iafor

journal of education

language learning in education
Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021
Editor: Melinda Cowart
Editor-in-Chief: Joseph Haldane

ISSN: 2187-0594

iafor
IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

IAFOR Publications

The International Academic ForumIAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
EditorMelinda Cowart
Texas Woman’s University (TWU), USA
Editor-in-Chief
Joseph Haldane, The International Academic Forum, Japan

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

Executive Editor: Yvonne Masters
IAFOR Journals Administrator: Ruth Mund
Publications Manager: Nick Potts

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021
Published June 11, 2021

IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2021
ISSN: 2187-0594
ije.iafor.org

There Cover Image: Yusril Permana ali, https://unsplash.com/photos/2ZmfGVOSGvs

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021
Edited by Melinda Cowart
Texas Woman’s University (TWU), USA
Associate Editors
Hasan Al-Wadi
University of Bahrain, Bahrain
Murielle El Hajj Nahas
Lusail University, Qatar

Editorial Advice
Preparing a submission to the IAFOR Journal of Education is more than writing about yourresearch 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 ofgood academic language and lack of plagiarism. To assist you in reaching the review stage forthis 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
Executive Editor, IAFOR Journal of Education

Table of Contents
Foreword
Joseph Haldane

1

Editor’s Introduction
Melinda Cowart

2

Notes on Contributors

4

Perceived Impact of EMI on Students’ Language Proficiency in
Vietnamese Tertiary EFL Contexts
Thi Hoai Thu Tran
Rachel BurkeJohn Mitchell O’Toole

7

The Impact of Accent among Non-Native English-speaking Biology
Lecturers on Student Comprehension and Attitudes
Alexandra Kolesnikova
Alina Liubimova
Elena Muromtseva
Anton Muromtsev

25

Exploring the Effects of Automated Pronunciation Evaluation on L2
Students in Thailand
Simon Moxon

41

Implementing Art and Music in Maltese Courses for Non-Native Adults
Jacqueline Żammit

57

Exploring the Impact of Peer Assessment on EFL Students’ Writing
Performance
Eleni Meletiadou

77

Teachers’ Misbehaviours in Class and Students’ Reactions: A Case Study
Reem Alkurdi
Sharif Alghazo

97

Reviewers
115

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Foreword
It is my pleasure to introduce this issue of the IAFOR Journal of Education: Language
Learning in Education issue, so wonderfully edited by Melinda Cowart, Texas Woman’s
University (TWU), USA. This represents the result of a great deal of effort on the part of theauthors, but also the editor, associate editors and the reviewers, and the IAFOR publications
team, who worked to get this issue ready for publication.
As a language learner myself, it is a source of particular pride to be able to see this journal
come to fruition, and especially given that the majority of authors in this issue are not-native
speakers of English, but are using the language as a communicative tool to reach a large
audience and inform them of language learning in different and local cultures and contexts. In
this issue, we see perspectives from Russia to Vietnam, Malta to Jordan, and the UK to
Australia.
In many cases, different languages and cultures are what divide us, and are used to divide us.
The learning of another language is one of the most important acts a student can engage in, toboth ensure a continuing humility in the face of new knowledge and a strong statement of desire
to engage in a global community. In this way language learning unites us, and enjoins us tounderstand, empathise, and be compassionate. The study of language and languages offers us,
and our students, a new way of belonging to the world, and a new way of contributing to its
betterment.
Happy Reading!
Joseph Haldane
Editor-in-Chief
IAFOR Journal of Education

1

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

From the Editor
Greetings readers! Welcome to the IAFOR Journal of Education: Volume 9 – Issue 3 –Language Learning in Education.
Since the last issue of the IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education,much has changed for most of the world. With the advent of the COVID-19 worldwide
pandemic, citizens of every country on earth have become witness to and victim of the sameworldwide crisis. A complete transformation of what had been considered normal living hasensued. Jobs have changed, ways of communicating have been modified, lives have beenaltered, and countless prospects are adjusted to reflect an unsettling version of the “newnormal.” Numerous people who previously coped well, have become less capable of managing
because of the manifold stressors generated by the pandemic. One matter that the pandemic
has been unsuccessful in accomplishing is stifling the ongoing urgency for the language
learning journey that exists globally.
Multilingualism, second language acquisition, and second language learning continue to takeplace in every nation. Even with temporary pandemic-related travel bans, the movement ofpeoples from country to country has slowed very little. The number of second language learners
throughout the world increases constantly, reminding educators, scholars, and researchers thatinvestigating the complex processes of second language acquisition and language learning in
addition to researching promising new methods, materials and trends is imperative to theimprovement of second language teaching and learning. Motivations for learning anotherlanguage notwithstanding, the persistent question concerns how to improve second language
instruction in order to enhance and appropriately facilitate second language acquisition.
Furthermore, discovering what signifies efficacious practice among those who teach child andadult language learners requires educators to look ahead for novel initiatives while
simultaneously continuing to use strategies and methods that are research proven. Finally, it isimportant to explore the teacher behaviors that will enhance rather than inhibit language
development. These precise topics are addressed in the variety of articles provided by thediverse group of authors who contribute their research and scholarship to this issue ofthe IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education. The reader will gain
knowledge of several issues affecting language learning in a wide assortment of nations andwill find that similar discussions emerge in schools and EFL classrooms transnationally.
Article 1
In the first article, Thi Hoai Thu Tran, Rachel Burke, and John Mitchell O’Toole, authors of“Perceived Impact of EMI on Students’ Language Proficiency in Vietnamese Tertiary EFL
Contexts”, look at how English as a medium of instruction (EMI), an increasingly popular
educational model in non-English-speaking countries, has been implemented not only inEnglish as a Foreign language (EFL) courses, but also in communication, business, and othercontent area courses to build English language proficiency at an international level. Throughthe research that is revealed, the authors delve into how lecturers and students perceive theeffectiveness of such a model in accomplishing its goals.
Article 2
Alexandra Kolesnikova, Alina Liubimova, Elena Muromtseva, and Anton Muromtsev explore
the mindsets of postgraduate biology students attending three highly ranked Russian
universities regarding the foreign accents of non-native English-speaking lecturers in “TheImpact of Accent among Non-Native English-speaking Biology Lecturers on Student

