iafor

journal of education

language learning in education
Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020
Editor: Melinda Cowart
Editor-in-Chief: Yvonne Masters

ISSN: 2187-0594

iafor
IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

IAFOR Publications

The International Academic ForumIAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
EditorMelinda Cowart
Texas Woman’s University (TWU), USA
Editor-in-Chief
Yvonne Masters, Australia

Published by The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications, Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward, Aichi, Japan 460-0008

Executive Editor: Joseph Haldane
Publications Manager: Nick Potts

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020
Published March 1, 2020

IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2020
ISSN: 2187-0594
ije.iafor.org

Cover Image: Nikhita S on Unsplash

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020
Edited by Melinda Cowart

Foreword(Musings from the Editor-in-Chief)
2020 is an important year for the IAFOR Journal of Education. We are moving forward into
new territory, publishing topic-specific issues as well as our usual general topic issue, now renamed Studies in Education. Technology in Education, Undergraduate Education, Inclusive
Education, and Education and the Liberal Arts join the Language Learning in Education issue
as annual issues. The topics chosen reflect current issues in education as well as sitting snugly
in the IAFOR pillars of interdisciplinary, international and intercultural. The year ahead willbring its challenges as we move to the new structure, but we are looking forward to the new
direction and have a strong team of editors, associate editors and reviewers looking forward to
the opportunities in store. We begin the year with Language Learning in Education.
In the final preparations for this issue, I pondered on how apt this theme is for our first issue of
2020. The articles feature the importance of language learning and, at a time when manynations are looking inward, becoming more nationalistic, rather thinking globally, this is an
important message to highlight. Learning to speak someone else’s language can lead to mutual
understanding.
A quotation, from Noah’s memoir, Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood,came to mind in reference to language learning. Noah writes:
When you make the effort to speak someone else's language, even if it's justbasic phrases here and there, you are saying to them, 'I understand that you havea culture and identity that exists beyond me. I see you as a human being' (Noah,
2016, p. 236).
I frequently attend conferences, many overseas, where the academic lingua franca is English.
As a person who is monolingual (despite the best efforts of my French and Indonesianteachers), I am embarrassed by my inability to speak another language and in awe of those who
present in a language that is not their mother tongue. I always strive to learn some basic phrasesof the language of the country where I am presenting – “thank you”, “good morning/evening”,“please”, “excuse me”. Usually I get the pronunciation wrong, but the response of the people I
meet, not only at the conference but also in stores or on the street (where I am usually looking
hopelessly lost) makes it clear that the effort is worthwhile.
Language is our way of communicating and, perhaps, if we could all speak many languages
there would be less misunderstanding in the world. This issue of the journal helps to further
our knowledge not only of language learning per se, but of language learning around the world.
My thanks to the authors, the editor, Melinda Cowart, the publications manager, Nick Potts,
and to all the reviewers for bringing this issue to you, the readers.
Enjoy,
Yvonne Masters,
Editor-in-Chief

Editorial Advice
Preparing a submission to the IAFOR Journal of Education is more than writing about
your research study: it involves paying careful attention to our submission requirements.
Different journals have different requirements in terms of format, structure and referencing
style, among other things. There are also some common expectations between all journals
such as the use of good academic language and lack of plagiarism. To assist you in reaching
the review stage for this or any other peer-reviewed journal, we provide the following
advice which you should check carefully and ensure that you adhere to.
1. Avoiding Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a practice that is not acceptable in any journal. Avoiding plagiarism is the cardinalrule of academic integrity because plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, ispresenting someone else’s work as your own. The IAFOR Journal of Education immediately
rejects any submission with evidence of plagiarism.
There are three common forms of plagiarism, none of which are acceptable:
1. Plagiarism with no referencing. This is copying the words from another source (article,
book, website, etc.) without any form of referencing.
2. Plagiarism with incorrect referencing. This involves using the words from anothersource and only putting the name of the author and/or date as a reference. Whilst not as
grave as the plagiarism just mentioned, it is still not acceptable academic practice.
Direct quoting requires quotation marks and a page number in the reference. This isbest avoided by paraphrasing rather than copying.
3. Self-plagiarism. It is not acceptable academic practice to use material that you havealready had published (which includes in conference proceedings) in a new submission.
You should not use your previously published words and you should not submit about
the same data unless it is used in a completely new way.
2. Meeting the Journal Aims and Scope
Different journals have different aims and scope, and papers submitted should fit the specificjournal. A “scattergun” approach (where you submit anywhere in the hope of being published)
is not sound practice. Like in darts, your article needs to hit the journal’s “bullseye”, it needs
to fit within the journal’s interest area. For example, a submission that is about building bridges,
will not be acceptable in a journal dedicated to education. Ensure that your paper is clearly
about education.
3. Follow the Author Guidelines
Most journals will supply a template to be followed for formatting your paper. Often, there will
also be a list of style requirements on the website (font, word length, title length, page layout,
and referencing style, among other things). There may also be suggestions about the preferred
structure of the paper. For the IAFOR Journal of Education these can all be found here:
https://iafor.org/journal/iafor-journal-of-education/author-guidelines/

4. Use Academic Language
The IAFOR Journal of Education only accepts papers written in correct and fluent English ata high academic standard. Any use of another language (whether in the paper or the referencelist) requires the inclusion of an English translation.
The style of expression must serve to articulate the complex ideas and concepts being presented,
conveying explicit, coherent, unambiguous meaning to scholarly readers. Moreover,manuscripts must have a formal tone and quality, employing third-person rather than firstperson standpoint (when feasible), placing emphasis on the research and not on unsubstantiatedsubjective impressions.
Contributors whose command of English is not at the level outlined above are responsible forhaving their manuscript corrected by a native-level, English-speaking academic prior to
submitting their paper for publication.
5. Literature Reviews
Any paper should have reference to the corpus of scholarly literature on the topic. A review ofthe literature should:
•
•
•
•
•

Predominantly be about contemporary literature (the last 5 years) unless you are
discussing a seminal piece of work.
Make explicit international connections for relevant ideas.
Analyse published papers in the related field rather than describe them.
Outline the gaps in the literature.
Highlight your contribution to the field.

Referencing
Referencing is the main way to avoid allegations of plagiarism. The IAFOR Journal of
Education uses the APA referencing style for both in-text citations and the reference list. If
you are unsure of the correct use of APA please use the Purdue Online Writing Lab (Purdue
OWL), – https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ – which has excellent examples
of all forms of APA referencing. Please note APA is used for referencing not for the generalformat of the paper. Your reference list should be alphabetical by author surname and include
DOIs whenever possible.
This short guide to getting published should assist you to move beyond the first editorial review.
Failure to follow the guidelines will result in your paper being immediately rejected.
Good luck in your publishing endeavours,
Dr Yvonne Masters
Editor-in-Chief, IAFOR Journal of Education

Table of Contents
From the Editor
Melinda Cowart

1

Notes on Contributors

3

Learner-Centered English Language Teaching: Premises, Practices,and Prospects
Nour El Imane Badjadi

7

Russian Accent in English Written Discourse
Olga R. Bondarenko

29

Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used forMathematics Classroom Instruction
Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo

47

Exploring the Effects of Digital Storytelling: A Case Studyof Adult L2 Writers in Taiwan
Min-Hsun Chiang

65

Proficient Speakers of English as a Foreign Language:
A Focus-Group StudyAli Dincer
Tevfik Dariyemez

83

Tertiary Learners’ Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn the
French Language: Evidence from a Non-Francophone Country
Nesrine Abdullah EL-Zine
Ammar Mohamed Aamer

101

L2 Vocabulary Acquisition through Narratives in an EFL
Public Elementary School
Maria Nelly Gutierrez Arvizu

115

Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction in Russia:
Students’ Attitude ResearchAlexandra Kolesnikova
Alina Maslova
Elena Mishieva

129

Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension
Achievement Among Secondary School Students with
Learning Disabilities in Ibadan, Nigeria
Kelechi U. Lazarus

145

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

From the Editor
Greetings readers! Welcome to the IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in
Education. Bilingualism and second language learning occur in virtually every nation. The
number of second language learners throughout the world increases regularly prompting
educators and researchers involved in teaching and investigating the multifaceted processes ofsecond language acquisition and language learning that their work is important and longlasting. The challenges and rewards inherent in the lengthy journey of learning anotherlanguage are as numerous as the reasons and motivations given for engaging in that endeavor.
Whether there is a need to meet school requirements, a pending move to another nation, aninterest in a new career, family reunification, or a sincere desire to add a language to his or her
existing linguistic repertoire, there exist unique issues that pertain to language in general andto individual languages specifically. Several persons have departed from their heritage nations
in search of a safe haven and must learn the language or languages of the new home nation asa part of survival and starting the process of creating a new life. Whatever the motives forlearning an additional language may be, the nature of language learning is complex and requiresconsideration of multiple factors. The mechanics, such as written discourse and pragmatics, of
language and individual languages as well as affective issues such as cultural identity,
marginalization, acculturation, assimilation, language shock, language loss, language status,
self-esteem when communicating in the new language, and the contexts of exit and reception
for the newcomer must be explored if language learning is to be successful. Furthermore,
ascertaining what constitutes successful practice among those who teach child and adultlanguage learners requires educators to look ahead for fresh ideas while concurrently
considering strategies and techniques that are research proven. Finally, it is important to
explore the types of teacher development that translate to effective teaching. Each of these
topics is addressed in the variety of articles provided by the diverse group of authors who
contribute their research and scholarship to this issue of the IAFOR Journal of Education:
Language Learning in Education.
In the first article, Nour El Imane Badjadi, author of “Learner-Centered English Language
Teaching: Premises, Practices, and Prospects”, takes a look at how Learner-Centered Education
has been implemented in second language teaching courses by university faculty. Through theresearch, Dr Badjadi frames some of the challenges in planning teacher development that will
promote second language teaching in higher education in the Middle East and North Africa.
Olga R. Bondarenko explores the characteristics of Russian English written discourse in“Russian Accent in English Written Discourse”. The author investigates the common variablesof communication strategies, style, structure and register among speakers of Russian English
who are learning English for the tourism and hospitality industry. Her research suggests theneed for cross-cultural education as an important component of English as a foreign language
programs if students are to master English as a Native language speech standards.
Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo looks at the effective use of code-switching in a math classroom in“Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used for Mathematics Classroom
Instruction”. A qualitative approach was used to discover the types of Tagalog-English codeswitching that were utilized by teachers and students in a rural college in the Philippines, inorder to facilitate comprehension of math concepts.
In the fourth article, “Exploring the Effects of Digital Storytelling: A Case Study of Adult L2
Writers in Taiwan”, Min-Hsun Chiang examines the value of incorporating digital storytelling1

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020in a freshman composition class to support digital literacy in English among college students
who are studying English as an International Language in Taiwan. This qualitative andquantitative study also explored the effects of digital storytelling on English as an International
Language students' confidence in their skills in written English.
Ali Dincer and Tevfik Dariyemez explore the characteristics of proficient speakers of English
in their article, “Proficient Speakers of English as a Foreign Language: A Focus-Group Study”.
The purpose of the study was to clarify how proficient speakers accomplish the skill of fluency.
The goal was to take advantage of their skills and metalinguistic knowledge to discover how
teachers might facilitate greater proficiency among EFL students.
Nesrine Abdullah EL-Zine and Ammar Mohamed Aamer investigate undergraduate students’motivation and desire to learn a French as a foreign language in “Tertiary Learners’
Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn the French Language: Evidence from a NonFrancophone Country”. The study was designed to answer the questions of how motivated thestudents were to learn French and to what extent they possessed a desire to learn French. The
authors also explored whether there was a significant difference in motivation in terms ofgender.
In “L2 Vocabulary Acquisition through Narratives in an EFL Public Elementary School” Maria
Nelly Gutierrez Arvizu considers the effectiveness of the use of narratives in language
teaching. The author presents the findings of a narrative intervention that was implemented aspart of a research project that she conducted with 167 students in grades 3-6 in an elementary
public school in Mexico.
In their article, “Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction in Russia:
Students’ Attitude Research”, Alexandra Kolesnikova, Alina Maslova, and Elena Mishieva
discuss a study they conducted to examine the attitudes towards peer assessment of students inan L2 phonetics class of first year undergraduate students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages
and Area Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University. The results of the study showed thatstudents were aware of the worth of peer assessment and generally possessed positive attitudes
towards it.
In “Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension Achievement Among
Secondary School Students with Learning Disabilities in Ibadan, Nigeria”, Kelechi U. Lazarus
discusses the findings of a research study that explored the effect that socio-demographic
factors such as school social environment, type of school and gender, have on achievement inreading comprehension of students with learning disabilities.
Happy reading!
Melinda Cowart
Editor, IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
editor.joll@iafor.org

2

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Notes on Contributors
Article 1: Learner-Centered English Language Teaching: Premises, Practices, andProspects
Dr Nour El Imane Badjadi is a senior lecturer and researcher in the field of applied linguistics
and second language acquisition at Ouargla University, Algeria. She is currently working inthe same field of study while completing post-doctoral research. Her research interests include
the cognitive aspects of foreign language pragmatics teaching and English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) literacy instruction.
Email: nourelimane.bjadi@gmail.com
Article 2: Russian Accent in English Written Discourse
Dr Olga R. Bondarenko has a PhD in Applied linguistics specialising in English-as-a-foreign
language teaching and holds the position of a professor at the Foreign Languages Departmentof the Russian State University for the Humanities. She is the author of about 40 research
papers, including some published in international resources, 25 teaching course booklets andworkbooks in English and has designed more than 20 English courses syllabi for students of
tourism and hospitality. Her professional interests include ESP teaching, interculturalcommunication and World Englishes.
Email: orbon@mail.ru
Article 3: Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-switching Types Used for Mathematics
Classroom Instruction
Ms Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo has a master's degree in Language Education from the Universityof the Philippines Diliman. With more than a decade of experience in the academe, she has
explored the areas of language instruction and assessment, curriculum and materials
development, teacher training, and ESL/EFL program management. Presently, she is an
Instructional Coaching Manager at Teach for the Philippines, a non-profit organisation thatendeavours to provide Filipino children access to an inclusive, excellent, and relevant
education. Her research interests include code-switching, second language teaching, andteacher education.
Email: karizza.sotelo@teachforthephillipines.org or kpbravo@gmail.com
Article 4: Exploring the Effects of Digital Storytelling: A Case Study of Adult L2
Writers in Taiwan
Dr Min-Hsun Chiang has a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from The University of Texas
at Austin. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
at Tunghai University in central Taiwan. Her research interests include computer-assisted
language learning, language teacher training, and content and language integrated learning.
Email: minhsunl@thu.edu.tw

3

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Article 5: Proficient Speakers of English as a Foreign Language: A Focus-Group StudyDr Ali Dincer has a PhD majoring in English Language Teaching. He is an Assistant Professor
at Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Erzincan, Turkey. He also serves as the Head of
Foreign Language Education and Editor-in-Chief of Erzincan University Journal of Education
Faculty. His primary research interests focus on language learning motivation, autonomous
language learning and classroom engagement.
Email: adincer@erzincan.edu.tr
Dr Tevfik Dariyemez received his PhD in English Linguistics. He works as a lecturer in the
School of Foreign Languages at Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey. His fields of expertise
are Technology Enhanced-Language Learning and Teaching Speaking.
Email: tevfik.dariyemez@atauni.edu.tr
Article 6: Tertiary Learners’ Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn the French
Language: Evidence from a Non-Francophone Country
Dr Nesrine EL-Zine is a Professor in the Department of French Language and Literature at
Sana’a University, Yemen. She earned her Licence and Maîtrise in Foreign Languages andLiteratures from The University of Paris 8 (France). She holds an MS and PhD in Modern
Foreign Languages and Literatures (French) from the University of Tennessee (USA). Besides
her research on Teaching French as a Foreign Language, Dr EL-Zine’s research interests arein the field of Students’ Motivation and Attitudes, and the Classroom Learning and Interaction.
Email: nelzineut@gmail.com
Dr Ammar Aamer is the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology at Sampoerna
University in Jakarta, Indonesia. He earned a BS, MS and PhD in Industrial Engineering fromThe University of Tennessee, USA. His research interests include Lean Manufacturing, Supply
Chain Management, Simulation, and Quality.
Email: ammar.aamer@sampoernauniversity.ac.id
Article 7: L2 Vocabulary Acquisition through Narratives in an EFL Public Elementary
SchoolDr Maria Nelly Gutierrez Arvizu holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics awarded by Northern
Arizona University, USA. She is an Associate Professor / Faculty Researcher at the Foreign
Languages Department in Universidad de Sonora, Mexico. She has been an English teacher,teacher educator, and English teacher trainer for more than 20 years. She is a proud member of
the National System of Researchers in Mexico. Her fields of expertise are English as a Foreign
Language, young learners of English, development of speaking in EFL contexts, and second
language assessment.
Email: marianelly.gutierrez@unison.mx

4

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Article 8: Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction in Russia: Students’Attitude Research
Dr Alexandra Kolesnikova is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Foreign Languages andArea Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia, from which she has a PhD in
pedagogy. She has a number of publications on ELT, teaching phonetics and assessing
phonological competence. She is a member of the National Association of Applied Linguistics(Russia), and the National Association of Teachers of English (Russia). Her fields of expertiseare Phonology and Phonetics: Instruction and Assessment.
Email: alex_wd@mail.ru
Ms Alina Maslova has a Master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Oxford,
specialising in teaching English phonetics in the context of English as a Lingua Franca. She iscurrently a Lecturer at Lomonosov Moscow State University. She is also working on her PhD
focused on EFL Phonetics instruction within Higher Teacher education in Russia.
Email: maslovalina@gmail.com
Dr Elena Mishieva is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area
Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia, from which she has a PhD in
linguistics. She has a number of publications on discourse analysis, online youth
communication, and ELT, among which is a state approved EFL textbook for Russian schools.
She is a member of the National Association of Applied Linguistics (Russia), and the National
Association of Teachers of English (Russia). Her current academic research interests
concentrate on cultural and national identity and related state educational policy, including
ways of developing cultural identity by means of ELT.
Email: lenamurashkovskaya@gmail.com
Article 9: Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension Achievement
Among Secondary School Students with Learning Disabilities in Ibadan, Nigeria
Dr Kelechi U. Lazarus holds a PhD in Special Education, with specialisation in learning
disabilities. She is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Her researchinterests are Special Education, Learning Disabilities, Inclusive Education and Counselling
Intervention for Special Needs Persons. She is a member of several professional bodies
including International Association of Special Education (IASE) (Arizona, the United States)
and the National Association for Exceptional Children (NAEC) (Nigeria).
Email: lazarusk67@gmail.com

5

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

6

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Learner-Centered English Language Teaching: Premises, Practices, and Prospects
Nour El Imane Badjadi
Ouargla University
Algeria7

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
Although learner-centered education is claimed to have several learning gains, researchsuggests that teachers’ attitudes and practices play a crucial role in promoting its prolificoutcomes. This study examines the adaptation of learner-centered education and examines how
it has been implemented in second language teaching by university teachers since launching an
educational shift embodied in the learner-centered reform a decade ago. In so doing, aquestionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 128 instructors. The data collected wereanalyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Meanwhile, interviews were analyzed qualitatively.
The quantitative analysis of data provides a snapshot of instructors’ attitudes towards Learnercentered education and the extent to which they implemented it in their courses. More
importantly, the analysis of qualitative interview results outlines a “contextualized” frameworkthat takes into account the conceptual nature of the global premises of Learner-centerededucation by linking them to teachers’ perceptions and practices in a particular context. The
findings provide insights into the dynamism of meeting college students’ second language
learning needs. The study further addresses the problems of designing teacher training thataims at promoting higher education second language learning in the Middle East and North
Africa context.
Keywords: learner-centered education (LCE), English language teaching (ELT), teacher
education, instructed second language development

8

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Globalized approaches to education are growing in spread and influence, informing theblueprint for educational reforms, forming current instructional practices, and reflecting theparadigm shift in education towards learner-centeredness. Learner-centered education (LCE)
is a model that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century to shape a new understanding oflearning, and to pave the way for what teaching and learning ought to be like in the newmillennium (Myers & Lee, 2017; Starkey, 2019; Weimar, 2013). Accordingly, since 2007,
higher education in Algeria has initiated an LCE-oriented reform called the LMD System,
referring to License, Master, Doctorate (Azzi, 2012). Nowadays, learner-centeredness is hardly
a new issue, but what is paradoxical about this notion is that although it has been around sincethe 1970s, it is rarely questioned in terms of its practicality for achieving specific objectives in
specific contexts. Rather, mostly, it has been taken for granted as common sense about effective
teaching, or as a fashion or a policy imposed by curricular changes. Besides, the need for more
efficient practices in English language teaching (ELT) has triggered a shift away fromsearching out a perfect one-size-fits-all teaching method towards focusing on certain learners
in particular backgrounds. Therefore, the fundamental concern of this study is to explore how
the conceptual premises of LCE are perceived by second language teachers in Algeria and how
they are realized in classroom practice as a means of promoting learners’ L2 development. The
study, thereby, aims at the betterment of alignment between espoused principles and enacted
practices by highlighting the potential discrepancy between theoretical ideality and practicalreality. The study further aims at offering new insights into how LCE- oriented instruction
might be designed to effectively promote second language development.
LCE is rooted in the belief that learning is a qualitative change in a person’s way of seeing and,
when this change is acquiring another language, another soul. Indeed, the methodology ofcurrent practice in ELT has been informed by the notion that learner-centeredness (Hall, 2017;
Nunan, 2012) is an axis around which contemporary ELT methods and post-methods revolve.
From this viewpoint, LCE in ELT encourages the creation and negotiation of meaning by thelearners themselves. As teachers strive to enhance students’ English language development,
they are often confronted with language deficiencies and shallow content knowledge. Theseobstacles are mirrored in the lack of vocabulary, grammatical mistakes, limited range of ideas,
and the chaotic or incoherent presentation of ideas. As antidotes to those weaknesses, theteacher needs to integrate learner-centered teaching strategies due to two major characteristics.
First, they encourage students to enlarge their knowledge, in terms of both language andcontent, through tasks and projects (Ellis, 2017). Second, other than the significance of thecognitive aspect, great importance ought to be given to the social and affective aspects andtheir role in learning a second language through cooperative and collaborative practices(Donato, 2016). Hence, the current study inspects the merits of using learner-centered ELTpractices, namely content-based, task-based, and project-based, as well as cooperative andcollaborative language teaching practices.
This article reports on a study investigating the adaptation of learner-centered education to
English language teaching in a university in Algeria. Specifically, it explores the teachers’
insights towards the theoretical premises and their practicality as classroom instructional
practices. This paper firstly reviews literature related to LCE and its applied pedagogicalpractices in ELT, describes the research methodology used in the study, presents findings anddiscussion, and lastly draws conclusions and implications.

9

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Literature Review
LCE has established a worldwide track record in motivating students, stimulating personal
growth and lifelong learning, and developing communication skills, among other gains (Ahmed& Dakhiel; 2019; Van Viegen & Russell, 2019; Villacís & Camacho, 2017). However, thegains of LCE are claimed to be largely dependent on the way teachers perceive, and implement
it, especially that it is portrayed not to belittle the teacher’s role but, rather, to multiply it (Ilieva,
Wallace, & Spiliotopoulos, 2019; Van den Branden, 2016), a premise that maybe challenging
to many teachers (Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Yamagata, 2018). In addition, previous studies haveindicated that the implementation of LCE pedagogies requires high levels of awareness andspecialized skills on behalf of teachers, together with encouraging school environments(Marwan, 2017; Shehadeh; 2018; Troyan, Cammarata, & Martel, 2017). Similarly, despite thatseveral studies advocate that implementing LCE is challenging in terms of both course design
and the development of instructional methods and materials (Bai & González, 2019;
Philominraj, Jeyabalan, & Vidal-Silva, 2017), a number of research reports have shown that
LCE has been successfully implemented even where teacher-centered instruction used to be
the norm (Yu & Liu, 2017). In the same strand, this research is intended to contribute to theemergent body of knowledge which addresses the ongoing need for empirical studies on theimplementation of LCE practices in ELT.
Exploring the implementation of learner-centered practices in the context of ELT is crucial tomaximizing their usefulness in terms of strategic pedagogy and enhanced target language
development. Haley and Austin (2004) suggest, “As the field is constantly changing, we want
to stress that this process of questioning one’s assumptions and reconstructing them on thebasis of new knowledge is key to maintaining instructional practices that are responsive to ourlearners” (p. 1). The way theory is envisaged in classroom practice is worth investigation,
especially since teachers and learners sometimes appear to be caught between tediously
sticking to old tradition and obediently imitating current trends. In addition to linking theory topractice, an important aspect of ELT pedagogy is improving practice to optimize learning
outcomes. As Leung (1993) states, “A researched pedagogy scrutinizes pedagogic activity toassess its mode of implementation, its operation, and its outcomes.” (as cited in Bygate,
Shehan, & Swain, 2001, p.1). In ELT, the main LCE-oriented approaches are: attending tolearners’ needs through integrating language-and-content (Lyster, 2017) raising students’awareness of their active role through tasks and projects (Beckett & Slater, 2019; Ellis et al.,2019); and leading learners towards autonomy through peer cooperation (Karim, 2018), andinstructional communication (Ammar & Hassan, 2017).
Research on educational pragmatism is vital for advancing the field of ELT. Therefore, thisstudy assumes that it is through critical appraisal that educational premises and practices canbe adapted to specific contexts in order to inform future second language teaching and learning.
Notably, the present study comprehensively focuses on the use of these particular practices as
they relate to concurrent learner-centered ELT practices. Specifically, it attempts to answer thefollowing questions:
1. How do university English language teachers perceive the theoretical premises that
underlie LCE?
2. How do English language teachers implement LCE practices in the classroom?

10

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

3. From the teachers’ perspectives, how can LCE be effectively implemented in ELT
courses?
Research Methodology
Participants
To achieve the aforementioned aims, a descriptive exploratory study was carried out where aquestionnaire was administered to a random sample of 128 second language teachers in thedepartments of French, English and Translation working at Algerian Universities. The
participants were largely homogeneous in terms of background and included male and female
as well as experienced and early-career participants. All of the participants spoke Arabic as
their mother tongue and were teaching French or English as second languages. At the university
level, second languages were mostly taught for academic (translation and literature) andeducational purposes (applied linguistics and second language acquisition). The language
programs taught by the participants were sets of compulsory courses including grammar,
phonetics, literature, general linguistics, translation, language history and culture, TEFL
(Teaching English as a Foreign Language), and educational psychology, or ESP (English forSpecific Purposes) for non-English major students, all taught in the second language, i.e.,
French or English.
As for the interview, the participants were 9 teachers selected from the initial questionnaire
sample based on their implementation rates reported in the questionnaire. After the collectionof questionnaire responses, teachers who reported obviously frequent use of LCE oriented
practices were manually detected (N= 24). However, only nineteen of them filled in theirpersonal information since that was optional. In addition to availability, variability was also
taken into consideration; the available participants were grouped into experienced (senior,
N=12) and novice (N=7). Then, ½ from each group were randomly selected, phoned, andrequested to participate in a semi-structured interview. Eventually, they kindly agreed to takepart. The interviews were phone-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.
Data Collection and Analysis
This study employed quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis. In
accordance with the purposes of this study, a survey was designed based on the literature
reviewed on LCE (Myers & Lee, 2017; Starkey, 2019).
First, the questionnaire was designed to elicit information about second language teachers’
backgrounds, attitudes, practices, and implementation of LCE and consisted of three sections(Porte, 2010). The first four questions constituted the first section and were meant to gather
information about teachers’ age, gender, and work experience. The next section included
question items about teachers’ views of teaching and learning conceptions related to LCE.
Teachers were required to indicate how far they agreed with some statements associated with
LCE using: strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. The focus of the third section
was narrowed down to an inquiry into teachers’ implementation of LCE methods. In thissection, teachers were required to indicate the extent to which they use LCE methods in theircourses. Cronbach's Alpha for the questionnaire was .891. The questionnaire responses wereinterpreted based on a 4-point Likert scale where means that ranged between 1 and 2 denoteda low value, means that ranged between 2 and 3 denoted an average value, and means that
ranged between 3 and 4 represented a high value.

11

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Qualitative research instruments are particularly useful in terms of the valuable insights aninsider can report. As Miller and Bell (2002) argue, “The shift towards a focus on subjective
experience and the meanings individuals give to their actions has led to a concern with theresearch process itself and the ways in which qualitative data are gathered” (p. 61). Because
this study aimed at examining LCE premises, not only based on their theoretical meaning, butalso on what they experientially meant to the teachers, and examining the ways in which theseinternalized meanings were translated into educational practices, taking ethical considerations
into account was extremely important. In so doing, prior to the administration of thequestionnaire, the participants were told that their responses would be treated withconfidentiality, and would be used for research purposes only. The participants were also
informed that filling in personal information (Name, email, phone number) was optional andwould be used only in case they were interested in perusing probing questions or willing toshare their experiences. The semi-structured interview sought information on teachers’
evaluation and implementation of LCE methods in their courses. Participants were also
required to reflect on the difficulties they faced and the solutions they found practical within
their teaching situation.
The choice of questionnaire and interview for data collection was based on the purpose of thestudy. It is common for investigators using quantitative research to conduct interviews in orderto help verify research conclusions (Phakiti & Paltridge, 2015). This is known as triangulation
and represents a primary means by which qualitative researchers establish validity of theirresearch (Guion et al., 2011, p.1). The initially constructed versions were followed by revisions
based on the feedback provided by three senior teacher educators in Languages and Human
Sciences School at an Algerian University from which the study sample was taken. Using bothquestionnaire and interview data was appropriate for investigating teacher’s beliefs andpractices and for inspecting challenges teachers faced in their implementation of LCE, alongwith the coping strategies they had developed.
The data collected were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Notably, a level of significanceof 0.01 was adopted for the quantitative analysis. Meanwhile, interviews were audio recorded
and analyzed qualitatively (Richards, 2009). The analysis of interview data employed areflexive approach to data coding and interpretation (Duff, 2018). This view suggests thatthroughout the process of data analysis, “constant checks must be made to ensure that it is thedata, rather than one’s intuitions or assumptions that are leading the analysis.”(Burns, 2003, p.
157).
Figure 1 shows the different stages that were followed in completing the research. Initially, theresearcher gathered all the collected data and scanned it to take notes of the outstanding ideas
and impressions. Then, the categories of codes were developed so that more particular patterns
could be identified. The latter step allowed for reading across the assembled data to build
hierarchies or sequences to detect frequencies of occurrences, behaviors, or responses. One
deviation from the scheme suggested by Burns (2003) is that, in this study, the categories were
derived from the thematic categories that formed the foundation of the questionnaire items.
These thematic questionnaire categories were, in turn, derived from the literature on thetheoretical premises and concurrent practices associated with LCE (Attitudes Category: A.
Transmission vs. discovery, B. Responsibility, C. Readiness; Implementation Category: D.
Content-based, E. Task-based, F. Project-based, G. Cooperative and Collative, H. Awareness12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Raising, I. Support Provision). The subsequent stage involved examining the underlying
concepts and theorizing about why certain patterns had evolved.
Stage1:
Assembling thedataStage 5:
Reporting theoutcomes

Stage 2: Coding
the data

Stage 4:
Building
interpretations

Stage 3:Comparing thedata

Figure 1: The stages of qualitative data analysis (adapted from Burns 2003)
Findings
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards LCE
Attitudes toward LCE approaches to instruction show variation across questionnaire statementsin the participants’ responses.
Table 1: Descriptive results of teachers’ attitudes towards LCE premises
Items in Category 1*
Item1
Item2
Item3
Item4
Item5
Item6
Attitudes
Valid N (listwise)

N
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128

Mean**
2.84
3.39
2.79
2.63
3.88
3.18
3.1185

Std. Deviation
.781
.679
.969
.946
.323
.837
.59641

N: Total number of participants*Category 1 of the questionnaire: Attitudes**Mean weight of responses given that response options are weighted as follows: strongly agree=4, agree=3, disagree=2,
strongly disagree=1

Table 1 shows the descriptive results of questionnaire items indicating that, overall, teachers
agreed with the pedagogic premises associated with LCE (total mean for Attitudes Category:
3.11=agree, see response weights above). However, from the responses’ means in the13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

questionnaire data (Item 1: the view of teaching as knowledge transmission, Item 3, usefulnessof providing learning opportunities, and Item 4: students’ responsibility for their own learning),
it was obvious that teachers assigned a remarkable amount of importance to the transmissionof knowledge from teachers to students while, at the same time, encouraging active learning(Items 2, 5, 6; Category 1) as a significant aspect of LCE.
The interview data were coded focusing on the attitudes category and represents assumptions
regarding the nature of learning and teaching, concerning the distribution of roles andresponsibilities, and as regards students’ readiness for LCE practices. The majority of theinterviewees agreed on the active nature of learning with the teacher as a facilitator. Meanwhile,
they disagreed with the notion of teaching as merely the transmission of content. As Senior 4
clarifies, “delivery … for me as language teacher is only part of teaching and functions as input
for language learning to be initiated”. What is even more interesting, at the same time, is that
all the respondents agreed with the idea of learning as a matter of discovery rather than delivery.
For Novice 1: “… language learning as involves not just change in behavior, but in knowledge,
skills, strategies, beliefs, and attitudes as well. Change of this kind is mainly intrinsically driven
through discovery rather than transmitted.”
The next set of assumptions, however revealed more controversy among teachers. Concerning
the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the teaching-learning enterprise, most of the
respondents, disagreed with “the total relinquishment of teachers’ responsibilities to theirstudents. The role of the teacher is pivotal if any learning is to take place and being responsible
for one’s own teaching implies being partly responsible for students’ learning as well.” (Senior2). In addition, slightly more than half of the respondents disagreed with the view that students
take full responsibility for their learning, nearly half of the respondents (N=4) agreed with thesame assumption. The reason behind this controversy may be echoed in Senior 5’s claim that“teaching always implies learning and thus is learner-centered to some degree and in one way
or another. Teaching methods may agree in that the learner is a central axiom, but disagree
about the nature and degree of this centrality, and how it best promotes learning”. Indeed, themost debatable assumption was that students take full responsibility for their learning.
Lastly, the large majority of teachers agreed that LCE requires prerequisite knowledge andskills on behalf of students (Item 5). As suggested by Senior 3: “besides needing a solid
knowledge background, I intend to design my courses in such a way to enable students,
whatever their level is, to actively develop effective learning skills”. When asked if this means
structuring the teaching around LCE practices, Senior 3 replied “… well …Just as a completely
teacher-centered classroom would teach nothing, in an extremely learner-centered classroom,
little or no learning would take place. Thus, a compromise is required.” Not surprisingly, there
was a tendency in the interview data towards favoring a balance of power and desiring to share
responsibility for learning; in fact, this was the most appealing argument among the
respondents.
Teachers’ Implementation of LCE Methods
Table 2 shows participants’ responses regarding the use of concurrent LCE practices in theirclasses, namely Content-, Task-, and Project-Based, Cooperative and Collaborative practices(Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Category 2) as well as Awareness Raising and Scaffolding (guidance andsupport) strategies (Items 6 and 7, Category 2). The responses from the questionnaire (Table2) indicate that teachers moderately adopt reform-oriented LCE methods (total mean: 2.41=

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

average, see response weights below). Specifically, content and task-based methods (Items 1,
2: Category 2) are the most commonly used since they are regarded as the most practical as
they can be easily adapted to teacher-fronted classrooms. Similarly, interview data point toward
the practicality of joining the two methods.
Table 2: Descriptive results of teachers’ implementation of LCE methods
Items in Category 2*

N

Mean**

Std. Deviation

Item 1
Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7
Implementation

128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128

2.88
2.76
1.49
2.23
2.30
2.50
2.75
2.41629

.790
.929
.589
.837
1.022
1.004
.763
.543770

Valid N (listwise)

128

2.88

N: Total number of participants*Category 2 of the questionnaire: Implementation**Mean weight of responses given that response options are weighted as follows:
always=4, often=3, sometimes=2, never=1

Interview data also indicate positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing content andtask-based methods. As a teacher interviewee clarified “… with regard to LCE methods, when
the teacher reviews course content, explains a language point related to the course content as
part of feedback on students’ task performance or contribution, content knowledge will be
deepened because students not only understand, but also apply course content and the language
they use to express it.” (Senior 2) Likewise, another interviewee noted: “frequently requiring
learners to solve a problem, arrive at a conclusion, or complete a task and to share information
allows them to collect information and cultivate themselves” (Senior 3).
In addition, a relatively large number of teachers have employed cooperative and collaborative
methods (Survey Items 4, 5, Category 2). Similar findings were revealed in the reported
experiences through qualitative interview data. As a senior teacher pointed out, “though time
consuming, cooperative and collaborative methods can foster growth in many areas: learning
to use interpersonal skills effectively, understanding and applying the course content to life
situations, developing self-esteem and ability to explain concepts to others” (Senior 5).
Similarly, a teacher interviewee reports “through encouraging student-student interaction,
positive interdependence and individual accountability, students gain greater motivation andself-confidence, learn to work cooperatively, and eventually become autonomous learners”(Novice3). Another teacher noted: “varying teacher-student interaction through collaborative
dialogue and mentoring students’ groups stimulates the negotiation of meaning and allows the
maximum of students to contribute to the discussion and develop as thinkers, andcommunicators in the second language… This is because students have the opportunity to

15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

benefit from the presence of the teacher and peers, to receive feedback from multiple sources”(Novice 1).
Conversely, few teachers reported using project-based methods, (Questionnaire Item 3:
Category 2). The findings also suggest that many teachers seemed to doubt the usefulness ofraising students’ awareness of their active role in the learning process, assuming that changing
their habits may cost much effort and time, and regarded the provision of adequate support andguidance as challenging (Questionnaire Items, 6 and 7, Category 2). In the interview, this theme
was raised in specific reference to students’ readiness and the challenges that teachers face in
implementing the LCE reform. One interviewee comments: “we cannot ignore that LCE
methods require students to enlarge their knowledge by doing extra readings, investigate issues
in depth, and solve problems and other study skills to which many students may not be used
to… especially in over-crowded classrooms or lecture halls” (Senior 1). Another point raisedby a teacher interviewee was that: “language teachers and learners come to class with a lifetimeof experiences and preconceived notions about teaching and learning” (Novice 2).
Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of LCE
The results show that while there existed a correlation among teachers’ attitudes (Category 1)
and the implementation (Category 2) of LCE that was significant (Table 3), the descriptive
statistics point to a noticeable gap between the two survey categories (Table 4).
Table 3: Correlation among teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE
Attitudes

Implementation

Attitudes
1

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N

128.837**.000
128**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

16

Implementation.837**
.000
128
1
128

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE
Questionnaire Categories

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Attitudes (Category 1)
Implementation (Category 2)

128
128

3.11852.41629.59641.543770

Valid N (listwise)128

In consonance with the quantitative results, interview data highlight a tension between
teachers’ attitudes toward the reform standards and the practicality of educational reformthough many teachers were cognizant of the benefits of LCE reform for second language
learning. For instance, an important point that was raised by a number of participants was skills
integration. As a senior instructor explained, “A LCE framework provides a natural context for
integrating the four skills. Oral interaction helps wiring development at least in two ways. First,
content will be enhanced, through brainstorming in groups, for example” (Senior 5). Similarly,
another teacher observed that “the acquisition of new vocabulary and improvement of learners’
grammar are stimulated by interaction and likely to occur through scaffolding during
collaborative work” (Novice 1). In the same vein, a writing teacher reported: “… In a learnercentered classroom writing not only triggers reading, but listening and speaking as well; this is
likely to lead to an increase in students’ overall competence and writing abilities thereby”(Senior 6).
Discussion
This study sought to demonstrate how effectively the LCE approach could be implemented in
the ELT context. Throughout the current work, the relationship between teachers’ perceptions
and ways of implementing learner-centered teaching practices were highlighted. To explore
the extent to which LCE teaching practices affect the advancement of language leaning fromthe instructor’s perspective, the researcher has considered the most influential LCE theoreticalpremises as well as concurrent LCE oriented ELT methods in constructing the questionnaire
instrument. In addition, the interview data have been used to identify patterns that explain why
ELT teachers implement LCE in the way they do in terms of the influence of certain perceptions
on their approaches to teaching. The qualitative analysis is based on reading across the
respondents’ answers to the open-ended interview questions and coding data into thequestionnaire-derived categories which are: the nature of learning, assumed responsibility,
students’ readiness, content-based practice, task-based practices, project-based practices,
cooperative and collaborative practices, as well as awareness-raising and support provision.
This section focuses on analyzing the data gathered and discussing their interpretation in lightof the research questions.
Question 1:

How do university English language teachers perceive the theoretical premisesthat underlie LCE?

