A Survey of English Language Teaching: Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia PDF

Preview

Summary

This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University of Wellington] On: 22 March 2014, At: 19:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Asian Englishes Publication detail...

Description

This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University of Wellington] On: 22 March 2014, At: 19:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Englishes Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia a

b

c

Willy A. Renandya , Lim Wai Lee , Cedric Leong Kai Wah & George M. Jacobs

d

a

Raffles Girls’ Sec School 20 Anderson Road Singapore 259978, Singapore E-mail: b

SEAMEO RELC 30 Orange Grove Road Singapore 258352, Singapore Fax : +65-734-2753 E-mail: c

Wah 801 Woodlands St. 81 #06–117 Singapore 73081, Singapore E-mail: d

SEAMEO RELC 30 Orange Grove Singapore 258352, Singapore Fax: +65-734-2753 E-mail: Published online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Willy A. Renandya, Lim Wai Lee, Cedric Leong Kai Wah & George M. Jacobs (1999) A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia, Asian Englishes, 2:1, 37-65, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.1999.10801018 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.1999.10801018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Willy A. RENANDYA, LIM Wai Lee Cedric LEONG Kai Wah, George M. JACOBS ABSTRACT: This study investigated the extent to which English language teaching in Asia had undergone important changes, in particular with regards to teaching and assessment practices. A sample of 212 English teachers from 10 Asian countries participated in the study by responding to a set of questionnaire items designed to elicit information about their instructional and assessment practices. Analysis of these teachers’ responses indicated that while Asian English teachers were moving toward more communicative, learner-centred approaches to teaching, their assessment practices remained somewhat traditional. Possible reasons for the lack of greater change toward more communicative teaching and assessment are discussed, and suggestions for promoting further changes are offered.

1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to investigate current trends in English language teaching (ELT) in Asia. We were interested to know the extent to which ELT in Asia had undergone important changes, in particular with regards to teaching and assessment practices. We wanted to learn if Asian English teachers’ instructional and assessment practices were in keeping with current conceptions of language teaching and assessment as described in the professional literature of applied linguistics (e.g., Brown 1994; Genesee & Upshur 1996; Ellis 1994, Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991; Tudor 1996). We begin with a brief literature review on developments in education and ELT, stressing the differences between the old and the new paradigms. We then present the results of our study in which we asked teachers to respond to a set of questions designed to obtain information about their instructional and assessment practices. 1.1. Paradigm Shift in Education Buzz words in general education these days include constructivism, learnercentredness, metacognition, cooperative learning, and process-oriented instruction. These terms have come to be seen with increasing frequency in the educational literature, marking the emergence a new paradigm of teaching which is significantly different from the old paradigm (e.g., Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989). This new paradigm is supported by years of research into the nature of knowledge and how

37

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

this knowledge is best learned. We now know, for example, that students must actively construct, discover and transform information if they are going to make it their own (Johnson & Johnson 1994; Leinhardt 1992). A key step in this construction process is for students to link this to-be-learned information to their existing background knowledge (Kuhara-Kojima & Hatano 1991; Pressley et al. 1992). We also know that the students’ learning can be greatly facilitated when new information is presented in a meaningful situation (Ausubel 1963), and within a cooperative context (Jacobs 1998; Johnson & Johnson 1994; Palincsar, Brown & Martin 1987). In the area of assessment, there is also a growing consensus that knowledge is best assessed in holistic and realistic contexts, rather than in disconnected artificial contexts, hence the increasing use of more authentic – also known as alternative, non-traditional, or continuous – assessment procedures (Hamayan 1995). The following highlights show some of the important differences between traditional and current thinkings in education (adapted from the Hawaii State Department of Education 1991). Traditional Paradigm 1. Student as passive recipient 2. Emphasis on parts 3. Isolated knowledge and skills 4. Emphasis on teaching 5. Teacher as information giver 6. Learning as an individual activity 7. Only teacher-directed learning 8. Emphasis on product 9. One answer, one way, correctness 10. Tests that test

Current Paradigm 1. Student as active constructor of meaning 2. Emphasis on the whole 3. Integrated knowledge and skills 4. Emphasis on learning 5. Teacher as co-learner and facilitator 6. Learning also as a social activity 7. Also student-directed learning 8. Emphasis on process 9. Open-ended, non-routine, multiple solutions 10. Tests that also teach

1.2. Paradigm Shift in ELT The field of English as a second or foreign language has also witnessed dramatic changes in the past 40 or 50 years. A quick survey of the literature will reveal that a paradigm shift has occurred (e.g., Hymes 1972; Larsen-Freeman 1998; Richards & Rodgers 1986; Widdowson 1978). In the 1960s, a new approach to teaching,