2

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Comprehension and Attitudes”. The authors and researchers investigated a common criticism
of non-native speakers of English who teach university level courses in the sciences – thefailure to speak in a manner that reflects near native competence, making lectures morecomprehensible. The findings of the research offer insights that may inform the revision ofdiverse programs with similar issues.
Article 3
The possibility of using speech recognition technology to improve pronunciation among
undergraduate language learners sets the parameters of the discussion in the third article. In“Exploring the Effects of Automated Pronunciation Evaluation on L2 Students in Thailand”,
Simon Moxon details his investigation of ways to build awareness of and facilitate accurate
reproduction of phonetic sounds that do not exist in a language learner’s L1. The goal of theresearch was to determine if improved pronunciation would be the result of the effective useof speech recognition technology.
Article 4
In “Implementing Art and Music in Maltese Courses for Non-native Adults”, Jacqueline
Zammit examines the effective use of music and art with adult Maltese language learners(ML2s). Noting that art and music can play an important role in second language acquisition,such as motivating communication in L2, promoting retention of new vocabulary, andenriching comprehension skills, Zammit designed a qualitative study to explore the impact ofutilizing music and art to foster greater achievement in ML2.
Article 5
Eleni Meletiadou, author of “Exploring the Impact of Peer Assessment on EFL Students’Writing Performance”, implemented a study that researched the impact of peer assessment on
the writing of 200 adolescent Greek-Cypriot EFL students. What she found was that guided
peer assessment over the course of a year contributed to writing improvement in 5 areas. The
findings of the research provide recommendations for ways in which EFL teachers might use
peer assessment to improve the writing of secondary EFL students.
Article 6
In, “Teachers’ Misbehaviours in Class and Students’ Reactions: A Case Study”, Reem Alkurdi
and Sharif Alghazo investigated the misbehaviours of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
teachers’ in class and the subsequent reactions of the EFL students to these misbehaviours.
This comprehensive study was supported by multiple classroom observations in which theaffronts occurred, a survey that elicited plentiful student reactions regarding teacher
communication styles, and numerous teacher interviews. The results reveal thought-provoking
insights about the teacher-student relationship in EFL classes.
Happy reading!
Melinda Cowart
Texas Woman’s University, USA
Editor, IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Email: editor.joll@iafor.org

3

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Notes on Contributors
Article 1: Perceived Impact of EMI on Students’ Language Proficiency in Vietnamese
Tertiary EFL Contexts
Dr Thi Hoai Thu Tran is a lecturer of English at Hue University of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam, where she has long been in charge of classes and research involving EFL, ESP andEMI. Her research interests focus on policy and practices of English as a Medium of Instruction
in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts.
Email: hoaithungoaingu@gmail.com
Dr Rachel Burke is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Rachel’s
research focuses on linguistically and culturally diverse contexts, with emphasis on strengthsbased approaches to higher education for learners from traditionally underrepresented
backgrounds, including people with refugee and asylum seeker experiences.
Email: rachel.burke@newcastle.edu.au
Dr J. M. O'Toole, PhD, MEd(Hons), BSc(Ed), has long been involved in the preparation of
resources for science teachers who have become conscious of the language component of their
expectations of students at various levels of education. He is currently employed by the
University of Newcastle, Australia, School of Education, with continuing responsibility forsupervision of a wide range of Research Higher Degree projects. Mitch's major researchinterests are in curriculum change, the impact of language style on science teaching, theinteraction between student and teacher understandings of the history and nature of science;the environment; and information and communication technology. He has published many
articles in both national and international journals as well as textbooks and research-basedteacher resource books for secondary science.
Email: mitch.otoole@newcastle.edu.au
Article 2: The Impact of Accent among Non-Native English-Speaking Biology Lecturers
on Student Comprehension and Attitudes
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
Mrs Alina Liubimova is a Lecturer at Lomonosov Moscow State University. She holds a
Master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Oxford and is currently pursuing
her PhD in Education in Russia. Alina's research focuses on English as Lingua Franca
pronunciation instruction and assessment within higher education.
Email: lingoxonia@gmail.com
Mrs Elena Muromtseva holds a Bachelor’s degree in Linguistics from Lomonosov Moscow
State University. She’s currently pursuing her Master’s degree in the same field. Elena’s research
focuses on Phonetics and measuring attitudes towards oral speech in the educational context.
Email: elenshml@gmail.com