The quantitative results (Table1) show that though teachers are evidently aware of the LCE
orientation towards encouraging active learning through guided discovery in order to enlarge
students’ resources such as online learning and self-study instead of the heavy reliance onteacher’s “spoon-feeding”, they still assign a remarkable amount of importance to the17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

transmission of knowledge from teachers to students. These findings have been clarified bytriangulation with interview results where participants frequently show concerns about the timeneeded to cover the programs’ content and the demands discovery-based learning necessitates
on both students and teachers. This contradiction is consistent with research findings that point
to the significance of reform-focused training and, at the same time, provide support to previous
studies indicating the need for adapting educational reforms according to the context of
implementation. Similarly, the interview respondents believe that the implementation of LC
practices positively affects students’ second language development and enhances theircomprehension and production skills. Respondents; however, highlight different aspects of thisrelationship.
First of all, with regard to the perceived nature of learning, the respondents expressed
willingness “to break the rule that says teachers tend to teach in the way they were taught, I
believe that good change takes time, but even a slight alteration to start with can make adifference” (Novice 3). This gradual nature of change in educational settings is alsoemphasized in (Qamar, 2016). Within the context of teaching EFL writing, Hedge (2000)
states,
It is a result of various pressures of time and the need to cover the syllabus, writing isoften relegated to homework and takes place in unsupported conditions of learning. The
danger in these circumstances is that poorer writers struggle alone and the experience
confirms them in their perceptions of themselves as failing writers. And better writers
miss valuable opportunities for improvement through discussion, collaboration, andfeedback. (p. 301)
Nonetheless, “these contextual constraints”, according to Senior 6, “may limit, but may notprevent the implementation of LC practices because they can be adapted for learners, at any of
the stages of development, and in most curricula; it depends on the teacher’s epistemologicalbeliefs and experience of course”. This realistic yet optimistic response relates to Spada andLightbown’s (2006, p.50) claim that: “Many teachers watch theory development with interest,
but must continue to teach and plan lessons and assess students’ performance in the absence ofa comprehensible theory of second language learning” - emphasis added-. By “must”, Spadaand Lightbown hint at the contextual constraints hindering the adoption of educationalinnovations. To minimize the effects of contextual constraints, Ó Ceallaigh, Hourigan, andLeavy, (2018) argue for enhancing teachers’ potential in terms of knowledge and skills. Also,
solving the problems that arise in a particular context can be triggered through collaboration
among teachers across and within disciplines (Zappa-Hollman, 2018; Pawan & Greene, 2017),
and through teacher education as well (Cammarata & Cavanagh, 2018).
Question 2:

How do English language teachers implement learner-centered methods ofteaching in the classroom?

On one hand, the findings indicating positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing
content and task-based methods, especially within the frameworks of cooperative and/or
collaborative learning, are in consonance with of experimental research on the effectiveness ofcontent-based, cooperative and collaborative language teaching methods (Eriksson, 2018;
Mayo, 2018; Mohamadpour et al. 2018; Sato et al., 2017; Seah, 2020; Spenader et al., 2018).
One example is Arboleda-Arboleda and Castro-Garcés’ (2019) study which focuses on

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

teaching the target language through literature and provides evidence for the effectiveness ofcontent-based with task-based approaches.
On the other hand, the findings that teachers moderately raise students’ awareness of theiractive role in the learning process and regard the provision of adequate support and guidanceas challenging lend support to the view that the adoption and adaptation of LCE reform requires
collaboration among teachers (and between the teacher and the learners who have alreadyconstructed notions about what their role in the classroom is (Yen, 2016). The results alsosuggest that the implementation of LCE is a process that requires gradually refining
epistemological beliefs and dropping stereotypical notions about learning and instruction (VanLoi, 2020). These findings are consistent with research in similar contexts which has
highlighted the effect of students’ responsiveness and readiness for a reform-oriented approachto teaching (Edwards et al., 2019), especially if the approach entails learning skills students
may not be equipped with, study strategies they may not be aware of, and responsibilities they
did not expect.
In content-based language learning, learners’ understanding of texts is the result of integrating
the knowledge and language which this text presents and the learners’ prior knowledge. With
this regard, in Senior 6’s EFL writing course “explaining points relevant to course content
frequently occurs in most sessions, yet it does not occur is isolation, but rather in a form of
feedback in accordance with students’ contributions. It usually aims at helping students express
their ideas appropriately and develop a sense of audience through emphasizing the clarity ofstudents’ topic sentences.” As far as writing is concerned, several studies demonstrate thatstudents’ written production considerably benefits from using LCE practices. Students will
have the opportunity to learn from mistakes by allowing for different sources of feedback andby being exposed to variety of activities, students acquire multiple skills and enlarge theirknowledge through interacting with peers and with the teacher (Yasuda, 2017). Moreover,using LCE practices is found to enrich students’ vocabulary and fosters their retention; also,
through unlocking their learning potential, and relying on themselves, students acquire usefullearning strategies (Tseng, Liou, & Chu, 2020). Besides, through LCE practices, students
develop not only cognitive and intellectual abilities, but also they gradually become more
proficient learners and produce high quality pieces of writing in terms of accuracy andcoherence (Kafipour, Mahmoudi, & Khojasteh, 2018).
Besides creating a context for interacting, task-based and project-based language teachingseems to provide a context for language skills’ integration. With regard to writing, therespondents’ views were further in line with Hedge’s argument that students benefit noticeably
from writing in the classroom; “If students experience some success in the classroom, they are
more likely to write more at home and gain more motivation and improvement” (Hedge, 2005,
p. 13). Similar findings have been revealed with regard to developing translation abilities (Lin,2019). As Senior 6 described “During sessions in class, the focus may be on developing aparticular skill, say writing or speaking for example, but almost always try to use the activities
involve students to interactively develop the four skills.”; when asked how?, Senior 6 clarified“when doing in-class writing tasks, the students not only write, but also speak about the topics
proposed, listen to each other, read the handouts, and write to answer the activities.”
Congruently, Yasuda (2017) examined the integrated effect of systemic functional linguisticsbased genre approach and task-based language teaching on the synchronized development of
linguistic knowledge and writing expertise. Yasuda’s (2017) findings lend support to the19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

aforementioned respondent’s practice. However, the assumption of developing English
language learners’ integrated skills “in the background” while keeping the focus on one skill
at a time has remained scarcely searched despite the proliferation in task-based ELT studies(Al Kandari, & Al Qattan, 2020; Anwar & Arifani, 2016; Ellis et al., 2019; Lee, 2016; Saaty,2020). An extended form of TBLT is project-based language teaching (PBLT). The latter was
the least used LCE practice among the interviewed teachers due to its “vagueness, especiallyin terms of assessment” (Novice 2). Coincidently, PBLT has so far received little attention in
ELT theorizing (cf. Beckett & Slater, 2019) and research (cf. Baş & Beyhab, 2017; Poonpon,
2017).
Finally, the respondents, overall, advocate that cooperative and collaborative teaching practices
raise students’ awareness of their active role and motivation by “making them feel dedicatedto acquire the language more effectively in order to achieve more success and better self-esteem
and self-confidence in return” (Novice 3). Likewise, research has shown that teachers’
behaviors are directly related to students’ motivation including behaviors influencing theaffective atmosphere of the classroom (Marsh, 2018). Additionally, according to the interview
respondents’ view, implementing LCE strategies encourages students to be more interactive
and productive because they are required to write more inside and outside the classroom. In
addition, as one respondent claimed, “the more students are motivated, the harder they work,and the more they write” Senior 4. Indicating the effectiveness of requiring students to write
frequently, Hedge (2005, p. 13) argues: “My own experience tells me that in order to be good
writers, a student needs to write a lot”. Eventually, when students recognize that theircontributions are worthy, they develop a “we can, so I can” attitude. “with time, students
develop self-confidence and self-reliance that encourage them to enrich their vocabulary andimprove their language proficiency in general by working on their own.” (Senior 3). Using a
combination of LCE strategies is suggested to create variety and engages more students
because “all the learners can participate, no matter what their talents might be. Everyone canfind satisfaction in using language in different ways to produce interesting and attractive pieceof work” (Davies & Pearse, 2000, p.100). By being motivated, students will be more eager tolearn from each other (Namaziandost et al., 2019; Rochman, 2019) and from the teacher(Kukulska‐Hulme & Viberg, 2018; Saha & Singh, 2016). As a consequence, the students feel
more responsible to actively take part in constructing their knowledge (He & Lin, 2019;
Morton, 2020), and strategically learn the target language (Lo & Lin, 2019; Zhong et al., 2019).
Question 3:

From the teachers’ perspectives, how can LCE practices be effectively
implemented in ELT courses?

The results are in accordance with previous studies that examined the implementation ofstandards-based educational reforms and found inconsistency between conceptualization andpractice in instruction (Nielsen, 2019). In addition, the findings provide evidence that if LCE
strategies are to be successfully implemented, teachers need to tailor the implementation ofthese methods according to their teaching situations through what Kumaravadivelu (2003)
refers to as “theorizing from practice”. He further explains:
Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for thedevelopment of context-sensitive pedagogic theory and practice…no theory of practice
can be fully useful and usable unless it is generated through practice. A logical corollary
is that it is the practicing teacher who, given adequate tools for exploration, is best20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

suited to produce such a practical theory. The intellectual exercise of attempting toderive a theory of practice enables teachers to understand and identify problems,
analyze and assess information, consider and evaluate alternatives, and then choose thebest available alternative that is then subjected to further critical appraisal. In this sense,a theory of practice involves continual reflection and action. (p.35)
Taken together, the findings draw attention to the effects of teachers’ and students’
epistemological beliefs and pre-assumptions of roles and responsibilities on reform
implementation, adding, thereby, to previous studies on reform implementation and, moreparticularly, contributing to the literature on the implementation of LCE (Seah & Silver, 2018)
and on the contextualization of second language education (Al-Humaidi, 2015). At this point,
it can argued that, besides being informed about existing choices, teachers need to investigate
reform-oriented methods by themselves, neither to conform to nor to reject them, but rather tomake sense of them so that they can be meaningfully implemented within their own teachingsituations. The findings further raise questions as to how attitudes toward the distribution ofroles and responsibilities develop and change and how LCE methods can be better assimilated
into educational routines in a particular context.
Figure 2. Sums up the aforementioned implications and illustrates a data-driven model forcontextualizing LCE practices into the ELT classrooms.
Teachers'
autonomyStudents'social capital

Epistimologicalbeliefs

Teachers’cooperation

Increasing
interaction

Organizing
learning
activities

Teachergenerated
materials

Effective
tutoring

Awarenessofalternatives

Adviceandfeedback

Piecemeal
nature of learnerautonomy

Figure 2. Model for contextualizing LCE in English language teaching
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
From the outset of this research, the aim has been to examine the implementation of LCE
methods for second language learning in terms of both language and content. What was meant
to be done is finding out the limitations and benefits of implementing LCE methods based onuniversity second language instructors’ attitudes and experiences. However, this study is notconcerned with examining the relationship between implementing LCE methods and aparticular aspect of second language learning. For instance, one way to extend the findings ofthis study is by addressing the effectiveness of LCE methods in promoting English academic
writing, in particular, due to the importance of this skill in higher education contexts. It would

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

also be desirable to conduct such research using experimental or longitudinal designs with theanalysis of students’ perspectives.
Further intriguing issues with regard to the LCE methods discussed in this study include thechallenges and prospects of technology-enhanced language teaching, peer assistance andcollaborative learning in this same context of the present study. Other possible areas of research
include investigating how the use of cooperative discussion tasks which highlight different
aspects, options, and alternatives can enhance students’ critical and higher-order thinking.
Also, as with most attitudes-focused research, a limitation of this study is that the findings
reflect the attitudes and experiences of the study participants; thus, replicating this research ina different context may shed light on other aspects of LCE-oriented reforms. Further researchis needed to inspect their actual, isolated and integrated, prospective for promoting English
language development among English-major and non-English major learners.
Conclusion
This paper has explored teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and benefits associated withthe overall usefulness of implementing LCE methods. It, thereby, contributes to research on
the interaction between theory and practice for effective educational change.
It can be concluded that, even in the present post-method era, the teacher adopts a particularclassroom strategy according to their learners’ characteristics and to the whole learning
situation as well. According to participants’ experiences, the implementation of learnercentered methods in the second language classroom is likely to contribute to the betterment of
second language teaching and learning. However, teachers need to progressively introduce
LCE methods not necessarily all the methods together or in all of the sessions. Rather, what is
to be taken into consideration is that each method shapes and is shaped by the other. For
instance, content may shape a task or a project to be completed cooperatively and/or
collaboratively. LCE methods interweave and interact with each other in a synergic
relationship; the result of such a relationship will vary from context to context depending on
the teacher, the learners, and the learning objectives.
Noteworthy, LCE methods may not be effective for full-time use in the second language
classroom. The effectiveness of LCE is by no means determined by how much time is spent inlearner-centered activities. Rather what matters is what methods are used with whom, for what
purpose, and in what way. This is not to gainsay the practical usefulness of LCE though; nor is
it to suggest that there are rock-solid golden rules for implementing it. Rather, this article ismeant to serve as another contribution to the pool of resources on education reform
implementation which both provide educators with insights from, potentially similar,
implementation contexts together with a set of suggested instructional activities and guide them
toward becoming independent teaching material developers. Interestingly, the findings also
indicate a teacher-initiated shift towards social-centeredness in reaction to reform-oriented
learner-centeredness.
Acknowledgement
Special thanks go to Mrs Nashoua Hassina, Head of the Department of English at Mohamed
Kheider Biskra University, for her crucial help.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Ahmed, S. A., & Dakhiel, M. A. (2019). Effectiveness of learner-centered teaching inmodifying attitude towards EFL and developing academic self-motivation among the12th grade students. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 139–148.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p139
Al Kandari, A. M., & Al Qattan, M. M. (2020). E-task-based learning approach to enhancing
21st-Century learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 551–566.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13136a
Al-Humaidi, S. (2015). Adopting a learner-centered methodology at Sultan Qaboos
University. Studies in English Language Teaching, 3(2), 172–186.
https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v3n2p172
Ammar, A., & Hassan, R. M. (2017). Talking it through: Collaborative dialogue and second
language learning. Language Learning, 68(1), 46–82.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/lang.12254
Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task based language teaching: Development of
CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6), 168–183.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n6p168
Arboleda-Arboleda, A., & Castro-Garcés, A. Y. (2019). Fostering language learning in theuniversity EFL classroom through literature: A task-based approach. GIST–Educationand Learning Research Journal, 19, 101–127. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.706
Azzi, M. (2012). The new pedagogical practices within the LMD System: Perceptions of EFL
faculty members. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1004–1013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.027
Bai, X., & González, O. R. G. (2019). A comparative study of teachers’ and students’ beliefs
towards teacher-centered and learner-centered approaches in grade 12 English as aforeign language class at one governmental senior secondary school in Shaan’xi
Province, China. Scholar: Human Sciences, 11(1), 37–44.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-basedlearning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English
lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365–385.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-basedlearning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English
lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M., Shehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning teaching and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Cammarata, L., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). In search of immersion teacher educators’knowledge base: Exploring their readiness to foster an integrated approach toteaching. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 189–
217. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18009.cam
Cammarata, L., & Ceallaigh, T. Ó. (2018). Teacher education and professional development
for immersion and content-based instruction: Research on programs, practices, and23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

teacher educators. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language
Education, 6(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.6.2
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Donato, R. (2016). Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction:
Theoretical insights on the challenge of integration. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Contentbased foreign language teaching (pp. 39–64). New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Edwards, R., Holguín-Barrera, M. D., Ortiz, A. C., & Pérez, F. (2019). Promoting EFL
learner autonomy in a teacher-centered culture through video-sharing andcollaborating in online forums. Latin American Journal of Content & Language
Integrated Learning, 12(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2019.12.1.5
Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Louwen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 124–141). New
York: Routledge.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language
teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689
Eriksson, A. (2018). Redesigning a discipline-specific writing assignment to improve writing
on an EMI programme of engineering. Journal of Academic Writing, 8(2), 48–66.
https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v8i2.496
Haley, M. H. & Austen, T.Y. (2004). Content-based language teaching and learning: Aninteractive approach. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hall, G. (2017). Focus on the language learner. Exploring English language teaching, 139–
161. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315193380-7
He, P., & Lin, A. M. (2019). Co-developing science literacy and foreign language literacy
through “Concept + Language Mapping”. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 7(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18033.he
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hedge, T. (2005). Writing (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ilieva, R., Wallace, A., & Spiliotopoulos, V. (2019). Institutional roles and identity
construction of applied linguistics faculty involved in interdisciplinary collaborations
for multilingual student success. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 71–96.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1303
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The effect of task-based language
teaching on analytic writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1496627.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1496627
Karim, K. (2018). Cooperative language learning. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt01
Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers' beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom
practice in relation to traditional (Teacher-Centered) and constructivist (LearnerCentered) teaching (Note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29

24

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81–97.
https://doi.org/10125/44462
Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315103037
Marsh, R. (2018). Cultivation of Learner-Centered Intrinsic Motivation in the Japanese ELF
Classroom [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tamagawa University, Japan.
Marwan, A. (2017). Implementing learner-centered teaching in an English foreign language(EFL) classroom. Celt: A journal of culture, English language teaching &literature, 17(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v17i1.1138
Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings. Research andchallenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119–143.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/2/319731
Miller, T., & Bell, L. (n.d.). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and“informed” consent. Ethics in Qualitative Research, 61–75.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913912.n5
Mohamadpour, P., Talebinejad, M. R., & Tabatabaei, O. (2018). Task-based Meta-cognitive
Instruction Approach to Self-regulation in Listening Comprehension. Iranian Journalof English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 33–49.
Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy andlanguage for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL. Journal of Innovation andResearch in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33
Namaziandost, E., Neisi, L., Kheryadi, & Nasri, M. (2019). Enhancing oral proficiency
through cooperative learning among intermediate EFL learners: English learning
motivation in focus. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1683933.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1683933
Nielsen, B. M. (2019). Fostering learner autonomy in foreign language learning:
Justifications, definitions, misconceptions, and interrelated components for its
realization. Hokuga, 8(1), 33–52.
Nunan, D. (2012). Learner-centered English language education: The selected works ofDavid Nunan. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096888
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2018). Developing potentiality: pre-service
elementary teachers as learners of language immersion teaching. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1489779
Pawan, F., & Greene, M. C. (2017). In trust, we collaborate: ESL and content-area teachers
working together in content-based language instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M.
Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating
language and content, (pp. 323–337). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Peng, Y. (2017). Content-based instruction of EFL and its effects on learners’ needs in
China. Education Journal, 6(3), 116–119.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170603.12

25

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Phakiti, A., & Paltridge, B. (2015). Approaches and methods in applied linguistics
research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics:
A practical resource, (pp. 5–25). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Philominraj, A., Jeyabalan, D., & Vidal-Silva, C. (2017). Visual Learning: A learner centeredapproach to enhance English language teaching. English Language Teaching, 10(3),54–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p54
Poonpon, K. (2017). Enhancing English skills through project-based learning. The English
Teacher, 1–10.
Porte, G. K. (2010). Appraising research in second language learning: A practical approachto critical analysis of quantitative research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Qamar, M. B. (2016). The impact of learner’s autonomy on teaching oral skills (speaking
skills) in an EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(2), 293–
298. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0702.07
Reigeluth, C. M., Myers, R. D., & Lee, D. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm ofeducation. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.). Instructionaldesign theories and models, Vol. IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education, (pp.
5–32). New York, Oxford:Routledge.
Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative researchin applied linguistics, (pp. 182–199). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239517_9
Rochman, M. (2019). Using cooperative language learning in improving the students’pronunciation accuracy and fluency. Journal of English Language andPedagogy, 2(2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.33503/journey.v2i2.514
Saaty, A. A. (2020). Task-based meaningful literacy for language learners. Arab World
English Journal (AWEJ) 10(4). 356–373. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3512636
Saha, S., & Singh, S. (2016). Collaborative learning through language games in ESL
classroom. Language in India, 16(10), 180–189.
Sato, S., Hasegawa, A., Kumagai, Y., & Kamiyoshi, U. (2017). Content-based instruction(CBI) for the social future: A recommendation for critical content-based language
instruction (CCBI). L2 Journal, 9(3), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.5070/L29334164
Seah, L. H. (2020). What student language reveals about the demands of learning the human
circulatory system. Research in Science Education, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09915-z
Seah, L. H., & Silver, R. E. (2018). Attending to science language demands in multilingualclassrooms: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504177
Shehadeh, A. (2018). Foreword: New frontiers in task-based language teaching research. In
M. J. Ahmadian & M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on taskbased language learning and teaching (pp. vii–xxii). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399-fm
Spenader, A. J., Wesely, P. M., & Glynn, C. (2018). When culture is content: Applications
for content-based instruction in the world language classroom. Language Teaching
Research, 1362168818799768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818799768

26

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework for policy
and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1281829
Troyan, F. J., Cammarata, L., & Martel, J. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledge(s) underlying a world language teacher's implementation of CBI. Foreign Language
Annals, 50(2), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12266
Tseng, W. T., Liou, H. J., & Chu, H. C. (2020). Vocabulary learning in virtual environments:
Learner autonomy and collaboration. System, 88, 102190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070
Van Loi, N. (2020). Unpacking perceptual and contextual influences on task-based
instruction: A framework of teacher beliefs and practice. PASAA: A Journal of
Language Teaching and Learning, 59, 154–180.
Van Viegen, S., & Russell, B. (2019). More than language—Evaluating a Canadianuniversity EAP bridging program. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 97–120.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1304
Villacís, W. G. V., & Camacho, C. S. H. (2017). Learner-centered instruction: An approachto develop the speaking skill in English. Revista Publicando, 4 No.12 (1), 379–389.
Weimar, M. (2013) Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yamagata, S. (2018). Comparing core-image-based basic verb learning in an EFL junior highschool: Learner-centered and teacher-centered approaches. Language Teaching
Research, 22(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816659784
Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing
expertise: Interplay between SFL‐based genre pedagogy and task‐based language
teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3), 576–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.383
Yen, P. H. (2016). Challenges of shifting to task-based language teaching: A story from a
Vietnamese teacher. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 2(1), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jen.2016.002
Yu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017, December). Creating a learner-centered communicative classroom
to help learners achieve optimal outcome. In W. Li & J. E. Mueller (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2017 World Conference on Management Science and Human
Social Development (MSHSD 2017). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.
https://doi.org/10.2991/mshsd-17.2018.21
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university
instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946
Zhong, Y., Tan, H., & Peng, Y. (2019). Curriculum 2.0 and student content-based language
pedagogy. System, 84, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.001
Corresponding author: Badjadi Nour El Imane
Contact email: badjadi.noureliman@univ-ouargla.dz

27

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

28

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Russian Accent in English Written Discourse
Olga R. Bondarenko
Russian State University for the Humanities
Moscow, Russia

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
This research is a multi-aspect exploratory investigation of Russian English institutional
written discourse and highlights its features demonstrated by Russian native learners, tertiary
students of English for the tourism and hospitality industry. The author approaches the themefrom the perspectives of World Englishes and the pedagogical agenda. This sample study isbased on the analysis of the researcher’s corpus of English written works by Russian students.
It reveals Russian English discoursal variations as manifestations of ethnolinguistic andethnocultural identity. The paper highlights users’ repeated salient discoursal features, the mainof which appeared to be in communication strategies, structure, and register. Specific choicesof linguistic, stylistic, structural and strategic variables result in the uncovered Russian English
discoursal features, such as straightforwardness, excessive evaluation, abuse of negation andothers. The research also focuses on their possible unwelcome pragmatic effects in business
communication. This paper is a contribution to scarce comprehensive World Englishes
discourse studies, particularly to the under-explored theme of Russian English. Revelation of
local voices in English discourse and their interpretation in terms of indigenous languages andcultures may be a demanded addition to the World Englishes theory and practice. The
pedagogical inferences of this research suggest that culturally relevant English-as-a-foreignlanguage teaching should take into account the English discoursal profile of learners resulting
from their interfering native profile to improve pedagogical practices.
Keywords: Russian accent, Russian English discoursal variations, World Englishes, discourse
analysis, pragmatic dissonance.

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

As English is learned in Russia as a foreign language (EFL) to be used as a means ofcommunication with native speakers and non-native speakers globally, it is evident thatmastering English discourse is becoming a most important target, especially for today’s
students of English for Special Purposes (ESP) preparing to join the professional worldcommunity tomorrow. According to Graddol (1997, 2006), English used by non-natives posesat least two issues:“English as a global lingua franca requires intelligibility and the setting and maintainingof standards” (Graddol, 1997, p. 3); and“as English becomes more widely used as a global language, it will become expectedthat speakers will signal their nationality, and other aspects of their identity throughEnglish” (Graddol, 2006, p. 117).
Unlike prevalent linguistic EFL error-sensitive areas in grammar, syntax and mechanics(Pescante-Malimas and Samson, 2017, p. 194), particular vulnerable areas in EFL discourse
have not become the focus of much scholarly attention yet. Meanwhile, as the overwhelming
majority of English learners come from various non-native ethnic backgrounds there arises apedagogical priority of exploring their discoursal specifics. As Kachru (1997) pinpoints, it isequally legitimate to acquaint foreign writers with rhetorical patterns common to Inner Circle
Englishes and at the same time to disclose to English educators differing rhetorical conventionsof the world majority learners of English (p.161). Many of such learners are Russians andaccording to the author’s previous quantitative studies, English discourse imperfections rank
second after grammar in the most numerous errors of Russian learners (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Share of discourse in the total of written errors of Russian learners

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The data in Figure 1 show the average percentage of student informants out of the total numberof 160 who made particular types of errors in English writing. The kinds of writing analysed
were students’ email messages to the researcher and written business genres important for
students of tourism and hospitality. As the graph shows, the most widely spread errors weremade by Russian natives in articles usage, grammar, syntax and discourse. Approximately
every second informant violated discoursal practices applied by natives in corresponding
genres. This makes EFL discourse a zone of special pedagogical attention.
Forming discourse competence in a foreign language is a great challenge. First, there are no
settled rules or prescriptions to assume because of the complex hierarchy of the subject andWorld Englishes diversity. Second, inevitable cross-cultural and cognitive barriers worsen
discourse comprehension and production. As Rifkin and Roberts (1995) illuminate, a message
can be both understandable and irritating, highly comprehensible and “foreign” (p. 522). In
other words, there is something to EFL text that accounts for this “aftertaste”, and thissomething may be discoursal inadequacy.
Literature Review
Discourse study is a multi-focus endeavour. It can become an identification tool: What people
are saying or writing makes recognisable who they are, and the ways they are writing constructwhat they are actually doing (Gee, 2004, p. 48).
White accentuated the influence of factors making spoken and written texts to seem wellformed. (Canale, & Swane, 1980, cited in White, 1997, part 3 “Intercomprehensibility &Communicative Competence”). The knowledge of discourse rules is socially shared, and to
make mutual understanding possible, “social actors share norms, values and rules ofcommunication” (Van Dijk, 1997, p. 17). It means that, in order to be accurately understood,
EFL users have to share them too.
It is important for EFL users to be aware of various discourse dimensions and realise theappropriateness of discourse elements usage at several levels. One of the most crucial andinsufficiently investigated World Englishes dimensions is discourse strategies. Cots interpretsthem as “the systematic adoption of a series of verbal actions which respond to a more or lessconscious plan or communicative routine to achieve a specific goal” (Cots, 1996, p. 94). It ishere that non-native English users run the greatest risk of making “faux pas” producing
unintended effects. Meanwhile, there is evidence that recipients are often less tolerant of
pragmatic failures of their foreign interlocutors in intercultural communication contexts thanthey are of grammatical errors. Thus, Thomas (1983) emphasised the importance of pragmaticcompetence, as in international contexts it is pragmatic failure that affects communication
rather than grammatical and lexical deficiency. Pragmatic dissonance may be cognition-boundor culture-rooted and is a special focus in EFL pedagogical contexts. Moreover, researchers
claim that pragmatic failure can deny learners access to valuable academic or professional
opportunities (Tanaka, 1997). Consequently, a particular WE discourse accent may pose anissue from communicative, social and pedagogical perspectives.
One of the serious obstacles in discourse study is the fact that unlike other language levels,
discourse has no codified norm to which to resort. Therefore, the practical concern for EFL
learners pertains to which English discourse norm they should regularly employ. Linguists givevarious answers. Kachru and Smith (2008) highlight an acrolect, or a preferred dialect, of an
educated variety of English used for international communication (p.60). In McArthur’s terms

32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020(2001), it may be English as a Native Language (ENL) and International Standard English(ISE), which is globally used preserving the essential unity of English as a means ofinternational communication. Unfortunately, for EFL learners, ENL and ISE differ. The ideaof two diverging Englishes was highlighted by Crystal (1988, p. 265). Since ISE is not clearly
described and remains no stable variety, it becomes unreliable from pedagogical perspectives.
Consequently, the teaching model in the Expanding Circle should remain the native norm
(Mollin, 2006, p. 54). Echoing this opinion, Saraceni (2016) acknowledges that World
Englishes are mostly described in terms of the extent of their deviation from more establishedvarieties (p. 79). Eligibly, this research considers ENL discourse patterns as a benchmark.
Although there is no monolithic ENL, trustworthy authoritative British and American ENL
sources of “model” exemplars and judgements about expected discourse features wereconsidered. Digressions from them by Russian English (RE) users might be regarded as theirdiscoursal accent, because as Kachru (1983) argued, unlike mistakes, deviations are “the resultof a productive process which makes the typical variety-specific features; and it is systemic
within a variety and not idiosyncratic” (p. 159).
The Oxford Dictionary defines accent as “[def.1] a distinctive way of pronouncing a language,especially one associated with a particular country, area, or social class” (Oxford Dictionary ofEnglish, 2010, p.9). Scholars have already admitted foreign accents in written discourse andnoticed that unlike face-to-face interactions, online communication makes categories of L2
identity less salient (Klimanova & Dembovskaya, 2013). In other words, a foreign accent canexist in oral and written discourse, although it is less conspicuous in the latter. Revelation ofsuch accents and their interpretation by means of local culture contributes to the World
Englishes theory and practice and may be pedagogically meaningful.
There have been a number of contrastive studies of English and Russian discourses recently,
many of them by Russian researchers, such as Khoutyz (2013), Klimanova and Dembovskaya(2013), Uzlenko (2002) and others. Each concentrated on a particular aspect of cross-linguistic
analysis of English and Russian discourse such as difference in reader engagement strategy, insocial interaction behavior, and in symbolic meaning of folklore concepts accordingly.
However, there has not been attempted a multi-aspect viewing of English written discourse
strategies of Russian natives. The focus of this research, therefore, is on insufficiently
investigated English discourse strategies as problem areas for foreign learners andcharacteristic RE discourse features. Written discourse is chosen because it constitutes aconsiderable share of business interaction in tourism, is functionally important for
professionals, and, as evidenced by Godfrey (2016), clear written communication is ranked
within the top five employability advantages (p. 114).
Research Questions
Considering the importance of maintaining standards of written discourse by foreign students
in view of potential pragmatic misfire; sparse scholarly information about written ENL
features, and scarce data about RE discoursal features, this study was undertaken to seek
answers to the following Research Questions:a) What are the main acknowledged ENL prototypical features of written discourse ingeneral and relevant written genres in particular?
b) What are the multi-aspect characteristic features of RE written discourse and how dothey compare to the ENL prototypical ones, if at all? How may they result in pragmatic
dissonance? What may underlie differences?
c) What kind of pedagogical implications may follow?

33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Methodology
Theoretical Framework
This exploratory research relies on the World Englishes theory of Kachru (1983) and Bolton(2004); discourse theory relevant to language learning developed by Cook (1989), Van Dijk
(1997), Gee (2004), Paltridge (2012), Kachru (1997); as well as comparative discourse studies
of Swales (1990). Also to be considered is the field of cultural linguistics as noted by Sharifian(2011) as “unfamiliarity with the systems of conceptualisations on which the international
speakers of English are relying may lead to various forms and degrees of discomfort and evenmiscommunication” (p. 95). Since the researcher does not share the ENL linguistic repertoire
and has insufficient “insider knowledge” (Saraceni, 2016, p. 97), a look at the studied matter
through native familiar behavioural patterns of the researcher was practiced. Saraceni titled thisapproach “tourist gaze”, as the things that leap to the eye are those that stand out being different
from familiar “home” features. The author also drew on Bhatia’s (2013) model of discourse
genre analysis regarding integrated communicative purpose, structural patterns, distinctive
textual characteristics, and rhetorical conventions.
Methods
As there are no ready-made data banks of Russian English, the researcher's corpus of students’
written samples was set up and investigated. The data were received over the period of 20132018. The informants were Russian native male and female adult tertiary students of tourism
and hospitality of various ages: undergraduates for the specialist diploma, for bachelor’s andmaster’s degrees at the Moscow Institute of Tourism Industry. They used English in naturalcontexts (writing a trip report about one’s journey) or quasi-natural contexts (simulated written
activities in suggested professional situations like replying to a customer’s letter of complaint,
refusing a customer’s request). Most written products were homework submitted by email,some were presented in handwriting in contact classroom sessions. Taking into consideration
Van Dijk’s (1997) requirement for discourse analysis known as “naturally occurring text ortalk” (p.29), the samples were not edited and were studied in their appearance. The pedagogicalcontext of the researcher reduced the genre range to professionally relevant ones. Thus, theresearch concentrated on such ESP genres as business letters and email messages ofconfirmation and cancellation, of request and refusal, of complaint and apology, cover letters,
curriculum vitae, trip reports, as well as essays and home reading reviews. The total number of
discourse samples analysed was 220. The number of informants involved amounted to160
persons.
Data collection involved convenience sampling, that is, gathering written documents ofstudents the researcher was teaching in particular years. The size of the sample corresponded
to the normal size of many business genres and was one-page text of about 1800 signs.
The following study design applied:a) ENL scholars’, writers’ and rhetoricians’ judgments about intrinsic English discoursefeatures were summarised. The researcher, a native Russian, applied the “tourist gaze”
approach to English written discourse of the selected genres in order to spot uncommon
to Russian similar written genres features (trustworthy ENL resources of British
Council, FluentU blog were used). Discoursal characteristic features of English as
described by natives and spotted as noticeable by the researcher made up a kind of amatrix to judge RE discourse in terms of comparison with ENL.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020b) The RE discourse corpus of student-authored written samples was processed. The raw
data were browsed through and coded with a predefined set of ENL dimensions codes,
categorised and juxtaposed with the above qualities to identify the most visible features.
The main principle for identifying RE discourse salient features was demonstration of
the same feature by several informants rather than the number of a feature’s
occurrences, as the latter could result from some idiosyncratic preferences. Results
below encompass only common and repeated specifics found in more than five people's
works.
Although discourse analysis deals with complex and unstructured data, scholars have a choiceof computer-aided tools for this purpose today (Stegmeier, 2012), like JASP (Love et al., 2019).
Despite the fact that these platforms can extract topics from texts and create annotations, they
are mainly useful for quantitative linguistic elements counts, frequency of word combinations,and parts-of-speech information. Such subtle matter as discourse strategies and their pragmaticeffects are beyond their scope. That is why this research employed an e-tool only for assessing
evaluative attitude, or sentiment analysis. The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing
toolkit (Manning et al., 2014) was chosen for its accessibility and clear visualisation ofprevailing in-text positive or negative attitudes in tree graphs.
During the research the themes and tasks offered to students did not involve any sensitive
information, trespassing upon privacy, or personal identification. All quoted examples of RE
discourse are participant students’ quotations.
Findings and Discussion
The research revealed a set of certain characteristic ENL discourse qualities that may
distinguish it from other ethno-cultural discourses, presenting it at three levels (Table 1).
(1) General discourse qualities.
Researchers highlight the English tendencies to laconism (Visson, 2015, p. 82); factual
presentation of information (Condon & Yousef, 1975); non-categorical indirectness andunobtrusiveness (Loveday, 1982; Leech, 1983) eased by softeners like couldn’t/wouldn’t, I’mafraid that, rather in contrast to Russian “self-confidence and dogmatism” (Visson, 2015, p.
78-81); positivity, unwelcome negation because of its psychologically intimidating impact on
ENL users (Visson, 2015, p. 32–33) and so on. These are due to deeply rooted cognitive
patterns or culture-based practices.
(2) Particular discourse qualities determined by the channel of communication (oral,
multimodal or, as in this research, a written channel).
It has been noted that English written text requires clear structuring and cohesion of four types(Kirkpatrick, 1999, p. 49-50). Besides, it is characterised by explicitness or low context(Paltridge, 2012, p. 138; Khoutyz, 2013, p. 3). As Paltridge (2012) testifies, “spoken texts may
be more implicit and leave a lot of what is to be understood unsaid whereas written texts (inEnglish at least) may often be more explicit” (p. 138). Apart from that, English written
discourse is marked by a high level of nominalisation that is presenting actions and events withnouns, rather than verbs (Paltridge, 2012, p. 137; Visson, 2015, p. 159; Uzlenko, 2002), which
may align with the above-mentioned characteristic of laconism.
Interactivity as addressee awareness and self-engagement also characterises written English
discourse. Hyland (2005) paid attention to the interactional quality of English texts marked by

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

boosters (definitely, absolutely) and hedges (possibly, hopefully, might) providing indirect
evidence of the author presence and materialising such quality as self-identification (p. 49).
(3) Special qualities determined by a particular discourse genre.
As Paltridge (2012) pointed out, genres are culture specific with particular purposes andlinguistic features (p.65). According to Swales (1990), a discourse genre has its own form,
structure, contents and positioning determined by audience expectations (p.49). A written text
may not seem plausible if its structural, linguistic, stylistic and content elements and theirarrangement do not correspond to the “prototypical” features of the corresponding ENL
discourse genre. Some dimensions of ENL genre discourse important for EFL learners areindicated in the table below.
Table 1. Target English discourse dimensions
General qualities

Written English qualities

Genre-bound qualities

Factual presentation

Explicitness

Content

LaconismNominalisation

Structure and frame (e.g. required
opening and closing part
corresponding to each other andthe purpose of the genre)

Positivity

Self-engagement

Register (tone)

Non-categoricalindirectness

Addressee-awareness by the writer

Acceptable discourse strategies ofparticular functions (requesting,refusing, face-saving, apologisingetc.)

Non-evaluative
presentation

Punctuation and spelling specificity(I not i as a pronoun, capital letter
following the colon sign,
capitalised nouns in titles,
avoidance of exclamation marketc.)

Communicative style (e.g. full
sentences vs noun collocations;
metaphorical vs non-metaphoricalnarration, with/without humouretc.)

Elaborate structuring and cohesion(special markers, long noun groups,
complex sentences types)

Language specificity (clichés,terminology, idioms, abbreviationsetc.)
Layout patterns

RE samples analysis pursued answers to the following questions: Do RE discourse samples
demonstrate these characteristics? What are the most typical RE users discourse features? The
results showed the following typical variations on the prototypical qualities.