38

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

known as communicative language teaching, began to emerge to challenge the dominant trend in language teaching. This new approach grew out of dissatisfaction with the primarily code-based view of language teaching found in such approaches as the grammar translation and audiolingual methods. In the code-based view, language is seen as a system of grammatical patterns which students have to master regardless of their goals of learning. In contrast, communicative language teaching views language as a system for expressing meaning and for communication. Richards and Rodgers (1986:71) summarised the major features of the communicative view of language as follows: 1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning. 2. The primary function language is for interaction and communication. 3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses. Also in the 1960s, behaviourism, then the dominant learning theory, was being replaced by cognitivism (Richards & Rodgers 1986). According to the cognitivist view of learning, language learners were seen as actively constructing knowledge using whatever mental faculty they had available. It was the learners’ responsibility to discover the rules that allowed people to use the language creatively. Later developments which saw learners not only as cognitive beings, but also as affective and social beings, as well as strategy users (Larsen-Freeman 1998) paved the way for a view of learning which acknowledged the key roles that learners play in the learning process. This view of learning has been termed learner-centredness (Nunan 1988; Tudor 1996). As a consequence of this, learner-centred methodologies, which take into account learners’ needs, goals, interests, learning styles and strategies, are common features in many of today’s ELT classrooms. Central to the notion of learner-centredness is the idea that one of the most important goals of learning is to help students become autonomous learners (Dickinson 1992) – learners who can take charge of their own learning regardless of the learning context, e.g., in a teacher-fronted classroom, in a group activity, or reading a book alone under a tree. One way to develop learner autonomy is through instructional procedures which allow learners to engage in conscious planning, monitoring, and evaluation of their own learning. The bulk of research in the area of cognitive and metacognitive strategy training is replete with examples of how to help students become independent learners (see, for example, Cohen & Weaver 1998; Hall & Beggs 1998; Wenden 1997). In the learner-centred classroom, language teachers assume radically different roles. They are seen as more of language facilitators, counsellors and collaborators

39

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

rather than as lesson conductors or knowledge transmitters. Assuming these new roles requires that teachers not view learners as empty vessels ready to be filled with buckets of knowledge. They should instead invite learners to actively construct and reconstruct knowledge. Thus, the major focus of instruction in the classroom is directed towards the learners themselves, not the lessons, the texts or the syllabus. In short, teachers are moving away from teaching lessons to teaching learners (Freeman in press). Parallel developments in the area of second language assessment have also been documented. Authentic forms of assessment, such as portfolios, interviews, journals, and self/peer-assessment have become increasingly common in ESL classrooms (Penaflorida 1998). These forms of assessment, unlike traditional forms, e.g., multiple choice tests, are more student-centred in that, in addition to being an assessment tool, they “give students a sense of involvement in, control over, and enthusiasm for learning” (Genesee & Upshur 1996: 116). Also, authentic assessment procedures provide teachers with useful information that can form the basis for improving their instructional plans and practices. In other words, authentic assessment can bring positive washback effects on teaching (Hamayan 1995). Below is a summary of the main differences between the traditional and the new paradigms in ELT (Larsen-Freeman 1998; Genesee & Upshur 1996; Nunan 1988; Richards & Rodgers 1986; Tudor 1996). Traditional Paradigm Current Paradigm 1. Focus on language 2. Teacher-centred 3. Isolated skills 4. Focus on accuracy 5. Discrete point tests 6. Traditional tests (e.g., multiple choice) 7. Emphasis on product 8. Individual learning

1. Focus on communication 2. Learner-centred 3. Integrated skills 4. Focus on fluency 5. Also holistic tests 6. Also authentic assessment (e.g., portfolios) 7. Emphasis on process 8. Also cooperative learning

1.3. Research Questions Our research was inspired by two earlier studies that looked at dominant ELT practices in two different countries. The first study, by Richards, Tung, and Ng (1992), investigated the culture of teaching in the context of ELT in Hong Kong.