4

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Mr Anton Muromtsev holds a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Lomonosov Moscow State
University and is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in Embryology. Anton’s research
focuses on embryo-endometrium interactions during implantation.
Email: antonmuromtsev@gmail.com
Article 3: Exploring the Effects of Automated Pronunciation Evaluation on L2 Studentsin Thailand
Mr Simon Moxon is an English language lecturer at Walailak University, Nakhon Si
Thammarat, Thailand. He received a first-class honours degree in Applied Computing from
Staffordshire University, UK, and a Masters degree in Education Teaching Technology from
Assumption University, Thailand. He is currently studying for a PhD in Education Teaching
and Technology with Assumption University, Thailand. At present, his main research interestis the development and implementation of software designed to support deaf students learning
to read and help develop their vocabulary range. His recreational interests include scuba diving
and playing musical instruments. In 2018, he was awarded a commendation by the One-Handed
Music Instrument organisation (OHMI) for creating a one-handed saxophone modification.
Email: simon@sitamoxon.com
Article 4: Implementing Art and Music in Maltese Courses for Non-Native Adult
Dr Jacqueline Żammit is a lecturer in the Pedagogy of Maltese, with a specialization in theteaching of Maltese as a Foreign Language within the Department of Languages andHumanities, Faculty of Education at the University of Malta. She holds a First-Class BEd(Hons) Degree in Maltese and Early and Middle Years, a Masters of Arts Degree with
Distinction in Maltese Linguistics, and a PhD from the University of Malta. Her areas ofinterest comprise multiculturalism, interculturalism, adult education, second language
acquisition, cross-cultural communication, plurilingualism, applied linguistics,
psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, artificial intelligence, and, in particular, the learning ofMaltese as a second language. Jacqueline has over twenty years of pedagogic insights
experience working with Primary, Secondary and Tertiary schools to teach Maltese as a firstand foreign language and Spanish as a foreign language. She introduced Maltese and presented
Second Language Acquisition pedagogies at several universities such as the Universities of
Edinburgh, Cork and Antwerp.
Email: jacqueline.zammit@um.edu.mt
Article 5: Exploring the Impact of Peer Assessment on EFL Students’ Writing
Performance
Dr Eleni Meletiadou is a Programme Director and Senior Lecturer at London South Bank
University. She is an enthusiastic peer learning, writing and assessment scholar and an awardwinning researcher and adviser with over 20 years of international experience. She is anestablished academic writer and has presented her work in various international conferences.
Email: elenim@outlook.com
Article 6: Teachers’ Misbehaviours in Class and Students’ Reactions: A Case Study
Reem Alkurdi completed her MA in Linguistics at the University of Jordan. She specialises
in educational linguistics with a focus on student-teacher relationships.
Email: reemalkurdi8@gmail.com

5

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Dr Sharif Alghazo is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Faculty of Foreign
Languages at the University of Jordan. He specialises in English phonetics and pronunciation
learning and teaching. His research has appeared in journals such as Interchange: A Quarterly
Review of Education, Lingue e Linguaggio, and Open Linguistics.
Email: s.alghazo@gmail.com

6

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Perceived Impact of EMI on Students’ Language Proficiency in
Vietnamese Tertiary EFL Contexts
Thi Hoai Thu Tran
Hue University of Foreign Languages
Vietnam
Rachel Burke
The University of Newcastle
Australia
John Mitchell O’Toole
The University of Newcastle
Australia

7

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) has been widely adopted at the tertiary level in nonEnglish speaking countries and Vietnam is no exception. Vietnamese universities and theVietnamese government have anticipated significant linguistic benefits for student outcomesthrough the implementation of EMI. Using a mixed-methods design of surveys, interviews,
and focus groups with students and lecturers at six Vietnamese universities, this study
investigates lecturer and student perceptions of the impacts of EMI on students’ language
proficiency in Vietnam. The study indicates that both students and lecturers were optimistic
about students’ language improvement. This study recommends some implications forstudents, lecturers, and further research regarding EMI in the Vietnamese EFL context. Among
the recommendations to emerge from this study, assessment on students’ language ability
before they commence EMI courses and lecturers’ adequate language competence for EMI
programs should be considered.
Keywords: EMI, English language proficiency, EFL contexts, language skills, Vietnam

