problem with materials
68.93 % 31.07%
2 Inadequate training
59.09 % 40.91%
3 Unsatisfactory working conditions
56.92 % 43.08%
4 Students’ resistance
52.27 % 47.73%
5 Insufficient command of
English
40.1 % 59.9 %
6 Resistance from other
interested parties
38.64 % 61.36 %
7 Other factors (please specify)See teachers’comments
Grand total 56 % 44 %
With an overall percentage reaching 56 % surveyed teachers have strongly sided with
Potential sources of resistance identified in the questionnaire. Yet, with opposing views rating up to 44 %, they have also sent a strong message to say that resistance also stems from sources different from the ones identified in the questionnaire. A close look at the results shows clearly that teachers blame resistance partially on the problem of materials which tops all the others with 68.93 %. This high rate just indicates that teachers are far from being satisfied with existing materials which are well below communicative standards while with 59.09 % just behind materials development, training and development is still a great source of worry.
The working conditions take the third position in this survey (56.92%). From the teachers’ point of view, students’ resistance to CLT is also quite high (52.27 %) and it holds the fourth position in the survey. With 61.36 %, teachers have rejected significantly the idea that resistance only stems from the sources identified in the questionnaire. In their mind, resistance comes also from other interested parties: parents, school administrators, students and some teachers. The latter seem to doubt the capacity of CLT to make the students meet the exams standards. Yet, they do not seem to blame it on CLT as an approach but on its side effects in a foreign language context and the mismatch between classroom procedures and exams formats (Baccalaureat, BFEM in Drame).
1.3. The result of students questionnaires
Analysis of the results of students questionnaire in Drame shows clearly that they are favorable to communicative methodology (63.36 %), yet by rejecting 36.64 % of the questionnaire suggested activities they also want teachers to know that some of their activities are not as effective as they believe they are. Nevertheless, it is surprising to see that 'writing grammar exercises' takes the first place on top of the other activities (86.4 %.). The foreign language context may explain this because they believe that to know a language is to know the grammar of that language. Another surprise comes from the third position held by the item 'correcting mistakes' (80.8 %).
It is interesting to note that students seem to prefer 'pair work' (80 %) to 'group work' (70.4 %). With a gap of 10,4 % the difference is significant enough to be meaningful. Here students seem to say that they like group work as an activity but they dislike its side effects: noise, time waste, chat, local/first language(s) use, social/psychological difficulties, etc. This is why they prefer 'pair work' which has proven to be more effective in overcrowded classes. By holding the second position (85.6 % ), 'information sharing' and co-related issues (information processing, information transfer) demonstrate that students are not against communicative methodology. Yet, a close look at rejected activities shows for example that students do not think they are learning effectively when they are engaged in activities like: 'interpreting diagrams' (69.6 %), 'drawing' (65,6 % ), 'improvising' (59.2 %), 'dramatising' (58.4% ), 'working with maps' (54.4 %), and singing songs (53,6 % ). These results show that surveyed students are not bodily-kinaethetic learners (they do not like improvising, dramatising, singing songs, dancing), nor are they spatial ones (they do not like learning through visual representations like diagrams, drawings, maps, etc). This means that
students are rather shy when it comes to speaking the target language. This derives from the point made earlier that they are afraid to make mistakes (Tsui, 1996 In Drame).
CONCLUSION
Throughout this study an attempt has been made to understand educational change in general and communicative language teaching as a change issue in a difficult context. Subsequently, the study has assessed the degree and the nature of resistance to CLT in these specific conditions. More thoroughly important sources of resistance as well as hindering factors have been identified and analyzed.
1. Stakeholders (school administrators, teachers, students, parents) oppose no resistance to communicative language teaching as such, but they fear its side effects make the students fall short of exams standards still designed upon traditional criteria (grammar, syntax, lexis );
2. With 61.36 % teachers believe that resistance to CLT relates to other sources than to CLT proper: system-bound obstacles: overcrowded classes, shortage of rooms, mismatch between teaching and testing principles and procedures, inappropriate instructional materials, inarticulate in-service programmes, students’ low motivation resulting from the status of English within the curricula.
3. Students like communicative methodology, but they prefer pair work (80 %) to group work (70.4 %), because of the side effects outlined earlier;
4. Students have significantly rejected bodily activities like drawing, improvising (58.4 %), dramatising (58.4 %), improvising (58.4 % ), singing songs (53.6 %), role-playing (52 %), certainly because they do not want to lose face through such engaging activities.
BIBLOGRAFY
Drame, Mamadou. Resistance to communicative language teaching in a Foreign language context: a senegalese case study. English Department, FASTEF Université Cheikh Anta Diop Dakar,Senegal. Available online: fastef.ucad.sn/LIEN12/drame.pdf. September 27 2011
http://elt.wikia.com/wiki/Communicative_language_teaching
Ozsevik, Zekariya. (2010). The Use Of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties In Implementing CLT In Turke. Thesis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Savignon, J. Sandra.2002. Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching. Yale University Press New Haven and London.
Shengx, L. Second/Foreign Language Teaching Methodologies. Available online: english-e-corner.com
Yuan, Fang. (2011). A Brief Comment on Communicative Language Teaching. Huaiyin Normal University, Jiangsu, China
Read More......