36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

General Qualities of RE Discourse: Positivity, Non-Evaluation, Non-Categorical Stance
The analysis of RE 1-page essay samples showed that 64% of the informants made 3 to 7
negations per sample, so were not fully positive (negative verbal forms or negative adjective
or noun prefix counted). The individual peak of negations recorded was 12 per essay. Here isan extract from this essay by Darya:
People think that zoos help endangered species to survive. But this is not true
because most rare animals are extremely difficult to breed in captivity. In
addition, it is nearly impossible to meet the animals’ natural needs in zoos. On
this basis I can conclude that zoos do not seem to help endangered species andkeeping animals behind bars only for the sake of our entertainment is not quite
fair.
These findings echo the opinion of Visson (2015), whose contrastive analysis of English andRussian discourses revealed dissonance between Russian linguistic “negativism” and“pessimism” and American “optimism and positive thinking” (p.31, 33).
Considering the non-evaluative quality of discourse, 71% of the Russian informants mostly
imparted evaluative attitudes to their writing. The counts were based on three or more words
with an evaluative sememe per sample. Students used the following highly evaluative lexis:
Terrible, disgusting, aggressive, boring, huge, helpful, enjoyable, great, outstanding; victims,
suspicion, violence, happiness; efficiently; and destroy. These findings confirm thecomparative cognitive study of Uzlenko about the difference between the Russian and English
linguistic mindset. It revealed mostly non-evaluative, tending to be impartial English discourse
as opposed to predominantly evaluative Russian one (Узленко, 2002). The fact that theevaluative quality is confirmed on the material of two researches testifies to the fact that there
may be cognitive causes underpinning ENL and RE discoursal differences. Native cognitive
schema present a great risk for transferring them to international contexts.
The non-categorical stance appeared hard to trace in RE written discourse. Russian students ofEnglish do not typically use such markers as rather, fairly, hardly, likely, possibly, might, some,would, I am afraid, I am sorry but, or regrettably. Here are some examples:(1) “I want to ask you to return the money” (a bid for a refund).
(2) “Our holiday was spoilt through the fault of the hotel” (a letter of complaint).
(3) “Go to the Baikal. You will like it!” (A trip report).
Being non-categorical is a fundamental quality and a form of politeness in English
communication, that is why ignoring it may lead to pragmatic failure or some unwelcome
outcome, such as reluctance to refund the money or to visit Lake Baikal. The RE specifics
shown above tend to demonstrate interfering native discourse features.
Qualities of Written RE
RE written samples were checked for such qualities as explicitness, self-engagement, addressee
awareness, and style of writing.
Explicitness. Explicitness was marked by broken cause and effect relations, omitted textual
conclusion or content required by the context (missing names, dates), unclear allusions,evasive promises without specific dates, exact amounts and other details. An extract from a
RE trip report below from the student Svetlana serves as an illustrative example:

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

I won`t describe all delights of travel in second-class carriage of the train, I canonly say that we were ‘very pleased’ with the number of the wagon 13.
Superstitions and everything. However, we got to Ulan-Ude lucky. We
transferred from the railway station to the bus station with a small adventure.
Two hours later, we were admiring the expanse of the great lake.
This piece of RE contains reference to one of Russian superstitions, the belief that number 13
spells ill luck. This unwelcome circumstance is marked by “very pleased” in inverted commas
and by mention of superstition without any explanation. Writing this report for TripAdvisor,
the author overlooked the fact that superstitions are culturally-rooted and may differ globally,
which makes her text inexplicit in international contexts. Besides, there is mention of someadventure, which is left behind the scene without any comments. This leaves the reader
wondering why it was mentioned at all. In a word, RE reticence may run counter to the English
requirement of explicitness. This phenomenon can be explicated by the high context of Russian
culture in contrast to lower-context ENL cultures (Hall, 1976). RE writers keep from dotting
their i’s and crossing t’s in order not to seem trivial or to offend readers doubting theirintellectual capacity. This feature was noticed by other researchers (Khutyz, 2013, p. 3).
Alternately, lower-context Anglo cultures “embed much more meaning in the words that makeup their verbal messages” (Hackman & Johnson, 2000, p. 301). Failure to follow thisexpectation is likely to produce the effect of a pragmatic dissonance and discoursal accent.
Self-engagement. Self-engagement or self-involvement was demonstrated by 68% of theinformants in their essays. Only samples with three or more markers like I, my, as far as I canjudge, I think, or in my opinion per sample were taken into account. The personal maximum of
self-identification instances came up to 22 per essay. In other words, the majority of students
were not afraid of being personal and self-involved. This result runs counter to the data of
Khoutyz (2013, p. 7) who compared English and Russian English academic articles anddiscovered that English-writing scholars more often than their Russian counterparts use thefirst-person singular pronouns. Such strategy is culture-rooted, as ENL users belong toindividualistic cultures, and Russians are from a moderately collectivist culture background(Lewis, 2006), where it is in bad taste to point to oneself. The contradictory results may be dueto the difference in the genres studied (personal essay vs academic paper). However, it may be
a forerunner of a new trend in RE discourse under the influence of communicating globally inEnglish.
Addressee-awareness. Reader awareness was demonstrated by 57% of the informants, whichis less than in the case of self-engagement. This quality materialised with such markers as you,
your, we, “It's a well-known fact that”, “We shouldn't forget”, “It's up to you to”, imperatives“Be yourself”, “Don't be afraid”, rhetorical questions like “Why are people fond of books?”,and “Who wouldn’t like to visit Lake Baikal?” Since the researcher did not set the pre-task ofapplying these techniques by students, the fact that the majority of them demonstrated thesetwo vernacular English written discourse strategies proves that they are not foreign to Russians
and do not need much pedagogical effort.
Style of writing. A widely spread feature of Russian English business messages is the profuse
usage of contracted forms, which produces an effect of careless familiarity sooner than
expected. What is more, contractions may peacefully coexist in the same message with theformal markers like “Dear Sir” and “Yours faithfully”. Evidently, stylistic consistency andfull-form writing in English seem to pose a problem for Russian users despite the fact that38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

contracted forms do not exist in written Russian to interfere. It may be the result of intracommunicative interference of social netting.
RE users’ written style is characterised by some noticeable punctuation features, which werehighlighted in the author’s earlier papers (Bondarenko, 2015, p. 99), the most salient
characteristic being the abuse of the exclamation mark even in institutional writing. According
to the data received, every third informant used it at least once per text.
RE Lexical Markers
The reason for foreign looking text may be lexis as well. The research revealed substitution ofdescriptive word combinations and paraphrases for special terms and clichés, which isespecially ruinous for business communication: “The place of the event” (the venue); “theadministrator on duty” (the duty manager); and “possibilities to eat” (wining and dining
facilities).
Another cause of the lexical “foreign effect” was connotation blindness of Russian writers.
They are often unaware of the negative lexical connotations, for instance:(1) You must comment on the gala dinner menu attached here.
(2) The problems of inbound tourism will be considered at the conference.
(3) The toilets en route were dirty and not free.
“Must” is too imperative and authoritative a verb to use writing to a client. The word “problem”
has a disapproving connotation in ENL communication. Ignorance of euphemisms(“facilities”, “the gents”, “the ladies”) makes RE discourse seem too brusque and lacking
courtesy.
Genre-bound RE Discourse Qualities
Structural RE variations. Analysis of RE samples disclosed the following features. First, RE
learners tend to avoid in business letters the introductory sentence stating the purpose of themessage or gratitude for the previous message of the addressee. They prefer to take the bull by
the horns from the very start without performative statements of apologising, or requesting like
“I am writing to enquire about”:(1) Dear Sir/Madam,
Yesterday late in the evening I arrived in Spain and checked into the Don Angel
Hotel (letter of complaint).
(2) Dear Ms. Lari,
On behalf of the Don Angel Hotel, kindly accept our sincere apologies for not
being able to provide you the high standard of hospitality (letter of apology).
Second, RE writers like to preface factual narration with an evaluative emotional
statement:(1) It was a terrific time spent together. We visited four cities: Dresden,
Nuremberg, Munich and Stuttgart. We enjoyed the October beer festival.
(2) Two days ago I returned from your Tour ST 104/5. I am so annoyed that I was
there! The standards and the organization were awful. I have a number ofcomments about it.

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The above structural features of RE discourse give evidence of some straightforwardness,
impulsiveness and a strong emotional dominant, which is, by and large, in accord with theimmoderate Russian national character as described in scholarly literature (Евтушенко, 2008,
p. 105–106). Structural conventions are significant for successful communication, for “being asocial outsider is very much a case of non-conformity to the norms and regularities of discourse
structure” (Cook, 1989, p. 23).
RE discourse strategies. RE strategies of requesting turned out to be rather direct and lesspolite than ENL requirements. Below are some eloquent quotations:(1) Could you give us details about discounts?
(2) We are very sorry but we have to ask your company to refund the money paid forthe tour.
(3) We should inform you that we demand a credit note toward the next deal.
(4) We demand you have a proper attitude to our tourists.
(5) Send us a check.
(6) Please deal with this matter urgently, otherwise we will be forced to take thematter further.
The chosen examples are arranged in the order of growing brusqueness from the first politely
neutral, through attempted softeners (we are sorry, we should inform you that) to an open
warning demonstrating request strategies rather different from normally applied standards.
Lewis (2006) testifies to vagueness and understatement of English people as manifestation of
non-confrontation (p. 63). On the contrary, Russian strategies of verbal politeness are lesselaborate in terms of discoursal means and are reduced to a proper intonation and a special
word – “пожалуйста” (please). As evidenced by other researchers, negative transfer may occur
when “learning in one context negatively influences one’s performance in another context”(Hajian, 2019, p. 103).
RE strategies of refusal were also characterised with some straightforwardness without any
verbal markers heralding bad news (although, however, whereas, unfortunately): “I was
delighted to receive your offer but I will not be able to accept it”. In sensitive situations likerefusal, RE users do not seem to care about face-saving, and at best exclude the addressee fromthe motivation of the refusal: “Another candidate’s qualifications better meet our requirements”(not yours); “I have accepted an offer from another company” (not yours).
RE samples of apologising have demonstrated examples of adopting such a strategy as faultshifting:(1) It was not our fault.
(2) I was very sorry to hear that the honeymoon of Mr. and Mrs. Kotov was
spoiled through the fault of the Garden Hotel. The hotel did not cope with theirduties and the staff in charge will be punished for their mistake. I will personallysort it out.
As can be seen, there is an attempt to keep face without resort to corporate ethics saving the
reputation of the company. This is a kind of split-off from traditional Russian collectivism andmay be suggestive of starting ethno-psychological changes in the Russian mindset. Besides,
RE apologies are marked with verbal preference of the plural We to the singular I, especiallyin the opposition of collective responsibility versus personal actions: “We are sorry for the40

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020incident”; “Please accept our apologies for….”; “Our agency regrets”; “I can assure you
that…”; “I will refund you the full amount”.
Such language preferences can be interpreted from the ethno-psychological perspective as
readiness of Russian natives to take decisive actions personally and, at the same time, certain
reluctance to assume individual responsibility for doing wrong, preferring instead to share itwith others concerned.
It is also worth mentioning such a noticeable RE “repair” technique in face-threatening
messages as a “thank you” note at the end: “Thank you for your cooperation” (after asking fora refund); “Thank you for your understanding” (at the end of an apology letter); “Thank you in
advance” (at the end of a letter of complaint). “I believe I am entitled to a partial refund. I
would be grateful if you could deal with this matter as soon as possible. I look forward tohearing from you. Thanking you in advance. Your faithfully” (a letter of complaint).
This friendly gesture in an awkward situation makes a negative reply at the other end harder tomake. However, this self-defensive strategy may produce pragmatic dissonance felt as
weakness by the addressee because ENL cultures, especially North American, value
assertiveness, pressure and persistence (Elashmawi, 2001, pp. 36, 38, 48). Such pragmatic
dissonance can be explicated by the fact that Englishes are affected by users’ cultural andlinguistic backgrounds and reflect their specific conventions mirrored in the schemas they use(Kirkpatrick, 2007, p.9).
The cover letter by the student Sergey below illustrates a multi-aspect RE discourse accent:Dear Mr. Ferdinand
Having functioned as front office duty manager at IterContinental Moscow tverskayafor the last several years, I would like to serve as the Front office manager at Holiday
Inn Taganskiy.
After almost 2 years working experience on the reception desk I've grown like a staff
member and like a person as well. I've learned a lot of leadership skills and now there
are about 3 people, who I responsible for.
Notice in my enclosed resume that I have:•
Strong Leadership skills•
Working involvement in progress and growth•
Stress-resistantI have a proven great work and amazing results under pressure — and I can't wait
until I can help you and your great team! Thank you for your consideration of myattached resume and cover letter. I'll check in with you next week to see when I can fit
into your interview calendar.
Sincerely yours
As it is seen, alongside with some spelling, grammar and lexical mistakes the letter has an
unusual structure (no opening sentence with reference to the information source about thevacancy, no paragraphing), non-prototypical rather direct and categorical laudatory comments
without factual proof, self-centred, not company-centred. The tone is more presumptuous thanrespectful (the imperative recommendation to notice, the promise to participate in an interview

41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

before being shortlisted). The emotional exclamatory mark, “thank-you” technique, andcontracted forms are also there.
Summary
As a result of this research, ENL discoursal features of relevant written genres were discoveredand explored. Written RE repeated characteristic features were uncovered and inferences madeabout their correspondence to the expected qualities: RE is less positive and explicit but more
direct and categorical, lacks addressee awareness and lexical accuracy as compared to ENL
discourse. Genre-bound RE discourse is characterised by specific discourse strategies, such as
evaluative attitude, emotional preamble before factual narration, and “thank you” courtesy
closing phrases in the function of “advance payment” for expected response. The revealed RE
discoursal variations can be explicated by the World English variety functioning in a Russiansocio-cultural context, local cognition, negative transfer of Russian discoursal practices. Thesevariations combined form a part of Russian learners’ specific discourse profile to be considered
for reorientation of EFL instruction toward culturally relevant discourse teaching based oncomparative discourse strategies analysis. Thus, this research significance is in highlighting theissue of selective approach toward discourse qualities that need special pedagogical effort from
EFL instructors and learners and in outlining such qualities for Russian learners of English.
Recommendations
Sensitising Russian students to problem-prone EFL discourse dimensions and making themvisible for other learners are a worthy challenge because it makes them zones of focused
attention and scaffolding for educators. To this effect, it can be recommended to redistributetime budget in favour of problem areas in order to efficiently approximate prototypical
discoursal qualities through focused tasks and exercises, parallelly developing intercultural
pragmatic awareness. The exploratory nature and limited scope of this research necessitate
more data about RE discourse features from the perspectives of describing RE discoursal
variety. It would seem illuminating to carry out comparative discourse genre analyses between
ENL and particular Expanding Circle varieties, including RE. Besides, further research is
required from educators to develop pragmatic awareness of students and elaborate efficient
cross-cultural discoursal customisation.
Conclusion
This research attempted a multi-aspect investigation of RE written institutional discourse andhighlighted its features. It confirmed the importance of cross-cultural aspects of foreign
language discourse learning and teaching and revealed Russian learners’ problem areas inmastering discourse competence. Besides, distinctive ENL discourse features were clarified.
The main RE variables lie in the field of communicative strategies, structure, register, andlexical choices. Inconsistency with the target discourse qualities and written genre patterns maylead to unwelcome pragmatic effects in international contexts because of failure to meetaddressee’s expectations. It concerns such RE qualities as unavailable or low interactivity,
abuse of negation, overdosed evaluation, insufficient nominalisation, familiarity,communicative straightforwardness, etc. Put together and regularly repeated these features
account for Russian accent in English written discourse. RE discourse profile can serve as amanifestation of Russian identity in the Expanding Circle and could be taken into account byothers as part of intercultural communication courses within EFL paradigm. Thus, the present

42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

research is a small contribution to scarce comprehensive World Englishes discourse studies,particularly, to the under-explored theme of Russian English and may stimulate its further
studies as well as investigation of discourse variations in other Englishes.
EFL learners often shape their discourse competence in monocultural contexts preparing forinternational contacts. That is why, although Expanding Circle learners and teachers of English
need discourse models on which to rely, they will also need skills of cross-cultural discoursal
reconceptualisation. This fact makes mastering ENL discourse standards only a core basis of
EFL discourse competence with necessary further multiple cross-cultural adjustments tofollow.
Acknowledgements
The researcher is grateful to her students for authentic material and to the participants in the2015 European Conference on Language Learning in Brighton, where part of this study waspresented, and for the delegates’ valuable comments.

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Bhatia, V. (2013). Analysing genre. Language use in professional setting. London, New
York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844992
Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of
applied linguistics (pp. 367–396). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch15
Bondarenko, O. R. (2015). Russian-like discourse in English essays. In: The European
Conference on Language Learning Official Proceedings (pp. 95–101). Brighton, UK:
IAFOR. Retrieved 3 August 2016 fromhttps://papers.iafor.org/proceedings/conference-proceedings-ecll2015/
Canale, M., & Swane, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Condon, J., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. New York:The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cots, J. (1996). Bringing discourse analysis into the language classroom. Links and Letters, 3,
77–101. Retrieved 7 July 2017 fromhttp://www.academia.edu/21023070/Bringing_discourse_analysis_into_the_language_classroom
Crystal, D. (1988). The English language. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Elashmawi, F. (2001). Competing globally: Mastering multicultural management andnegotiations. Woburn, Ma: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gee, J. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An
Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. (2nd ed.), (pp.19–50).
Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Godfrey, J. (2016). Writing for university. London: Palgrave. Second edition.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53188-9
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? – A guide to forecasting the popularity of the
English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council. Retrieved fromhttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/future-english
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council. Retrieved fromhttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/english-next
Hackman, M. and Johnson, C. (2000). Leadership: A communication perspective. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hajian, Sh. (2019). Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories andeffective Instructional practices. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7, 1, 93–111.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.06
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Kachru, B. (1983). Models of New Englishes. In J. Cobarrubias J., & J.A. Fishman (Eds.),
Progress in language planning (international perspectives) (pp.145–170). Berlin,
New York: Mouton.
Kachru, Y. (1997). Culture, variation and English language education. In S. Cromwell, P.
Rule, & T. Sugino (Eds.), On JALT 96: Crossing borders. The Proceedings of the
23rd Annual JALT International Conference on Language Teaching/ Learning 1996
in Hiroshima (pp. 199–217). Tokyo: JALT.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Cultures, contexts and World Englishes. New York, London:
Taylor & Francis.
Khoutyz, I. (2013). Engagement features in Russian and English: A cross-cultural analysis ofacademic written discourse. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 13, (1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.7916/D8T72W29
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes. Implications for international communication andEnglish language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, R. (1999). Text analysis at different levels: Schema theory, genre analysis,
discourse analysis. Language Issues, 5(1), 49–66.
Klimanova, L., & Dembovskaya, S. (2013). L2 identity, discourse, and social networking.
Language Learning & Technology, 17, 1, 69–88. https://doi.org/10125/24510
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Lewis, R. (2006). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. Boston, London: Nicolas
Brealey International.
Love, J., Jamil, T., Ly, F., Epskamp, S., Knight, P., Selker, R., … Morey, R. (2019). JASP:
Graphical statistical software for common statistical designs. Journal of Statistical
Software, 88, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v088.i02
Loveday, L. (1982). The Sociolinguistics of learning and using a non-native language.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, andstandards. Language Teaching, 34, 1, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800016062
Manning, Ch. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014).
The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of the
52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System
Demonstrations, (pp. 55–60). Baltimore, Maryland USA: Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Mollin, S. (2006). English as a lingua franca: A new variety in the New Expanding Circle.
Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.11
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. An introduction. (2nd ed.). London, New York:
Bloomsbury.
Pescante-Malimas, M.A., & Samson, S.C. (2017). Linguistic error analysis on students’
thesis proposals. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3, 2, 193–209.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.2.09

45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Rifkin, B., and Roberts F. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research design.
Language Learning, 45, 3, 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1995.tb00450.x
Saraceni, M. (2015). World Englishes: A Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Plc.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stegmeier, J. (2012). Toward a computer-aided methodology for discourse analysis.
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 41, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.5774/41-0-45
Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Hardcover). (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanaka, K. (1997). Developing pragmatic competence: A learners-as-researchers approach.
TESOL Journal, 6, 14–18.
Thomas, J. (1983). Pragmatic failure. Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. (1st ed.). London: Sage
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884
Visson, L. (2015). Where Russians go wrong in spoken English. Moscow: R. Valent.
White, R. (1997). Going round in circles: English as an international language, and crosscultural capability. Retrieved 25 June 2014 fromhttp://host.uniroma3.it/docenti/boylan/text/white01.htm
Евтушенко, О.В. (2008). Концепт и образ России в текстах иностранных и российских
авторов [Russia’s concept and image in texts of foreign and native authors]. Русское
слово в русском мире: Россия и русские в восприятии инокультурной языковой
личности. Сборник научных статей / Под ред. И.В. Ружицкого, Ю.Н. Караулова,О.В. Евтушенко. Москва: Васиздаст.
Узленко, О. Е. (2002). Этнокультурная специфика языкового сознания носителей
английского и русского языков: на примере фольклора. Канд. дисс.
…...канд.фил. наук. Москва: МГЛУ. (Ethnocultural specifics of linguistic cognitionof English and Russian natives as exemplified in folklore. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation] Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia]). Retrieved 25 June 2014
from https://tinyurl.com/u26mz6q
Corresponding author: Olga R. Bondarenko
Contact email: orbon@mail.ru

46

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used forMathematics Classroom Instruction
Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo
Teach for the Philippines
Makati City, Philippines

47

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
This study aimed to examine the types of Tagalog-English code-switching used inmathematics classroom discourse. Four purposively selected tertiary level math teachers
in a college situated in a rural area in the Philippines were part of the study. Using aqualitative approach, data were gathered through non-participant class observations andinterviews with selected math teachers and students. Syntactic analysis of code-switchingtypes was done to categorize the Tagalog-English utterances. The findings showed that
Tagalog-English intrasentential code-switching, which accounts for 58% of the codeswitched utterances, was the most dominant type present in math teachers’ spoken
discourse, and this was evident when math teachers had to explain math concepts andsolutions, or provide examples, among others. Intersentential code-switching made up
38% of code-switched utterances, while tag switching was used very sparingly. It is
recommended that the use of Tagalog-English intrasentential code-switching for mathlesson delivery and content knowledge explanation be considered.
Keywords: Tagalog-English code-switching, code-switching types, intrasentential codeswitching, tertiary level, math teachers

48

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

English was introduced to the Philippine education system at the time of the American
occupation in the 1900s and was sustained in the post-colonial years. In higher education
institutions (HEIs), the directive of the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) is to teachmathematics in English or Filipino. For instance, the University of the Philippines (UP), thecountry’s premier national university, prescribes the use of Filipino at the undergraduate level,
while English and Filipino are used at the graduate level (University of the Phillipines [UP],2014). In other Philippine HEIs, English is widely used as the main language in academic
discourse, particularly in science and mathematics (Bernardo & Gaerlan, 2012; Commission
on Higher Education [CHEd], 2013).
While a new language policy in the basic education program (BEP) is implemented throughMother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), Filipino teachers in the tertiarylevel and students in the secondary and tertiary levels in the past years up to the present are
products of the education system that espoused the BEP, which may explain the difficulty ofFilipino learners in mathematics. For a majority of Filipinos who neither use Filipino nor
English as the first language, the BEP was cognitively and linguistically challenging (Bernardo,
2008; Gonzalez, 2002; Tupas & Lorente, 2014). When students do not understand what theteacher says because the subject is taught in a second or foreign language, learning challenges
may abound. Thus, to address students’ learning difficulties, a communication technique that
Filipino teachers use in math classes involves the combination of two languages, otherwise
known as code-switching (CS).
CS is defined as the “juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passage of speech
belonging to two grammatical systems or subsystems” (Gumperz, cited in Romaine, 1995, p.
121). It is a natural linguistic resource among bilingual and multilingual speakers (Gulzar,
2010; Muthusamy, 2010; Setati, Adler, Reed, & Bapoo, 2002), and a communication strategy
used to compensate for missing language (Brown, 2007).
In the Philippines, a widely-used CS variety is Tagalog-English, or Taglish, which is formedby merging the first part of the word Tagalog and the last syllable of English. Taglish is thecolloquial term for the alternation of Tagalog, a local language from the Philippines, andEnglish in the same discourse. Tagalog has branched out into various dialects used in several
provinces in the Philippines, such as Laguna, Cavite, Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal, among
others. it is important to note that Taglish has to be distinguished from Filipino-English CS.
Filipino is the national language of the Philippines, and Filipino-English CS is the variety often
used in Metro Manila.
As a language of instruction (LOI) in the classroom, CS is identified as short switches from thelearners’ mother tongue to the official LOI, and vice versa (Probyn, 2015). Considered as acommon practice in education (Setati & Adler, 2000), it is argued that CS bridges the gap inclassroom discourse (Al-Adnani & Elyas, 2016; Moore, 2002) and is a practical measure that
content subject teachers take to aid students with low English language proficiency inunderstanding lessons (Probyn, 2015). This claim is plausibly supported by a number of studies
that show its use in classroom instruction in various levels and in different learning areas (e.g.,
Abad, 2010; Borlongan et al., 2012; Gulzar, 2010; Lin, 2013; Muthusamy, 2010; Li, 2008;
Pitpit, 2004). In the classroom context, the key participants in CS are teachers, students, andteacher aides (Li, 2008).

49

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Types of Code-Switching
The types of CS are commonly included as a variable in studies on CS as they provide insights
on the language competence of bilingual and multilingual speakers. Poplack (cited in Hamers& Blanc, 2000) developed a typology often cited in literature which identifies three CS types.
CS can occur between sentences (intersentential), within a sentence (intrasentential), or as atag in one language into an utterance entirely in another language (extra-sentential or tag
switching). Intersentential switches occur at the sentence or clause boundary. On the other
hand, intrasentential switches are considered as the more complex or “intimate” type ofswitching, “since a code-switched segment, and those around it, must conform to theunderlying syntactic rules of two languages which bridge constituents and link them together
grammatically” (Poplack, 2000, p. 230). In another study, it was noted that intrasentential
switching is the most complex form of CS as “it involves the greatest syntactic risk since theswitching between languages occurs within the clause or sentence boundaries” (Liu, 2010, p.
11). Finally, tag switches, together with single noun switches, are described as a less intimate
type, and “are often heavily loaded in ethnic content and would be placed low on a scale oftranslatability” (Poplack, 2000, p. 230).
Related Studies
It is argued that CS is indicative of a speaker’s degree of bilingual competence. The alternation
between two languages requires a large degree of linguistic competence on the part of the
speaker to be able to switch smoothly from one language to another. Poplack’s (2000) 1980’s
study, which observed the Spanish-English CS of non-fluent bilinguals in a Puerto Rican
community, showed that in the 1,835 switches made, no ungrammatical combinations of theL1 and the L2 were noted. Skilled CS is characterized by smooth transition between elementsof L1 and L2, “unmarked by false starts, hesitations or lengthy pauses” (Poplack, 2000, p. 241).
Despite the limited language competence in one of the codes, the non-fluent bilingual speakers
were able to produce grammatically-sound switches (Poplack, 2000). It should be noted,
however, that the study does not provide the disaggregated results of CS per type.
In the classroom context, the findings of a study on the English proficiency of information
technology (IT) instructors and their language use resonate with Poplack’s findings (Sarreal,2008). Thirty tertiary-level instructors from various schools in Metro Manila teaching IT
classes in English were observed and interviewed for the study. Among the variables observed
were the IT instructors’ patterns and types of CS used in class. After identifying the CS types
using Poplack’s model, the results of the study identified intrasentential CS as the mostcommonly-used CS type of IT teachers, as concepts pertaining to the subject matter had to be
explained further in Tagalog to become clearer and more understandable for students (Sarreal,2008).
The results of other studies (Martin, 2006; Liu, 2010) show deviations from the previous
findings, mentioning that among the three CS types, intersentential switching was usedprevalently in classroom instruction. A study of teachers’ CS to L1 in English as a foreign
language (EFL) classrooms examined the general situation of the switching from English to
Chinese (Liu, 2010). Sixty teachers and 261 undergraduate students randomly selected fromthree universities had their English classes observed. The LOI in all classes observed wasEnglish, and the lesson observed was “teaching a text.” Survey questionnaires and transcribedclass observations were used to gather pertinent data. To categorize CS patterns, Poplack’s
syntactic structure was used. A major finding of the study was that teachers and students usedintersentential CS most frequently to translate from English to Chinese. Tertiary EFL teachers
explained that in text analysis, English sentences were discussed with students through50

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

translation as the teachers were having “difficulty in trying to conform to the different syntactic
rules” of English and Chinese (Liu, 2010, p. 18). The difference in the syntactic rules of thetwo languages made the EFL teachers resort to intersentential CS to translate texts and makeEnglish content much more comprehensible for the EFL learners.
Another study regarding CS in the tertiary level included the CS type as a variable (Martin,
2006). Two instructors from a private, non-sectarian Philippine higher education institution(HEI) handling science courses for freshmen students were observed. Science courses wererequired to be taught in English. Both classes which spanned 3 hours and 30 minutes werevideo-recorded, and teachers were interviewed after class. Filipino-English CS types of bothteachers and students were categorized using Poplack’s syntactic structure. The findings of thestudy showed that “[i]n both cases, intersentential switches registered as dominant among thethree syntactic structures” (Martin, 2000, p. 56). Both teachers observed used intrasentential
and tag switching very minimally. Another observation from the study was that one of the twoteachers produced 90% of intersentential CS gathered from the whole sample. Although a large
percentage of CS occurred, the researcher claimed that the science teacher was a “skilled codeswitcher.” The researcher noted that all the code-switched utterances made by both the teachers
and the students were grammatical and the utterances were smooth. It should be stated thatwhile the strength of the study is the identification of the types of switches made, it would havehelped confirm the claim of the researcher that both teachers observed were “skilled codeswitchers” if other instruments were used to further validate the assumption.
This present study is timely and important as it can be a valuable addition to the literature on
CS. Data and insights culled from the findings of this research may help set future directions
for language planners and policy makers. The reports on the uses of the math teachers’ CS in
the tertiary level can serve as a guide as they create, review, or modify existing policies on the
LOI in content areas in the tertiary level. Additionally, school administrators in the higher
education sector become more informed of the in-class language practices of mathematics
teachers, so provisions can be made to appropriate codeswitching use in the tertiary-level
mathematics instruction when necessary. Moreover, the results of the study can inform content
teachers on the types of CS employed in the classroom and the contexts in which these CS
types are utilized. For language teachers, this can open collaboration with math teachers forcontent-based instruction. The findings of the study can likewise provide insights to future
researchers on the actual use of language in classroom discourse, identify the CS types used bymath teachers, and confirm or disconfirm the findings of previous studies on the CS types usedprevalently in the classroom.
Research Questions
In order to examine the CS use in content areas, the study focuses on the following researchquestions:(1) What are the types of CS used by tertiary level math teachers in mathematics
classroom discourse?
(2) What are the instances in which the CS types are used?

51

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Methods
Research Design
The study used a qualitative approach to identify and describe the CS types used by college
level math teachers. Tallying and getting the percentages of CS types from the observed mathclasses were employed, while interviews with teachers and students were completed to validate
the data gathered from class observations (Abad, 2010; Martin, 2006; Sarreal, 2008).
Research Locale and Participants
The locale for this study was a state college in Occidental Mindoro, the Philippines. Since
Tagalog is widely spoken in Occidental Mindoro in their day-to-day discourse, conducting thestudy in a tertiary institution in the province was deemed appropriate as it was a good
opportunity for the researcher to observe the language contact and dynamics of Tagalog andEnglish in mathematics discourse. Likewise, the decision to conduct the study in a college froma rural area was due to the high probability of Tagalog-English CS use in the classes to beobserved. Unlike in an urban setting such as Metro Manila where English is commonly usedas the default language in mathematics discourse, the rural setting was instrumental in allowing
the researcher to observe how the two languages operated in mathematics discourse, with
Tagalog as the more dominant language.
It is also worth noting that despite the dominance of the use of Tagalog in the community, theCollege implements an English-only policy for instruction across all subjects, except in theFilipino subject. Adherence to the policy is expected; thus, teachers and students in the College
have to use the English language in all forms of spoken discourse in all subjects, except in theFilipino language subject.
The participants consisted of four math teachers who were selected purposively for the study,
and whose names were withheld for purposes of confidentiality. The choice of purposive
sampling was influenced by the idea of selecting math classes where the use of TagalogEnglish CS was moderate to high, that is, 41 to 100% (Abad, 2010), which implies that CS issubstantially present in the observed classes. Alphanumeric codes were instead used to refer tothe teachers: T1 for the first teacher, T2 for the second, T3 for the third, and T4 for the last.
Trigonometry was selected as it is considered to be a fundamental mathematics subject onwhich other subject areas, such as physics, architecture, engineering, and other sciences, arehinged (Weber, 2005; Moore, 2009). Also, students struggle with this aspect of math
instruction due to its difficulty and abstractness (Gur, 2009; Moore, 2009).
There were 88 students in all four classes observed. Some of the students who were part of themath teachers’ classes were selected purposively for key informant interviews (KIIs).
Data Collection Tools
Data were gathered through a profiling form, a tally sheet for CS types, and KII guides forteachers and students. The tally sheet was piloted to a group comparable to the sample. Since
the instruments appropriately and sufficiently gathered the pertinent data needed for the study,
no changes were made on the tools.
The CS tally sheet was not used during the actual class observations as it would have been very
difficult to classify CS occurrences while classes were ongoing. Instead, this tool was used
after class observations to organize data and guide KIIs.

52

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Two different sets of KII guides were made for selected math teachers and students, andquestions were designed to obtain information on the use of Tagalog-English CS in
mathematics classroom discourse.
Data Collection Procedure
Data were culled from several sources, such as class observations, demographic profile ofstudents, and KIIs with teachers and selected students. The data gathering was conducted in
two full weeks.
Non-participant observation was used in this study. Preliminary observations were done in all
four math classes to check the CS occurrences in classroom discourse and to let the mathteachers and the students get used to the presence of an observer. After the initial observations,
three class observations were completed for each class. Class observations were recorded using
a digital camera, a tablet, and a smartphone. The total number of observation hours for the 12
math sessions was 18.
Two sets of KIIs were conducted individually, one with every math teacher in the sample andanother one with selected students. All interviews with math teachers and selected students
were digitally recorded. Notetaking was avoided so the researcher would have undivided
attention while conducting the interview and would limit a possible source of distraction forstudents. Overall, there were four hours’ worth of interview with the selected math teachersand students.
Data Analysis
All recorded data from class observations were transcribed manually by the researcher using
Microsoft Word. To facilitate ease of reading, fillers such as um, ah, and the like, were removed
as they have little influence on mathematics discourse (Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011). The
task was guided by the transcription conventions adapted from Metila (2007). Checking theaccuracy of transcribed data was done. The quantitative data needed to identify the CS typesof math teachers were derived from frequency count. In categorizing data, Tagalog-English CS
utterances were syntactically analyzed and then classified using Poplack’s CS categories,
namely intersentential, intrasentential, and tag switching (Poplack in Hamers & Blanc, 2000,
pp. 259-260). Categorized data were rechecked by a language expert to ascertain data accuracy.
To corroborate the results of the math teachers’ CS types yielded from the quantitative analysis,
data were triangulated with the responses of KII participants. Interview data were transcribed,
then transcripts were reviewed afterwards. Repeated and similar responses were noted andgrouped accordingly to generate themes. Triangulation was done to enrich the data from classobservations and to strengthen the credibility and generalizability of the study (Fraenkel &Wallen, 2010; Tracy, 2013).
Results and Discussion
All three types of CS – intersentential, intrasentential, and tag switching – were present in the
spoken discourse of the four observed math teachers. However, the most dominant CS typeused was intrasentential, accounting for 58% of the code-switched utterances. Intrasentential
CS was followed by intersentential CS, which was equivalent to 38% of code-switchedutterances. Lastly, tag switching was used sparingly across the 12 class observations. Data areshown in Figure 1, and more detailed explanations for each type follow.

53

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

4%38%

Inter CS
Intra CS58%

Tag CS

Figure 1: Percentages of CS types
Intrasentential CS
The biggest chunk of the CS type was intrasentential, which is consistent with the findings ofthe studies of Poplack (2000) and Sarreal (2008), noting that it is the CS type used quite
extensively in spoken discourse. This indicates that the utterances of math teachers werecharacterized by switching between two languages within a sentence, with one language
compensating for the other. An example in Extract 1 follows.
Extract 1
T1: So ibig sabihin, kung hindi available yung isang function sa calculator,
pwede n'yong kunin yung kanyang complementary function kasi confident
naman kayong they are just equal. (So it means, if one function isunavailable in the calculator, you can get its complementary function
because you are confident that they are just equal.) Can you follow?
Can you follow? Ganun din sa reciprocal function. (The same goes for thereciprocal function.) That’s why kung napapansin n’yo, in your scientificcalculators, only the three functions are there. (That’s why if you could
notice, in your scientific calculators, only the three functions are there.)
What are those?
In Extract 1, T1 explained the role of complementary functions by shuttling between English
and Tagalog in a sentence. Using the two languages, the math teacher was able to express her
points clearly and coherently. Likewise, it can be noted that the sentences from the extract
conformed to the syntactic rules of the two languages, Tagalog and English, and the words
from the two languages were linked grammatically, thereby facilitating smooth and naturaltransition between words. This is similar to the observation of Poplack (2000) where she notedthat the intrasentential switches she gathered were grammatically sound. The results provide
insights that speakers have sufficient awareness of the syntax of the two languages used, which
prevents them from violating their syntactic rules.
The observed math teachers had to use English and Tagalog interchangeably within a sentence
in explaining math concepts and solutions, among others. In short, both languages arecomplementary for instruction. Using pure Tagalog or pure English throughout the discussion
poses limitations. Speaking in pure Tagalog can be preventive because the math terms which
are crucial in understanding math concepts are often in English. Unless math teachers and54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

students are familiar with the equivalent Tagalog words of math terms, using Tagalog all
throughout math discourse can be challenging. The same goes for using pure English. If mathteachers were to use only English for classroom instruction, the concerns would be the mathteachers’ English language proficiency, lesson delivery, and students’ capacity to understandthe lesson. T1 and T4, for instance, observed that the math teachers themselves may have
limited language capabilities to express their ideas fluently and use English in a more complex
academic discourse. As regards students’ capabilities to understand instruction in English, allfour math teachers agreed that most students have basic English-language proficiency, and so
the use of English would be a stumbling block for their learning. This is supported by the KII
responses of all the interviewed students who all said that using both languages in mathdiscourse is important for students to understand lessons better.
However, while the claim was that the use of intrasentential CS is done by highly-skilledbilinguals (Poplack, 2000), data yielded from the observed math teachers showed that bilingual
speakers do not always demonstrate language fluency and accuracy when using intrasentential
switching. As in the case of any second-language speaker who has yet to demonstrate masteryof the target language, the math teachers observed in this study had occasional slips andgrammar lapses characteristic of non-native speaker speech. There were instances when
intrasentential CS utterances did not conform to the standard Tagalog-English syntactic rules;
thus, intrasentential CS was not fluid and clear. This could be seen in Extract 2, where an
intrasentenial switching caused confusion. In the dialogue, note that the underlined TagalogEnglish code-switched utterance is the unclear part of the discourse.
Extract 2
T2:
So what is the measure of the corresponding acute angle if the given is
520 degrees?
S:
20
T2:
Why 20?
S:
Because 540 is equivalent to…
T2:
Okay. So that’s correct. 360 is the one revolution or full na pag-ikot, so
one revolution is equal to 360, and iyong half revolution is 180. Ito posiya hanggang rito. Sabi nga natin kanina so kung nasa quadrant, ditosiya and nandito iyong given, it is minus kay 180 so kapag tinotal siya
is 540. (We said a while ago, so if it is in quadrant, it is here and thegiven is here, 180 is subtracted from the given, so when the total iscomputed, it is 540.) Unless ang given natin is 520 so the acute angle
is 20 and this is what we call the corresponding acute angle. (Unless ourgiven is 520 so the acute angle is 20 and this is what we call thecorresponding acute angle.) Okay na po? (Is it okay?)S:Yes.
The underlined statement in Extract 2 is an example of intrasentential CS that is ambiguous
and confusing. T2 attempted to explain the process of solving for the corresponding acuteangle, but the original translation contained the unnecessary use of the transition word, so.
T2:

Sabi nga natin kanina so kung nasa quadrant, dito siya and nandito
iyong given… (We said a while ago, so if it is in quadrant, it is here
and the given is here…)

55

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Likewise, from the same extract, the phrase, “kung nasa quadrant” (if it is in the quadrant)
lacked specificity. T2 was not clear about the quadrant being referred to, which could confuse
the listeners.
Also, in this clause, “it is minus kay 180 [degrees]…,” the referent for the pronoun, it, wasunclear, and the use of the Filipino preposition kay (from) was confusing as the 180 degrees
was given a human referent. When translated to English, the clause “it is minus kay 180[degrees]…” could be interpreted as “it [the given] is minus [subtracted] from 180,” but since
what the teacher meant was that 180 is subtracted from the given, the use of an incorrect
Filipino preposition, kay, could get in the way of understanding the math teacher’s explanation.
Note, however, that when T2 asked during the comprehension check if the explanation wasokay, the students answered Yes. While the students answered in the affirmative, saying yes
could likewise work as a conversation stopper (Palacio & Gustilo, 2016; Colin-Jones & ColinJones, 2008). Also, answering with a yes could be indicative of the speakers’ attempt to bepolite, to lessen friction, or to maintain a cordial atmosphere (Bernardo, 2011).
In sum, contrary to the argument that intrasentential switches generally conform to the syntactic
rules (Poplack, 2000), it has to be taken into account that there were notable instances wherein
the observed math teachers committed grammar lapses in classroom discourse. While in somecases, the math teachers did self-correction, showing that they were able to detect theungrammatical utterances they produced and to correct them, there were also instances whengrammar lapses remained uncorrected, which may indicate that the math teachers were
unaware of the grammar mistakes in their utterances. Table 1 presents the utterances withgrammar lapses that were corrected.
Table 1: Examples of math teachers’ corrected utterances
Teacher
Utterance
T1
Yung between (The one between), angles between zero degrees andnegative 90 degrees. Where can we found (sic) that – where can wefind that rather?
T2
Okay, that’s right. But I am asking kung ano po iyong tawag sa sine,
cosine, tangent (But I’m asking for the term for sine, cosine,
tangent). So that is the trigonometric functions (sic). 'Di banabanggit ko naman iyon? (Isn’t it that I have told you about it?)So that is the trigonometric functions (sic). Iyong pinaka-simplest(sic) (The most simplest). Pinaka na nga, simplest pa*

T3
T4*Note: T4 means that adding “pinaka,” which means “most,” isalready redundant.
You should familiar (sic) – familiarize yourselves with these because
it’s basic knowledge.
To view it more, in a more clear (sic) manner, in a clearer manner, forexample I have here Giselle.