8

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, hereafter Vietnam, is a country in Southeast Asia where
Vietnamese, the national language, is the main medium of instruction in schools at all levelsof education. Meanwhile, English is used as a foreign language in limited situations such as forinternational communication, business purposes, or international education. English language
teaching in Vietnam has experienced various changes based on socio-political and economic
developments in different historical stages. However, since Doi Moi (Renovation), English has
consolidated its role as one of the most important foreign languages in globalization andinternationalization in Vietnam.
First introduced in Vietnam in the 1990s, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has become
one of the country’s current English language teaching (ELT) trends. Considered to be the firstwritten policy document regarding the implementation of EMI, the Resolution on Higher
Education Reform Agenda (HE) issued in 2005 officially documents English as a tool to teachand learn other subjects at the tertiary level. Since then, the implementation of EMI has beenencouraged, but not compulsory, in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts as a response to
globalization. The Vietnamese government expects EMI courses to assist with equipping
Vietnamese graduate students with English language proficiency and academic expertisenecessary for studying, working, and communicating efficiently in global contexts (Tran,
Burke, & O’Toole, 2021). EMI has been implemented in some selected Vietnameseuniversities that meet the requirements set by the Ministry of Education and Training (e.g.,with regards to teaching staff, resources, and facilities). Vietnamese students have the right toenroll in an EMI program if they satisfy specific criteria, such as passing the national university
entrance examination and meeting the language requirements.
Literature Review
In recent years, the EMI approach has become a global phenomenon (Dearden, 2014;
Goodman, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2011a; Lei & Hu, 2014; McKay, 2014; Othman & Saat, 2009;
Smala, 2009; Taguchi, 2014). Many researchers note that EMI has a significant role in thehigher education systems of Asian and European countries as a part of universities’ strategies
for internationalization as many universities - and indeed governments – see EMI as integral
to improving learners’ English language competence (Byun et al., 2011; Chapple, 2015; Le,2012; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). However, the benefits of EMI to students’ language
competence are contested across cultures and nations. While some students believe that they
can improve their language ability through EMI courses (Tatzl, 2011; Wächter & Maiworm,
2014; Yeh, 2014), others find that EMI does not have any influence on their English proficiency(Lei & Hu, 2014). A study conducted by Collins (2010) with 1011 students and 117 instructors
in an English-medium university in Turkey reveals that students’ self-perceived low language
proficiency is the reason why “they feel disadvantaged during their college years (Collins,
2010, p.97). However, Collins (2010) also notes that EMI is a solution for non-English
speaking countries like Turkey “to survive in the international market” (p.97). Lecturers andstudents in his study perceived the importance of the implementation of EMI as well as its
linguistic benefits and employability to university students. Dearden (2014) defines EMI as“the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where
the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (p.4). This approachaims to broaden learners’ subject-area knowledge and promote their English proficiency andprofessional expertise in English. In this way, English seems to be a “tool for academic study,
not as a subject itself” (Taguchi, 2014, p. 89). Similarly, many scholars point out someadvantages of EMI, such as improving English, fully participating in international

9

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

communication (Cots, 2013; Seitzhanova, et al., 2015), encouraging international students toenroll, improving the university rankings, and promoting the learning of English (Cots, 2013).
Tatzl (2011) conducted a questionnaire survey and individual interviews on English-medium
masters’ programs at an Austrian university of applied sciences and indicated that the student
participants perceived the positive influence of EMI courses on their English language skills.
Tatzl (2011) notes that this is “the greatest benefit of English-medium instruction” (p. 258).
The lecturer participants in his study stated that students are encouraged to practice thelanguage in EMI courses. They believe that their EMI students are more confident in speaking
skills.
In Korea (Republic of Korea), scholars (Byun et al., 2011; Lee, 2014) show that EMI
approaches have been implemented at the tertiary level and expected to improve students’English skills to prepare them to work in the global environment. The findings from surveys
and focus groups conducted by Byun et al. (2011) and the Centre for Teaching and Learning
at Korean University indicate that students feel satisfied with EMI courses at Korean
University (KU) as these courses are believed to help improve students’ English proficiency.
As noted by Byun et al. (2011), the EMI policy at Korean University seems to be successful,or “at least the outcome of EMI policy has so far been in line with the broader policy goal ofinternationalizing KU” (p. 438). However, the students believe that their English abilities need
to be improved to take EMI courses more effectively, even though the findings show that
English competence does not significantly affect their understanding of the subject-areaknowledge.
A study undertaken with 476 EMI students at six Taiwanese universities by Yeh (2014) statedthat there are various reasons students take EMI courses. Their lecturers’ expertise in thecontent-area knowledge and their demands for improving their English ability are the mostfrequently cited. As with the findings of Byun et al. (2011), the participants in Yeh (2014)
believe that EMI courses have a positive influence on students’ English language skills,
especially their listening and reading skills.
However, in other contexts, the benefits of EMI for students are perceived differently. For
example, Lei and Hu (2014) conducted a study to examine whether EMI had any impact on
students’ English proficiency and affect in English learning and use from an undergraduate
EMI program at a Chinese university. Their findings indicate that EMI courses do not improvestudents’ English proficiency nor have a positive impact on English learning and use. Even,the students in their study perceived that “the intensive English listening and speaking
instruction that the EMI students received in freshman year appeared to be more effective in
improving their English proficiency than the EMI itself” (Lei and Hu, 2014, p. 122).
Interestingly, as with other scholars (Byun et al., 2011; Yeh, 2014), the findings of Chapple(2015), who conducted a mixed-method study using questionnaires and interviews withJapanese EMI teachers and students in two private universities in Western Japan, reveal that
EMI courses in Japan are mainly implemented to improve the English proficiency of university
students. However, as 34% of the students in these classes “failed to complete them and either
gave up or officially withdrew” (Chapple, 2015, p. 5), the linguistic gains through EMI courses
were described by the researchers as “dubious” (p. 4). Specifically, the findings of Chapple(2015) show that 33% of Japanese students in their study rate “Some” for the linguistics benefits
from EMI, 18% think they have “Considerable” improvement in language proficiency, while
24% confirm that there is no change in their English ability through EMI courses. The rest of