40

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

The second study, by Ridwan, Renandya and Lie (1996), closely followed the design of the first study, but was done with English teachers in Indonesia. Both studies provided valuable information regarding what teachers believed to be important factors in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language. Our present study was broader in scope, as it included a sample of English teachers from ten different countries, nine of which are in Southeast Asia (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), and one in Northeast Asia (People’s Republic of China). The following questions guided our study: 1. What is Asian English language teachers’ preferred teaching methodology? 2. What are their perceptions regarding ・the role of teachers in the classrooms? ・the role of pre-course needs assessment? ・the characteristics of good teachers and good learners? ・the causes of learners’ failure to reach a high level of English proficiency? 3. What are the functions of traditional and non-traditional modes of assessment? 4. Do EFL and ESL teachers hold the same or different views with respect to the first three questions above? Answers to numbers 1-3 above would enable us to get an idea of these Asian teachers’ views regarding their teaching (#1 and #2) and assessment (#3) practices. Responses to #4 would allow us to analyse the differences between EFL and ESL teachers with respect to their teaching and assessment practices. The results of this study are expected to provide useful information that will allow language practitioners as well as teacher training institutions in the region to identify areas for further investigation and analysis. We now describe the methodology of our study. 2. METHOD 2.1. Participants A sample comprising a total of 212 teachers from 10 Asian countries participated in the survey. All of these teachers were natives of their countries. Table 1 presents the breakdown of the participants by country.

41

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Table 1: Participants by Country Country

Number

Percent

Singapore Indonesia Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Brunei China Laos Cambodia Philippines

30 29 26 23 22 20 20 15 14 13

14.2 13.7 12.3 10.8 10.4 9.4 9.4 7.1 6.6 6.1

TOTAL

212

100

Sixty-five percent of the participants were female and 35% were male. Most of them (91.5%) worked at publicly funded institutions. They taught at the primary (12.4%), secondary (56.2%), and tertiary (31.4%) levels of education. The majority (59.8%) had a BA in language education as their highest degree, with the rest holding certificates (10.5%), diplomas (13.4%), MA degree (5.7%), and doctorates (.5%). Ten percent of the participants had degrees other than in language education. The respondents varied greatly in terms of the length of their teaching experience. The mean and median years of teaching experience were 11.6 and 10, respectively, with a standard deviation of 7.95 for the mean. For the purpose of this study, participants from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam were considered EFL teachers and those from Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore were regarded as ESL teachers. The main criterion for separating these two groups of countries was the amount of English used in these countries. 2.2. Materials A questionnaire (Appendix 1) comprising a combination of both closed- and open-ended question formats was used. The questionnaire had two parts: Part I asked respondents for some basic biographical data; Part II sought to find out how

42

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

the respondents characterised their teaching and testing practices and what their motivations behind these practices were. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were adapted from Richards, Tung and Ng (1992) and Ridwan, Renandya and Lie (1996). Items in Part I asked respondents to state their country of residence, sex, highest academic or professional qualifications, teaching experience, type of educational institution they taught, and the educational level of their students. Items in Part II asked respondents to describe their teaching approaches and teaching styles; what they considered to be the qualities of a good teacher in general and the main role of the English language teacher in particular; the extent to which they had carried out needs assessments among their students; the extent to which their teaching was determined by classroom tests and national examinations; the kinds of tests they usually used and the primary functions of these tests; the extent to which they had included authentic (alternative) assessment procedures in their instruction; and what they considered to be the learning behaviours of a good language learner, as well as the factors that contributed to learners’ failure to reach a high level of proficiency in English. Some of the items provided respondents with a list of options to choose from; others required respondents to evaluate items on a likert-type scale. For each item, a space was provided for respondents to write their comments. 2.3. Procedure The survey was conducted between November 1997 and February 1998. Participants were first informed about the purpose of the study and then asked to fill out the questionnaire as honestly as possible. We administered the questionnaire ourselves to those who resided in Singapore and those who happened to be studying at RELC, Singapore. We asked colleagues and former students to help us collect data from those residing in other countries. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Teaching Styles and Approaches When asked about their teaching approaches or methods (Item 2.1), very few (12%) respondents said that they adopted a purely structural or a completely communicative approach. On a scale of 1 to 10, (1 being completely structural and 10 being completely communicative in approach) most respondents (71%) clustered around the midpoint, leaning towards the communicative end (5 – 8), indicating that

43

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

most used a mixture of the two approaches with a tendency to favour more communicative activities (Figure 1).

Downloaded by [Victoria University of Wellington] at 19:03 22 March 2014

Figure 1: Teaching Method

1 = Structural

10 = Communicative

The respondents’ answers to the question of whether or not their teaching tended to be teacher-centred or learner-centred (Item 2.4) showed a reported trend towards more learner-centredness. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being teacher-centred and 10 being learner-centred), 72% of the respondents lay on points 5 – 8 (Figure 2). Figure 2: Teaching Style

1 = Teacher-Centered

44

10 = Learner-Centered

A S...