Reference
Observation 3
Line 60
Observation 1
Line 45

Observation 1
Line 163
Observation 1
Line 27

As shown in Table 1, the math teachers were conscious of the ungrammatical statements they
produced. For T1, T3, and T4, the correct version of the lapses they produced were later
provided. T2, meanwhile, pointed out toward the end of the utterance her use of double
superlatives.
Table 2 presents a list of some of the code-switched utterances produced by math teachers

56

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

which they were unable to identify as ungrammatical.
Table 2: Examples of ungrammatical statements produced by math teachers
Teacher
Utterance
T1
O, eto yung mga things to remember ha (O, these are the things toremember). That’s why I told you to bring at least two colored penspara sa first angle yung isang kulay, second angle another kulay kasi
you have to show the two initial sides and the two terminal sides andthe two angle (sic) ‘pag ikot nung gano’n (That’s why I told you tobring at least two colored pens so that you can use one color for
the first angle, then use another one for the second angle because
you have to show the two initial sides and the two terminal sides
and the two angles when it rotates).

Reference
Observation 3
Line 248

T2

Acute angle because 30 degree (sic) and 60 degree (sic) is (sic) lessthan 90 degree (sic) and we cannot form 90 degree (sic) or we cannot
have an angles (sic) with iyong isa is obtuse angle kasi nga lalampas
siya (Acute angle because 30 degrees and 60 degrees are less than
90 degrees and we cannot form 90 degrees or we cannot have anangle with one as obtuse because it will go beyond).

Observation 3
Line 295

T3

And if a line is move (sic) ano po ang na-form? (And if a line
moves, what is formed?)

Observation 1
Line 37

T4

Because the line in between the bubbles act (sic) as a border, hindi
makapunta yung hangin sa kabila papunta sa kabila (Because theline in between the bubbles acts as a border, the air cannot moveto the other bubble).

Observation 1
Line 340

As Table 2 shows, among the common grammar concerns of the observed math teachers werepluralization (e.g., two angle, 90 degree), verb use (e.g., is move), and subject-verb agreement(e.g., line… act). However, these grammar lapses are examples of local errors which do notseriously interfere with one’s understanding of the utterances and are negligible.
These examples indicate that intrasentential CS generally follows sound grammatical patterns,
but there were also cases when ungrammatical constructions of Tagalog-English utteranceswere present, and imprecise word choice can compromise the clarity of a statement. This canlead future researchers to further look into the plausibility of arguments that intrasentential CS
is apparent in bilinguals with high language proficiency (Poplack in Berk-Seligson, 1986: 314).
3.2 Intersentential CS
Intersentential CS accounted for 38% of the total code-switched utterances of the four mathteachers. This differs from results of some studies (Martin, 2006; Liu, 2010) that intersentential
CS is the type used prevalently for classroom instruction. The reason for the disparity of theresults could be attributed to the limited sample size and the observation duration (e.g., Martin,
2006) and the lesson type during the class observation (e.g., Liu, 2010). In the twelve mathclasses observed for this study, intrasentential was used more dominantly that intersentential
switching. Extract 3 follows.

57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Extract 3
T4:
So if 3x is equal to 180 degrees, what must be the value of x? X therefore
is…
S:
60
T4:
60 degrees. Sige po. (Alright.) Malinaw? (Clear?)
Ss:
Yes
T4:
Madali lang, ano? (It’s easy, isn’t it?) Easy as pie.
When T4 asked for the value of x, a student answered correctly. So, T4 repeated the answer ofthe student and provided an affirmation by saying, Alright. To check whether students
understood the process of arriving at the value of x, T4 used a one-word question in Filipino,
Malinaw? (Clear?) The students replied with a yes, and T4 commented in Filipino thatcomputing for the answer was easy.
As observed, pure English was used when providing mathematical explanations or definitionsof mathematical terms. Only when the teacher would need to expound on a certain question ora concept that switching to Tagalog or Tagalog-English would be done.
In Extract 4, note that T4’s first utterance was a definition of a ray, which he presented in
English. Then, in the second part of the utterance, he switched to Taglish and simplified theinformation for the students. This is evident in the use of the words ibig sabihin (it means),
which is an indication that the math teacher expounded on the idea to bring down theinformation to a simpler level of understanding, allowing students to comprehend the given
definition by interspersing math concepts with a familiar language.
Extract 4
T4:
So, a ray is a part of a line characterized by a line bounded by a point
on one end and that extends indefinitely on another. So ibig sabihin (itmeans), as our figure depicts, meron kang endpoint dito (you have an
endpoint here), tapos meron kang (then you have an) indefinite line,
or indefinite part of a line extending to one direction.
Extract 5 shows a similar example in which intersentential switching was used by a mathteacher in her utterances to elaborate on her point.
Extract 5
T2:
So in determining the corresponding acute angle, so (sic) you need todetermine also where the angle is located or [in] what quadrant is theangle located. So sasabihin rin po natin kung nasa quadrant 1 siya, nasa
quadrant 2, nasa quadrant 3 or nasa quadrant 4 (So we need to identify
whether the angle is in quadrant 1, quadrant 2, quadrant 3, or
quadrant 4). So if the angle is 120, then it is in the…? In what
quadrant?
In Extract 5, T2 explained the concept of corresponding acute angle in English, that is, in
identifying the corresponding acute angle, it is important to locate the quadrant where the angle
is found. Then, the teacher used Taglish in the second utterance to emphasize her point. Finally,
to check whether students understood the concept correctly, T2 asked them the quadrant wherea 120-degree angle could be found.

58

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

In the examples, intersentential CS was useful when mathematical concepts in English had to
be explained more thoroughly to students through Tagalog-English CS.
Likewise, intersentential CS was at play when the observed math teachers would ask students
to answer a mathematical question or equation. Usually, the delivery of the question was inpure English. Extract 6 provides an example.
Extract 6
T1:
So what is the complementary function of – you have your calculator?
– what is the complementary function of sine 36 degrees 15 minutes 10
seconds? [This is a] review of the last meeting’s lesson.
The math teacher asked her students to provide the complementary function of a given item,and she did not find it necessary to repeat the statement in Tagalog or Tagalog-English because
she used a simple sentence construction, which was rather straightforward, andunderstandable.
It can be noted that the reason for using pure English when asking math questions andpresenting math concepts and definitions was in line with the use of mathematics register.
During the KII, T2 mentioned that mathematical equations are best expressed in English giventhat there are already canned expressions and jargons. For instance, she mentioned that the“square root of 2x plus y” does not need to be translated to Tagalog because it is a mathematicalexpression already understood by students, and that it would otherwise be complicated totranslate “square root” or “2x plus y” to Tagalog.
These examples show that intersentential CS is evident when expressing mathematicalstatements or questions in pure English.
Tag Switching
In this study, tag switching was used least extensively in classroom discourse, noting that in
all 12 observations, tags accounted for only 4% of the total code-switched utterances. This issimilar to the results of the study of Martin (2006) that noted the minimal use of tag switchingin classroom discourse. Extract 6 shows the use of tag switching in an utterance.
Extract 7
T3:
Ano po ang cosine ng zero degrees? (What is the cosine of zero
degrees?)
Ss:
One, sir.
T3:
As simple as that po. (As simple as that.)
In Extract 7, T3 used a Tagalog word, po, and appended it to the statement, as simple as that.
There is no English equivalent for the word po, as the word is unique to the Filipino culture.
Filipinos commonly use po as an indicator of respect or politeness. Hence, the use of po as atag marker fits the description of Poplack (2000) that tag switches “are often heavily loadedwith ethnic content and would be placed low on a scale of translatability” (p. 23).
Other commonly used tag switches identified in the study include tama? (correct?), lang (only),‘di ba? (isn’ it?), din and rin (also), and some Filipino particles with no direct equivalent inEnglish, like ba, naman, nga, daw, a, and ha. Okay is also considered as a form of tag switch
when appended to the end of the sentence. Note that the basis for categorizing it as a Tagalog

59

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

word was because of the teachers’ pronunciation, which was characterized by syllabication anda distinct Tagalog accent.
Overall, the findings of this study affirm that math teachers used Tagalog-English CS in theclassroom, with intrasentential switching as the most commonly used among the three, toexplain math concepts and simplify information for students.
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations
This study was conducted with the idea of contributing to the existing knowledge on thelanguage use in content areas and identifying the types of CS used by math teachers. What
prompted this research was the inadequate and inconclusive findings on the CS use by tertiary
math teachers and its implications for students’ learning.
Intrasentential CS was the most commonly used Tagalog-English CS type, as more than halfof the total code-switched utterances by the four observed math teachers were intrasentential.
The high percentage of intrasentential CS confirms the findings of studies (Poplack, 2000;
Sarreal, 2008) that it is the most pervasive type used by interlocutors in spoken discourse. On
the other hand, intersentential CS was used when math concepts and principles have to bepresented in English, then afterwards explained in Tagalog. Finally, tag switching was the least
used CS type, making up only a negligible percentage of the total codeswitched utterances inall classes observed.
Intrasentential CS is indicative of tertiary-level math teachers’ sufficient bilingual knowledge
and competence of both English and Tagalog syntax. The dominance of intrasentential CS
implies that speakers can switch with ease from one language to another, which, in this case,is Tagalog to English, and vice versa. The observed math teachers had to use English andTagalog interchangeably within a sentence in explaining math concepts and solutions, among
others.
It was noted in this study that both languages are complementary for instruction. Using pureTagalog or pure English throughout the discussion poses limitations. Speaking in pure Tagalog
can be preventive because the math terms which are crucial in understanding math concepts
are often in English. Unless math teachers and students are familiar with the equivalent Tagalog
words of math terms, using Tagalog all throughout math discourse can be challenging. The
same goes for using pure English. If math teachers were to use pure English for classroom
instruction, the concerns would be the math teachers’ English language proficiency, lesson
delivery, and students’ capacity to understand the lesson. T1 and T4, for instance, observedthat the math teachers themselves may have limited language capabilities to express their ideas
fluently and use English in a more complex academic discourse. As regards students’capabilities to understand instruction in English, all four math teachers agreed that most
students have basic English-language proficiency, and so the use of English would be astumbling block for students’ learning. This is supported by the KII responses of all theinterviewed students who all said that using both languages in math discourse is important for
students to understand lessons better.
Hence, Tagalog-English intrasentential switching is both instrumental and inevitable. It is
instrumental for lesson delivery because it lessens students’ cognitive burden of understanding
both language and content at once. Likewise, CS is inevitable because math terms andexpressions in English are necessary components in explaining and discussing content

60

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

knowledge, and so it is understandable when equations and jargons are expressed in English,
while further elaborations are done in Tagalog.
For language planners and policy makers, it might be worth considering to draft clear
provisions relevant to language use in the content subjects in the tertiary level. Having
identified from the class observations and KIIs that the Tagalog-English CS was not a result ofsome random and inconsistent language switching, but rather a purposeful attempt to facilitate
mathematics instruction and learning, the use of CS will give bilingual and multilingual
students who require extra support in the English language a better chance of learning
mathematical concepts and processes, and participate productively in classroom discourse
through the infusion of their mother tongue.
For tertiary level math teachers, utilizing CS in classroom instruction when necessary helps
facilitate learning, instruction, transition, and communication. These insights will allow mathteachers to strategize their use of CS to complement the English-language instruction and avoid
its unsystematic use. By focusing on elevating the quality of math discourse, CS can be used
as a tool for analyzing math problems, understanding logical connections, and evaluating
information, among others, since language would not be much of a concern in this context.
Secondary and tertiary level English language teachers can create learning opportunities forstudents to practice the English language in spoken discourse. Students’ limited confidence to
use the English language in spoken academic discourse is a concern because of their inadequate
exposure to the language or their restricted vocabulary. Secondary and tertiary level English
language teachers have to provide means for their students to use English meaningfully andextensively in communication. By creating a rich and safe classroom environment that
promotes the use of English and allows the teacher to give meaningful feedback, students arehelped to build their confidence in speaking the language, and to practice the English languagein academic contexts, which will benefit classroom instruction and learning in the long run.
Likewise, exploring a possible collaboration between English and math teachers in light ofusing content-based instruction in the classroom will allow the former to assist the latter inlearning and using math register correctly in language discourse. Also, this will open
opportunities for students to be familiar with the common math register and sentence structuresin the subject area, and be exposed to the context-specific use of math language.
The findings of the study should be viewed in light of some limitations. Since it focuses on the
CS types, it does not extensively discuss the functions and purposes of CS in math classrooms.
Additionally, since the sample only includes tertiary math teachers, the CS types used byprimary and secondary math teachers, and teachers handling other content areas may differ.
However, given the dearth of literature that focuses on the use of CS in tertiary level content
areas, this study can be further explored by future researchers in identifying the purposes bywhich CS is used in content areas, and whether math teachers’ CS influence students’performance or learning outcomes.

61

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Abad, L. S. (2010). An analysis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of codeswitching inteaching science and mathematics in a Philippine private school. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 7(1), 239–264.
Al-Adnani, A., & Elyas, T. (2016). The effect of teacher’s code-switching on students’achievement in speaking in the EFL context. The European Conference on Language
Learning 2016 Official Conference Proceedings. http://papers.iafor.org/wpcontent/uploads/papers/ecll2016/ECLL2016_22567.pdf
Bernardo A. B. I. (2008). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem? In M. L. S.
Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspective(pp. 29–48). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press
Bernardo, A. B. I., & Gaerlan, M. J. M. (2011). Non-native English students learning in
English: Reviewing and reflecting on the research. In R. Jaidev, M. L. C. Sadorra, W.
J. Onn, L. M. Cherk, & B. P. Lorente (Eds.), Global perspectives, local initiatives:
Reflections and practices in ELT (pp. 1–10). Singapore: Center for English Language
Communication, National University of Singapore.
Bernardo, A. S. (2011). What’s between yes and no? A pragmatic analysis of Filipino
senators’ responses to yes/no questions. Far Eastern University English & Literature
Journal, 5(1), 1–30.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1986). Linguistic constraints in intrasentential code-switching: A study ofSpanish/Hebrew bilingualism. Language in Society, 15, 313–348.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011799
Borlongan, A. M., Lim, J., & Roxas, R. E. (2012). University students’ attitudes towards
English-Tagalog code-switching in classroom instruction. TESOL Journal, 7, 70–77.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Colin-Jones, G. & Colin-Jones, Y. (2008). Philippines: The essential guide to customs &culture. London: Kuperard.
Commission on Higher Education (CHEd). (2013). General education curriculum: Holistic
understandings, intellectual and civic competencies (CMO 20, s. 2013).
https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-No.20-s2013.pdf
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education (7thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gonzalez, A. (2002). Language planning and intellectualization. Current Issues on Language
Planning, 3(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200208668034
Gulzar, M. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms.
Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 23–44.
Gur, H. (2009). Trigonometry learning. New Horizons in Education, 57(1), 67–80.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Social psychological aspects of bilinguality: interculturalcommunication. In J. F. Hamer & M. Blanc (Eds.), Bilinguality and Bilingualism (2nded., pp 241–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 451–485.

62

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0451
Li, D. (2008). Understanding mixed code and classroom code-switching: Myths and realities.
New Horizons in Education, 56(3), 75–86.
Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics
Review, 4(1), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0009
Liu, J. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied
Linguistics Journal, 3, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913501003010010
Martin, I. P. (2006). Language in Philippine classrooms: Enfeebling or enabling? AsianEnglishes, 9(2), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2006.10801188
Metila, R. A. (2007). Recurrent patterns of English-Filipino code switching as bases forlanguage teaching modifications [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of thePhilippines.
Moore, D. (2002). Case study: Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(2), 279–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667762
Moore, K. C. (2009). Trigonometry, technology, and didactic objects. In S. L. Swars, D. W.
Stinson & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of theNorth American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology ofMathematics Education (pp. 1480–1488). Georgia State University.
Muthusamy, P. (2010). Codeswitching in communication: A sociolinguistic study of
Malaysian secondary school students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences &Humanities, 18(2), 407–415.
Palacio, M. A., & Gustilo, L. (2016). A pragmatic analysis of discourse particles in Filipino
computer mediated communication. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies,
16(3), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-01
Pitpit, G. (2004). Codeswitching as a communication strategy in comprehending Science
concepts [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of the Philippines.
Poplack, S. (2000). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Towarda typology of code-switching. In L. Wei (Ed.). The Bilingualism Reader. NY:
Routledge.
Probyn, M. (2015). Pedagogical translanguaging: Bridging courses in South African scienceclassrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 218–234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994525
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sarreal, M. L. (2008). English proficiency of IT instructors and language use [Unpublishedmaster’s thesis]. University of the Philippines.
Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices inprimary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies inMathematics, 43, 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011996002062
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switchingand other language practices in mathematics, science and English language
classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780208666824

63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tupas, R., & Lorente, B. P. (2014). A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines: Bilingual
education and the new challenge of the mother tongues. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas(Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast
Asia (pp 165–180). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137455536_9
University of the Philippines. (2014). Academic information: Medium of instruction.
http://upd.edu.ph/admissions/academic-information/
Weber, K. (2005). Students’ understanding of trigonometric functions. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 17, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217423
Corresponding author: Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo
Contact email: kpbravo@gmail.com

64

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Exploring the Effects of Digital Storytelling: A Case Study of Adult
L2 Writers in Taiwan
Min-Hsun Chiang
Tunghai University
Taiwan65

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
With the advent of information communication technologies, an escalating number of youths
is communicating, creating, and sharing narratives via Web 2.0 social networks. To ensure thecontinuity between in-class and out-of-class literacy practice, digital storytelling has become
increasingly prevalent in educational settings. Digital storytelling has the potential to enhance
digital literacy and self-efficacy through innovative learning and identity expressions. However,
the research at this juncture is scarce. Therefore, this study incorporated Storybird, a Web 2.0
collaborative writing tool, into a freshman composition class to cultivate digital literacy inEnglish among 18 college students who are studying English as an International Language in
Taiwan. In addition to developing digital literacy, this study also explored the effects ofStorybird-mediated storytelling on English as an International Language students’ self-efficacy
as a legitimate user of English. The results from both the quantitative and qualitative data
analyses indicate that after year-long participation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling,
the majority of the participants rated their digital literacy in English higher than before.
Similarly, they developed a stronger sense of confidence as English as an International
Language writers. Some pedagogical considerations are offered at the end of this paper for
those who wish to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into their English as an International Language
classrooms to boost their pupils’ confidence in participating in this ever-connected global
community.
Keywords: English as an international language, digital storytelling, self-efficacy, digital
literacy, L2 writing, Storybird

66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The rapid development of information communication technologies (ICT) in our modern
society has transformed the ways people communicate with one another. Since humancommunication is mostly through the medium of language, as the technology advanced,
language is becoming inseparable from the digital environment (Hockly, 2012, p.110). Thisphenomenon has brought attention to the scholars to reevaluate the existing literacy skills thatwere taught in current educational systems (Churchill, 2016; Potts, 2013). Many educators
agree that new skills are required to comprehend and communicate using new technologies(Hockly, 2012). As a result, English as International Language (EIL) learners in the 21st
century not only need to learn the language but also need to learn to communicate and utilize
the language efficiently in the digital environment. This need becomes even more vital given
the newly defined digital divide between those who are passive consumers of media and those
who are proactive discerners and creators of media (Thomas, 2016).
Due to the widespread of ICT over the past decade, numerous researchers endeavored toconceptualize or describe the development of digital literacy (Eshet-Alkali & AmichaiHamburger, 2004; Potts et al., 2010, Ferrari, 2012). This trend also brought an urgent need fordeveloping digital literacy in a global society. Many governments or cross-national
confederations, such as the European Union, emphasized the importance of digital literacy inthe educational system (Churchill, 2016; Leahy & Dolan, 2010; Poore, 2011). The Ministry of
Education (MOE) in Taiwan also recognized the importance of digital learning and included
the development of information communication technology (ICT) skills in its educationalguidelines (MOE, Taiwan, 2012). Much research has hypothesized a close relationshipbetween digital storytelling (DST) and digital literacy (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Robin,
2016; Thang et al., 2014. ) and supported the connection between the use of DST and students’
engagement and motivation for learning (Pop, 2012; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009; Yang &Wu, 2012). However, fewer studies have scrutinized the link between DST and self-efficacy
among EIL users. Therefore, the present study not only connects DST with several types ofdigital literacy, but also relates it to the learner’s sense of confidence. The digital literacy underdiscussion in the current study comprises a set of skills that are essential for decoding andmaking meaning out of the digital texts (Churchill, 2016). In other words, these skills involve
critical thinking, language ability, and communicative skills, so-called 21st Century Skills(Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005; Jakes, 2006). The present study intends to answer thefollowing three research questions:
1. Is there any significant difference in university EIL students’ self-rated English digital
literacy before and after their participation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
2. How does DST affect participants’ self-efficacy as EIL users after taking part in
Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
3. What are the participants’ perceptions of integrating Storybird into their L2 writingclass?
Significance of the Study
The results from this study contribute to the pedagogical application of DST and theoreticalunderstanding of DST in the L2 writing context. Students nowadays are far more interested incontinually engaging themselves in participatory social networks out of school than academic
learning in school. The current results show that integrating DST into a formal composition
class created engaging and meaningful literacy practices in class, which in turn cultivated EIL
writers’ digital literacy and sense of confidence. The current results shed light on therelationships among DST, L2 digital literacy, and L2 self-efficacy. Most importantly, the67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

ultimate outcomes of this project, the field-tested DST integration guidelines, and theempirically grounded implications, help provide English language teachers with the ability tothink about and use technology in creative and culturally-responsive ways. The overall findings
help language educators arrive at a deeper understanding of the substantial roles that DST canplay in cultivating various aspects of digital literacy and boosting up writing-related selfefficacy as a language learner.
Literature Review
Digital Literacy
Literacy has evolved historically from classic literacy (reading-writing-understanding) toaudiovisual literacy to digital literacy or information literacy and recently to new media literacy.
With the advent of the new literacies, today’s reading and writing instruction are influenced by
the change in even more profound ways. Due to their inherent characteristic of change, aprecise definition of the “new literacies” seems unfeasible. Nevertheless, teachers andresearchers agree that today’s students need and deserve the skills, strategies, and insights tosuccessfully exploit the rapidly changing information and communication technologies that
continuously emerge in our world (Leu, 2000; Street, 2003). Digital literacy is also called 21stCentury Literacy, Digital Age Literacies, and 21st Century Skills (Brown, Bryan, & Brown,
2005; Jakes, 2006). According to Ferrari (2012), “ Being digitally literate implies the ability tounderstand media (as most mediums are digitalized), to search and think critically about
retrievable information (with the widespread use of the Internet) and be able to communicate
with others through a variety of digital tools and applications “ (p. 16).
Given the EIL context and the chosen platform of the present study, digital literacy here refers
to the following types of literacy, namely information literacy, reproduction/visual literacy,
language-based literacy, and connection literacy. The first two were adopted from EshetAlkalai et al. (2004), whereas the latter two were delineated by the researcher. Eshet-Alkalai
et al. (2004) proposed that digital literacy can be categorized into five cognitive skills: photovisual literacy, reproduction literacy, branching literacy, information literacy, and socioemotional literacy. The current study adopted information literacy and combined reproduction
and photo-visual literacy into one category due to their relevance to the current context. First,
information literacy is defined as the ability to evaluate and assess information accurately,
which is vital for information consumers in this information-overflow era. While surfing theInternet or navigating through digital databases, users face the difficulty of evaluating thecredibility and originality of information. Therefore, users rely on their information literacy tomake educated and intelligent assessments of information (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004).
Information-literate people are skilled in critical thinking and are skeptical of the quality of
information. Also, Mardis (2002) argued that information literacy is like a filter that
distinguishes incorrect, unrelated, or biased information and avoids its influences on users’
cognition. Second, reproduction/visual literacy is the ability to create new interpretations byusing pre-existing information from different media such as texts, visuals, and audio.
Reproduction literacy is vital in writing and art. In writing, people can reorganize and rearrange
pre-existing sentences to produce distinct implications. In art, people can edit and combine
visual or audio materials to make new creations (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004). Third, languagebased literacy refers to EIL’s students’ ability in exploring, discerning, and utilizing English
information from web 2.0 sources. The innovation of the Internet provides space for people tocommunicate and share information/knowledge with others. However, the Internet alsopresents many traps, such as hoaxes and malware. In general, English language-based literacy
is the ability to make a sound judgment of various English-mediated online sources and identify

68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Internet traps. Finally, connection literacy pertains to EIL students’ capacity of branching out
to English-mediated cyber world with aims to communicate with other English speakers,
establish a connection with them, and professionally collaborate with them. In other words,
connection literate users are capable of sharing data with others, evaluating information, andcollaboratively constructing knowledge with others.
DST and its Educational Benefits
DST can be traced back to the late 1980s when new media technologies were merely justaround the corner. DST is not a new invention. Joe Lambert (2002) helped establish DST as
the co-founder of the Center for Digital Storytelling (CDS), a non-profit, community arts
organization for new media and civic engagement in Berkeley, California. Since the early
1990s, Lambert and the CDS have offered training and assistance to those who were interested
in creating and sharing their personal narratives (Center for Digital Storytelling, 2005). The
development of DST highly relates to the evolution of internet technology known as usercontributed content, social media, and Web 2.0 (Robin, 2016). Through Web 2.0, people
transformed from “one-to-many” communication to “many-to-many” communication on theInternet (Roush, 2006). Similar to traditional storytelling, digital stories relate to specific topics
and usually generate unique ideas (Robin, 2016). The definition is somewhat agreed upon;
nevertheless, the uses of DST for learning have been quite diverse. Some educators use DST
as a way to cultivate digital literacy, while others utilize it to motivate students to write. Bothendeavors have been relatively successful for students in various educational contexts.
Many studies show that DST bears a positive impact on digital literacy. For instance, Robin(2016) claimed that students’ technology literacy was enhanced as they added texts, images,
audio, and video into their digital stories, whereas Sylvester and Greenidge (2009) found thatstudents tended to employ both old and new literacies while creating digital stories. Thang etal. (2014) claimed that DST helped enhance students’ language literacy, communication
literacy, and media literacy. Besides, creating digital stories not only enhances students’ digital
literacy but also helps them achieve school-based curriculum goals (Karakoyuna and Kuzub,2013). Besides academic gains and strengthened digital literacy (Alameen, 2011), DST also
exerted its influence on L1 and L2 language learning (Yoon, 2013; Potts et al., 2010; Xu et al.,2011). Yoon (2013) looked into how DST affected the 5th-grade ELL students’ English
learning and concluded that students’ learning motivation and reading comprehension were
improved. Moreover, Potts et al. (2010) conducted an experimental study in a language arts
class with a group of second grade, multi-lingual students in the US. They reported that DST
engaged students in a meaningful social context in which their collaborative learning waspromoted (Potts et al., 2010, p.190). The DST experience also boosted students’ learning
motivation. The above studies suggest that DST has the potential to enhance digital literacy,
cultivate academic gains, facilitate language learning, and boost up learning motivation.
DST and Empowerment
Besides its facilitating effects on digital literacy, language development, and learning
motivation, DST has been used as a means of empowerment for marginalized voices acrosscommunity-based projects worldwide. Xu, Park, and Baek (2011) examined the effects of DST
on writing flow and self-efficacy in the virtual reality learning environment where sixty-four
undergraduate Korean students were recruited to participate in the study. The results show that
their writing self-efficacy and flow improved after engaging in DST (Xu et al., 2011, p. 188).
Yoon (2013) found similar results in his study as he investigated the effects of storytelling on
L2 learning attitudes and reading comprehension. Different from Xu et al. study, theparticipants in this study were 32 EIL 5th graders in South Korea. In addition to the69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

improvement of writing self-efficacy, this study also indicates that DST is instrumental in
improving students’ reading. In sum, the studies reviewed in this section point out a positive
influence of DST in learning motivation and writing efficacy among L2 learners (Alameen,
2011; Potts, 2013; Xu et al., 2011; Yoon, 2013). These findings suggest that DST can be avalid tool for educational purposes. Aside from merely encouraging students to write, educators
see digital stories as an empowering mechanism to provide a voice to those who are typicallymarginalized (Yuan et al., 2019).
The similar empowerment effect is very likely to take place with EIL participants when theirwritings are shared publicly through Storybird. In other words, integrating DST with theEnglish composition class has the potential to boost EIL participants’ confidence to compose
and communicate in English as an empowering pedagogy. DST has been utilized as anempowering pedagogy in educational settings. For example, teachers delivered subject mattersthrough digital stories and empowered the students by asking them to be the storytellers (Liu,Tai, & Liu, 2018). Creating digital stories encourages learners to develop their voices insteadof merely imitating others’ words (Al-Qallaf & Al-Mutairi, 2016). To be a good storyteller, alearner strives to integrate his/her intentions and perspectives into digital stories (Bloch, 2018).
Similarly, Robin (2016) pointed out that the personal narrative that the storytellers tell about
their own experiences constitutes the most popular type of digital story. For instance, in the
study above by Robin (2016), the teachers who implemented DST in their classrooms foundthat students’ motivation and engagement levels were increased as a result of telling theirpersonal stories. Robin (2016) maintained that the phenomenon supported the idea of the“director’s chair effect.” By digital storytelling, students had chances to express themselves,
which gave rise to their sense of efficacy. In sum, the findings from the previous studies suggestthat digital storytelling, when utilized appropriately, can serve as a dynamic teaching andlearning method that brings about academic gains, language development, digital literacy
development, and a sense of efficacy in students.
Nevertheless, the contributing effects of DST on digital literacy identified by the previous
studies (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Thang et al., 2014;) are mostly derived from a single
survey and/or self-appraisal by the participants. Besides, the questionnaire used by the previous
study did not break down the construct of digital literacy into its sub-domains. To mend thisgap and respond to the call by Belcher (2017) for further research on exploring the trajectory
among the affordances of multimodality of digital storytelling, digital literacy, and L2 writing
pedagogy, the current study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to shed more
light on this juncture.
MethodDesignThis research utilized a case-study approach (Richards, 2003) to provide both quantitative andqualitative data of a group of Taiwanese university students engaged in year-long digitalstorytelling, which was integrated as part of their L2 writing practices. According to Duff(2014), a case study is suitable when understanding individuals’ experiences and development
courses within a particular educational context is the goal. This case study is exploratory innature with an attempt to gain insight into the potential effects of DST on developing L2
learners’ digital literacy and self-efficacy. The researcher functioned as an instructor of thecourse and a participant observer in the physical class and the cyber space. Most students
entered this class with a good grasp of computer literacy and above-average communicationcompetence in English. The study lasted for the entire school year from the fall semester of70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 20202017 to the spring semester of 2018. At the onset of the study, the students were introduced to
Storybird-mediated writing as an integral component of the course. To tap into the participants’view of Storybird-mediated digital storytelling, qualitative data were also gathered from an
open-ended survey and a group interview toward the end of the study.
Participants and Setting
As a result of convenient sampling, eighteen English-major freshmen enrolled in the
Composition One course were recruited to take part in this one-year, Storybird-mediated DST
project. The average English proficiency of 18 participants was between B1 and B2 based on
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) with one-third of them
comfortably landed on B2 while two-thirds remained on B1. Composition One is a required
year-long course for every English-major freshman in this 4-year college. The class meets twohours per week in an attempt to cultivate students’ ability to write a 5-paragraph academic
essay as the ultimate goal. At the beginning of the fall semester in 2017, two tutorial sessions
were conducted to orientate the participants to this relatively novel way of composing andwriting. In line with the course objectives for each writing practice, the participants were asked
to compose and illustrate their first draft on Storybird. The instructor, also the researcher of thecurrent study, commented on the participants’ writings via Storybird. When the participants
finished their second draft, they would receive voluntary comments from the other EIL students
studying at the other university. The partnership was formed via the collaboration with anotherprofessor’s composition class voluntarily. They were encouraged to visit their partners’
Storybird writings and leave comments as well. There were three telecollaborative exchanges
among the students.
Procedures
Storybird was a free Web 2.0 1 publishing tool providing collections of artwork for digitalstories. It was chosen as a DST platform for this study because it is user friendly and safe
cyberspace for creating and writing. Unlike other multimodal platforms, such as Padlet or
Photo Story, Storybird allows teachers to conveniently set up accounts for their students andorganize them into classes. Using Storybird, the teacher can comment on the students’ written
assignments and set the deadline for students to submit their revisions. The work students
produce can then be shared among the members and peer-assessed. Thus, on top of the
instructor’s comments, students are able to see and learn from what other students have written.
Crucially, it can also be published for the whole world to see, which lends itself nicely to theconcept of learning English as a global language with communication as a primary goal.
Data Collection and Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to shed new light on how the participants’digital literacy and self-efficacy were affected as they took part in the Storybird-mediatedwriting course. This study also tapped into the participants’ points of view as to how they
perceived this novel way of writing. Two quantitative instruments, the Digital Literacy Scaleand the Self-Efficacy of Using English as International Language, were developed by the
researcher to gather numerical data on the participants’ digital literacy and self-efficacy. The
digital literacy scale has four dimensions investigating the participants’ information,
reproduction/visual, language-based, and connection literacy. These four dimensions werechosen in light of the prior research (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004) as well as the educational needsof EIL learners. The self-efficacy questionnaire for EIL learners was developed by referring to
1

Storybird is no longer free. Now it charges teachers and students for writing and publishing on the platform.

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Bandura’s (2006) notion of learner’s sense of efficacy to gauge the empowering effects ofStorybird-mediated DST on cultivating communication, writing-related, and purpose-driven
efficacy. Both instruments have piloted with thirty other first-year college students andobtained satisfactory reliability coefficients of Cronbach’s Alphas of .828 and .88 for digital
literacy and self-efficacy, respectively. Several paired-samples t-tests were performed to detect
any differences in digital literacy and self-efficacy between the pretests and posttests. An openended survey and a group interview regarding the participants’ view of Storybird-mediated
DST were conducted. The survey and interview data were content analyzed to explore
emerging themes. To establish the trustworthiness of the qualitative data, the data gathered via
qualitative methods were used to triangulate with the quantitative data.
Results and Discussion
Quantitative data from digital literacy and the self-efficacy questionnaire were analyzed to
identify the potential effects of Storybird-mediated DST on participants’ digital literacy andself-efficacy as EIL users. In addition to quantitative analysis, qualitative data were collected
through the open-ended survey to understand the participants’ perceptions of partaking in the
Storybird-integrated composition class. In the following sections, three major findings will bepresented as tentative answers to the three research questions, accompanied by discussion.
Research question 1: Is there any significant difference in university EIL students’ selfrated English digital literacy before and after their part-taking in Storybird-mediateddigital storytelling?
There is a significant difference in the participants’ overall digital literacy after year-longparticipation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling. A questionnaire for self-rated English
digital literacy was administered to 18 students twice to detect any changes in their digital
literacy before and after the intervention. Cronbach’s Alphas of .84 and .89 were obtained forthe pretest and the posttest of the digital literacy questionnaire, which suggests the satisfactoryreliability coefficient of both tests. Table 1 summarizes the difference in the overall digital
literacy, information literacy, reproduction literacy, language-based literacy, and connection
literacy between the pretest and the posttest. The participants rated themselves higher in theoverall and four sub-categories of digital literacy after year-long engagement in Storybirdmediated digital writing. Among the four sub-categories of digital literacy, the participants
made the most substantial gain in reproduction/visual literacy while the least in information
literacy.
Table 1: Summary of pretest and posttest of the digital literacy scale
PretestOverall
I: Information literacy
II: Reproduction literacy
III: Language-based literacy
IV: Connection literacy(N=18)

Mean
11.05
2.90
2.79
2.54
2.83

SD
1.28
0.43
0.41
0.35
0.48

Posttest
Mean
SD
11.77
1.65
2.97
0.55
3.13
0.49
2.63
0.44
3.04
0.45

This identified discrepancy between information and reproduction/visual literacy may be
attributed to the chosen DST platform and the designated writing tasks. The platform, Storybird,
involves choosing artwork to illustrate the participants’ writing as the end product, which

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

ultimately trained the participants’ ability to create new interpretations by using pre-existingvisual sources. The considerably increased reproduction literacy might also help theparticipants write better, the effects worthy of investigating in the future study. While writing,it is crucial to be able to reorganize and rearrange pre-existing sentences to produce distinct
implications. According to Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1998), successful reproductionliterate scholars usually possess excellent synthetical and multi-faceted thinking, which may
contribute to more skillful writing. However, as they wrote and selected artworks, theparticipants were not required to include outside source references as they composed theirparagraphs or essays. As a result, the platform and the task did not land themselves to thedevelopment of information literacy.
To further identify if there was any significant difference in the overall and sub-categories ofdigital literacy before and after the intervention, five paired-samples t-tests were carried out.
The results are displayed in Table 2. According to the paired-samples t-tests, there are
significant differences in the overall and the reproduction/visual literacy between the pretestand the posttest. However, there is no significant difference in information literacy, languagebased literacy and connection literacy between the pretest and the posttest.
Table 2: Paired-samples t-test results of a questionnaire of digital literacy
Mean
Overall (Post-Pre)
0.72
Information literacy
0.07(Post-Pre)
Reproduction
0.34
literacy (Post-Pre)
Language-based
0.09
literacy (Post-Pre)
Connection literacy
0.21(Post-Pre)*P< .05 **P< .01

Std.
Deviation
1.10
0.41

Std. Error
Mean
0.26
0.10

t

df

2.80
0.78

17
17

Sig. (2tailed)
.01*
0.45

0.45

0.11

3.25

17

.005**

0.34

0.08

1.16

17

0.26

0.43

0.10

2.10

17

0.05

Different from the researcher’s anticipation, there is no significant difference in languagebased literacy which the participants were offered ample opportunities to develop. The current
results concerning digital literacy are partially consistent with the findings from previous
research (Thang, Sim, Mahmud, Lin, & Ismail, 2014; Robin, 2016). Similar to Thang et al.
(2014) study, where their participants’ digital literacy was improved after creating their groupstories on Photo Story 3 for a semester, the present study also saw the enhanced overall digital
literacy. Nevertheless, unlike the study above by Thang et al. (2014) in which the participants’language literacy, connection literacy, and media literacy were all enhanced, the current study
only found a significant difference in reproduction/visual literacy. As explained earlier, thenature of Storybird and the tasks involved might be the possible reasons to account for the nonsignificant, pre-post difference in the sub-category of information, language-based, andconnection literacy.
The non-significant finding in language-based literacy appears to be in contrast to Robin’s(2016) assertion that engaging in multimodal DST facilitates the enhancement of digitalstorytellers’ language literacy, oral ability, and cross-cultural competence. In his study, theparticipants used audio or other media to compose digital storytelling, and their language73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

literacy was substantially improved. On the contrary, the current study did not see such a
positive outcome in language-based literacy although the 18 participants had written andrevised several English paragraphs and essays on Storybird during the two semesters. The
plausible reason may include that the digital writing tasks on Stoirybird did not ask theparticipants to focus on spotting grammatical errors, paraphrasing or summarizing information
and/or deciphering the content of websites. The only item under language-based literacy thathas reached significant difference states, “I can identify English information that is not correct.”
As the participants composed on Storybird, they had to search for an outside source to back up
their writing assignments. This may account for the significant difference identified in this item.
Another interesting finding surfaced as the connection literacy was on the brink of reaching asignificant difference (P= .051). This may due to the fact that the participants were only
provided with limited opportunities to engage in peer sharing/commenting with their partners
in the nearby colleges. There were only three times that the participants reviewed andcommented on others’ Storybird writings as well as being reviewed and commented on
throughout the entire school year. Should the cross-institutional collaboration has lasted longer,
the connection literacy might have further developed. In light of the enhanced overall digital
literacy, it is also essential to find out if the integration of Storybird has boosted the participants’sense of confidence in speaking and writing in English as an International Language.
Research question 2: How does DST affect participants’ self-efficacy as EIL users after
taking part in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
There is no significant difference in the overall self-efficacy of being an EIL user among the
18 participants before and after the intervention; nevertheless, a significant difference was
identified in the aspect of writing-related self-efficacy. To investigate the effects of Storybirdmediated DST on self-efficacy, the questionnaire of self- efficacy as EIL user was administered
to 18 participants in the beginning and the end of the school year. Table 3 provides a summaryof the mean scores and standard deviations of the overall and the three domains in the pre andpost self-efficacy scores for 18 participants. Table 2 indicates that the participants’ self-efficacy
as EIL user were boosted in their overall and the three domains. The reliabilities of the pretestand posttest were calculated with satisfactory Cronbach’s (α = 0.861 for the pretest and 0.854
for the posttest).
Table 3: Summary of pretest and posttest of self-efficacy as EIL user questionnaire
PretestOverall
I: Communication
II: Writing-Related
III: Purpose-Driven(N=18)

Mean
7.67
2.67
2.49
2.54

SD
1.00
0.48
0.41
0.35

Posttest
Mean
SD
8.00
1.24
2.76
0.51
2.64
0.49
2.63
0.44

Four paired-samples t-tests were performed to examine the effect of Storybird-mediated DST
on the participants’ self-efficacy and its three domains before and after the intervention. Table
4 shows that there is no significant difference in overall, communication, and purpose-driven
self-efficacy. Nevertheless, a significant difference was identified in writing-related selfefficacy, which suggests that the participants’ writing-related self-efficacy was significantly
enhanced at the end of this study (t=2.43, p<.05, d=.54).