10

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

the students are unsure about the impact of EMI on their language ability. Significantly, someissues that influence the effects of this approach on teaching language skills are also presented
in Chapple (2015), such as one-way and teacher-centered Japanese teaching style and lecturers’
lack the ability to “teach EMI classes effectively” (Chapple, 2015, p. 4).
The perceived impact of EMI on students’ linguistic competence from previous studies indifferent contexts helps identify the issues that need to be addressed in the present study,
including whether students and lecturers perceive EMI to have an impact on Vietnamesestudents’ language proficiency and its impact on particular language aspects (listening skills,
reading skills, writing skills, speaking skills, knowledge of grammar and vocabulary). This
study was conducted to gain insights into lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of the impact of
EMI on students’ language proficiency using surveys and interviews at six universities locatedin Northern Vietnam, Central Vietnam, and Southern Vietnam.
Research Methods
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design, including surveys (students and lecturers),
interviews (lecturers), and focus groups (students), was adopted in this study. As suggested byscholars (Creswell, 2012; Mills & Gay, 2016; Pole, 2007), this design provides a better
understanding of the research problems or issues than either research approach alone. Closed
questions in questionnaires with five-point Likert items were adapted from Byun et al. (2011),
Yeh (2014), and Tatzl (2011). Particular Likert items of this study are shown in Table 1. The
items in the questionnaires seek an understanding of participants’ perceptions of the linguistic
benefits of EMI to students. Meanwhile, the semi-structured questions were used for in-depth
interviews with lecturers and focus group interviews with students to refine, consolidate andexplain the quantitative findings.
Table 1Five-Point Likert Items Used in the Study
Student Questionnaires
Categories
Likert items
Self-satisfaction with 1 = Not at all satisfied,language proficiency 2= Not satisfied, 3 =in EMI courses
Partially satisfied, 4 =Satisfied, 5 = Highly
satisfiedSelf-assessment offour language skills
Language
proficiency
improvement
through EMI courses

1= Poor, 2= Below
average, 3= Average, 4= Above average, 5 =Excellent
1 = Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3 = Neutral,
4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly
agree.

11

Lecturer Questionnaires
Categories
Likert items
Students’
1 = Not at all, 2 = Not
languagemuch, 3 = Neutral, 4competence= Somewhat, 5 = Verybeforemuch.
commencing
EMI courses
Students’
1 = Strongly disagree,
language
2 = Disagree, 3 =proficiency
Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5
improvement= Strongly agree.
through EMI
courses

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Research Site and Participants
To understand the perceived impact of EMI on Vietnamese students’ language proficiency, six
Vietnamese universities in the southern, northern, and central parts of Vietnam were selectedto participate in this study, two universities in each part. These selected universities featured
and implemented EMI programs in their curriculum. The descriptions of content lecturers andEMI students involved in this research are presented in Figure 1 and the next section. The
selected EMI students were enrolling in EMI courses when participating in this study and thelecturer participants had at least one year of experience in EMI programs. As suggested by
Creswell (2012), the participants were selected randomly from the target universities to ensurethat they had an equal opportunity of being selected and the samples could be representative ofEMI students and lecturers.
Data Collection Procedures
The present study included two phases. In the first phase, the quantitative data were collected
through questionnaires for students and lecturers. Thirty content lecturers were invited, of
which five lecturers were from each selected university. Meanwhile, 360 EMI students wererandomly selected to respond to the questionnaires, of which 60 students were from eachselected university. The questionnaires were each composed of a number of scales, consistingof groups of Likert items. This paper rests on data from the two Impact scales, consisting of 31
items on the student questionnaire and 32 items on the lecturer questionnaire.
In the second phase, focus groups with 30 students and interviews with 12 lecturers were used
to collect the qualitative data, in which two lecturers and one five-student focus group wereinterviewed in each target university.
Figure 1
Participants of the Study

Phase 1

• Student questionnaires: 360 EMI students (60 students from eachselected university)• Lecturer questionnaires: 30 lecturers (5 lecturers from each selected
university)

Phase 2

• Student focus groups: 30 EMI students (6 five-student focus groups, 1
group in each selected university)• Lecturer interviews: 12 EMI lecturers (2 lecturers from each selected
university)

To ensure the participants fully understood the questions, the questionnaires, focus groups, andinterviews were conducted in Vietnamese. Then, in the stage of analysis and discussions,codes, nodes, and quotes were translated into English by the main researcher author, who isbilingual and familiar with the concepts of the study.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data from the student and lecturer questionnaires was entered into SPSS 25 for quantitative
analysis. SPSS is a statistical software, including “a wide range of statistical procedures” tohelp researchers obtain results that are “suitable for use in a research report” (Cronk, 2019,p.iii). Descriptive analysis of each questionnaire yielded demographic data for both the student