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 4: Paired-samples t-test of pe and post-test of self-efficacy ofusing English as an international language
Mean
Overall (Post-Pre)
Communication (PostPre)
Writing (Post-Pre)
Purpose (Post-Pre)*P<.05

Std. Error
Mean
0.21
0.08

t

df

0.33
0.09

Std.
Deviation
0.88
0.35

1.60
1.14

17
17

Sig. (2tailed)
0.13
0.27

0.15
0.08

0.29
0.43

0.07
0.10

2.28
0.83

17
17

0.04*
0.42

Different from the insignificant difference identified with the current participants, Yang and
Wu (2012) reported that DST had significant effects on senior high school students’ English
proficiency, critical thinking, and self-efficacy. Although Yang and Wu focused on high school
students’ English learning motivation, they did include five items for self-efficacy in theirmotivation questionnaire. Their research results indicate that the use of DST in the English
class positively influenced their students’ learning motivation, and their writing self-efficacy,
a domain in writing motivation, was significantly improved at the end of the study. For thepresent study, lack of practice might be the main reason accounting for the non-significant
findings with the overall, communication-related, and purpose-driven self-efficacy after yearlong engagement in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling. The participants did not get
sufficient opportunities to communicate with their cross-institution partners via digitalstorytelling; neither did they have enough practices to accomplish specific tasks through digitalstorytelling. As a result, their sense of confidence was not cultivated. Given ample practices,
their self-efficacy of using English for communication and purposes might be elevated, as in
the case of their writing-related self-efficacy, the primary focus of this study. The statistic
findings suggest that self-efficacy in one language skill cannot collude to others unless there
are a compatible amount of practices evenly allocated for other language skills.
Unlike the insignificant statistical difference in the participants’ overall self-efficacy, thequalitative analysis from the open-ended survey indicates that the majority of the participantsconsidered their sense of confidence being promoted as a result of partaking in the Storybirdmediated digital storytelling. Every participant affirmed the statement that their sense ofconfidence had been enhanced after year-long writing training. When asked if the integrationof Storybird writing has somehow contributed to their enhanced confidence, the majority
responded positively, with only 4 out of 16 respondents answering with ambivalence. Many
participants attributed the compliments from other Storybird writers as the leading cause for
their elevated confidence. For example, Erica recalled, “I have received some compliments on
my stories from other writers, which has made me feel more confident in my writing.” Similarly,
Jessica pointed out that Storybird not only has made English writing more exciting but also
removed her apprehension towards it, which in turn increased her confidence in English writing.
This finding is consistent with the previous research results (Robin & McNeil, 2012; Sylvester& Greenidge, 2009; Yang & Wu, 2012). Robin & McNeil (2012) postulated that students’ selfefficacy was promoted after implementing DST in the classroom. Interestingly, Sylvester andGreenidge (2009) noticed that the students’ motivation to write increased after they were
informed that their writing assignments would be published on the Internet and viewed by otherpeople other than their teachers, which echoes precisely what some of the participants statedin the survey. For instance, Elaine mentioned, “Somehow, I feel more motivated and confident
to write when I knew that some real readers are out there on the Storybird to read and appreciate75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

my writing,” as she contemplated on her overall experience with Storybird. When the EIL
students have the opportunity to publish their written work on the Internet and receive genuine
comments afterward, their sense of confidence in English writing can be fostered.
Research question 3: What are the participants’ perceptions of integrating Storybird into
their L2 writing class?
Storybird-mediated DST was well-received as an integral part of their composition class by theparticipants. Analyses of the responses from the end-of-year survey indicate theoverwhelmingly positive reaction to the integration of Storybird among the present participants.
The survey consists of 16 questions probing into the participants’ views on integrating
Storybird-mediated DST into their regular composition class, commenting/receiving
comments from other Storybird writers, and operating on the Storybird platform. Three major
themes are presented and illustrated with the participants’ responses, including preferring
Storybird-integrated over conventional writing classes, benefiting from the interaction withother Storybird writers, and wanting some modifications on the Storybird platform.
When asked to choose between the Storybird-integrated and the traditional composition class,the entire cohort except for one student opted for the former for several reasons. The foremost
reason identified by the participants is that Storybird makes English writing more exciting andless inhibiting when compared with the conventional writing class. The participants not only
enjoyed writing on Storybird but also benefited from interacting with other Storybird writers.
Emily pointed out, “It’s delightful to write on Storybird with so many pictures to choose from.
My writing became more interesting and vivid after being illustrated with pictures”. Many
participants mentioned that receiving feedback from people other than the instructor also makes
the writing process worthwhile because having a real audience brings purpose and meaning to
the writing. Most participants found the comments they received helpful in revising their pieceof written work. For instance, Vicky recalled the comments she got from the other Storybird
writer and asserted that “I have never thought my story could be developed that way until I saw
the suggestion from the other Storybird writer. It’s always beneficial to have an additional readto give my writing a fresh look”. Besides receiving helpful comments from others, theparticipants enjoy reading others’ Storybird writings as well. With the considerable advantages
stemming from the Storybird integration, the majority of the participants recommended thecontinuous use of Storybird for next year’s students. Nevertheless, when asked if they would
continue to use Storybird as a writing platform after the current class ended, only 4 participants
said “Yes” while the rest replied with uncertainty.
Most participants acclaimed the vivid and artistic pictures offered by Storybird as the primaryfeature that instilled fun into the writing process. Teresa mentioned, “I really enjoy illustrating
my story with the Storybird pictures. This process helped me relax and become less concerned
about my imperfect English”.
Many other participants also acknowledged that when they write on Storybird, they pay more
attention to the content instead of the grammatical accuracy of their English compositions. For
example, Alisa mentioned that “While I am writing on Storybird, I pay less attention togrammatical accuracy and vocabulary usage; instead, I focus on my contents. On the contrary,when I am writing with the other way, I will pay more attention to them. I think the differenceis that for me, my works in Storybird are like stories; however, when they are in a traditionalway, they are essays.” In addition to the eye-catching pictures provided on the Storybird
platform, many participants applauded the opportunity to interact with other Storybird writers
via reading and commenting on each other’s stories. When asked what they mostly focused on

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

while commenting on others’ Storybird writing, fourteen out of the 18 participants said thatthey mainly focused on the content, two on the language accuracy, and the remaining two on
the structure. They believe that the content is the core of any story and deserves the mostattention. Therefore, when the participants commented on others’ Storybird writing, theyusually thought of themselves as a reader and a language learner. The participants voiced theirpreference for constructive comments advising how they can revise their stories. Emily
explained, “With this kind of comment, I would know what to do with my story. As for thosecomments with only compliments, I welcome them, but I think I learn little from them”.
Although the participants held very positive views of Storybird, they identified some
limitations of this platform, such as no flexibility of mixing illustrations from various artists,
no spelling checker, the difficulty of locating matching pictures, and difficulty of modifying
the story. The participants would like to see some of the aforementioned problems being
addressed with the updated version of Storybird.
The main reasons accounting for the participants’ positive attitudes toward the Storybirdintegrated digital writing are similar to the previous study (Dogan, 2012; Hett, 2012) where thesubjects enjoyed writing with the artistic pictures and interacting with their peers. Hett (2012)
postulated that the technologically enhanced images and audio made DST captivating foryoung writers. Although Storybird is not equipped with audio recording, the participants in thecurrent study were drawn enchantedly to writing a story with pictures. In addition, mostparticipants believe that they have made substantial progress in English writing as a result oftaking part in this project, which echoes Yoon’s (2013) argument that DST can improvestudents’ language growth in reading, writing, speaking and listening. In sum, integrating
Storybird into a conventional composition course has been perceived as a motivating,stimulating, interactive, and facilitating innovation by the current participants who fervently
suggested the continued use of the platform for the upcoming freshman class.
Pedagogical Implications and Conclusion
The overall findings of this study suggest that DST can be a practical and empoweringpedagogical addition to the existing EIL writing course. Different from the previous studies
which relied on a single survey result to report the potential effects of DST on cultivating digital
literacy (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Thang et al., 2014), this study pointed out the differingoutcomes among sub-categories of digital literacy. The differing outcomes suggest that merely
integrating a technologically advanced approach will not automatically develop all aspects ofdigital literacy. The type of digital literacy mainly cultivated hinges upon the nature of the
adopted platform and the characteristics of instructional task design. Explicit instructions on
verifying the source reliability and identifying the media bias are needed to cultivate students’
information literacy. With the unprecedented overflow and preoccupation of social media
among youth, cultivating their information and connection literacy became far more crucial
than before. To help adult EIL students become prudent consumer of social media rather thanbeing consumed by social media, the English language teachers ought to educate their students
about how to “use technology as a tool to engage in creative, productive, lifelong learning
rather than simply consuming passive content” (Thomas, 2016, p. 18). This study offers someguidelines for EIL teachers to integrate multimodal DST as an empowering pedagogy.
The quantitative results suggest that integrating Storybird with the conventional EIL writing
course has positive effects on cultivating adult EIL students’ digital literacy and promoting
their writing-related self-efficacy. The current participants not only rated their overall digital
literacy but also reproduction/visual literacy higher after their year-long engagement in77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Storybird writing. Higher reproduction/visual literacy is often associated with proficientsynthetical and multi-faceted thinking (Labbo et al., 1998), two essential prerequisites toskillful writing. In other words, the current participants’ writing might also have improved. For
future study, it will be of significance to investigate whether this engaging in DST will also
help EIL students improve their academic writing. Besides higher digital literacy, theparticipants also developed a stronger sense of self-efficacy as an EIL writer, which in turn will
help them conquer more challenging writing tasks in the future. The boosted self-efficacy inwriting suggests that confidence cultivated in one language skill cannot transfer onto otherskills. In other words, when EIL students became more confident in one language skill (e.g.,
writing) via specific training, the influence of the training would not get carried over into otherlanguage skills (e.g., speaking, listening or reading). Therefore, it will be ideal for engaging
EIL students in multimodal DST in which they can orally contribute to the digital story. As
such, the participants’ communication-oriented self-efficacy might be promoted. In the present
study, the collaboration was mainly conducted in written form.
Apart from the statistical analysis results, the qualitative findings indicate that Storybird waswell received by the cohort of 18 students who have expressed enthusiasm toward writing withartful pictures. Despite some difficulties in locating suitable pictures to illustrate their writing,many participants wanted to write more and practice more on Storybird. DST contains not only
traditional literacy but also new literacies as it involves multimedia texts. Students who struggle
with traditional literacy may have a stronger motivation and a better grasp of traditional literacy
when they create digital stories. Thus, new literacies have the potential to scaffold students’traditional literacy (Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009). In both reading and writing, DST is a new
medium for struggling students (Hett, 2012). Interestingly, students’ motivation to write
increased after they were informed that their writing assignments would be published on theInternet and viewed by other people besides teachers. Therefore, the current study suggests thatteachers can use DST to motivate reluctant students and stimulate them to revise and complete
writing assignments for a broader audience out there on the Internet. According to Pop (2012),
students of higher education are often considered self-efficacious learners. Their self-efficacy
on learning is often underestimated. However, students’ motivation and engagement are two
essential elements for successful learning (Pop, 2012; Yang & Wu, 2012). The current study
shows that DST enhanced the students’ engagement in English learning and their productivity
in English writing. The results of the open-ended survey also affirmed the positive effects ofStorybird-mediated DST on digital literacy and self-efficacy among adult EIL students. Despite
the overall positive findings, some participants voiced their frustration toward choosing thesuitable artworks to illustrate their more complicated pieces of writing. Some expressed theirtiredness of finding the right pictures to match their writings over the course of one school year.
Based on these negative feedbacks, it is advisable for any teacher who intends to introduce a
DST platform to his/her students that sticking to one single platform throughout the entire year
may not be the best practice. It’s worth trying more than one platform to gauge its instructional
affordance and sustainability.
Albeit the theoretical and pedagogical implications, the generalizability of the current study toother L2 contexts is limited in the following aspects. First, the differences identified from thepaired-samples t-tests do not denote the interaction among digital storytelling, L2 digital
literacy/writing self-efficacy, and time. Second, the number of participants is not significant
enough to warrant the predictability of similar outcomes when the study is replicated. Third,
the current study did not investigate the effects of DST on L2 writing gains. The developmentof L2 writing can only be inferred from the participants’ self-reported data. In light of the above
limitations, the future study may recruit more participants and randomly divide them into the78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

experimental group with DST and the control group with conventional L2 writing pedagogy to
explore the potential differences in digital literacy, self-efficacy, and L2 writing competence.
Also, the future study should look into the effects of DST on writing development among L2
learners.

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Alameen, G. (2011). Learner digital stories in a Web 2.0 age. TESOL Journal, 2(3), 355–369.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.259954
Al-Qallaf, C. L., & Al-Mutairi, A. S. R. (2016). Digital literacy and digital content supports
learning: The impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language. The Electronic
Library, 34(3), 522–547. https://doi. org/10.1108/EL-05- 2015-0076
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Belcher, D. (2017). On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 80–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.004
Bloch, J. (2018). Digital Storytelling in the multilingual academic writing classroom:
Expanding the possibilities. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English
Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 96–110.
https://doi.org/10.30617/dialogues.2.1.6
Brown, J., Bryan, J., & Brown, T. (2005). Twenty-first century literacy and technology in K–8
classrooms. Innovate, 1(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=17.
Center for Digital Storytelling. (2005). Center for Digital Storytelling Web site. Retrieved
March 12, 2019, from http://www.storycenter.org/history.html
Churchill, N. (2016). Digital storytelling as a means of supporting digital literacy learning inan upper-primary-school English language classroom [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Edith Cowan University.
Dogan, B. (2012). Educational uses of digital storytelling in K-12: Research results of digitalstorytelling contest (DISTCO) 2012. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012-Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.
1353–1362). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE).
Duff, P. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 34, 233–255. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0267190514000051
Eshet-Alkali, Y. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.421
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Seville: Institutefor Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission.
Hett, K. (2012). Technology-supported literacy in the classroom: Using audiobooks and digitalstorytelling to enhance literacy instruction. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40(3), 3–
13.
Hockly, N. (2012). Digital literacies, ELT Journal-English Language Teaching, 66(1), 108–112.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr077
Jakes, D. (2006). Standards-proof your digital storytelling efforts. TechLearning, March 2006.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180204072.

80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Karakoyuna, F., & Kuzub, A. (2013). Examining digital storytelling in terms of the 21st century
skills development. TEL2013 Technology-enhanced Learning. Singapore.
Labbo, L. D.,Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in thenext century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journalof Education, 73(3-4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1998.9681895
Lambert, J. (2002). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. Berkeley, CA:
Digital Diner Press.
Leahy, D. & Dolan D. (2010). Digital literacy: a vital competence for 2010? In N. Reynolds& M. Turcsányi-Szabó, (Eds), Key Competencies in the Knowledge Society. KCKS
2010. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol 324 (pp210–221). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-153785_21
Leu, D.J., Jr. (2000). Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 424–431.
Liu, K., Tai, S. D., & Liu, C. (2018). Enhancing language learning through creation: The
effect of digital storytelling on student learning motivation and performance in aschool English course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4),913–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423- 018- 9592- z
Mardis, M. A. (2002). Mind the gap: An overview of perceptual barriers to k-12 information
literacy. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA, 2001 World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (1221–
1222). Denver, USA. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education.
Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2012). 101 年度施政⽅針 Educational Policy for the Year2012]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=27519
Poore, M. (2011). Digital literacy: human flourishing and collective intelligence in aknowledge society. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 19(2), 20–26.
Pop, A. (2012). Enhancing English language writing and speaking through digitalstorytelling. Retrieved fromhttp://www.icvl.eu/2012/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/intel/ICVL_IntelEducation_paper6.
pdf
Potts, D. (2013). Plurilingualism as multimodal practice. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 625–630.
https://doi. org/10.1002/tesq.118
Potts, A., Schlichting, K., Pridgen A., & Hatch, J. (2010). Understanding new literacies for
new times: Pedagogy in action. The International Journal of Learning, 17(8), 187–
193. https://doi. org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i08/47139
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Robin, B. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Digital
Education Review, 30, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2016.30.17-29

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Robin, B.R., & McNeil, S.G. (2012). What educators should know about teaching digitalstorytelling. Digital Education Review, 22, 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2012.22.37-51
Roush,W. (2006). Yahoo’s Web 2.0 overhaul. Technology Review. Retrieved fromhttp://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/16883/
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy intheory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education 5(2), Retrieved on May
12, 2014, from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/
Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for
struggling writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.4.3
Thang, S., Sim, L.Y., Mahmud, N., Lin, K. L., & Ismail, K. (2014). Enhancing 21st century
learning skills via digital storytelling: Voices of Malaysian teachers andundergraduates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 489–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.067
Thomas, S. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Xu, Y., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity
focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 14(4), 181–191.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic
achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental
study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012
Yoon, T. (2013). Are you digitized? Ways to provide motivation for ELLs using digitalstorytelling. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology,2(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2012.204.
Yuan, C., Wang, L., & Eagle, J. (2019). Empowering English language learner students
through digital literacies: Research, complexities, and implications. Media andCommunication, 7(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1912
Corresponding author: Min-Hsun ChiangContact email: minhsunl@thu.edu.tw

82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Proficient Speakers of English as a Foreign Language:
A Focus-Group StudyAli Dincer
Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Turkey
Tevfik Dariyemez
Ataturk University, Turkey

83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
Although English is the de facto language of communication across nations in today’s world,a limited number of foreign language learners are able to communicate well in English andperceive themselves as competent speakers. Investigating traits of proficient speakers ofEnglish and understanding the reasons behind their speaking skills can guide language teachersin creating supportive language learning contexts for their students. This study explores what
proficient speakers of English do to gain success in speaking, and it sheds light on how to
improve speaking skills in language learning. The study examines what factors play animportant role in the language development of proficient speakers of English. Sixteen English
as a foreign language (EFL) students who had the highest scores on English speaking tests
volunteered for this study; four focus groups were created with four participants in each group.
Content analysis results indicate that contextual factors – including self-practice, teacher factor,
experience abroad, Turkish context, out-of-class technology use, and affective factors,
including motivation and anxiety – are important for speaking enhancement. Findings clearly
reveal that language learning should go beyond the confines of the school and be supportedwith technology-enhanced extracurricular exercises in EFL contexts. Moreover, what
motivates language learners to study English and how they feel while speaking should beconsidered while teaching or planning their speaking lessons.
Keywords: speaking skills, proficient speakers, contextual factors, motivation, anxiety

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

With two billion-plus speakers, including native and non-native speakers with different
competencies, the English language has become a fundamental need for individuals in thisglobalizing world (Crystal, 2008; Ethnologue, 2019; Graddol, 2006). As a result, the number
of English as a foreign or second language speakers (L2) is growing (Crystal, 2008). Since
knowing a language is equated with speaking that language fluently, speaking English has
become a primary goal for most L2 learners. However, a limited number of English learners
can be categorized as competent speakers of the language. According to the recent EF English
Proficiency Index (English First, 2019), only 14 countries have a very high proficiency index
and many countries (30) fall into the shallow proficiency index among 100 non-English
speaking countries under investigation for adult English proficiency with standardized tests. It
is commonly accepted that many EFL instruction programs strive to provide appropriate
conditions for learners to gain high proficiency in English. However, despite the importance of
fluent spoken language, scant research attention has been given to strategies that can be
employed to enhance speaking (Pawlak, 2018). With its specific focus on the experiences of
proficient speakers in achieving success, this study used a qualitative approach to understandthe nature of those proficient speakers and aimed to provide rich data on the influential factors
about speaking enhancement.
Literature Review
Mastery of speaking in another language is a complex process: the speaker must learn a variety
of skills including both linguistic and non-linguistic elements, and should be able to conduct afree-flowing conversation (Dincer, 2017; Richards, 2008; Shumin, 2002; Tarone, 2005; Zhang& Head, 2009). A number of factors affecting speakers’ oral performance, including
maturation constraints (i.e., age), aural medium factors (i.e., listening skills), sociocultural
factors (i.e., cultural elements), and affective factors (i.e., L2 anxiety, L2 motivation, selfesteem, confidence) can be listed in addition to linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discourse
competence (Kawai, 2008; Shumin, 2002). With its complex nature hindering proficiency,
spoken English is arduous; language learners must spend significant time and effort on mastery(Dincer, 2017; Kawai, 2008). Spoken English is also a skill in high demand, as knowing alanguage is frequently equated with speaking a language at a communication level (Pawlak,2018). Most learners in today’s globalized world study English to obtain speaking proficiency;
it is considered the most demanding among the four main language skills: reading, listening,writing and speaking (Dincer, 2017; Zhang & Head, 2009). Although speaking is the mostchallenging skill, most English language learners have limited opportunities to practice thelanguage outside the classroom, despite today’s technological advances (Dincer & Yesilyurt,
2013; Kawai, 2008; Pawlak, 2014, 2018; Ruixue, Zejun, & Yijing, 2012). Teaching the spoken
language has long been a challenge for EFL teachers because some national exams neglectcommunicative competence (Ruixue et al., 2012). As limited numbers of students can conduct
a conversation in English at the desired level, a proficient speaker may be perceived as a
privileged person in society (Dincer, 2017). Additionally, success in oral communication has
always been the ultimate goal for language learners (Dincer, 2017; Pawlak, 2018).
How one successfully learns a language has been of great interest in the L2 research domain,
and a list of shared traits of these learners can be found in the literature (Brown, 2001; Griffiths,
2015; Reiss, 1985; Rubin, 1975; Takeuchi, 2003). Among those shared features, linguistic
mastery of English and oral communication skills is listed. However, specific details regarding
the characteristics of advanced speakers of English have gained little attention (Pawlak, 2018).
In this limited research, Takeuchi (2003) ascertained the strategies of successful language
learners in terms of language sub-skills by investigating the experiences of Japanese EFL

85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

learners. According to Takeuchi (2003), proficient language learners develop their speaking
skills by memorizing some basic sentences and reciting them repeatedly. They also emphasize
accuracy more than fluency. In another study (Takeuchi, 2003, cited in Kawai, 2008), Takeuchi
investigated language learning development of proficient English speakers from different
vocations, including professors and simultaneous interpreters, and listed some strategies formastery of speaking. Similar to his previous research, he found that memorizing formulaic
expressions, practicing listening using dictation, engaging in read-aloud activities, utilizing
context and multimedia for vocabulary enhancement, conducting intensive self-study, andfinding opportunities to talk with native speakers are commonly employed strategies for theselearners.
In her two-step action-research, Kawai (2008) first investigated the role of task-based strategy
instruction with an electronic chat program in students’ speaking performance with the ideathat it might ease intimidation in face-to-face interaction. Later, she gathered the viewpoints of
two proficient speakers of English about the class discussion activities. She found that the useof electronic chat programs can be useful for reserved learners to let them practice English
without fear of making mistakes and appearing foolish. The proficient speakers also suggested
that reading aloud, singing songs, making comments while watching TV, speaking withnatives, and simulating conversation with peers are helpful for reducing anxiety and building
confidence in their speaking skills. They also pointed to precautionary measures incommunication breakdowns and learning from their failures as speaking-enhancement
strategies.
Marzec-Stawiarska (2015) investigated the relationship between anxiety and speaking
proficiency in advanced learners of English as the literature on this relationship is notunanimous. She found that although language learners may have an adequate level of English
proficiency, they experience stress and worry in a speaking context. They are anxious about
their fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and the content of their oral performances and are
afraid of talking with native speakers. In another study, Pawlak (2015) investigated thecommunication strategies of advanced learners and found that students use non-verbal
strategies, negotiation for meaning, social affective strategies, accuracy-oriented strategies, andfluency-oriented strategies in their communication. These learners attempt to make eye contact
when they talk, provide examples if the listener does not understand what they say, enjoy theconversation, correct themselves when they notice that they make a mistake, and attempt tospeak clearly and loudly to make themselves understood. He also found that learners’ answers
are quite varied; for example, “I give up when I can’t make myself understood,” “I think firstof what I want to say in my native language and then construct the English sentence,” and “I
ask other people to help when I can’t communicate well.”
In a more recent study, Lee and Heinz (2016) grouped the effective and ineffective strategiesof advanced learners for speaking with unstructured essays. In parallel to Takeuchi’s findings(2003), they discovered that memorization and repetition activities are effective for thedevelopment of speaking skills. Students repeatedly practice language, memorize English
expressions and collocations and incorporate them into their conversation, read aloud, listen to
English, practice creative writing, increase their exposure to English, and mimic native
speakers. They also said passive activities such as simply listening to native speakers, watching
them, or reading books without studying them and placing emphasis on grammar are noteffective for them. In his follow-up study, Pawlak (2018) investigated the speaking strategies
that advanced learners of English used before, during, and after the performance of two
communication-based tasks in pairs. According to the written responses of students, learners

86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

most frequently used metacognitive strategies in all stages of task performance. Specifically,
they engaged in planning their contribution in terms of searching for details for content, finding
appropriate vocabulary, monitoring their performance concerning language-related issues, andpaying attention to their partner’s speech. They also used social strategies such as cooperation,
asking for clarification, or verification in all stages of task performance.
Although relevant literature is somewhat overlapping in terms of speaking enhancement
activities, it offers various strategies based on individual success stories and teacher-assigned,task-based communication activities. The literature also includes semi-structured, questionbased written answers of learners with a limited focus on out-of-class experience. Focus-groupinterviews are advised in literature for a more thorough understanding of strategies employed
by a specific group of students (Chamot, 2004). Additionally, in today’s digital era, it isundeniable that successful language learning is not limited to in-class activities; out-of-classactivities have a significant impact on language learning (Lai, 2017). However, many questions
about how proficient language learners develop their speaking skills remain to be unanswered,and there is a call for more research with successful learners to uncover experience-based
working suggestions for enhancement of speaking skills (Dincer, 2017; Kawai, 2008; Lee &Heinz, 2016; Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009; Pawlak, 2018). To this end, gaining an
understanding of proficient learners’ successful journeys might shed light on the improvementof speaking skills in language learning for learners and provide pedagogical insights forlanguage teachers.
Aim of the study
Given the limitations of literature and the scarcity of research on this subject, this study aims
to explore how high achievers succeeded in their speaking proficiency and which factors
played a role in their achievement with a qualitative focus-study approach. The study answers
the following research question: What are the factors that contribute to the success of proficient
speakers of English as a foreign language?
MethodResearch Design
This study was conducted as a qualitative case-study approach for an in-depth systematic
examination of a case, subject, or study group within its real-life context (Cohen, Manion, &Morrison, 2018). Different designs of case studies can be found in the literature (Merriam,
1998; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2009). For a holistic understanding of the study phenomenon, thisstudy adopted Yin’s (2009) single-case design, which focuses on an extreme group (i.e.,advanced learners’ speaking English) that was relatively under-researched in L2 literature.
Therefore, a focus-group discussion data-collection strategy was employed for an in-depth
understanding of proficient speakers’ viewpoints.
Study Group
Sixteen advanced learners of English (including 10 males) participated in the study. They are
the freshman students in the English Language and Literature Department. Their proficiency
is expected to be somewhere between B2 and C1, according to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). In their first year, they enroll in skill-based
language courses – such as advanced writing skills, reading skills, speaking skills, and listening
skills – as well as some courses in their native tongue. They were recruited with a purposive
sample strategy, extreme case sampling. According to Cohen et al. (2018), with this strategy,
participants are selected because of their extreme characteristics within the group to provide a87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

clear understanding of the central phenomenon. The students are high achievers in fouradvanced learners’ speaking classes (with a total enrollment of 120 students) and were chosen
for the study group based on their speaking exam scores (ranging from 90 to 96 out of 100)and the personal opinion of the course instructor. A total of 20 students were invited toparticipate in the study and 16 of them volunteered to do so. Their ages ranged from 18 to 22
years of age (M = 19.31; SD = 1.25). According to self-reports, they had more than seven yearsof experience in English (M = 7.38; SD = 2.16). Three students had traveled to Englishspeaking countries for a few months. Only six students know a foreign language other thanEnglish but at a beginner level.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
As a data-collection methodology, a focus-group interview was chosen for an in-depth
investigation of learners. According to Lew, Yang, and Harklau (2018), this data-collection
strategy is one of the least-used approaches and limited research exists on qualitative focusgroup interviews in L2. In this method, participants discuss a topic that is determined by themoderator, and reliance is given to the interaction within the group (Cohen et al., 2018). In
focus groups, participants interact with each other and work together on the topic at hand. A
focus group differs from a straightforward interview, which relies heavily on the researcher’s
agenda and provides more data than individual interviews (Morgan, 1996). As the interaction
within the group is crucial for data and outcomes, the researcher should put much importanceon the creation of the groups and the role of the facilitator or moderator of the discussion(Cohen et al., 2018). According to Morgan (1996), group size and the moderator’s involvement
depend on the goals of the research.
In this study, the primary goal was to generate significant data on the characteristics ofproficient speakers within an anxiety-free context. Four focus groups with four students in eachwere created so as to provide adequate speaking time for students and moderators involved in
the lightly structured discussion. The participants were first informed about the study, theiranonymity, and their right to withdraw anytime during the interview. After their consent was
secured, each participant completed a short questionnaire about their demographic details andEnglish learning experience. Then, they were invited to a focus-group session at theirconvenience. The second researcher of the study served as the moderator of the sessions,following an interview protocol and taking some field notes. Each session began with an
introduction of the participants, continued with discussion of some semi-structured questions,and concluded with a summary of key issues by the researcher. In discussions, students were
free to enter and add their remarks after others had spoken. Additionally, they were asked
whether they wanted to add any information to the concluding remarks. The sessions were in
English and audio-recorded. The average interview session lasted 18 minutes.
For trustworthiness of the study, four commonly cited approaches – credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability – were considered in the data-collection analysis process(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). Audio-recorded data was transcribed first for analysis
and was verified by the researchers. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify
patterns that emerged and to build relations among the patterns by the researchers. In thisprocess, researchers first independently worked on creating initial codes in the raw data
analysis, step by step, following the procedure of the general inductive approach (Thomas,
2006). They later worked together to group the codes after discussions. After finalizing thecreation of groups and deciding the main themes, a third researcher’s opinion about the groups
was taken concerning the final themes with a diagram of relationships. For the member check,the diagram of relationships was sent to the participants for verification; all students agreed on

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

the findings without adding any major changes. In the presentation of the analysis, the maincategories were illustrated with figures. The categories with sub-themes were supported withsample student excerpts. In this manner, numbers indicate interview sessions and letters wereused to distinguish participants (i.e., 1-A = first interview, first participant; 4-D = fourthinterview, fourth participant).
Findings
Two main categories emerged from the focus-group interview sessions. Both contextual andaffective factors are important in enhancing speaking skills and gaining proficiency. These
factors and their sub-themes are presented, respectively.
Contextual Factors
The first category, named “contextual factors,” has five themes: self, school, abroad, country,
and technology. These themes also have sub-sub-categories and codes. The details are provided
in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Contextual factors to superiority in speaking English
Self as the first theme in the figure expresses students’ self-initiated strategies for speaking
enhancement. Students stated that they attempt to improve their speaking skills with selfpractice techniques. For instance, they watch themselves while speaking in the mirror andimitate the speech of some well-known native speakers. They also said they use English a greatdeal, even if they have limited opportunity to practice with someone. They also love English
songs and recite those songs as well. They summarize aloud in English what they have listened89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

to or watched, and they imagine a situation and talk to themselves in that situation in English
when they are alone. Emphasizing these issues, student 4-A said: “There are not enoughchances to practice English with natives, so I talk to myself and summarize the videos I watch
aloud.” Other students agreed with this statement and shared their own similar learning
experiences via self-talking.
The second theme, school, included language teacher feedback and the importance of a nativespeaker teacher. The theme demonstrated that the teacher’s being a native speaker of English
has a positive impact on students and that teacher feedback is important in the development of
speaking skills. Since the students have a limited opportunity to practice English with native
speakers in daily life, to speak with a native-speaker teacher and be understood by the teacher
gave students additional motivation. Moreover, the students highlighted the teacher’s role inlanguage learning and said that positive feedback about their speaking skills plays a significant
role in their willingness to practice speaking. Emphasizing the role of teacher feedback inlanguage development, student 1-B said: “Teachers’ feedback motivates me to develop myskills. Actually, it is the most motivating thing. I can tell every student gives a lot of importanceto teachers’ comments.” The constructive feedback given by teachers seems to constitute an
essential part of teaching strategies.
The third theme is related to experience abroad. One of the learners said she traveled to England
to take English language courses. However, this type of learning activity is quite expensive andis not common among students who enroll in state universities. Instead, most students gain
experience in a foreign country through exchange programs such as Erasmus, Grundtvig, andthe European Voluntary Service (EVS). In fact, the number of students who participate inexchanges has grown exponentially in recent years. One of the former exchange students, 2-D,shared his experiences as, “In my hometown, you cannot see tourists, so I went to Europe witha Comenius project and I made friends there. I occasionally talk to them on the internet.”
The fourth theme, country, signifies home country experience and is directly linked to theEnglish-speaking context in Turkey. Some learners are fortunate to have native speakers in theneighborhood, such as brides from England or retired English neighbors. They also seize theopportunity to attend English clubs and participate in discussions in English-speaking cafés.
Some learners also become volunteers at international organizations such as the European
Youth Olympic Festival (EYOF). They take advantage of significant speaking practice time
during the competitions and communicate on the Internet with the friends they have madeduring these events. Some learners, especially those who live near tourist attractions, havetaken jobs that involve speaking practice. Student 2-A said, “I worked as a tour guide in Bursa(a historical Turkish city); I made many foreign friends, I speak to them on Skype whenever I
get the chance.”
The fifth and last theme, technology, has a relatively strong influence on speaking
development. To meet their need for practice, learners said they utilize audio and audio-visualmaterials, make use of chat apps, and play video games. Downloadable podcasts on languagelearning websites, radio programs, and foreign music are popular audio files for listening
practice. Online television series and English television channels are two popular audio-visualsources for language development. Student 3-C argued that watching television not only
develops one’s language skills but also one’s general knowledge: “By watching TV series, you
do not only learn a language but also their culture, social life, and movements (bodylanguage).” Indeed, communication is both verbal and non-verbal. The role of video games in
improving speaking skills is arguably one of the most-discussed issues in the L2 domain. Some90

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

learners said they developed their speaking skills by playing online games in which they speakwith players around the world and single-player games that require English competency tounderstand the tasks assigned in the game. Student 2-B highlighted the contributions of playing
computer games by saying, “I began to play computer games not for fun but for language. I
owe a lot to games in which you need to talk just like in real life.” Some video games enable
players to create their own characters or avatars and to live and speak in a simulated world.
Chat apps such as Skype and Facebook Messenger are used for chat and video calls. Cambly,
an app for practicing English with native English speakers over video chat, and similar
applications that enable learners to have a video call for speaking practice are becoming
popular. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram make it possible for users to makefriends around the globe. Thanks to these social networking sites, learners are able to keep in touchwith people they meet in real-life settings such as tourism.
Affective Factors
The second category addressed “affective factors” in speaking enhancement. It examines what
motivates students to improve their speaking skills and how they feel when they begin
communicating with others in English.