12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

and lecturer samples and reliability measures suggested that the scales were internallyconsistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.9 for both student and lecturer scales).
The qualitative data were organized and coded using NVivo 22 which helps researchers
manage data from messy records into organizing and implementing a qualitative project, getideas rapidly, see the relationship among ideas and concepts and then “report from the data”(Bazeley & Jackson, 2013, p. 3). As the content analysis was the main focus and aim of theanalytical process in this study, both the content and context of documents from lecturer
interviews (Spencer, et al., 2003) were analyzed to identify key themes, categories, andconcepts (e.g., frequency of their occurrence, cluster), with the link to other variables (e.g.,gender, regional locations, teaching experience), including lecturers’ perceptions of the impact
of EMI on students’ language proficiency. Meanwhile, the relationships between themes werealso examined. In addition, the qualitative data from student focus groups were analyzed using
content analysis as the qualitative approach with a combination of two content analysis
techniques. Signs according to their meanings were classified through the semantic content
analysis in which “the frequency with certain objects (or persons, institution, or concepts) are
mentioned” and “characterized” (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2007, p. 119). At the same time, theclassical content analysis (Onwuegbuzie, et al., 2009) was also used to “create small chunks ofthe data and then placing a code with each chunk,” and then, these codes “are placed into
similar groupings and counted” (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009, p. 6). A matrix adapted fromOnwuegbuzie et al. (2009) was also applied for analyzing the data from student focus groups,
shown in Table 2.
Table 2Matrix for Focus Group Analysis
Categories

Groups and Respondents
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

1

Members Members

Members

Members2

Members Members

Members

Members3

Members Members

Members

Members

Total
Group
5
Members
Members
Members

Group 6
Members(n)

Members(n)

Members(n)

Research Question
The findings of the quantitative and qualitative data of this study addressed the following
research question:
What is the perceived impact of EMI approaches on students’ English language
proficiency?

13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Findings and Discussions
Students’ Data
Students’ self-satisfaction with language proficiency in EMI courses. Students in this study
showed that they were satisfied most with their reading skills (Mean = 3.6 out of 5), followed
by general vocabulary and listening skills. Meanwhile, they were moderately content with theirwriting skills, speaking skills, listening skills, knowledge of technical terms, and grammar, inwhich writing skills received the lowest mean ratings at 3.0. More detailed descriptive statistics
of students’ self-satisfaction with their language competence are presented in Table 3.
Table 3Students’ Self-Satisfaction with Language Proficiency in EMI Courses
Students’ Self-Satisfaction (N = 360)
(1 = Not at all satisfied, 2= not satisfied, 3 = Partially satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 5 =Highly satisfied)
Items
Mean
SD.
Reading skills
3.6
0.8
General vocabulary
3.5
0.8
Listening skills
3.4
0.9
Technical terminology
3.3
0.9
Grammar
3.3
0.8
Speaking skills
3.2
0.9
Writing skills
3.0
0.8

Students’ self-assessment of their four language skills. Overall, students rated their“Understanding discussions during the lesson” (listening skills) and “Understanding
instructions and questions in reading tasks” (reading skills) with the highest scored at 3.8 while“Using appropriate academic style” and “Coherence and cohesion in writing” of writing skills
were self-assessed with the lowest mean score at 3.3 and 3.2, respectively. More detailed
descriptive statistics of students’ self-assessment on their subskills of language competence arepresented in Table 4.
Table 4Students’ Self-Assessment of their Four Language Skills
Assessment on listening skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)

Mean
Items
SD.
Understanding discussions during the lesson
3.8
0.8
Understanding the lecturer’s oral instructions
3.7
0.9
Understanding conversations outside the classroom
3.7
0.9
Listening and taking notes during lectures in class
3.7
0.9
Listening and understanding the content of lectures in class
3.6
0.9
Assessment on speaking skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)
Discussing the subject-area knowledge in groups
3.5
0.8
Oral presentation skills
3.4
0.9
Expressing ideas about lectures
3.4
0.8

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Assessment on reading skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)
Understanding instructions and questions in reading tasks
3.8
0.8
Reading and understanding the content of the lectures in class
3.7
0.8
Scanning and skimming skills to identify main ideas and
3.6
0.8
specific information
Answering reading comprehension questions
3.6
0.8
Summarizing lectures
3.5
0.8
Assessment on writing skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)Completing course assignments in papers
3.4
0.8
Summarizing subject-area knowledge
3.4
0.8
Using appropriate academic style
3.3
0.8
Coherence and cohesion in writing
3.2
0.9

Some students in focus groups revealed that they had “sufficient language ability to understandthe lesson” (DG2 - Focus Group 4, 25 February 2017) or “average” (DG4, DG5 - Focus Group
4, 25 February 2017) as they attended general English classes or ESP/AEP classes before theycommenced EMI classes. Generally, student participants believed that they gained linguistic
benefits through EMI courses. More details of the students’ comments are presented in Table 5.
Table 5Students’ perceptions of their English proficiency improvement through EMI courses
Groups and Respondents
AG

BG

CG

DG

EG

DG1, DG2,
DG2, DG4,
DG5
EG1, EG4

EG3

DG1, DG2,
DG3, DG4,
DG5

EG1

10

EG3,
EG4

7

Readingskills

AG1, BG3
AG2

CG1, CG4

ListeningskillsAG2

DG1, DG2,
DG3, DG4,
DG5

SpeakingskillsAG5

WritingskillsTechnical
terms

BG1,
BG2,
BG4
BG1,
BG4,
BG5
BG2,
BG3,
BG4,
BG5

Total

CG1

AG1,
AG2

FG
11
11

EG1

FG2

4

As with the quantitative data, students believed that their reading and listening skills were
improved most:In the past, I read, but I did not understand it much, I meant I had to read very slowly.
However, now I can read, scan, and understand faster (CG1- Focus Group 3, 24
February 2017).
In the first year, I could read very slowly because there were a lot of complicatedtechnical terms that I did not know. Later, after one year [in EMI courses], the speed of15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

my reading skill is improved, and my listening skill is better. I can understand the lesson
completely in class (AG2- Focus Group 1, 16 March 2017).
Students’ writing skills and vocabulary (technical terms) were believed to be improved throughEMI courses:
I have to read extra books in English; thus, I can learn a lot of new words, technicalterms in English. In addition, the subjects require students to write reports or do
assignments in English. I think my writing skill is much enhanced, better than listening
and speaking skills’ (EG4- Focus Group 5, 24 February 2017)
Personally, I think it [language ability] has been improved a lot, but in terms of technicalterms of Business rather than communication skills or something like that (EG1 - Focus
Group 5, 24 February 2017).
Unlike Tatzl's (2011) findings of students’ confidence in speaking skills, the quantitative andqualitative findings of this study indicate that students feel more satisfied with their receptive
skills (reading and listening skills) than their productive skills (speaking and writing skills).
According to Davies (1976), knowledge of a foreign language is divided into three main stages.
Receptive skills at the first and second stages enable students to “understand texts of various
degrees of complexity in the foreign language” and “understand the spoken language” (Davies,
1976, p. 441). Meanwhile, at a higher level of stage three, students with productive skills areable to communicate actively in the foreign tongue to speak it and write it. The data of thisstudy show that students have negative views of their productive skills, which is in line withthe findings of lecturers’ opinions of English abilities that students need to improve before
commencing EMI courses (see details below).
Students’ perceptions of the impact of EMI on their language proficiency are also reflected intheir self-assessment on each sub-language skills, in which the overall mean scores of listening
skills (Mean = 3.7 out of 5) and reading skills (Mean = 3.6 out of 5) are higher than writing
skills (Mean = 3.4 out of 5) and speaking skills (Mean = 3.4 out of 5). Accordingly, students’
self-assessment of receptive skills tends to be closer to “Above average” while productive skills
are perceived at “Average” level. For example, they can comprehensively listen and understandthe content and take notes during lectures (listening skills). Meanwhile, students believe thatthey can understand the content-area knowledge and scan and skim skills to identify main
points or specific information (reading skills).
Students’ perceptions of their language proficiency improvement in EMI courses. The
quantitative findings indicate that students rated their language competence improvement witha range of mean scores from 3.3 to 4.0. More detailed descriptive statistics are shown in Table 6.

16

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 6Students’ Perceptions of their Language Proficiency Improvement in EMI Courses
Students’ language proficiency improvement (N=360)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
EMI courses help enhance my…
MeanSD.
knowledge of technical terminology
4.0
0.7
listening skills
3.7
0.8
reading skills
3.7
0.7
speaking skills
3.7
0.8
general vocabulary
3.7
0.8
writing skills
3.6
0.8
knowledge of grammar
3.3
0.9

Overall, students perceived that EMI had a positive impact on their language proficiency. The
data show that students’ knowledge of technical terminology was most improved, followed byreading skills, listening skills, and speaking skills, while their knowledge of grammar isbelieved to be improved least. As presented by Tran et al. (2021), who conducted a study to
explore challenges facing EMI students in Vietnamese EFL contexts, students had to read
textbooks and extra materials and prepare new words before class, which may explain why
their reading skills and knowledge of vocabulary were perceived to be improved most. As
explained in focus groups, students’ language proficiency improvement is linked to learningand teaching strategies and their own English level before commencing EMI courses, lecturers’
language proficiency, and students’ learning attitudes.
Lecturers’ Data
Lecturers’ assessment on students’ language competence before EMI courses. Figure 2
shows that half of the lecturer respondents rated students’ English proficiency before theycommenced EMI courses at “Somewhat”, 27% rated at “Neutral”, 13% at “Not much”, while
only 10% believed that their students’ language competence “Very much” meets the language
requirements for EMI courses.
Figure 2
Lecturers’ Assessment on Students’ English Ability Before EMI Courses

The findings are consolidated in students’ responses when they rated most of the items (5 outof 7) of their satisfaction of language proficiency below 3.5 (see Table 2). Tran (2020) notedthat there is a lack of consistency in language requirements for EMI programs among