Figure 2: Affective factors to superiority in speaking English
Codes relating to the students’ motivation to speak English were collected under two subthemes: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. The first sub-theme, intrinsic motivation,
is a driving force for many learners to develop their speaking skills. Intrinsic motivation reveals
itself in various ways. Some learners say they have fun while talking in English. Those students
use mirror techniques, or they talk to themselves when they are unable to find native speakers
with whom to practice. Other learners enjoy listening to songs or podcasts and watching
television series or movies in English. One student described the fun he has when watching
and understanding television without any subtitles. Understanding native speakers in real-life91

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

conversations and forming good conversations provide a significant motivational boost. Other
learners become motivated when they understand native speakers well and are able to express
themselves in English. Emphasizing the connection between the joy of accomplishment andintrinsic motivation, student 3-D said, “I didn’t understand native speakers in the past, now I
can; that motivates me.”The second sub-theme explores extrinsic motivation, which pushes students to develop theirspeaking skills. Although students have reached an acceptable level of spoken skill, they
continue to develop their skills so they can pursue a career in English teaching. Some learners
say they want to be just like their idol teachers, who have native-like proficiency in speaking.
Such learners became more motivated when they spoke to their teachers and earned praise.
Their motivation was fueled by teacher feedback. Positive teacher feedback is highly valued
by most language learners, as it makes them feel more confident. To express that feeling of
motivation and self-confidence, learner 4-C said, “I get motivated when my teacher states that
I am in the right direction. Once, one of my teachers said, ‘I hope one day we will work
together’.” Emphasizing the importance of native-speaker praise, student 2-D said, “Whenforeigners say, ‘Your English is good,’ I feel motivated.” The last reason why learners are
motivated stems from the role of English in the world as a lingua franca. Learners know they
will be able to communicate with people around the globe thanks to the role of English as aninternational language.
Students also elaborated on their feelings when they speak English. The first sub-theme wasanxiety. Learners feel anxious while talking due to self-driven behaviors and classroom-related
factors. Some students state that self-related factors such as low proficiency, lack of proper
pronunciation, and lack of practice hold them back. Others attribute their anxiety to the
proficiency level of native speakers and the fact that they are strangers. Talking to native
speakers of English may have a demotivating effect on learners. Emphasizing the native
speakers’ effect on L2 anxiety, student 2-C said, “Some natives are not eager to talk; that
demotivates me. Some of them speak very fast and use slang terms.” Another factor resulting
in anxiety is the language classroom itself. In classrooms, some learners may not find aconvenient atmosphere to speak with ease. Immediate error corrections by the teacher are notwelcomed by many students. Some learners refrain from speaking in the classroom since they
believe their friends will ridicule their mistakes. Focusing on the negative behaviors of thestudents in the class, student 4-D said, “I have always felt nervous talking in the classroom. I
thought before I spoke since others may laugh at my mistakes.” Oral exams are another factor
that increases anxiety. Some learners said they feel the highest level of anxiety during an exam,
which hinders their speaking performance.
Another sub-theme reveals why and how learners feel relaxed while talking in English. Relaxed
speakers are generally composed of confident and sociable learners. To gain confidence in thetarget language, one essential requirement is competency. Competent learners are usually lessanxious. Emphasizing the role of competence in dealing with anxiety, learner 1-C said, “I thinkmost people feel anxious about talking to native speakers since they don’t know the language
well, but I don’t. I, in fact, feel confident. I have never been to your country but I know yourlanguage, so that makes me feel confident.” Besides competency, personal traits such as
extroversion are highly valued by learners. One learner argues that if one is of a sociable type,he or she is likely to be more relaxed while speaking than a reserved learner. Learners also feel
relaxed when they are in a friendly atmosphere or when they are talking to someone they know.
Even in their mother tongue, some people may be hesitant to talk to those they do not know
well. Emphasizing the importance of the communication partner in the speaking context,92

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

learner 3-B said, “I feel relaxed talking to my acquaintances but anxious while I am talking inan exam or with a stranger.”
Discussion
This study explored how proficient speakers of English become so and used a qualitative focusstudy approach to investigate what factors play a role in these learners’ success. In parallel withvarious studies, the findings indicated that both contextual factors related to students’ self,school or out-of-school settings, and affective factors such as motivation and anxiety contributeto these learners’ success, and these factors are important for the enhancement of speaking
skills.
Findings regarding the contextual factors revealed that advanced learners adopt several selfpractice strategies and use various contextual factors to improve their speaking skills. It has
been proved that the school factor is only a piece of the puzzle and that learners use every
opportunity to practice English both in and out-of-class. Consistent with the extensive use ofcognitive and metacognitive strategies by advanced learners in the literature (Kawai, 2008;
Pawlak, 2018) and studying coping strategies for speaking enhancement in non-nativespeaking contexts (Abrar et al., 2018), the students monitored themselves with mirror
techniques, imitation techniques, and self-talk. They focused on fluency and accuracy while
speaking in terms of vocabulary selection and pronunciation. These types of strategies areuseful not only for speaking proficiency engagement but also in creating confidence in learners(Forbes & Fishes, 2018). Although both native and non-native English-speaking teachers havespecific advantages and there is no convincing evidence of one group’s superiority overanother, English native speakers are highly preferred by the institutions and students in EFL
settings (Levis, Sonsaat, Link, & Barriuso, 2016). Supporting this belief, the learners in thisstudy mentioned having a native speaker teacher as a privileged and supportive factor of theirspeaking proficiency and pronunciation, which parallels the relevant research (Lasagabaster &Sierra, 2006). Additionally, positive teacher feedback is a motivator for speaking confidence
and proficiency (Forbes & Fishes, 2018).
In connection with the research about studying a target language abroad on learner beliefs (e.g.,
Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Kaypak & Ortaçtepe, 2014; Surtees, 2016), the learners in this study
expressed that experience gained with student exchange programs and language courses in anative English-speaking country are influential in belief systems and English proficiency. In
addition to self-practice efforts, teacher support, and foreign country experiences, the students
benefited from any opportunity they could find in their home country and attended several
events. This finding was expected, as proficient learners are autonomous learners who know
their strengths and weaknesses well and make decisions to improve themselves at every
opportunity (Cotterall, 2008; Kawai, 2008). Proficient language learners also make significant
use of technology and find positive connections with language learning outcomes (Lai, Zhu, &Gong, 2015; Reinders & White, 2011; Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). Supporting these thoughts,
the learners in the study used various technological tools to improve their speaking skills, suchas playing video games online and offline, participating in chat apps to connect with native
speakers, and watching television series or listening to radio to enhance their pronunciation
and understanding. All of these findings reveal that proficient English speakers are actively
engaged in the language learning process both in class and outside of class, engage in selfdirected strategies to improve their proficiency, and create significant opportunities forpracticing their English.

93

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Affective factors, including motivation and anxiety, also emerged in the focus-group
discussions. These two themes correspond to psychological factors that take place while
studying English and starting a conversation in English. Motivation is one of the strongest
predictors of L2 learning success (Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998). Within the framework of selfdetermination theory (SDT), (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), L2 motivation ranged
from the least self-determined to the most self-determined orientation. Consequently, both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations are significant for boosting motivation to speak
English. Connected with previous research (Dincer & Yesilyurt, 2017), intrinsic motivators
include the joy and pleasure of language, and extrinsic motivators include pursuing careergoals, praise, reward, and English being a lingua franca. Regarding the second affective factor,
anxiety, it seems that although language learners are high achievers and enjoy a relatively highlevel of mastery in speaking English, they feel anxious when doing so. Consequently, anadvanced level of language learning does not guarantee anxiety-free or stress-freeconversations. Corroborating the results of a number of research studies (Abrar et al., 2018;
Gan, 2013; Kitano, 2001; Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009), the main stressors even forcompetent English speakers are self-imposed and school-related factors such as linguisticcompetence, lack of opportunities to speak English, underestimation of their own capacity,
comparisons with classmates, oral proficiency exams, and negative teacher behaviors. It is
known that affective factors are closely connected with self-concept, which plays an importantrole in determining students’ motivation to speak and see their actual competency levels(Dincer & Yesilyurt, 2017; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
It should also be noted that although anxiety is accepted as an indicator of poor speaking
performance and the cause of failure in speaking in the literature (Horwitz, 2001; Horwitz,
Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Liu, 2006), the case might be different for advanced learners ofEnglish. Since these learners are much more aware of the importance of the activity and theresulting higher expectations, they might place significant self-imposed pressure on theirspeaking ability. Sometimes, higher proficiency means higher anxiety as well (Kitano, 2001;
Marzec-Stawiarska, 2015, Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009). Significant anxiety does not equate
with limited proficiency, as there is no positive relationship between success and anxiety
among advanced-level learners (Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009). As Marzec-Stawiarska (2015)
hypothesizes, L2 anxiety might have a more facilitative nature for speaking engagement.
Emphasizing the connection among self-concepts, students in this study are relaxed while
speaking as they have great self-confidence and sociable characteristics. They are also morerelaxed while speaking with their acquaintances than while speaking with a foreigner. Thisfinding corroborates the findings of Dewaele (2007).
Conclusion
The study findings presented above provide further understanding about the nature of proficient
speakers of English and help explain why some students outperform others while speaking.
The findings also provide a basis for some teaching implications for language teachers andeducators. They reveal that proficient speakers of English are autonomous learners who takeresponsibility for their own learning and seize every opportunity to practice both inside andoutside class. While self-practice strategies and school-related factors are influential, theselearners also practice their English in experiences abroad and in their home country. They use
technology for practice and acknowledge that language learning should go beyond the confinesof the classroom to ensure better oral communication. Additionally, they have revealed
affective factors for speaking proficiency enhancement. Considering these findings, it is clearthat language teachers should create opportunities for learners to practice speaking within an

94

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

autonomy-supportive L2 context and move language learning beyond the classroom withtechnology integration. Based on the literature (Dincer & Yesilyurt, 2017; Lai et al., 2015;
Reeve, 2012), teachers should first acknowledge students’ interests and care about students’needs and interests during the teaching process. They should let students be physically,
emotionally, and cognitively engaged in their learning and support language learners’autonomous motivation to study English with authentic language learning experiences. It
should also be noted that this study, with its pure qualitative design, is not flawless, and one
should approach its findings with caution. First, the study was conducted with a small sample
of advanced learners of English. Second, one type of data collection methodology was adopted
in the study. Then, further research could be conducted with larger sample size and diversified
data collection strategy to yield stronger results. Although focus-group interviews provide richdata and strengthen the results, adopting student observation techniques, allowing students tokeep language-learning diaries, and encouraging them to write a reflective journal on their daily
exercises for further research might add much to the understanding of proficient speakers.
Additionally, as L2 anxiety painted a different picture for proficient speakers in this study,
further research might focus on this issue and examine more closely the links between anxiety
and language proficiency level. In sum, understanding the nature of proficient English speakers
is a less charted-terrain of language learning research, and examining why proficient learners
outperform others remains a promising area of study waiting for answers.

Acknowledgments
A part of the data in this study was presented orally at The 19th International INGED ELT
Conference, 2019 and the authors thank the reviewers for their insightful comments.

95

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If
our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL student teachers’ challenges
speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129–145.
Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language learning beliefs as a result of study
abroad. System, 37(3), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.011
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy(2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Cotterall, S. (2008). Autonomy and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons
from good language learners (pp. 110-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24(1), 3–6.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000023
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dewaele, J. M. (2007). The effect of multilingualism, sociobiographical, and situational
factors on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety of mature language
learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 391–409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110040301
Dincer, A. (2017). EFL learners' beliefs about speaking English and being a good speaker: A
metaphor analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 104–112.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050113
Dincer, A., & Yesilyurt, S. (2013). Pre-service English teachers' beliefs on speaking skill
based on motivational orientations. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 88–95.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n7p88
Dincer, A., & Yesilyurt, S. (2017). Motivation to speak English: A self-determination theory
perspective. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 53(1),1–25. https://doi.org/10.14456/pasaa.2017.1
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners:
Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889800200303
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
English First. (2019). EF English proficiency index: A ranking of 100 countries and regions
by English skills (9th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.ef.com/ca/epi/
Ethnologue (2019). What are the top 200 most spoken languages? Retrieved fromhttps://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size

96

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Forbes, K., & Fisher, L. (2018). The impact of expanding advanced level secondary school
students' awareness and use of metacognitive learning strategies on confidence andproficiency in foreign language speaking skills. The Language Learning Journal,
46(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1010448
Gan, Z. (2013). Understanding English speaking difficulties: An investigation of two Chinese
populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3), 231–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as aforeign language’. London: British Council.
Griffiths, C. (2015). What have we learnt from ‘good language learners’?. ELT Journal,69(4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv040
Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 21, 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, E. K., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
Modern Language Journal, 70(2).
125–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327325
Kawai, Y. (2008). Speaking and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons fromgood language learners (pp. 218–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.020
Kaypak, E., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2014). Language learner beliefs and study abroad: A study on
English as a lingua franca (ELF). System, 42, 355–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.005
Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal. 85(4), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00125
Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. New
York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out‐of‐class English
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 278–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.171
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2006). Learning English with computers at university level.
In E. A. Macià, A. S. Cervera, & C. R. Ramos (Eds.), Information technology inlanguages for specific purposes (pp. 157–176). New York, NY: Springer
Lee, J., & Heinz, M. (2016). English language learning strategies reported by advanced
language learners. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 12(2), 67–76.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i2.9629
Levis, J. M., Sonsaat, S., Link, S., & Barriuso, T. A. (2016). Native and nonnative teachers of
L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 894–931.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.272
Lew, S., Yang, A. H., & Harklau, L. (2018). Qualitative methodology. In A. Phakiti, P. De
Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics
research methodology (pp. 79–101). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_4
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in EFL classrooms: Causes and consequences. TESL Reporter,
39(1), 13–32.
Marcos-Llinás, M., & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three proficiency‐
level courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 94–
111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01010.x
Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2015). Investigating foreign language speaking anxiety among
advanced learners of English. In M. Pawlak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Issues inteaching, learning and testing speaking in a second language (pp. 103–119).
Heidelberg–New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38339-7_7
Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering theissues. Heidelberg-New York: Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2015). Advanced learners’ use of communication strategies in spontaneous
language performance. In M. Pawlak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Issues inteaching, learning and testing speaking in a second language (pp. 121–141).
Heidelberg–New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38339-7_8
Pawlak, M. (2018). Investigating the use of speaking strategies in the performance of two
communicative tasks: The importance of communicative goal. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 269–291.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.5
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L.
Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Special issue commentary: Learner autonomy and newlearning environments. Language Learning & Technology. 15(3), 1–3.
https://hdl.handle.net/10652/2497
Reiss, M. A. (1985). The good language learner: Another look. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 41(3), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.41.3.511
Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking. From theory to practice. New York,
NY: Cambridge University.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–
51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
Ruixue, M., Zejun, M., & Yijing, W. (2012). An empirical study on speaking proficiency
training for Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education of Social Science, 2(1), 26–31.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs inmotivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: The Guilford.
Shumin, K. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students’ speaking abilities. In
J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practices (pp. 201–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

98

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Stake, R. E. (2005) Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp 443–66), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Surtees, V. (2016). Beliefs about language learning in study abroad: Advocating for alanguage ideology approach. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 27, 85–103.
Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2
proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302–321.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200016X
Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good foreign language learners? A qualitative
study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31(3), 385–392.
Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of researchin second language teaching and learning (pp. 485-502). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation
data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Zhang, X., & Head, K. (2009). Dealing with learner reticence in the speaking class. ELT
Journal, 64(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp018
Corresponding author: Ali Dincer
Contact email: adincer@erzincan.edu.tr

99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

100

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Tertiary Learners’ Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn the French Language:
Evidence from a Non-Francophone Country
Nesrine Abdullah EL-Zine
Sana’a University
Yemen
Ammar Mohamed Aamer
Sampoerna University
Indonesia

101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
Motivational intensity is fundamental for any language learner in order to succeed. This
research addressed motivational intensity in the context of French language learners in a nonfrancophone country, Yemen. It also investigated the level of desire to learn French among
university students. The present research answered the following questions: Do undergraduate
learners of the French language have a high or a low level of motivational intensity in theirlearning of French? How much do undergraduate learners of the French language desire tolearn French? Among the undergraduate learners of the French language, is there any genderdifference in the level of motivational intensity and their desire to learn French? A stratified
random sample of 69 students was sampled out of a population of 145 enrolled students fromdifferent levels in the Department of French Language and Literature at Sana’a University. The
survey was comprised of 11 questions that were selected and modified from Gardner’s
Attitude, Motivation Test Battery Questionnaire (1985a). The items for this survey addressed
two specific variables: motivational intensity and desire to learn French. The findings of thisresearch showed that Yemeni undergraduate learners of French have a high level ofmotivational intensity and a significant amount of desire for learning the French language andculture. The findings also implied that male learners have a slightly higher level of motivational
intensity and desire to learn French than their female counterparts.
Keywords: motivational intensity, learning French as a foreign language, gender difference

102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The French language in Yemen has progressively become more prestigious and more popular,
especially among the younger generations. Nowadays, due to the consequences of war,
Yemenis are suffering because of the unstable and threatening conditions under which they
live daily. Most of the university graduates are seeking new opportunities for a better and safer
life outside of Yemen. Thus, these youth are increasingly encouraged to learn French anddiscover the French/Francophone culture, so French speaking countries such as France andCanada can become for them a destination for employment and study. The objective of thepresent research was to address the motivational intensity of the French language learners in
the context of a non-francophone country. The level of desire to learn French among university
students was also investigated. This research aimed to answer the following specific questions:
RQ1 Do undergraduate learners of the French language have a high or a low levelof motivational intensity in their learning of French?
RQ2 How strongly do undergraduate learners of the French language desire tolearn French?
RQ3 Among the undergraduate learners of the French language, is there any
gender difference in the level of motivational intensity and their desire to learn
French?
For the purpose of this research, Yemen was chosen for the data collection as a case study toaddress the research questions. This research contributes to the body of knowledge for thevariable of motivational intensity in learning French in a non-francophone country. In addition,
it is one of the very few studies that focuses on Yemeni learners of foreign languages in generaland Yemeni learners of the French language specifically.
The present article is organized into four sections. The first section presents the theoretical lens
on which the researchers based their analysis. The second section discusses the methodology
the researchers used in carrying out the research. In the third section, the statistical analysis of
the data is presented with discussion of the obtained results. Finally, the study findings areconcluded with suggested recommendations.
Literature Review
Research has identified motivation as one of the most substantial factors that has a great impact
on learners’ success and achievement. Nevertheless, motivation is closely related to anotherimportant concept which psychologists refer to as “motive”. Therefore, psychologists havealways included the notion of motive or goal in their multiple definitions of motivation. For
example, Parham (1988) defines motivation as “The internal source, cause, or explanation ofvoluntary behaviors – the forces and processes that initiate, maintain, direct, and influence thestrength of a behavior. Motives are the specific needs, desires, and wants that motivate” (p.
296). Likewise, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) see a powerful factor in the “goal” that is “impetus
for and direction to action” (p. 4). The field of learning a foreign/second language is no
exception in this regard. Gardner and Lambert (1972) were the first to highlight the crucial roleof motivation in language acquisition; their empirical research affirmed that the degree towhich learners successfully study a language is not related only to the learners’ language
capacity and intellectual aptitude but also to their motivation in learning the language and theirattitudes towards that language and to the people who speak it. Since then, researchers haveextensively investigated motivation and its different variables (e.g. Crookes & Schmidt, 1991;
Dörnyei, 2003; Gardner, 1985b, 2001, 2010; Liu & Zhang, 2013; Noels, 2005; Spolsky, 1989).
According to Gardner (1985b), a pioneer researcher in the field of second language learning

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

motivation, the latter is a combination of three components: effort, which refers to motivational
intensity, desire to reach the goal of learning the language, and positive attitudes towards
learning the language as well as towards the people who speak that language. “The concept ofmotivation … is a multi-faceted construct in that it involves effort (motivational intensity),
cognition (desire) and affect (attitudes)” (Gardner, 1985b. cited in Nakata, 2006, p. 55). Two
components are addressed in the present study: motivational intensity and desire to learn.
Motivational intensity refers to the level of effort and persistence that learners apply
consistently during their language learning process. Otherwise, it is seen as the goal-directed
effort that learners expend to learn a foreign language and their persistence in learning (Ellis,
2004; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997). Motivational intensity has been identified as
fundamental for any language learner in order to succeed (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Ely(1986) stressed the importance of investigating the strength of the learner’s motivation or, inother words, his/her motivational intensity, “it also seems important to investigate the strengthof that motivation” (p. 28). Along the same line of thought, Dörnyei (1998) implied that
motivational intensity can explicitly translate the learner’s motivated behavior, “The proof of
motivation is in displaying it in action -hence the importance of the “desire” measure, which
directly taps into the individual’s wish to perform the action; and, even more directly, the“motivational intensity” measure that explicitly focuses on motivated behaviour” (p. 122).
Other research suggested that among the three components of motivation, desire and attitude
are two interrelated variables that can significantly impact learners’ motivational intensity.
However, the latter is pivotally responsible for language learning success (Gardner & Smythe,
1975; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).
Regarding the difference in gender when it comes to language learning motivation, researchhas explored the role of gender variables for a better understanding of learners’ motivation inlearning a foreign/second language. Most of the research has confirmed the importance ofgender in this regard, especially that it has become an “interdisciplinary area of linguistic
inquiry" (Abdilah & Chowdhury, 2013, p. 134). Still, some research findings showed nodifference in language learning motivation with respect to gender (e.g. Akram & Ghani, 2013;
Al Othman & Shuqair, 2013; Bacon, 1992). However, most of the research reported theexistence of a significant difference in language learning motivation depending on the gendervariable. Some research found that male language learners are more motivated than female
learners (e.g. Abdilah & Chowdhury, 2013; Yeung, Lau, & Nie, 2011), whilst the majority of
the research affirmed that female language learners are more motivated than the male learners(e.g. Adach, 2015; AL-Khasawneh & A Omari, 2015; Al-Mahrooqi & Denman, 2014;
Azarnoosh & Birjandi, 2012; Bećirović, 2017; Csizér &Dörnyei, 2005; Heinzmann, 2009;
Narayanan, Nair, and Iyyappan, 2007; Netten, Riggs, & Hewlett, 1999; Xiong, 2010 Coskun,2014).
Methodology
Participants
For the purpose of this research, a stratified random sample of 69 participants/students was
surveyed out of a population of 145 enrolled students from different levels in the Department
of French Language and Literature at Sana’a University. There are four levels at the
Department of French Language and Literature for the bachelor’s degree (freshman,sophomore, junior, and senior). This sample represents 47.59% of the targeted population,
which is comparably a high percentage for similar studies. The participants were informed

104

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

about the purpose of the study and that participation was voluntary. Students were alsoreassured of the anonymity of the results of the given survey.
Research Instrument
The researchers developed a quantitative assessment using a survey as a measurement tool.
The survey format consisted of two parts. The first part of the survey contained generaldemographic information of students with three subcategories: age, gender, and study level.
The second part of the survey addressed students’ motivational intensity and desire to learn
French, which consisted of eleven questions that were selected and modified from Gardner’s
Attitude, Motivation Test Battery Questionnaire [AMTB], 1985a). Among the elevenquestions, seven questions addressed the variable of motivational intensity, while four of thequestions focused on the students’ desire to learn French. The questions were translated to
Arabic by the researcher and distributed to five college professors for their feedback, tominimize the redundancy-translated questions. After the review, two questions were modified
and rephrased based on the comments received form the reviewers. In addition, a pilot study
was conducted with ten randomly selected students. As a result of the pilot study, two
instructional sentences were added to clarify for students how to answer some of the survey
questions. The answer to each question was coded on a scale from 1 to 5, depending on thenumber of choices under each question. The scale conversion helped in conducting thestatistical analysis for the collected data. For the purpose of this research, the IBM SPSS
statistics software was used to statistically analyze the data.
Results and Data Analysis
Based on the data collected from the questionnaire, Yemeni French language learners’
motivational intensity and their desire to learn French were both analyzed. The data analysis
also aimed to demonstrate whether gender impacted the Yemeni learners’ motivational
intensity and their desire to learn French, or it had no significant impact on the mentioned two
investigated variables. In the following sections, the analysis of the two survey parts, generaldemographics and motivational related questions are presented as follows:
Demographic Information
Table 1 & 2 present the distribution of the participants in this research with respect to their age
and study level. As it can be noticed, the percentage of female participants (62%) is higher thanmale participants (38%). The tables also indicate that most of the participants are in theirsecond, third and fourth years of study (31%, 23% & 33%), which is in line with the results forage (59% of participants are between 22-25 years old).
Table 1: Gender distribution of participants
Gender

Percentage

Number

Male

38

26

Female

62

43

Total

100

69

105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 2: Distribution of participants in percentage with respect to age and study level
Age

Percentage

Study level

Percentage

18-21 years

29

First year13

22-25 years

59

Second year31

26-29 years

8

Third year23

30 and above

4

Fourth year

33

Total

100

Total

100

Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn French
In this section, the motivational intensity and desire to learn French related questions are
discussed under two separate sub-subheadings and based on the summarized results in Table 3.
Table 3: Percentage for motivational intensity (questions 1-8) & desire
to learn French (questions 9-11)
Question #
Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Answer
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.

Percentage
48
38
14
100
30
37
33
100
45
42
13
100
39
42
19
100
25
54
21
100
54
10
36
100
54

Male percentage
38
46
16
100
50
19
31
100
62
31
7
100
31
46
23
100
27
65
8
100
50
4
46
100
62

106

Female percentage
53
33
14
100
17
49
34
100
35
49
16
100
44
40
16
100
23
47
30
100
56
14
30
100
49

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total
A.
B.
C.
Total

30
16
100
62
12
26
100
7
55
38
100
42
51
7
100
51
16
33
100

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

23
15
100
62
12
26
100
6
58
36
100
38
54
8
100
42
8
50
100

35
16
100
63
12
25
100
7
53
40
100
44
35
21
100
56
21
23
100

Motivational Intensity (Questions 1-7). As the results in Table 3 show, for the statement in
Question 1, “I actively think about what I have learned in my French class…,” the highest
percentage for both male and female students was given to answer A, “Very frequently” (48%),
while the lowest percentage was given to answer C, “Once in a while” (14%). However, female
students scored a higher percentage (53%) than male students (38%) on answer A and a lower
percentage (14%) than male students (16%) on answer C. The results for the statement in
Question 2, “If French were not taught in university, I would…,” revealed that the majority ofthe participants (37%) would “not bother learning French” (Answer B), while answer C, “tryto obtain lessons in French somewhere else,” got the second highest percentage (33%). The
lowest percentage is given to answer A with (30%). Still, female learners had a higher
percentage for answer C (34%) than their male counterparts (31%).
For the Question 3 statement, “When I have a problem understanding something we arelearning in French class, I…,” a small percentage (13%) was given for answer C, “just forget
about it,” while answer A, “immediately ask the teacher for help,” recorded the highest
percentage among all the three answers with 45%. Nevertheless, results for the male leaners
on answer A marked a significantly higher percentage (62%) in comparison to the females(35%). The results for Question 4, “When it comes to French homework, I….” indicate that
42% of the participants agreed with answer B, “work very carefully, making sure I understandeverything.” However, the male students had the larger part of this result (46%) than theirfemale counterparts (40%). On the other hand, the lowest percentage (19%) for Question 4 wasgiven to answer C, “just skim over it,” with (16%) for the female learners and (23%) for the
male learners.
On the statement for Question 5, “If my teacher wanted someone to do an extra French activity,
I would…,” answer B, “definitely volunteer,” got the highest percentage (54%). Yet, male107

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

student results (65%) indicate their higher level of motivation in comparison to the female
students (47%) in regard to volunteering to do any extra French activities.
The results for Question 6 are similar to those obtained for the previous question (Q5) inproving the participants with a high level of motivation in their learning of French. In fact, theresults revealed that the majority of the participants (54%) agreed on rewriting and correcting
the mistakes in their assignments when the teacher returns them back to the participants(answer A). Also, the least percentage was given to answer B (10%) where the student would
just throw the assignment in the desk and forget about it. Nevertheless, this time female
participants’ percentage (56%) for answer A was higher than the male participants’ percentage(50%).
As the results indicate for Question 7, “When I am in French class, I…,” the highest percentage
was accorded to answer A “would volunteer answering as much as they can” with (54%), rightafter it came answer B “would answer only the easier questions” with (30%) and the lowest
percentage was given to answer C would never say anything with (16%). Yet, for the highest
percentage answer (answer A), the male participants’ percentage (62%) was still significantly
higher than the percentage of the female participants (49%).
Desire to Learn French (Questions 8-11). The results indicate that the highest percentage ofparticipants (62%) agreed that “During French class” they would prefer to have a combinationof French and Arabic spoken (Question 8). However, it is noticeable that the proportion ofmales (62%) was very close to the females’ proportion for this answer (63%). Whereas, thelowest percentage (12%) was scored for answer B “to have as much Arabic as possible
spoken.” Here too, the proportions of female and male participants were very similar (12% formales and 12% for females). For Question 9, “If I had the opportunity to speak French outsideof my department,” the results, as with the previous question, reflected the participants’significant desire to learn French. Accordingly, the highest percentage (55%) was given to
answer B, where the participants would “speak French most of the time, using Arabic only ifreally necessary.” Same as the results for question 8, the proportions for male and female
participants were close. Yet, the percentage of male participants (58%) was higher than theirfemale counterparts (53%). On the other hand, the results revealed a very small percentage(7%) of participants would “never speak French.”
For Question 10 “If I had the opportunity to see a French play,” the findings show the enormous
willingness of Yemeni French learners to discover the French language and culture. In fact,
most of the participants shared their desire to go and see a French play with a percentage of
51% for answer B, “definitely go.” However, male participants had a higher percentage (54%)
than female participants with 35%. Still, a remarkably low percentage was accorded to answer
C (7%), where participants chose not to go to the play even if they could do it.
Similar to the responses for Question 10, the results for Question 11 also reveal how eager
Yemeni undergraduate students are to learn French. According to the results, (51%) of theparticipants chose answer A and agreed, “If I had the opportunity and knew enough French, I
would read French magazines and newspapers as often as I could.” For this answer, female
participants had the highest percentage (56%) whilst male participants recorded (42%) for thisanswer. Same as in the results for Q 1, 3 and 6, the justification of this gap between male andfemale participants’ percentages may be because of the males’ social and familial duties, which
can make it harder for male students to spend more time on reading.

108

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Discussion
From the obtained results, it can be noticed that the percentage of female participants in thisresearch is considerably higher than male participants. This large gap between male and female
participants is representative of the fact that the highest percentage of students enrolled in the
French Department has always been females. In this regard, it is worth underlining that thehigh percentage of female students enrolled in the Department of French Language incomparison to the male students reflects the traditional and cultural assumption in Yemeni
society, according to which the fields that are related to education, arts, and languages are
generally considered to be more suitable for females, while other fields such as engineering,business, and law are seen as more male-oriented. However, this perception of the male andfemale major of studies has changed over time and does not hold anymore as many female andmale students are enrolling in the different mentioned fields with no consideration of gender.
The results generally indicated that the majority of the participants (males and females) agreed
that when they are in their French class, they volunteer, answering as much as they can, andthey do their best to finalize all the tasks and improve their level in French. In addition, theresults confirmed that Yemeni undergraduate learners of French, generally, accord a significant
amount of effort in their learning process even when they are not in classes. Hence, the results
provided positive answers to the first two research questions inquired through the present
research. As for the third research question about the difference in gender when it comes to thelearners’ desire to learn the French language, some of the results confirmed that the female
students’ enthusiasm and motivation to learn French is significantly higher than their malecounterparts, such as the case for question 1, 2, 5 and 6 where female students appeared tothink more frequently about what they learn in their French classes and search for allopportunities to learn French even if they would have to enroll in classes out of the university’s
curriculum. Similarly, the results of some of some of the questions showed that the female
learners are more willing to spend extra time studying and reviewing for their lessons morethan the male learners. It is very possible that the justification for the gap in percentage between
male and female learners for some questions is due to social and familial responsibilities. In
fact, Yemeni female students at universities are, most of the time, dependent on their families.
Thus, usually female students can afford to have more time to study and review at home, while
male university students, besides their classes, are supposed to work in order to support
themselves and sometimes to support their families.
Some of the results can reflect the difficulties and challenges that Yemeni tertiary learners facein their studies because of the war. This is the case for question 2 where the majority of theparticipants affirmed that they would not be able to learn French if it was not offered by theuniversity. It is possible that their answer is influenced by the fact that all means of interaction
with the French language, people and culture are in the present time hardly, if ever, reachable
because of the war.
On the other hand, although most of the time the means for the learners to practice their Frenchoutside of the university’s setting is very difficult, if not impossible, due to previously
mentioned factors, the results revealed that Yemeni tertiary learners have a high amount ofdesire to use and learn French. Thus, the majority of the students are willing to read and speakin French and even to attend French theater plays if they can.
Overall, the aggregate percentage of the male learners implied that they have higher
motivational intensity and desire to learn the French language than female learners. This

109

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

implication could be driven by the Yemeni males’ social and familial responsibilities, which
dramatically increased because of the burden of the war, which played a considerable role intheir motivation and desire to learn the French language so they can find better job
opportunities for living. In summary, Figure 1 highlights the highest representative andsignificant findings of the survey’s eleven questions as already presented in the sections above.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Q1
(A)
% Total48% Male38% Female 53

Q2
(B)
37
19
49

Q3
(A)
45
62
35

Q4
(B)
42
46
40

Q5
(B)
54
65
47

Q6
(A)
54
50
56

Q7
(A)
54
62
49

Q8
(A)
62
62
63

Q9
(B)
55
58
53

Q10
(B)
51
54
35

Q11
(A)
51
42
56

Figure 1: summary findings of the survey’s eleven questions
Conclusion
In conclusion, motivational intensity in the context of French language learners in a nonfrancophone country was addressed in this research. The researchers investigated the level ofdesire to learn French among university students. In doing so, answers were provided to thefollowing questions: Do Yemeni undergraduate learners of the French language have a high or
a low level of motivational intensity in their learning of French? How much do Yemeni
undergraduate learners of the French language desire to learn French? Among the Yemeni
undergraduate learners of the French language, is there any gender difference in the level ofmotivational intensity and their desire to learn French? The findings reported in this study show
that, in general, Yemeni learners have a high level of motivational intensity and a significant
amount of desire for learning the French language and culture. With regard to gender differencein the level of motivational intensity and the desire to learn French among the Yemeni learnersof French language, the findings of the current study implied that there is a slight difference
between males and females in their motivational intensity and desire to learn French. Thus,
male learners are found to have a higher level of motivational intensity as well as more desire
to learn French than their female counterparts.
The presented research had some limitations that should be taken into consideration. On thenational level, the research was conducted in the French Language Department of Sana’a
University, which is only one of the five Yemeni universities that have French language
departments. The limitation of the surveyed sample was due to logistical issues and difficulties
in collecting data from the other universities because of the ongoing war. In a wider context,
the discussion in this research focused on one of the non-francophone countries, Yemen, which
could be one of the limitations. Hence, considering the previously mentioned limitations, thefollowing recommendations may be addressed for similar future research. It is recommended
to address the same questions using the same methodology in other non-francophone countries.

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

It would be interesting to compare the motivational intensity of the French language learners
and the level of desire to learn French in other non-francophone countries among university
students in different cultures, or even of similar cultures in the same region.

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Abdilah, H. & Chowdhury, R. (2013). Gender and motivation: A case study of Iraqi immigrants
in Melbourne. Conference of the International Journal of Arts & Science, 6(1), 231–239.
Adachi, R. (2015). Motivation and communicative attitudes among Japanese EFL pupils.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.824
Akram, M. & Ghani, M. (2013). Gender and language learning motivation. Academic
Research International, 4(2), 536–540.
Al-Khasawneh, F. & Al-Omari, M. (2015). Motivations towards learning English: The caseof Jordanian gifted students. International Journal of Education, 7(2), 306–321.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v7i2.7699
Al-Mahrooqi, R. & Denman, C. (2014). Motivation within the Omani EFL context: types,
sources and classroom implication. Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(2),103–120.
Al Othman, F. & Shuqair, K. (2013). The impact of motivation on English language learningin the Gulf States. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 123–130.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p123
Azarnoosh, M. & Birjandi, P. (2012). Junior high schools’ L2 motivation self system: Any
gender differences? World Applied Science Journal, 20(4), 577–584.
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.20.04.2732
Bacon, S. (1992) The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, andcognitive and affective response in second language learning. The Modern Language
Journal, 76(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb01096.x
Bećirović, S. (2017). The relationship between gender, motivation and achievement inlearning English as a foreign language. European Journal of Contemporary Education,
6(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.2.210
Coskun, L. (2014). Investigating the essential factors on students’ motivation throughcomparing boys and girls in terms of instrumental & integrative motivation in EFL
classrooms. Journal of Educational Social Research, 4(2), 150–156.
https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n2p150
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.
Language Learning, 41(4), 469–512.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x
Csizér, K., Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its
relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal,
89 (1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x
Dörnyei (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching,31, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480001315X
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advancesin theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.53222
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In Davies, & A.Elder,(eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 525–551). MA: Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch21

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation: A descriptive and casual analysis. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(5), 28–35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05240.x
Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Motivation and second language acquisition.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 218–230.
Gardner, R. (1985a). The Attitude Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report 1. University ofWestern Ontario: London. Retrieved from:http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/docs/AMTBmanual.pdf
Gardner, R. (1985b). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language
Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. A. & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second
language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 344–
262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei& R. Schmidt (Eds), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp.1–19).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The Socio-educationalmodel. Bern: Peter Lang Publishers.
Heinzmann, S. (2009). Girls are better at language learning than boys: Do stereotypic beliefs
about language learning contribute to girls’ higher motivation to learn English in
primary school? In VALS-ASLA (Swiss association of applied linguistics), 89, 19–36.
Liu, M. & Zhang, X. (2013). An investigation of Chinese university students’ foreign
language anxiety and English learning motivation. English Linguistics Research, 2 (1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v2n1p1
Masgoret, A. M. & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language
Learning, 53, 167–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00212
Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and experience in foreign language learning. Germany: Peter
Lang.
Netten, J., Riggs, C., & Hewlett, S. (1999). Choosing French in the senior high school:
Grade 9 student attitudes to the study of French in the Western Avalon School District.
St. John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University, Faculty of Education.
Noels, K. A. (2005). Orientations to learning German: Heritage language learning andmotivational substrates. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(2), 285–312.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.62.2.285
Parham, A. C. (1988). Psychology: Studying the behavior of people. Cincinnati, Ohio: SouthWestern Publishing.
Pintrich, P. R.; Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, andapplications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, andapplication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

113

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general
theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Xiong, X. (2010). A comparative study of boys’ and girls’ English study difference. Journalof Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 309–312. A comparative study of boys’ andgirls’ English study difference
Yeung, A., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2011). Primary and secondary students’ motivation in learning
English: Grade and gender differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3),
246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.001
Corresponding author: Nesrine Abdullah EL-Zine
Contact email: nelzineut@gmail.com

114

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

L2 Vocabulary Acquisition through Narratives in an EFL Public Elementary School
Maria Nelly Gutierrez Arvizu
Universidad de Sonora
Mexico115

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) has exponentially grown in the past decades
as it has become part of the curricula from kindergarten to higher education. In many countries,
governments have conducted initiatives that resulted in the implementation of English classes
in public education settings. The use of narratives in language teaching has been regarded as
an effective way to teach vocabulary as stories provide a natural context for language input.
However, there is a need to assess the effectiveness of narrative instruction. This study
investigated the effect of using stories and pre-teaching vocabulary in a public elementary
school in northwestern Mexico. A total of 167 students from third to sixth grade participated.
A narrative intervention was conducted in the experimental and comparison groups. The
experimental groups were pre-taught vocabulary in the stories through visuals and stories in
the participants’ native language (L1), Spanish. A vocabulary assessment was administered
three times (pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest) to determine if there were statisticallysignificant differences within and between groups. The tests scores were analyzed using
Friedman and Mann Whitney U statistical tests. The results showed that narratives overall
helped in developing vocabulary for EFL young learners. Furthermore, the experimental groupobtained slightly higher scores at the delayed posttest showing that pre-teaching vocabulary
and using the L1 may contribute to increasing vocabulary knowledge in the second language(L2). In EFL public education contexts, using effective teaching strategies promotes
acquisition and retention that ultimately lead to communicative competence in the L2.
Keywords: EFL, SLA, young learners, narratives, vocabulary

116

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Recently many governments around the world have implemented educational policies toincorporate teaching English in the elementary school (Copland, Garton, & Burns, 2014). In
the past two decades, teaching English to young learners has had an impact on millions ofEnglish teachers, students, and parents in numerous countries (Emery & Rich, 2015; Rich,
2014).
In Mexico’s English as a foreign language (EFL) context, developing vocabulary is one of thecurricular components of the national program. The Common European Framework ofReference (CEFR) has been used to establish the language learning targets (Council of Europe,2001). By sixth grade, students should be at level A2 (basic user). In other words, students
should be able to talk about situations that are familiar to them, and offer basic descriptions ofthemselves, their context, and others. English instruction has been introduced in the educational
system “for students to get the necessary knowledge to engage in social practices with spoken
and oral language to interact with native and non-native English speakers by means of specificcompetencies with the language” (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2011, p. 67). The national
curriculum indicates that English will be taught in three sessions of 50 minutes each per week.
English instruction begins in kindergarten and continues for nine years with the purpose ofachieving a B1 proficiency level in the CEFR. That is, the goal is that after completing basic
education, the students should be independent users of the language who can understand andexpress themselves at a basic level in topics that are familiar to them such as school, work, andsocial life (Council of Europe, 2001).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of using stories in EFL teaching
and the impact of pre-teaching vocabulary as an instructional strategy, particularly at the
beginning stages of the L2 acquisition process of young learners. The setting for the study wasa public elementary school in northwestern Mexico. In this school, Spanish is the predominantlanguage for communication among teachers, staff, and students. All the classes, except the
English class, are completely conducted in Spanish. The students are rarely exposed to otherlanguages other than Spanish. This linguistic context limits the amount of exposure to andpractice of English.
The importance of this study is that it analyzed a teaching strategy that may help develop EFL
students’ storytelling with topics that are familiar to them. This study could provide afoundation for materials development, teacher training, improved outcomes, and further
research of teaching and learning processes in an EFL context. Also, researching the use ofstories in second or foreign language development strengthens its purposeful employment in
the classroom. From the research methodological stance, this study contributes to advancing
the field of applied linguistics with regards to the participants (young learners) and the research
design (pre, post, delayed post-test). It is a quantitative study assessing the impact of anintervention over time as measured through tests (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012).
This study is part of a larger study conducted to investigate the effectiveness of a narrativeintervention to promote speaking adapted to suit the context of an elementary public school in
Mexico. The larger study looked at narrative retell skills, listening comprehension andvocabulary acquisition. The main research questions driving the study reported in this article
are the following:
1. Is a narrative intervention effective in increasing English vocabulary acquisition of
EFL elementary school students?

117

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

2. Does pre-teaching vocabulary increase vocabulary acquisition among EFL
elementary school students?
3. What are the perceptions of the EFL elementary school students regarding the
instruction of vocabulary in the narrative interventions received?
Literature Review
Narratives in Language Development
In educational contexts in general, “stories play a crucial role in human learning” (McDonald,
2009, p. 112). In teaching a second or foreign language, stories provide a meaningful context
where grammar and vocabulary interact in a cohesive manner (Pinter, 2006). Stories help inthe “development of vocabulary and grammar, and of oral and literacy skills” (Cameron, 2001,
p. 179). Stories stimulate imagination and creativity in language learners whose attention isplaced in understanding the meaning of the story in general (Wright, 1995).
There are different purposes for using stories in the EFL classroom. Stories have been usedprimarily as a teaching technique to present grammar and vocabulary in context, introduce a
topic, and develop plays for non-native speakers learning English as a foreign language (Bland,
2014; Dujmović, 2006; Ellis & Brewster, 2014; Pinter, 2006; Srinivas, 2009; Vale & Feunteun,
1995). It is common to find stories in textbooks in order to provide context for English language
learners when a specific grammatical point is being taught. Stories are also found in EFL
teacher training courses because their use is regarded as a teaching strategy that aids inlanguage development (mainly reading and listening comprehension) and classroom
management (Phillips, 1993; Vale & Feunteun, 1995). Interestingly, despite having animportant role in language teaching, Garton, Copland, and Burns (2011) conducted a survey ofpractices when teaching English to young learners around the world and found that 42% of theteachers reported frequently telling stories in class, while 17% of the teachers reported neverusing stories in class. Also, children telling stories was reported as one of the least frequently
utilized activities. The researchers noted that despite being considered one of the major
pedagogies, stories were not among the more commonly used strategies by teachers or students.
This insight may form the basis for needing research to determine their effectiveness as an
instructional technique to aid in vocabulary development.
In Gutierrez Arvizu (2017), the effectiveness of a narrative intervention with sixth graders in
an EFL public school was investigated. The results showed that the experimental andcomparison groups increased the length of time speaking English after a narrative intervention
using the Story Champs curriculum where story grammar was taught explicitly, although theexperimental group showed a greater improvement. Story Champs is a language curriculumthat uses narratives with situations that children may easily identify to teach vocabulary andcomplex language structures (Spencer & Petersen, 2012).
L2 Vocabulary
Undoubtedly, vocabulary is a key component in second language acquisition and learning. In
any model for communicative language competence vocabulary is regarded as one of theelements that is necessary in communication activities (Council of Europe, 2001). In EFL
educational settings, the development of vocabulary has consistently been present in the
curriculum, sometimes in the form of lists and other times embedded in conversations, reading,and projects. Paviéciâc Takaéc (2008) compiled a list of the most commonly used schemes topresent new vocabulary: connecting an L2 item with its equivalent in L1, defining the meaning,presentation through context, directly connecting the meaning to real objects or phenomena,

118

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

and active involvement of learners in presentation. Vocabulary crucial to understanding thestory might be pre-taught or taught during the lessons to ensure full comprehension of the story(Cameron, 2001). Also, Gutierrez Arvizu (2017) recommended pre-teaching vocabulary in thestories in order to ensure that the students would comprehend the content presented in thestories.
Acquiring vocabulary in a second language for beginners involves making connections
between the word in the L2 and its equivalent in L1 (Paviéciâc Takaéc, 2008). This could be
an advantage particularly in the case of languages that share similarities in linguistic features.
EFL teachers may use the L1 as a strategy to explain vocabulary (Alshehri, 2017).
Current research in vocabulary acquisition has overlooked young learners of English,
specifically the age range of elementary school children. This is particularly relevant because
great efforts are being made in countries where English has been part of the curricula sinceelementary school, and research should be conducted to inform decisions in policy making.
Overall, it can be noted that the use of stories as a teaching strategy and vocabularydevelopment is intrinsic to language learning; however, there is a need for research regardingthese topics in teaching and learning in EFL contexts to make the best use of the resources athand. Resources such as time and materials are limited in public elementary schools in the
educational context previously described. Therefore, investigating the effectiveness of teachingstrategies leads to possible curricular adaptations and improvements. Even more rarely,
research to this point has reported findings showing the effects of intervention in the long term.
Hence, the importance of conducting a study that analyzes the impact of a narrative intervention
after its conclusion is significant.
MethodParticipants
A total of 167 children between the ages of nine and 12 years participated in the study. They
were enrolled in grades third to sixth in a Mexican elementary public school. Two intact groups
from each grade were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the treatments (experimental
or comparison). For the purpose of the statistical analyses, the participants were divided inexperimental and comparison regardless of their school grade. There were 90 female and 77
male participants in the study. Table 1 shows the distribution of participants by treatment
received (experimental or comparison) and gender in each of the grades (third, fourth, fifth,
and sixth).
Table 1: Participants’ distribution by grade, treatment, and gender (N=167)
Grade(approx. age)Third
(9 years old)
Fourth(10 years old)Fifth
(11 years old)Sixth
(12 years old)
Total

Treatment
Experimental
Comparisonn%n%
17 10.18
18 10.78

Femalen%
22 13.17

n
13

Male
%
7.79

N
35

%
20.96

17

10.18

18

10.78

18

10.78

17

10.18

35

20.96

28

16.77

21

12.57

27

16.17

22

13.17

49

29.34

23

13.77

25

14.97

23

13.77

25

14.97

48

28.74

85

50.90

82

49.10

90

53.89

77

46.11

167

100

119

GenderTotal

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Concerning language spoken, all of the participants were native speakers of Spanish. Theiroverall proficiency level of English, as measured by a standardized English test administeredprior to the intervention, was below A1 in the Common European Framework of Reference(Council of Europe, 2001).
Permission to participate in the study was obtained from the State's Department of Education,
the school officials and class teachers through meetings and project presentations. The risks ofparticipating in this study were the same as those encountered in daily life while attending
school. No additional risks were taken.
Lessons
There were twelve lessons of approximately 15 to 20 minutes in length for each of the groups.
These lessons were conducted in a period of three weeks during the time allotted for theparticipants to attend classes at their elementary school. There were four interventionists, one
for each grade, in charge of teaching both groups (experimental and comparison).
Instructional Materials
The stories and visuals used in this study were adapted from the multi-tiered curriculum Story
Champs (Spencer & Petersen, 2012). Story Champs is a language curriculum designed to teachspecific vocabulary and complex language structures through narratives with situations
familiar to children. The stories are a sequence of illustrations accompanied by icons of specificcolor that represent important aspects of the story: character, problem, problem resolution,
feeling, action, and ending.
Based on the results from the work of Gutierrez Arvizu (2017), changes were made to theselection of stories and content. The stories were selected based on cultural relevance andrelatability for elementary school students in the Mexican context. Also, character names werechanged to facilitate the story retellings. In the following paragraphs, a description of thematerials for each group is provided.
Experimental groups. In each lesson, two words were pre-taught using visuals and a story in
the participants’ L1 to provide context. A discussion relevant to the meaning of the new
vocabulary was encouraged. Then the story in English was read to the participants as theinterventionist would point to the images that illustrated each part of the story. A series oflistening comprehension questions around the elements of the story was asked of theparticipants as a class to reconstruct the story using icons and gestures representing eachelement. After that, the participants would engage in a paired activity to retell the story.
Comparison groups. In each lesson, the participants listened to the same story in theexperimental groups. They had a discussion of the story and a choral repetition of the story.
The participants were asked comprehension questions from the story but the story grammar
was not reviewed or practiced. The vocabulary was not discussed or practiced explicitly.
Assessments
Vocabulary test. A multiple-choice vocabulary test with 24 items was designed to measurelearning and retention. There were three options for each item. The participants would read andlisten to a word as they would be presented with three images. One of the images was thecorrect representation of the word. All of the words were part of the stories in the lessons. The
test items were dichotomously scored. The test was administered three times: pre-test, posttest, and delayed post-test (four months after the post-test). The vocabulary test was designed

120

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

by the researcher for this specific study. It is not part of the Story Champs curriculum. It wasreviewed by experts teaching young learners. It was piloted with a small group of students prior
to the administration. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .76 indicated good reliability (Taber,2018).
Young learners’ perception survey. An eight item 5-point Likert-scale survey wasadministered along with the delayed post-test with the purpose of allowing the participants toexpress their views on the intervention they experienced (Pinter, 2014). The experimental andcomparison groups answered survey questions tailored to the intervention that was provided(see Appendix A and Appendix B for the surveys administered). In other words, theexperimental groups were asked about the use of visuals, native language, pre-teaching
vocabulary, story in their native language whilst the comparison groups were asked if theywould like the aforementioned strategies. The instruments used language that the participants
would comprehend easily. Each item was translated into Spanish, the participants’ native
language. It is important to mention that the researcher developed the survey. It was adaptedfrom Gutierrez Arvizu (2017) to suit the purposes of the present study. It was piloted with asmall group of children in the same grade.
ProceduresFirst, two groups of each grade were recruited to take part in the study. The groups wererandomly assigned to an experimental or comparison treatment. After that, the participants
were pretested using the vocabulary test designed to measure previous knowledge ofvocabulary in lessons. Once pretested, 12 lessons for each group were delivered over a periodof 4 weeks. Immediately after that, the participants took a post-test to measure their learningof vocabulary in the lessons. After a wait period of four months without lessons, a delayed
post-test was administered to measure vocabulary retention. All the collected data wasdeidentified for confidentiality purposes. It is important to mention that this study was
conducted with the authorization of the school teachers, principal, and senior officer for the
English National Program at the Secretariat of Education and Culture of the State of Sonora,
Mexico. The participants were always treated with utmost respect and were safely guarded by
the research team during the lessons and assessments.
Statistical Analyses
After data screening and preliminary tests for normality, homogeneity of variances, sphericity,and presence of outliers, it was determined that non-parametric analyses were required. In orderto answer research question 1 regarding the effect of a narrative intervention to aid in theacquisition of English vocabulary in EFL elementary school students, a Friedman test was
conducted to find differences across assessment times (pre-test, post-test, and delayed posttest) (Lund Research Ltd., 2013). The Friedman test is a nonparametric statistical test used tocompare multiple paired samples that are not normally distributed. It is the equivalent to therepeated measures analysis of variance. Due to all the participants having received narrativeintervention, they were taken as one sample. For research question 2 regarding the effect ofpre-teaching vocabulary strategies to increase acquisition, three Mann Whitney U analyses
were conducted to find differences between the experimental and comparison groups at eachtesting time (Lund Research Ltd., 2013). The Mann Whitney U test is a nonparametricstatistical procedure that compares two groups that come from a non-normal distribution. It is
the equivalent of the independent t-test. For research question 3, regarding the participants’
perceptions of the intervention received, descriptive statistics were used to analyze theresponses to the survey that was administered. The analyses were done using the responses tothe Likert-scale items in the survey. The survey for each group had eight items with five points

121

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

for the participants’ to indicate how much in agreement they were with the statements provided
in each item. The responses were not coded for emerging themes.
Findings
Narrative Interventions to aid in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Research question 1 was presented as follows: Is a narrative intervention effective in increasing
English vocabulary acquisition of EFL elementary school students? This question regarding
the effectiveness of narrative instruction in aiding EFL young learners to acquire vocabulary
was answered by conducting a Friedman test. The results showed that there was a statisticallysignificant difference in vocabulary knowledge across testing times, χ2(2) = 74.79, p = 0.000.
That is, the participants in the study increased their vocabulary from pre-test to post-test to
delayed post-test. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of medians, means, and standard
deviations at each assessment point. Vocabulary knowledge tended to increase across time.
Table 3: Medians, means, and standard deviations of three testing times (N=167)
Assessment Times
PretestMedianMeanStandard deviation
Posttest
MedianMeanStandard deviation
Delayed Posttest
MedianMeanStandard deviation

Vocabulary Scores
14
13.60
4.01
16
16.07
4.21
17
16.57
3.93

Stories as an instructional strategy have been regarded as effective since second or foreign
language teaching methodology has been documented (Pinter, 2006; Wright, 1995). In EFL
contexts, narratives have aided the teaching of young language learners by introducing
vocabulary in a meaningful manner, thus making vocabulary acquisition easier and long lasting(Bland, 2014; Dujmović, 2006; Ellis & Brewster, 2014).
Effectiveness of Pre-teaching Vocabulary
Research question 2 was posed as follows: Does pre-teaching vocabulary increase vocabularyacquisition among EFL elementary school students? This question was intended to explore andanalyse the differences between the experimental and comparison groups regarding theeffectiveness of pre-teaching vocabulary through visuals, explicit instructions with definitions,and a story in the participants’ native language as strategies to increase vocabulary knowledge.
A series of comparisons between the groups at each assessment time was conducted toinvestigate if these strategies were effective. To accomplish the goal of the second researchquestion, three Mann Whitney U tests were conducted. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics
of medians, means, and standard deviations for each group.

122

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 4: Medians, means, and standard deviations for three testing times (N=167)
Assessment Times
PretestMedianMeanStandard deviation
Posttest
MedianMeanStandard deviation
Delayed Posttest
MedianMeanStandard deviation

Experimental Group (n=87)

Comparison Group (n=80)

14
13.78
3.99

13
12.41
4.05

16
16.46
3.93

16
15.65
4.48

18
17.23
3.94

16
15.86
3.87

The results showed a non-statistically significant result for the experimental and comparisongroups before the intervention (U= 3273, Z= -.666, p= .506). The effect size was r= .051, whichis considered small. Therefore, the groups were considered comparable at pretest. After theintervention, the results showed a non-statistically significant result (U= 3177, Z= -.974, p=.330). The effect size (r= .08) was small. Four months after the intervention was conducted, adelayed posttest was administered to determine if the vocabulary in the stories was retained.
The statistical test results indicated a significant difference between the experimental andcomparisons groups (U= 2733, Z= -2.401, p= .016). The effect size (r= .19) was small. The
experimental groups scored slightly higher than the comparison groups at this assessment
point.
Graphically, Figure 1 presents a pattern of increased vocabulary knowledge for both groups.
Upon further visual inspection and statistical analyses, specific information is revealed. At pretest, neither group was statistically significant different. That is, they could be considered thesame in a practical sense. At post-test, both groups had an increased vocabulary score asmeasured by the test administered once the narrative intervention was completed. At this point,
the results of a statistical test did not show any significant differences between the experimental
and comparison groups. However, a significant difference between the groups was found atdelayed post-test. That is, the experimental group obtained a higher score at post-test than thecomparison group.

20
15
Experimental
10

Comparison

50PretestPosttest

Delayed Posttest

Figure 1: Means plot for scores and testing times

123

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The findings of the delayed post-test suggest that using a variety of strategies to pre-teachvocabulary to young learners in an EFL context allows them to continue developing even after
instruction has been concluded. Among the strategies used effectively in this intervention werethe use of the native language, visuals, and meaningful context (Gutierrez Arvizu, 2017;
Paviéciâc Takaéc, 2008).
Young Learners’ Perspective
Research question 3 was stated as follows: What are the perceptions of the EFL elementary
school students in terms of the instruction of vocabulary in the narrative intervention received?
The purpose of the third research question was to give a voice to the participants regarding
their perspective on learning vocabulary in a narrative intervention. To accomplish this, asurvey using a 5-point Likert-scale was conducted. The items in the survey for the experimentalgroup reflected the actual teaching strategies used. The items in the survey for the comparisongroup were written as strategies they would like or prefer not to have. Table 4 shows the means
and standard deviations per group on each of the items and topics of the survey.
Table 5: Means and standard deviations per group for items on survey (N=167)
Experimental Groups(n=106)
Mean
Standard
Deviation
4.41
2.73

Topic
1. Learning new words in English

Comparison Groups(n=105)
Mean
Standard
Deviation
4.03
1.16

2. Liking visuals for new words

4.15

1.12

4.16

1.15

3. Liking how new words were taught

4.23

1.09

4.02

1.20

4. Understanding words better with visuals

4.04

1.12

3.89

1.22

5. Having stories in native language

4.33

1.03

3.98

1.39

6. Knowing meaning of words in story

4.02

1.14

4.09

1.24

7. Knowing meaning of words in native
language
8. Understanding story better if words were pretaught

4.26

1.06

4.34

1.13

3.65

1.26

4.01

1.24

Overall, it can be observed that the participants in both groups awarded high scores to the topics
in the items. The highest score in the experimental group was for learning new words in English(m=4.41, SD=2.73) closely followed by having stories in their L1 (m=4.33, SD=1.03) andknowing the meaning of vocabulary in their L1 (m=4.26, SD=1.06). For the comparisongroups, this last topic was awarded the highest scores (m=4.34, SD=1.13) as a strategy theywould like to have. They also expressed they would have liked having visuals for new
vocabulary (m=4.16, SD=1.15) and knowing the meaning of words in the stories (m=4.09,
SD=1.24).
In the comments section of the instrument, the participants expressed liking the lessons and thestories. A few comments included enjoying learning vocabulary and the visuals used.
Participants in the experimental group also expressed a positive perception towards having
learned the words in their native language, Spanish.

124

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The perspective of young language learners should be considered as they are the ultimate
consumers and beneficiaries of the instructional strategies teachers employ (Pinter, 2014). The
participants’ positive opinion on the use of stories and vocabulary teaching strategies in English
provides a basis for possible curricular changes and adaptations (Gutierrez Arvizu, 2017).
Recommendations
Based on the results from the statistical analyses, it can be noted that narratives in generalprovide context for meaningful vocabulary learning in a foreign language. Therefore,
vocabulary may be developed when seen in context with the support visuals, discussion, andthe relationship between words in L1 and L2. Interestingly, the results also showed that thebenefits of having teaching strategies for vocabulary development may be observed in the longterm. After four months, the participants in the experimental group continued slightly
increasing their vocabulary. It was at the delayed post-test assessment that a statisticallysignificant difference was found.
In this study, the participants in the experimental groups were exposed to multiple modes ofpresenting vocabulary (Linse, 2005) such as visuals, definitions, discussions, and narratives in
L2 and L1 to promote acquisition of lexical items. Despite the fact that the participants had abeginner level of proficiency in the language, they were able to understand the stories and learn
and retain vocabulary used in the stories. Srinivas (2009) stressed the importance of introducing
new and key words before using stories through visuals and realia when teaching English toyoung learners. Moreover, Linse (2005) and Nunan (2011) considered explicit instruction, preteaching vocabulary, and multiple exposure to the new lexical items as part of the principles
for teaching vocabulary to young learners.
The interplay between materials, content, and teaching strategies to promote communicativecompetence comes to a realization in the learners’ proficiency in the language. Particularly
when teaching young learners, these elements should be engaging and varied (Emery & Rich,
2015). The participants in this study enjoyed the stories, materials, and activities. The young
learners who participated in the study perceived this intervention as motivating to learn andpractice English. When teachers face the task of choosing the stories to be used in class, theyshould take into account that stories should be engaging from the beginning, be appropriate,
provide rich language experiences, and be enjoyable and comprehensible (Srinivas, 2009).
As the field of applied linguistics moves forward, the voice of young language learners shouldbe heard. Pinter (2014) advocated for giving space for young learners to provide their own
insights into their second or foreign language learning process. In their perception, theparticipants shed light into the importance of the L1 when used as a strategy for learning a new
language. The L1 should be considered as a resource or strategy (Alshehri, 2017) that language
teachers have that allows learners to make meaningful connections.
An observation from the researcher’s stance is that an important piece in any curricular
implementation to ensure that the guidelines are properly conducted is teacher training. In
future studies, the effectiveness of this narrative intervention should be investigatedlongitudinally while teaching the lessons throughout a school year and delivered by English
teachers. It is also suggested that the teachers incorporate lessons that match or aid in thecontent already established in their course syllabi.

125

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

One limitation of this study is that the data were collected in only one research site. This school
was located in the center of Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico surrounded by businesses and middleclass housing. It had all the conveniences of an urban school such as running water, electricity,and internet. Also, the school had a computer room and library. This implies that the findings
and conclusions may not be the same if the intervention would be administered in schools withdifferent characteristics regarding English proficiency of the students, amount of time forEnglish classes prior to the study, and characteristics. It is suggested that further studies may
be conducted to sustain the results.
Conclusion
Overall, the results of this research indicated that using stories and pre-teaching vocabulary are
effective, particularly over time. The effect of teaching English through stories in EFL contexts
allows elementary school students to develop vocabulary in this language. Furthermore, theeffects of using instructional strategies such as pre-teaching vocabulary, using visuals, andtelling a story in the students’ native language, aided in the vocabulary acquisition process.
These effects were observed across time, after the intervention was concluded. Adding to theseresults, the participants’ perspective was mainly positive. The young learners of EFL expressed
liking the interventions in general as they were exposed to a new method of instruction thatallowed them to practice the English language and learn vocabulary.
Teaching English to young learners in foreign language contexts has exponentially grown in
the last decades. This tendency will continue in the future as English is widely used in business,academia, science, and culture contexts to mention a few. It is of utmost importance that
English language programs, particularly in public education, make the best possible use of thelimited resources they have to advance the language learning process and achievecommunicative competence. It is clear that this can be done through the implementation ofteaching strategies that are effective as research evidence supports to develop the language inmeaningful lessons that promote vocabulary acquisition, as well as all the skills. Narratives
have been and will continue to be at the core of teaching instruction. It depends on how we as
language teachers implement it that our students will benefit the most.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express her gratitude to the Secretaría de Educación Pública in
Mexico. This research work was supported by the Programa de Desarrollo Profesional
Docente through a grant awarded in 2018 under the title “Comprensión auditiva en inglés en
primaria pública en México”. It has been registered at Universidad de Sonora, Mexico with
the number USO318005666. Many thanks to Dr. Trina D. Spencer for her advice on
instructional and testing materials development, and research design. Finally, thanks to theresearch team, participants, school teachers, principal, and officials who supported thisresearch project.

126

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Alshehri, E. (2017). Using learners’ first language in EFL classrooms. IAFOR Journal of
Language Learning, 3(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.1.02
Bland, J. (2014). Interactive theatre with student teachers and young learners: Enhancing EFL
learning across institutional divisions in Germany. In S. Rich (Ed.), International
perspectives on teaching English to young learners (pp. 156–174). England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109
Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young
learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738–762.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.148
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
Dujmović, M. (2006). Storytelling as a method of EFL teaching. Pergendira Journal, 3, 111–126. https://hrcak.srce.hr/11514
Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The story telling handbook for primary English
language teachers. London: British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/tell-it-again-storytelling-handbookprimary-english-language-teachers
Emery, H., & Rich, S. (2015). Teaching English to young learners. Virginia: TESOL Press.
Garton, S., Copland, F., & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching
English for young learners: Project report. London: British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/investigating-global-practices-teachingenglish-young-learners
Gutierrez Arvizu, M. N. (2017). Teaching story grammar to develop retell and speaking skills
in an EFL context. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Linse, C. (2005). Practical English language teaching young learners. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Lund Research Ltd. (2013). Mixed ANOVA using SPSS statistics. [Website].
https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mixed-anova-using-spss-statistics.php
Martin, W. E., & Bridgmon, K. D. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods:
From hypothesis to results. California: Jossey-Bass.
McDonald, J. K. (2009). Imaginative instruction: What master storytellers can teachinstructional designers. Educational Media International, 46, 111–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980902933318
Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to young learners. California: Anaheim University
Press.
Paviéciâc Takaéc, V. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language
acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690401

127

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Phillips, S. (1993). Young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinter, A. (2014). Child participant roles in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics,
35(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt008
Rich, S. (2014). International perspectives on teaching English to young learners.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023230
Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2011). Programa Nacional de Inglés en Educación Básica.
Asignatura Estatal: Lengua Adicional Inglés. Fundamentos curriculares. Preescolar,
primaria y secundaria.
https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/92641/FUNDAMENTOSPNIEB.pdf
Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2012). Story Champs: A multi-tiered language
intervention curriculum. Wyoming: Language Dynamics Group, LLC.
Srinivas, R. (2009). Teaching young learners: A handbook for English language teachers.
Hyderabad, India: Orient Black Swan.
Vale, D., & Feunteun, A. (1995). Teaching children English: An activity based training
course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, A. (1995). Storytelling with children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corresponding author: Maria Nelly Gutierrez Arvizu
Contact email: marianelly.gutierrez@unison.mx

128

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction in Russia:
Students’ Attitude ResearchAlexandra Kolesnikova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaAlina Maslova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaElena Mishieva
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russia129

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
The literature review shows that the current educational paradigm with the shift to a studentoriented model has transformed the roles of both the teacher and the student, where the lattertakes a more active and conscious part in educational processes. Peer assessment has proven tohave a positive impact on L2 learning and teaching, having various benefits for both the teacher
and the student, and its usefulness and efficiency has been supported by various research. Whileeducators are aware of such positive impact, students’ attitudes towards peer assessment mayvary. This study aims to examine the attitudes towards peer assessment in an L2 phonetics classof first year undergraduate students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies atLomonosov Moscow State University. Thirty-four participants responded to a questionnaire,the main aim of which was to explore their attitudes towards peer assessment and its
effectiveness in terms of developing their phonological competence and also their preferences
regarding oral and written peer assessment in class. Responses were analysed through JASP
software. The results of the study prove students’ awareness of the significance of peer
assessment and their positive attitudes towards it with approximately 85% of the participants
regarding it as a useful component of constructive feedback and approximately 91% of theparticipants acknowledging the usefulness of peer assessment for the development of their own
phonological skills. The study also offers a pronunciation peer assessment scale to contributeto teaching and learning L2 phonetics.
Keywords: peer assessment, L2 learning and teaching, phonetics, students’ attitudes, Russianstudents

130

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Introduction
Teaching phonetics, being interdisciplinary by nature, is inextricably linked to second language
acquisition processes, speech sciences and L2 pedagogy (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016).
Therefore, new studies in the field of L2 learning and teaching, especially from the lingua
franca perspective, ignited particular interest to second language pronunciation research, which
resulted in publication of special journal issues devoted to pronunciation (e.g. Cardoso &Trofimovich, 2014), a pronunciation-focused conference in the USA (Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 2015) and the foundation of the Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation in 2015.
Recently, teaching L2 pronunciation in Russia at the level of higher education has also been
receiving close attention. It attracts interest and inspires discussion regarding the contents ofcurricula and syllabi, requirements concerning L2 phonological competence development(Kolesnikova, 2015; Lavrova, 2017) in the view of worldwide use of English as a lingua franca(ELF) and the re-orientation of L2 teaching (Jenkins, 2005). Additional attention is given
regarding the methods of assessment following the changes introduced to the Common
European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR), namely, a new set of descriptors
which now focuses not on “nativeness” but on intelligibility of the primary construct ofphonological control. Thus, the question of assessing students’ performance in L2
pronunciation instruction is quite urgent, which justifies the need for further research.
Assessment in Pronunciation
According to Isaacs and Trofimovich (2016), “there is no dedicated book on assessing L2
pronunciation in the foundational Cambridge Language Assessment series” (p. 4). Assessing
L2 pronunciation has shown to be highly problematic in terms of designing and implementing
pronunciation scales with “descriptors suffering from inconsistences, vague language,
conflated constructs and unclear trajectory” (Harding, 2013, p.14). Investigation into theusability of the CEFR Phonological control scale (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 117) by Harding(2013) explicated its limitations in ensuring valid interpretation and consistent application byraters and thus questioned the effectiveness of the scale for L2 pronunciation assessment.
Therefore, the 2001 scale of Phonological Control, which was continuously applied in Russian
linguistic higher education to measure students’ phonological competence development,(Kolesnikova, 2016) appeared to be, according to the Phonological Scale Revision Process
Report,fully unrealistic when it comes to issues such as accent, or progression, … is notconsistent as it mixes such diverse factors as stress/intonation, pronunciation, accentand intelligibility without providing clear indication of progression in any of thesefactors specifically, … is not complete which results in jeopardizing its applicability
and usefulness (Piccardo, 2016, p. 9).
The Phonological Scale Revision Process Report by E. Piccardo, which was then followed bya series of consultations and validation in 2017, comprised the study of more than 50
publications on L2 pronunciation teaching, learning and assessing over the last 50 years,
including the works of Derwing, Harding, Isaacs, Jenkins, Munro, Trofimovich, and others,
who have been studying the impact of ELF concept on L2 instruction in general and on teachingphonetics in particular, and whose findings formed the base of the modified phonology

131

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

descriptor scales and CEFR spoken language descriptors (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 171).
There has been a groundbreaking and long indispensable shift from “nativeness” tointelligibility which “is generally identified by pedagogical specialists as the most important
outcome of pronunciation instruction” today (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p. 384). The newly
created scales provide the basis for teachers of phonetics to include appropriate objectives forphonology in their teaching and to develop assessment criteria appropriate to the levels
concerned and particular students expressing specific needs (Kolesnikova & Maslova, 2019).
Peer Assessment
Why Peer Assessment?
Traditionally, while teaching phonetics, an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher is
supposed to give feedback to students’ performance in the classroom, being viewed as the only
competent individual to objectively assess the progress and/or results. However, as the focus
has shifted from nativeness to intelligibility, this role of the teacher fades.
On the other hand, Russian federal state educational standards along with European educational
documents (Council of Europe, 2018) emphasize the active engagement of students in their own
learning, learner responsibility, metacognitive skills and a cooperative, collaborative model ofteaching and learning. CEFR
takes an innovative stance in seeing learners as language users and social agents, andthus seeing language as a vehicle for communication rather than as a subject to study.
In so doing, it proposes the analysis of learners’ needs … it also clearly suggests
planning backwards from learners’ real life communicative needs (Council ofEurope, 2018, p. 25).
Assessment processes in which the teacher holds all the power and makes all judgements limit
the potential for learner development in all of these aspects. This is especially true of L2
pronunciation instruction, since teacher-student collaboration might be beneficial not only formastering one’s pronunciation skills, but also for developing listening and social skills.
There is a strong need to rethink L2 phonetics assessment system that will align more closelywith the ideals of collaborative and action learning. In this respect, peer assessment can play
an important role, as students’ active participation in assessment design, choices, criteria andmaking judgments is a more sustainable preparation for subsequent working life (Boud &Falchikov, 2006), which might result in a real paradigm shift in both course planning andteaching, promoting learner engagement and autonomy. The main objective of the process ofeducation has long been the emergence of self-determining persons, who can set learning
objectives and self-assessment criteria to assess their own performance and progress to shape
their own vector of development. Skilled and flexible learners are formed not by total control
of educators but by an inclusive system of assessment where peer assessment would be aperfect model.
Peer Assessment in L2 Instruction
Falchikov (1995) defines peer assessment as “the process whereby groups of individuals rate
their peers, who are students of equal status to one another” (p. 176). He also underscores that“peer assessment requires students to provide either feedback or grades (or both) to their peers
on a product or a performance, based on the criteria of excellence for that product or event
which students may have been involved in determining” (Falchikov, 1995, p.132).

132

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Peer assessment is considered as “an arrangement in which individuals consider the amount,level, value, worth, quality, or success of the products or outcomes of the learning of peers ofsimilar status” (Topping, 1998, p. 250). In this process students have to “reflect upon, andperhaps suggest grades for the learning of their peers” (Roberts, 2006, p. 80), and being judged
for the quality of the appraisals made (Davies, 2006). This type of alternative assessment brings
teachers and students into close collaboration in the development of critical thinking of thelatter. Both teachers and learners being engaged in assessment affords a degree of mutuallyadvantageous control over the assessment methods, outcomes, and their underlying rationale(Cheng & Warren, 2005).
There is much scientific evidence that peer assessment is quite beneficial in L2 teaching andlearning, especially in writing. Cheng and Warren (2005) found that peer assessment has been
more commonly incorporated into English language writing instruction where peers give
feedback to each other’s written works. Peer assessment in teaching speaking has also beenrecognized as being efficient (Luoma, 2004; Matsuno, 2017; Okuda & Otsu, 2010), and it
seems to be quite promising to implement in teaching phonetics, a possibility the current
research seeks to discover.
Benefits of Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction
According to Matsuno (2017), assessment
is quite a burden for teachers. Especially when they must evaluate their students’ oral
performances, it may cause some troubles since they can often see those
performances only once unless they record them. In those situations, peer assessment
can be an additional assessment method. Peer assessment involves students inmaking judgments of their peers’ work. (p.1292)
Peer assessment via providing and receiving feedback seems a rather powerful meta-cognitive
tool, which might bring fruitful results in an L2 pronunciation classroom since it can:• encourage collaborative teaching and learning as required by the modern educational
paradigm;• balance teacher-student control over the learning process, “students thus feel theownership of the assessment (and learning) process rather than alienated or victimisedby it” (Nulty, 2008, p. 3), which ensures stronger motivation and engagement inlearning;• give students “an important sense of responsibility for their fellow students’ progress,
but also forces them to concentrate on the skills during their own presentations”(Brown, 1998, p. 67).
• ensure a higher level of validity and reliability when structured marking schemes areused (Sadler & Good, 2006);• develop listening skills along with pronunciation skills, as being engaged in assessing
requires much attention and listening effort;• inculcate the “intangibility conception”;• develop confidence in one’s pronunciation skills and reduce stress levels compared toteacher-centered assessment;• “allow teachers to be more relaxed during speaking tests as they know that they havethe peer assessment to support their own grading.” (Okuda & Otsu, 2010, p. 42)• encourage reflective learning through observing and commenting on others’ oral
performances;133

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

• “allow teachers to share some of the rating responsibility with their students, and it isespecially useful in speaking assessment, which is time-consuming if rated by one
person only” (Luoma, 2004, p. 189).
Thus, peer assessment is a highly productive tool for L2 classes, being beneficial for both theteacher and students when designed and used efficiently by both sides of the educational
process.
Research Questions
The studies cited above make it clear that in terms of the new educational paradigm the valueof peer assessment in L2 pronunciation instruction cannot be overestimated. However, thestudents’ reaction is not easy to predict. As Azarnoosh (2013) puts it,
The impact of peer assessment on language learning is promising, but its efficacy
seems to depend on many factors including students’ attitudes, language levels,familiarity with the assessing criteria, the type of skill being assessed, and thepossible presence of bias such as gender and friendship (p. 3).
Analyzing students’ opinions is a widespread type of research in foreign institutions (Derwing,
2010; Wach, 2011; Coskun, 2011; Chien, 2014) which, unfortunately, has not proved to be as
popular in Russia yet. Still, within the learner-oriented approach to English teaching, which
has been widespread in Russia since the end of the twentieth century, students were surveyed
in order to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of providing andgetting constructive feedback?
RQ2. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of developing theirown phonological skills?
RQ3. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more convenient?
RQ4. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more useful?
Methodology
The participants in this study were 34 first-year undergraduate students in the Faculty ofForeign Languages and Area Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University. Of the 34
participants, 19 majored in intercultural communication, 7 in English language teaching, and 8
in cultural studies. All the participants had attended or were still attending compulsory English
pronunciation classes, where peer assessment was regularly practised. All the participants wereadministered an anonymous questionnaire (Appendix 1). Anonymity was ensured due toethical considerations.
The main aim of the questionnaire was to explore the participants’ attitude towards peer
assessment and its effectiveness in terms of developing their phonological competence and also
their preferences regarding oral and written peer assessment in class.
The questionnaire consisted of four questions. Questions 1 and 2 were based on 7-point Likert
scales, as scientific evidence suggests that 7-point scales are “optimal” for measuring mostconstructs (Krosnick & Presser, 2010, p. 271) and they “seem to be best in terms of reliability,
percentage of undecided respondents, and respondents’ ability to discriminate between the134

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

scale values” (Schwarz, Knauper, Hippler, Noelle-Neumann, & Clark, 1991). Each scale point
was labelled by the researchers in order to minimise inaccuracies stemming from individualinterpretation of numbers. One of the possible limitations of a 7-point scale is the existingtendency for participants to choose the mid-point (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).
However, in this opinion study the presence of the mid-point with a neutral position was
unavoidable, as the respondents would have been pushed otherwise to adhere to a certain
viewpoint, not necessarily corresponding to their own, as a result of the absence of the neutral
option, which would have influenced the quality of the research data. Questions 3 and 4
presented the respondents with a binary choice. Question 3 enquired whether it was moreconvenient for students to use the oral or the written form of feedback; Question 4 asked whichof the two was more useful.
When the study was conducted, all participants were provided with detailed oral and written
instructions as to what was going to happen during the experiment. The participants were asked
to give oral consent or choose to opt out of the study. There were no instances of a student who
refused to participate, however. The identity of the students was fully anonymized. The
questionnaires were securely kept upon submission and access to them was controlled at all
times.
Results
In order to analyse the data, the participants’ questionnaire responses were entered into
Jeffreys's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) software, which is an open-source free platform
for statistical analysis (Wagermakers, 2019). Responses for Questions 1 and 2 were treated as
scale variables with possible integer values (1 to 7) corresponding to the questionnaire scalepoints. The descriptive statistics of the gathered data (N = 39) can be seen below in table 1:
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the gathered data.
Descriptive statistics (1)Descriptive statistics (2)
Q-2
Q-1
q-4
q-3
Valid
34
34
Std. Error of Skewness 0.4031 0.4031
Missing
00
Kurtosis-0.6645 -0.4393
Mean
6.000
5.676
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.7879 0.7879
Median6.000
6.000
Minimum
4.000
3.000
Mode
7.000
7.000
Maximum
7.000
7.000
Std. Deviation 0.9847
1.199
Sum
204.0
193.0
RQ1. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of providing and getting
constructive feedback?
For Question 1, most students stated that they found peer assessment “extremely useful”(n=11), followed by “quite useful” (n=10) and “really useful” (n=8). See figure 1. Three
students were not certain about the usefulness of peer assessment and two respondents statedthat peer assessment was “more useless than useful”. Generally, on the basis of this descriptive
data, it can be concluded that approximately 85% of the participants in this study regard peer
assessment as a useful component of constructive feedback.

135

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

How useful do you find peer assessment in terms ofproviding and getting constructive feedback?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

11

10

8

3

2

more useless neither quite useful really useful extremely
than useful useful nor
usefuluseless

Figure 1: Students’ responses to question 1.
RQ2. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of developing their own
phonological skills?
In Question 2, most students stated that they found peer assessment “extremely useful” (n=13),
followed by “really useful” (n=11) and “quite useful” (n=17). See figure 2. Three students were
not certain about the usefulness of peer assessment. Generally, it can be concluded thatapproximately 91% of the participants in this study acknowledge the usefulness of peer
assessment for the development of their own phonological skills.
How useful do you find peer assessment in terms ofdeveloping your own phonological skills?
14
12
10
8
6

11

4
2

13

7
3

0
neither usefulnor uselessquite usefulreally usefulextremely
usefulFrequency

Figure 2: Students’ responses to question 2.
RQ3. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more convenient?
Most students preferred oral peer assessment (n=21, 61%) to written peer assessment (n=13,39%) in terms of personal convenience and comfort. See figure 3.

136

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Which form of peer assessment do you find moreconvenient?
25
20

21

15
13

10
5
0
oral

writtenFigure 3: Students’ responses to question 3.
RQ4. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more useful?
Most students stated that oral peer assessment (n=23, 67%) was more useful than written peer
assessment (n=11, 33%). See figure 4.
Which form of peer assessment do you find more
useful?
25
20

23

15
10

11

5
0
oral

writtenFigure 4: Students’ responses to question 4.
Discussion and Limitations
This study set out to explore students’ attitudes towards peer assessment in L2 pronunciation
instruction. The obtained results showed that most students regarded peer assessment as acomponent useful both as a means of providing constructive feedback and as an opportunity
for developing personal phonological skills. The fact that the participants in this study spokein favour of the peer assessment means that depriving students of the possibility to commenton the pronunciation of their peers would limit their learning opportunities. Moreover, the factthat most students preferred oral assessment to written assessment seems to be rather
surprising, as the study hypothesis stated that providing written feedback to peers might be lessfriendship-biased and thus considered by students more effective or preferable. Perhaps, therespondents should have been offered more choices, including “both written and oral” and“none”. The binary choice might have limited the students and forced them to make a not

137

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

completely genuine choice. Moreover, including the qualitative component, that is, giving the
respondents the opportunity to verbally explain their choices, could have made the data in thisstudy richer and more informative.
Recommendations for Further Research
The following assessment criteria can be suggested for the development of peer assessment
practices in EFL pronunciation classes (Table 2). The grading system relies on the concept ofEnglish as a lingua franca and sees an intelligible, rather than a native-sounding speaker, as
the model. The criteria might be altered depending on the specialisation of the EFL students,
as the students majoring in English teaching, for instance, might want to be assessed against
native-speaker pronunciation as a yardstick (Coskun, 2011; Chien, 2014; Maslova, 2017).
Table 2: Suggested pronunciation peer assessment scale
Mark

Criteria

What can be How to improve
improved

5

pronunciation is flawless, no correctionneeded; all the requirements for the task havebeen satisfied
4.5
pronunciation is completely intelligible but
needs minor correction (1 mistake*); all therequirements for the task have been satisfied
4
a few mistakes are present (2-3); the student isshowing considerable effort but more work isneeded to make speech more intelligible; all therequirements for the task have been satisfied
3.5
many mistakes are present (4-5); therequirements for the task have been satisfied
only partially; the student is showing
considerable effort but is not yet intelligible.
3
many mistakes are present (more than 5); therequirements for the task have been satisfied
only partially; the student is showing little
effort and is not yet intelligible.
2
the student is showing very little effort, therequirements for the task have not beensatisfied, the speech is almost unintelligible1
the student is present but not prepared, thestudent is showing no effort0
the student is not present*A mistake is an act of mispronunciation that makes the word unintelligible / easily confusedwith another word (e.g. sick/seek, back/bag)As the generalisability of the study results is subject to certain limitations due to the small
sample size, more studies, both in Russia and in other cultural and educational contexts, areneeded to explore the question of students’ attitudes towards written and oral peer assessmentin the L2 phonetics classroom. Students can also be employed to test the peer assessment
pronunciation scale suggested by a teacher or develop a new one in cooperation with theteacher, which might result in motivation and a responsibility boost. Moreover, it would be138

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

beneficial to employ data triangulation by including qualitative research methods into similar
studies in order to gain better understanding of the matter.
Conclusion
The significance of an objective and effective assessment as an integral part of the teachinglearning cycle is apparent to many educationalists. Assessment has been varying along withthe changes of the theories and models of L2 learning and teaching, especially today when theconcept of teaching English as a lingua franca has become well-known and well-studied which,in terms of teaching phonetics, has drastically changed the way phonological skills are viewed
and assessed.
Constructive teaching and learning, the shift to a student-oriented model and the need to situatecollaborative and inclusive life-long learning have brought assessment to the centre ofresearchers’ attention, revealing that the roles and types of assessment have changed. The
teacher is no longer the centre of assessment but the students cooperating with teachers andsharing responsibilities can achieve greater results through practising such an interactive typeof assessment as peer assessment (Wikstorm, 2007).
The conducted research has indicated students’ positive attitude toward peer-assessment andtheir willingness to cooperate with the teacher in assessment, thus showing an awareness of
their active role in educational processes.

139

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Appendix 1
Questionnaire administered to the participants
Answer the following questions by choosing from 1 to 7 (Q 1,2) or choosing one option(Q 3,4):
1. How useful do you find peer assessment in terms of providing and getting
constructive feedback?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely UselessMore
Neither
Quite
ReallyExtremelyuseless
useless
useful nor
usefulusefulusefulthan useful useless
2. How useful do you find peer assessment in terms of developing your own
phonological skills?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely UselessMore
Neither
Quite
ReallyExtremelyuseless
useless
useful nor
usefulusefulusefulthan useful useless
3. Which form of peer assessment do you find more convenient? Choose one option.
Oral form (the form of discussion)
Written form (writing commentaries)
4. Which form of peer assessment do you find more useful? Choose one option.
Oral form (the form of discussion)
Written form (writing commentaries)

140

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship bias.
Language Testing in Asia, 3, article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-11
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602930600679050
Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria: Teachers ofEnglish to speakers of other languages.
Cardoso, W., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2014). Canadian Modern Language Review. Second
language speech perception and production: Implications for language teaching,Special Issue, 70(4).
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of oral proficiency. Language Testing,22(1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt298oa
Chien, C. (2014). Non-native pre-service English teachers’ narratives about theirpronunciation learning and implications for pronunciation training. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), 177–189.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.177
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Coskun, A. (2011). Future English teachers’ attitudes towards EIL pronunciation. Journal of
English as an International Language, 6(2), 46–68. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527146.pdf
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptions. Council ofEurope. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-newdescriptors-2018/1680787989
Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather
than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 69–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467566
Derwing, T. M. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning andTeaching Conference (24–37). Ames: Iowa State University.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching:
A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–398.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in
Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212
Harding, L. (2013). Pronunciation assessment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.) The encyclopedia of
applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0966

141

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2016). Second language pronunciation assessment:interdisciplinary perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/ISAACS6848
Jenkins, J. (2005). Teaching pronunciation for English as a Lingua Franca: a sociopoliticalperspective. In C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann (Eds.), The Globalisation of English andthe English Language Classroom (145–158). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Retrieved fromhttps://eprints.soton.ac.uk/47537/
Kolesnikova A. N., & Maslova A. A. (2019). Through the eyes of high school students:
which English pronunciation norm to study in Russia? Moscow State University
Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2019(2), 115–126.
Kolesnikova, A. N. (2015). The means of optimization of teaching phonetics in linguistic
higher schools. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics andIntercultural Communication, 2015(1), 29–36.
Kolesnikova, A. N. (2016). Optimization model of teaching phonetics at a linguistic
university via multimedia technologies (the English language) [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Moscow State University, Moscow.
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P.
V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd edition, pp. 263–314). West
Yorkshire: Emerald Group.
Lavrova, O. A. (2017). Phonological competence and ways of improving it. In L.S.
Kamenskaya (Ed.), Learning administration in lifelong education (89–91). Moscow:
Moscow State Linguistic University.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733017
Maslova, A. (2017). Perceptions of stakeholders towards the choice of pronunciation norms
in language teacher education in Russia. Moscow University Young Researchers'
Journal, 6. Retrieved from: http://youngresearchersjournal.org/2017/10/perceptionsof-stakeholders-towards-the-choice-of-pronunciation-norms-in-language-teachereducation-in-russia/
Matsuno, S. (2017). Adoptability of peer assessment in ESL classroom. Creative Education,
8, 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.88091
Nulty, D. (2008). A guide to peer and self-assessment approaches and practice strategies foracademics. Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/142108/GuidePeerSelfAssess
ment-Long.pdf
Okuda, R., & Otsu, R. (2010). Peer assessment for speeches as an aid to teacher grading. The
Language Teacher, 34(4), 41–47. Retrieved from https://jaltpublications.org/sites/default/files/pdf-article/art1_3.pdf
Piccardo, E. (2016). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Phonological scale revision process report. Council of Europe.
Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/phonological-scale-revision-process-reportcefr/168073fff9
Roberts, T. (2006). Self-, peer-, and group assessment in E-learning. USA: Information
Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-965-6

142

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning.
Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Schwarz, N., Knauper, B., Hippler, H., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating
scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55(4), 570–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269282
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Reviewof Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Wach, A. (2011). Native-speaker and English as a lingua franca pronunciation norms:
English majors’ views. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2),247–266. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.2.5
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). JASP [Software] Available from https://jasp-stats.org/
Wikstorm, N. (2007). Alternative assessment in primary years of international baccalaureate
education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The Stockholm Institute of Education,
Stockholm.
Corresponding author: Alexandra Kolesnikova
Contact email: alex_wd@mail.ru

143

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

144

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension Achievement Among
Secondary School Students with Learning Disabilities in Ibadan, Nigeria
Kelechi U. Lazarus
University of Ibadan
Nigeria145

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
The study examined the influence that socio-demographic factors (school social environment,
type of school and gender) have on achievement in reading comprehension of students withlearning disabilities. The study employed the correlational design. One hundred and twentythree (123) Junior Secondary Class 1 (JSS 1) students with learning disabilities from six
secondary schools (3 private and 3 public) all located in Ibadan North Local Government Area,
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria participated in the study. Three scales namely: the Pupil Rating
Scale (Revised), the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (adapted) and the Test of
Reading Comprehension were administered to the participants and the scores derived fromthese were subjected to Pearson Product Moment Correlation, Multiple Regression and t-test
Statistics. The results revealed that the most potent factor in the prediction of reading
comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities is school social environment(r =0.214) followed by gender (r =0.185). The joint contribution of school social environment,
school type and gender on reading comprehension achievement of students with learning
disabilities was significant. While school social environment could considerably andindependently predict reading comprehension achievement among students with learning
disabilities, school type and gender could not. Further findings showed a significant difference
in reading comprehension achievement between male and female students with learning
disabilities (Cal.t = 2.075). Also, there was no observable significant difference in the reading
comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities in private and public schools.
Therefore, it was suggested that teachers of students with learning disabilities should ensurethat reading comprehension lessons take place in stimulating and conducive classroom
environments devoid of unhealthy, risky and distracting stimuli.
Keywords: socio-demographic factors, learning disabilities, reading comprehension,achievement

146

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Attainment of academic success and social adjustment are essential learning outcomes derived
in schooling. This explains why a learner’s future success in life is often attributed to his or her
ability to learn effectively. Students’ learning is a product of several organised activities andhow well students learn at school can be linked to many factors. Among these factors are schoolsocial environment, type of school in terms of ownership and administration and gender.
School social factor reveals whether the learning environment is supportive or hostile.
According to the American Institutes for Research (2019), the school environment includes allservices, support systems, school policing policies and related structured practices for the
benefit of students and staff. The environment is compared to a hidden chain that connects all
the activities of the school in many ways and its influence is felt by all members of the school.
Considering the influence of the environment in the school, it is possible that insignificant
details could be seen affecting the ability of students to succeed in their studies. In a supportive
school environment for instance, there are healthy and supportive relationships between
teachers and students, teachers and teachers, students and students, and students and support
staff. There is also less discrimination against students who might be experiencing someemotional, social or academic difficulties such as those with special needs in this type of school.
Members of the school community benefit from warmth, security and safety. Excessive
resistance, constant student-to-adult conflict in school, and frustration with all kinds of abuse
are rare in a supportive school environment.
The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) explained that in a supportive school
environment, there are a wide range of opportunities for learner participation and shared
responsibility. Group activities are also encouraged in a socially supportive school and students
engage in fewer risk behaviours such as non-compliance with school rules and regulations,bullying and aggression, that interfere with teaching and learning. Students with specificdisabilities in learning domains, get along well with their peers and teachers in a socially
positive environment. The free bond established by the school community promotes academic
success and a healthy lifestyle. As reported by Nazir and Mattoo (2012), the formal educationalsetting and scholarly achievements are correlative and depend on each other. When schools
provide stimulating and supportive learning environments, students' academic performance
either directly or indirectly is bound to improve.
The type of school, described in terms of ownership and administration portrays whether theschool management is controlled by the government/public or private
individuals/organisations. By default, public educational institutions depend mainly on local,
state or federal government allocations as the case may be. Conversely, private educational
institutions depend on different sources of income including tuition fees borne by learners,
disbursements, and donations from non-governmental organisations. In Nigeria, it is natural tofind more classes and many students in public educational institutions compared to private
learning categories. The reason may be that private schools are fee-paying institutions; as aresult, many families may be unable to afford the fees so they send their children and wards topublic schools.
Despite the increased funds demanded by private school owners and the idea of capitalism in
the education sector projected by the private school system, it should be noted that private
educational institutions provide learners with opportunities for improved learning outcomes.
Similarly, teachers in private schools enjoy a greater sense of community than theircounterparts in public schools. These features can have an impact on all learners, especiallyamong those who have difficulty in learning academic tasks.

147

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

A demographic factor of interest in this study is gender of learners. The impact of gender on
students’ learning success has been investigated particularly, with respect to reading
achievement among learners without disabilities (Ezeokoli & Ezenandu, 2013). There seems
to have been little focus on students with disabilities and their achievement in the aspect of text
comprehension. Cekiso (2016) explained that discussion on differences in gender with respect
to comprehension of texts is important in the light of growing low reading achievement scoresobtained by male and female students in national and international tests and examinations.
Certain studies suggest that females have better language abilities than males (Reilly, Neumann& Andrews, 2018). The veracity of this submission particularly among students, who faceacademic difficulties in Nigeria, is yet to be fully ascertained. Therefore, it would be pertinent
to investigate the relationship between the achievement of boys and girls with learning
disabilities in reading comprehension contexts.
The choice of reading comprehension as a dependent variable in this study is informed by thefact that it is the most important sub-skill in the continuum of reading skills. Every time a
student reads a text with comprehension, he or she crosses a ladder that leads to academic
success. Thus, reading comprehension helps learners to explore, explain, understand andinterpret the information contained in a text. It involves active, dynamic thinking andthoughtful interpretation of texts by proficient readers. Going by this explanation, this study
would be of immense benefit to learners who do not experience difficulties with text
comprehension as well as those who have serious challenges with understanding of texts.
Learners would also get to realise that the social environment where learning occurs has aneffect on school learning. The findings of this study would provide succinct information toteachers, school administrators and policy makers on the impact that socio-demographic factors(school social environment, type of school and gender) have on comprehension of texts among
students whose main academic challenges are in the areas of reading and language-related
skills.
Literature Review
Difficulties in the acquisition and interpretation of reading-related activities, listening
activities, mathematics, and written and spoken language tasks are the major areas of challenge
facing students with learning disabilities. Approximately, eighty per cent of these students
experience specific difficulties with reading (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). That is, of allacademic skills, reading is the one which poses the most difficulty for many students withlearning disabilities. Lazarus and Ige (2017) reported that some secondary school students withlearning disabilities experience poor reading comprehension sometimes due to their lack ofrich vocabulary and their inability to apply evidence-based reading strategies during reading.
In contrast to readers with academic difficulties, learners, who understand texts easily often
have good decoding skills, read with ease and understand a large amount of vocabulary. Olu
and Abiodun (2013) reiterated that activation of prior knowledge during reading enables
readers to construct meaning and understand basic concepts in texts. Also, efficient readers
seek to understand the structure of the text. They reflect on the information provided in the text
and deduce what the author does not specifically reveal. On the contrary, lack of understanding
makes reading a meaningless activity or a simple word calling exercise. Students’ inability tounderstand texts creates difficulties for grasping of information in all school subjects and leads
to poor academic results. To reduce the negative impact of academic failure on students
struggling with school work, educators are working tirelessly to deepen their scientificunderstanding of how these students can benefit from reading comprehension tasks.

148

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

A study conducted by Shamaki (2015) involving 337 secondary school students studying in
Yobe State, Nigeria revealed a significant difference between the mathematics performance ofstudents taught in a stimulating learning environment and that of students taught in a nonstimulating learning environment. Schmitt and Kleine (2010) found that qualitative social
relationships within the immediate school community involving children, classmates andteachers led to high performance in school subjects. Schmitt and Kleine (2010) concluded thatthe quality of pupil-teacher and pupil-student interactions determine school performance.
Ayeni, Adeyemo and Olasunkanmi (2014) studied the correlation between school
environmental factors and adolescent school performance in Osun State, Nigeria, and foundthat environmental factors at school were strong indices that correlated with the academic
performance of high school learners.
Similar studies on learning environment in a school system and school success indicated that
school environment has a significant impact on student learning (Chepkonga, 2017; Chikezie& Ekott, 2019; Duruji, Azuh & Oviasogie, 2014; Ngene, Quadri, Bamigboye & Tenebe, 2018).
In addition, Michalak (2014) found that a school environment that is safe and supportive, wherestudent motivation and classroom diversity are promoted is among the factors that facilitate
literacy learning. Byamugisha (2010) found that factors such as school attendance, repeating a
grade, parent-teacher meetings, parents paying extra tuition, students taking school lunch,
private or public school categories, the school setting, the material and pedagogical resources,
and the educational qualifications of school staff, actually predicted reading and mathematics
results of sixth grade students in Uganda.
It was also reported by certain studies that students who attend privately owned schools
obtained better test and examination scores than those in public schools (Adeyemi, 2014;
Bonsu, 2016; Ehigiamusoe, 2012). In 2017, Adeniji explored how school status and genderinfluenced students' success in mathematics and found that students in private schools were
sixty-four percent more likely to achieve better results than their counterparts in public
educational institutions. Duruji, Azuh and Oviasogie (2014) revealed that students gain better
learning outcomes in private learning environments than in their public-school counterparts. A
study by Gumede (2018) involving seventy Grade 9 students from public and private schools
was conducted in Bulawayo Central District high schools in Zimbabwe. The findings showedthat the reading comprehension performance of students in public schools were significantly
lower than the reading comprehension performance of students in private schools. Gumede(2018) therefore submitted that there is need to provide intervention to students who lag behindin reading comprehension to avoid further challenges in the academic area.
The study by Nazir and Mattoo (2012), involved 80 adolescents in Srinagar enrolled in private
and public schools. The results revealed that public and private school types strongly
influenced the academic achievement of males and females. Other results showed a significant
link between the school and university context and academic achievement among women
enrolled in private educational institutions. Ocheho, Oke and Lanre-Babalola (2019) found thatwhile students in public educational institutions of higher learning experienced higher levelsof learned helplessness those in private educational institutions of higher learning experienced
higher school connectedness. The scholars therefore concluded that private educational
institutions enjoy a peaceful school environment capable of enabling students to have free andopen interactions with school staff without inhibitions.
Furthermore, results showing gender differences in learners' reading scores are inconclusive.
For example, Halpern, Straight and Stephenson (2011) reported that in terms of language and149

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

communication, there are obvious gender stereotypes among boys and girls. According to
Plante, Sabbonniere, Aronson and Theoret (2013), most studies corroborate the fact thatfemales perform better than men in reading and language-related work. Reilly, Neumann, andAndrews (2018) equally found that females performed better in language-related tasks thantheir male counterparts. Although no statistical differences in participants’ reading scores basedon gender were obtained by Ezeokoli and Ezenandu (2013), scores of female participants werehigher than reading scores of their male counterparts. This implies that treatment had more apositive effect on females than on males. In contrast, Elui (2015) found that gender did not
significantly affect learner average scores in reading and Caplan and Caplan (2016) questioned
the existence of gender gaps in verbal tasks.
Based on the foregoing review, it can be deduced that investigation into the impact ofenvironment in the school on learners’ achievement mainly utilised participants without
specific disabilities in reading. These studies placed an emphasis on students’ mathematics
learning, English language learning and social skills acquisition. There appears to be few
studies that focused on the reading comprehension of learners with academic disabilities. This
study therefore, addressed the gap and provided information that will increase the awarenessof educators on learners’ academic prowess. The study examined a social factor, school social
environment, and two demographic factors which are type of school and gender and theconnections that exist between these factors and reading comprehension among students
experiencing disabilities in learning academic skills.
Methodology
The following research questions guided the study.
••••

What is the level of relationship existing between socio-demographic factors and theachievement in reading comprehension of participants in the study?
Do the socio-demographic factors jointly and relatively contribute to the prediction ofachievement in reading comprehension of participants?
Is there a difference in achievement in reading comprehension on the basis of the typeof school attended by participants?
Is there a difference in achievement in reading comprehension on the basis of theparticipants’ gender?

This study used a descriptive survey. McCombes (2019) posited that a descriptive researchstudy describes a population, situation or phenomenon. It can answer “what”, “when”, “where”
and “how” questions but not “why” questions. Participants were selected step by step througha multi-stage sampling procedure. The screening instrument was administered to a total of 951
students who were in JSS1 in the six schools. The results of the projection showed that one
hundred and twenty-three (123) JSS 1 students out of nine hundred and fifty-one (951) JSS 1
students selected from the six schools had learning differences. The age range of theparticipants was 11 to 17 years old. Several reasons account for the variability of age among
participants. Students are admitted into secondary school in Nigeria immediately after they
complete primary education which is designed for pupils aged 6-12 years. By implication,
enrolment age is estimated at 12 years (Section 2, Parts C & D, pp. 9, 12: National Policy on
Education, 2013). However, socio-cultural and economic factors could account for thepresence of younger or older students in the first year of secondary school. For instance, a
student who dropped out of school may re-enter at an older age. Some students might havecommenced schooling late or experienced delay in schooling due to stigmatisation and/or

150

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

delays in cognitive and concept development. The distribution of participants by demographic
characteristics revealed that there were: thirty (30) students (24.39%) from private schools andninety-three (93) students (75.61%) from public schools. The gender distribution ofparticipants showed that forty-five (45) male students (35.59%) and seventy-eight (78) female
students (63.41%) participated in the study.
Instruments
To collect data, participants in this study completed three instruments namely: the Pupil Rating
Scale (Revised), the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (adapted) and the Test of
Reading Comprehension. The researcher used Myklebust’s (1981) Pupil Rating Scale(Revised) for screening purposes. Myklebust (1981) explained that teachers can rate students
on the twenty-four items of the scale using a five-point scale (with 1 indicating poor behaviour,
3 indicating average behaviour and 5 indicating good behaviour). Lazarus and Aransiola (2016)
obtained Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 for the Pupil Rating Scale. The second instrument was used
to collect information on school social environment. An adapted version of the instrument
developed by the National School Climate Centre (NSCC) in 2015, called Comprehensive
School Climate Inventory (CSCI) was used. This instrument has two sections. Section A
required the participants to supply demographic data on type of school (private or public) andgender. Sixteen questions in Section B focused on participants’ experiences in school with anemphasis on safety, supportive learning environment and relationships among individuals inthe school. The reliability and validity of the adapted version of the CSCI was further
determined by the researcher through a pilot test. The researcher ensured that students who
participated in the pilot test were not among the study sample. The Cronbach’s alpha statistics
was computed. The result of the coefficient of reliability obtained by the researcher was thus
0.72.
The third instrument is an achievement test of 25 items tagged “Test of Reading
Comprehension” (TRC). It comprises two reading comprehension passages (a narrative text
and an expository text) selected from an online teachers’ resource (Language arts worksheets),
designed by Teachnology, Inc. (1999-2012). These reading passages were adjudged
appropriate for JSS 1 students experiencing disabilities in academics. Each correct answer on
the TRC receives 4 marks to give a total of 100 marks. The questions were intended to elicit
responses on students’ ability to identify significant points/themes, developmental ideas, draw
interpretations, recall facts and comprehend the meaning of words in context. The coefficientalpha results from pilot testing the scale on 20 students with disabilities in academics that were
not part of the sample were as follows: Reading Passage 1 (r =0. 75), and Reading Passage 2(r =0.73). The researcher engaged three research assistants for ease of test administration in theselected schools. Pearson Moment Correlation; multiple regressions and the independent t-test
statistics were used for data analysis.
Ethical Consideration
In order to meet standard ethical consideration for the nature of this study, the researcher
applied to the Ethical and Research Committee of the Ministry of Education in Oyo State,
Nigeria. A copy of the research proposal was submitted with a parental/guardian consent form.
After three weeks, the Ethical and Research Committee approved the conduct of the research.
From this point, a letter of introduction and parental/guardian consent form were dispatchedthrough the students with learning disabilities to their parents/guardians. Since the participants
were minors, it was essential that confidentiality and fairness were maintained. In all, 123 JSS
1 students with learning disabilities whose parents agreed to their children/wards’ participationin this study participated.

151

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Results
Table 1: Correlation matrix showing the relationship between school social environment,
school type, gender and achievement in reading comprehension
Variable

Mean

School social
environment

57.30

Stand. Achievement in
Dev.
reading comp.
10.47 1

Achievement inreading comp.
School social
environment
School type

55.56

5.71

1

1.76

0.43

Gender

1.63

0.48

0.214*(0.018)0.065(0.472)0.185*(0.040)0.056(0.538)0.081(0.374)

Schooltype

Gender

10.080
1(0.382)

What is the level of relationship existing between socio-demographic factors and theachievement in reading comprehension of participants in the study?
Table 1 shows a positive significant relationship existing between the school social
environment (r =0.214, p (0.018) <0.05); gender (r =0.185, p (0.040) <0.05) and the students
with learning disabilities’ achievement in reading comprehension. This implies that the more
the social environment in the school is conducive, cordial and pleasant, the more students withlearning disabilities will obtain high grades in reading comprehension and vice versa. However,no significant relationship between the demographic factor-school type (r =0.065, p (0.472)>0.05) and participants’ achievement in reading comprehension was obtained. That is, thestatus of the school (whether private or public) does not have a positive link to reading
comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities.
Table 2: ANOVA, model summary and coefficients of the multiple regression of the joint
contribution of school social environment, school type and gender to the prediction ofachievement in reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities
Multiple R= 0.275
Multiple R2= 0.076
Multiple R2 (Adjusted) = 0.052
Standard Error of Estimate =10.1949
Model
Sum of Squares
1
Regression 1013.530

df
3Mean Square
337.843103.936

Residual

12368.340

119

Total

13381.870

122

F
3.251

Sig.
0.024

Do the socio-demographic factors jointly and relatively contribute to the prediction ofachievement in reading comprehension of participants?
In Table 2, the F-ratio of 3.251 was recorded. This indicates that school social environment,
school type and gender when considered as a unit, significantly predict students with learning
disabilities’ achievement in reading comprehension. The R value of 0.275 and R2 value of
0.076 were obtained. This means that the combination of the three factors produced 7.6% of
the variance in participants’ achievement in reading comprehension. Table 3 further illustrates

152

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

the relative contributions of each of the three predictor variables (namely: school social
environment, school type and gender) to the prediction of the dependent variable-reading
comprehension achievement among students with learning disabilities.
Table 3: Relative contribution of school social environment, school type and gender to theprediction of achievement in reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities(Constant)

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
29.502
9.841

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

T

Sig.

2.998

0.003

School social 0.363
environment

0.162

0.198

2.235

0.027

SchoolType
Gender

0.998

2.150

0.041

0.464

0.643

3.596

1.920

0.166

1.873

0.064

From table 3, while school social environment (β=0.198, t=2.235, p<0.05) could significantly
and singly predict participants’ achievement in reading comprehension, school type (β=0.041,
t=0.464, p>0.05) and gender (β=0.166, t=1.873, p>0.05) could not. This implies that schoolsocial environment can determine the reading comprehension achievement of students withlearning disabilities.
Table 4: t-test indicating the difference in achievement in reading comprehensionof students with learning disabilities in private and public schools
Achievement in Reading N
comprehension
Private school
30

Mean

Public school

57.6882 9.8698

93

Std. Dev.

Crit-tCal-t. DF

p value

1.96

0.721 121

0.472

56.1000 12.2653

Is there a difference in achievement in reading comprehension on the basis of the type ofschool attended by participants? Table 4 reveals that although students with learning
disabilities in public schools obtained 57.6882 mean score in reading comprehension and thosein private schools got 56.1000, no observable significant differences in achievement in reading
comprehension of students with learning disabilities in private and public schools (Crit-t =1.96, Cal.t = 0.721, DF = 121, p>0 .05) were obtained.
Table 5: t-test indicating the difference in achievement in reading comprehensionof male and female students with learning disabilities
Achievement in Reading N
comprehension
Male
45

Mean

Female58.7692 9.8863

78

Std. Dev.

Crit-tCal-t. DF

p value

1.96

2.075 121 0.040

54.7556 11.0744

153

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Is there a difference in achievement in reading comprehension on the basis of theparticipants’ gender? Table 5 reveals that female students with learning disabilities ( x =58.7692) performed better compared to their male counterparts with learning disabilities ( x =54.7556) in the study (Crit-t = 1.96, Cal.t = 2.075, DF = 121, p<0 .05).
Discussion
Regarding research question 1, a significant positive relationship between the social
environment of the school and gender (two independent variables) and the reading
comprehension scores of students with learning disabilities (dependent variable) was obtained.
However, no significant relationship was found between the type of school and the reading
comprehension scores of the participants. This finding supports the findings of Nazir and Matto(2012) and Ngene, Quadri, Bamigboye and Tenebe (2018). These researchers found that theschool social environment was directly related to academic achievement and that a positivesocial environment played an important role in developing students' academic abilities. When
students study in a stimulating and supportive environment, they feel welcome and emotionallystable, indirectly leading to better academic outcomes, including reading comprehension.
These findings also support the findings of Ezeokoli and Ezenandu (2013), who reported higher
average post-test reading scores for women than men, although these scores are not statisticallysignificant.
Research question 2 results also revealed that the social environment of the school, the type ofschool and gender of students with disabilities in academics had a significant joint contribution
to the reading comprehension scores of students with disabilities. This result is consistent withMichalak’s (2014) findings, which indicate that a safe and supportive school environment,
classroom diversity and student motivation leads to improved literacy learning among students.
Gumede (2018) found that reading comprehension performance among learners in private
schools differ significantly in favour of students in private schools. Nazir and Mattoo (2012)
found that the type of school (public and private) had a major effect on student success in theirstudies. Adeniji (2017) found that students in private educational institutions had better scoresthan students in public educational institutions in terms of academic achievement. Reilly,
Neumann and Andrews (2018) corroborated the conclusion that girls' performance in languagebased activities was greater than that of boys.
Research question 2 showed that the social environment of the school could independently
predict the reading comprehension scores of students with disabilities in academics. Thisfinding is also consistent with that of Byamugisha's (2010) in which both home and school
factors predict students' reading and mathematics scores. The present findings also support
those of Schmitt and Kleine (2010), who concluded that improved school success is a productof improved student-teacher interactions, pupil-student interactions and parental involvement.
In a safe, challenging and reassuring school environment, students learn and achieve betterschool results.
However, the results for research question 2, also revealed that school type and gender could
not predict significantly and independently the scores in reading comprehension among
students with learning disabilities. This finding is in disagreement with that of Nazir andMattoo (2012) regarding the impact that school type has on academic achievement, butcorroborates Elui's (2015) view that gender gaps do not exist in reading scores. Reading
comprehension is an essential sub-skill of reading that requires a stimulating and supportive
teaching and learning environment for optimal results. Therefore, it is not enough to enroll

154

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

them in a private or public school. Regardless of the type of school they attend, attention mustbe paid to the nature of the school environment and the subject taught.
For research question 3, the results showed that the gender of students with learning disabilities
is connected to the success of students with learning disabilities in reading comprehension. The
female students in this study scored better than the males. This finding supports that of Reilly,
Neumann, and Andrews (2018), but contradicts the findings of Elui (2015) and Caplan andCaplan (2016), who found no gender differences in student reading scores.
Results for research question 4, also did not show any significant variance in the reading
comprehension scores of students with learning disabilities in private and public schools. Thisfinding does not support Duruji, Azuh and Oviasogie (2014) and Adeniji's (2017) because theresearchers maintained that students in private learning environments perform better than their
typical peers in public learning environments. However, the present results corroborate thefindings of Nazir and Mattoo (2012), which revealed a major impact of school type on student
achievement.
Limitations and Future Research
The study was limited to only social environment within the school. Future research could
benefit from investigating other components of the environment such as physical, emotional
and psychological environments of the school. The influence of these variables can be studied
vis-a vis reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. In addition, participants
were only 123 year one students drawn from six secondary schools and one local governmentarea in Ibadan. Further studies can be conducted with larger numbers of students spread acrossthe eleven local government areas in the Ibadan metropolis. By so doing, a wider geographicalscope would be covered. Future studies should consider using assessment measures which
involve complex grade-level materials in identifying the study participants. It would be
advisable if multiple reading comprehension measures could be used as opposed to the use ofa single test.
Recommendations
This study has provided clear educational implications and recommendations for stakeholders
in the secondary school setting. A rich social environment promotes effective reading
comprehension among secondary school students, especially those with learning disabilities.
The English language teachers should provide a learning environment that is conducive toreading comprehension instruction. Respectful and friendly social relationships should bemaintained while teaching reading comprehension to all secondary school students, especiallythose with learning disabilities.
Other content area teachers of students with learning disabilities should ensure that classes takeplace in stimulating class environments that are free of unhealthy, risky and annoying stimuli.
They should place emphasis on a safe and healthy school environment for learning. There
should be no room for unwholesome relationships in the school community. Students withlearning disabilities who struggle in academic classes need to acquire relevant social skills
useful for regulating a person's behaviour, understanding one’s emotions and those of others,
and effectively managing interpersonal relationships for an improved school achievement.

155

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Policy makers and school administrators should be prepared for the challenge of educating all
learners, particularly those with learning disabilities, in a supportive and positive school
environment. They should ensure that public and private schools provide students with clearly
defined rules and regulations, maintain socio-emotional security by eliminating harassment andall forms of physical and psychological violence within the school and provide strong social
support to all students. If these measures are maintained, the socio-emotional stability that
results will certainly be metamorphosed into better academic outcomes, principally in reading
comprehension for those students who struggle to succeed in academic classes.
Parents of learners with learning difficulties must frequently communicate with the school
principal and cooperate with that individual on matters relating to the general welfare of theirchildren to ensure that learning takes place in a healthy school environment. Guidancecounsellors should conduct routine counselling sessions where all learners, including thosewith learning disabilities, may be exposed to the importance of maintaining healthy social
relationships with teachers and other students. Some students with learning disabilities havedifficulty with social skills; therefore, training students in these skills will also strengthen thesocial environment of the school and indirectly lead to improved outcomes in learning for all
students, including those with disabilities.
Conclusion
The study found that students with learning disabilities will perform better in reading
comprehension if they learn in a positive and supportive school environment. The results revealthat the positive school social environment has significantly influenced the reading
comprehension scores of students with learning disabilities. With respect to the joint andrelative contributions of socio-demographic factors (social environment in the school, the typeof school and gender) to achievement in reading comprehension of students who experiencedisabilities with academics, it should be noted that the contributions of these factors may not
be isolated but combined by at least two factors. However, only the social environment of theschool could predict significantly and independently the achievement in reading
comprehension among students with learning disabilities.

156

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Adeniji, K. A. (2017). Comparative study of mathematics achievement of students based onschool categories and gender in Katsina State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational
Realities, 3(1), 94–104.
Adeyemi, S. B. (2014). Comparative study of pupils’ academic performance between private
and public primary schools. World Journal of Education, 4(4), 55–60.
https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v4n4p55
Ayeni, A. O., Adeyemo, C. B., & Olasunkanmi, O. S. (2014). School environment factors ascorrelates of student academic performance in Ejigbo Local Government Area ofOsun State, Nigeria. Ibadan Journal of Educational Studies, 11(1&2), 19–33.
Bonsu, H. D. (2016). Comparative analysis of academic performance of public and private
junior high schools in the basic education certificate in Sekondi/Takoradi. European
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(1), 21–32.
Byamugisha, A. (2010). Examining the effect of school environmental factors on pupil’s
learning achievement in Ugandan primary schools. African Educational Research
Journal, 9(1), 110–133.
Caplan, J. B., & Caplan, P. J. (2016). Thinking critically about research on sex and gender(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315662374
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies forincreasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. Retrieved on July 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/pdf/connectedness.pdf
Chepkonga, M. (2017). Classroom environmental setting and provision of quality educationin public pre-school centres in West Pokot County, Kenya. European Journal of
Education Studies, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.399056
Chikezie, I. J. & Ekott, I. B., (2019). Learning environment as correlates of academic
achievement of senior secondary students’ achievement in Abia State, Nigeria.
African Journal of Theory and Practice of Educational Research, 6, 34–46.
Cekiso, M. (2016). Gender differences in the reading comprehension of grade three rurallearners in South Africa. International Journal of Education Science, 13(2), 247–254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2016.11890458
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends andemerging issues. New York, NY: National Centre for Learning Disabilities.
https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf
Duruji, M. M., Azuh, D., & Oviasogie, F. (2014). Learning environment and academic
performance of secondary school students in external examinations: A study of
selected schools in Ota. Proceedings of EDULEARN 14 Conference, 7-9th July 2014,
Barcelona, Spain, pp 5042–5053. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32224685.pdf
Ehigiamusoe, U. K. (2012). Private sector participation in secondary education in Nigeria:
Implications for national development. International Journal of Development andSustainability. 1(3), 1062–1074.

157

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Elui, E. P. (2015). Effect of extensive reading approach on pupils’ attitude and achievement
in reading comprehension. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Ezeokoli, F. O., & Ezenandu, P. E. (2013). Effects of preferred text genres and literacy
activities on students’ achievement in and attitude to reading comprehension in somesecondary schools in Abeokuta, Nigeria. European Journal of Educational studies,5(2), 217–228.
Gumede, T. (2018). Factors influencing learners’ reading ability in English at Bulawayo
Central District high schools in Zimbabwe. [Unpublished master’s thesis], Universityof Pretoria.
Halpern, D. F., Straight, C. A., & Stephenson, C. L. (2011). Beliefs about cognitive genderdifferences: Accurate for direction, underestimated for size. Sex Roles, 64, 336–347.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9891-2
Lazarus, K. U., & Aransiola, M. O. (2016). Effects of self-monitoring and self-questioning
strategies on comprehension of expository texts among students with learning
disabilities in Ibadan: Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 4, 426–438.
Lazarus, K. U., & Ige, E. O. (2017). Effect of transactional strategies instruction onachievement in reading comprehension among students with reading disabilities in
Ibadan North Local Government Area, Oyo State. Journal of Educational Realities,
3(1), 30–44.
Michalak, R. (2014). Environmental factors for literacy learning and instruction.
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. State University of New York, Fredonia, New York.
McCombes, S. (2019). Descriptive research.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
Myklebust, H. R. (1981). Pupil rating scale revised: Screening for learning disabilities.
New York, NY: Grune and Stratton, Inc.
National Center on Safe, Supportive Learning Environments. (2019). Environment.
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/topic-research/environment
National Policy on Education. (2013). Lagos, Federal Republic of Nigeria: NERDC
National School Climate Centre (NSCC). (2015). The Comprehensive School Climate
Inventory: Measuring the climate for learning. Prepared for Whately Elementary
School.
https://www.frsu38.org/userfiles/15/my%20files/wes%20full%20climate%20results.p
df?id=3488
Nazir, N., & Mattoo, N. H. (2012). A study on impact of school environment on academic
achievement among adolescents. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow,5(1), 1–6.
Ngene, B., Quadri, A., Bamigboye, G., & Tenebe, T. (2018). Nigerian educational system: In
the pursuit of right physical environment for learning. Proceedings of EDULEARN1810th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,
2-4th July 2018, at Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.0914

158

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Ocheho, T., Olubukola, O., Lanre-Babalola, F. (2019). Differences in school connectedness
and learned helplessness among undergraduate in a public and private university inOsun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Research, 6(1), 39–49.
Olu, O., & Abiodun, A. P. (2013). Activating junior secondary school students’ priorknowledge for the development of vocabulary, concepts and mathematics throughinstructional strategies. International Journal of Education & Literary Studies, 1(2),1–7. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.1n.2p.1
Plante, I., de la Sabbonniere, R., Aronson, J. M., & Theoret, M. (2013). Gender stereotype
endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs andtasks values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 225-235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.004
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2018). Gender differences in reading andwriting achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP). American Psychologist, May-June; 74(4), 445–58.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356
Schmitt, W. M., & Kleine, L. (2010). The influences of family-school relation on academic
success. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(1), 145–167.
Shamaki, T. A. (2015). Influence of learning environment on students’ academic
achievement in mathematics. A case study of some selected secondary schools in
Yobe State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(34), 40–44.
Teachnology, Inc. (1999-2012). Reading comprehension worksheets.
www.teachnology.com/language-arts/reading-comp/1
Corresponding author: Kelechi U. Lazarus
Contact email: lazarusk67@gmail.com

157

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

158

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

the iafor

journal of education

ISSN: 2187-0594