17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

universities in Vietnam, which may lead to the fact that EMI lecturers have various opinionsof the levels of students’ required English proficiency.
Students’ language proficiency improvement in EMI courses. Table 7 demonstrates thestatistics of lecturers’ ideas about students’ language ability improvement in EMI courses. As
with students, most of the lecturers see linguistic benefits of EMI courses to students’ English
level. Significantly, the highest score was at students’ technical terminology knowledge (Mean= 4.6), followed by reading skills and general vocabulary (Mean = 4.5). The least strong
agreement was rated at “Knowledge of grammar” (Mean = 3.8).
Table 7
Lecturers’ Perceptions of Students’ Language Ability Improvement Through EMI Courses
Students’ language proficiency improvement (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree
MeanSD.
Knowledge of technical terminology
4.6
0.6
General vocabulary

4.5

0.6

Reading skill

4.5

0.6

Writing skill

4.3

0.6

Listening skill

4.2

0.7

Speaking skill

4.0

0.8

Knowledge of grammar

3.8

0.9

As with the quantitative findings, some lecturer respondents in the interviews stated that thestudents’ vocabulary and reading skills were most improved, as stated:
The students’ knowledge is better after EMI courses. At least, their vocabulary andreading skills are improved (1E – Lecturer, interview, 10 March 2017).
The data also show that lecturers had more positive attitudes towards students’ improvements
in language proficiency through EMI courses while students seemed to be more modest about
their improvements. As noted by Tran et al. (2021), students were most challenged by
vocabulary difficulty. However, the findings of this study reveal that students’ knowledge oftechnical terms was believed to be improved most through EMI by both lecturers and students.
As mentioned above, teaching and learning strategies that are intended to help overcome
vocabulary difficulty may help students improve this aspect of language competence.
Students’ improvements of four language skills in EMI courses. Overall, lecturers agreed
that students made progress in terms of language learning through EMI courses, in which using
writing skills to complete course assignments and reading skills to reading and understand thecontent of the lectures in class were perceived to be most improved (Mean = 4.4). Meanwhile,
understanding conversations outside the classroom (listening skills) was the least score at 3.8.

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 8Descriptive Statistics of Lecturers’ Perceptions of Students’ Listening Skills
Students’ improvement in listening skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
EMI courses help students improve their abilities in
Listening and understanding the content of lectures in class

Mean
4.2

SD.
0.8

Understanding lecturer’s oral instructions

4.2

0.7

Understanding discussions during the lesson

4.2

0.7

Listening and taking notes during the lectures in class

4.1

0.5

Understanding conversations outside the classroom

3.8

0.8

Students’ improvement in speaking skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Oral presentation skills
4.2
0.8
Discussing the subject-area knowledge in groups

4.2

0.8

Expressing ideas about lectures

4.1

0.8

Students’ improvement in reading skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Reading and understanding the content of the lectures in class
4.4
0.5
Understanding instructions and questions in reading tasks

4.3

0.5

Scanning and skimming skills to identify main ideas andspecific information
Answering reading comprehension questions

4.3

0.6

4.2

0.7

Summarizing lectures

4.0

0.7

Students’ improvement in writing skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Completing course assignments
4.4
0.7
Using appropriate academic style

4.1

0.6

Summarizing content-area knowledge

4.1

0.7

Coherence and cohesion in writing

4.0

0.7

The qualitative data findings show that although four language skills are thought to benecessary for the students in EMI courses, lecturers believe that reading skills and listening
skills are the most important. They think that students need to read many documents/textbooks
in English and understand lectures (listening skills) in class as “In my major, students need toread lots of books” (2A – Lecturer, interview, 14 March 2017). However, speaking skills areperceived to be the least important. Although EMI courses were believed to help students
improve their language proficiency, how much progress was actually made was explained
differently, as admitted: “not the same to all students” (2E – Lecturer, interview, 13 March2017). Some lecturers added that students’ language ability improvement depended on
lecturers’ and students’ efforts with no clear explanations of specific efforts or how they
worked to enhance students’ language proficiency.

19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

With 6-years’ experience in teaching in English, I find that whether students canimprove English or not depends on the effort of both teachers and learners. The majorityof students’ language ability is improved. However, to what extent of the improvement
depends on the level of effort of the learner. In a class, about 20% of students makesignificant progress and their English ability has been improved from the first year totheir graduation, but 30% of them are at a low level (2D – Lecturer, interview, 22
February 2017).
As with students’ data, the lecturers’ data show that students’ English level before theycommence EMI courses and lecturers’ language proficiency influence students’ improvementin English competence.
Students’ language ability will be improved a lot if lecturers pronounce correctly; ifthey do not, there is no improvement (1C – Lecturer, interview, 16 March 2017).
More specifically, lecturers explained that students’ language proficiency was improved
because they used English as an everyday habit in class and during lesson preparations andhaving lectures in EMI classes.
Of course, their language proficiency has been improved. What you work with every
day, think of it every day, concern about it every day, it [English] will become yours.
…. Supposing the students are lazy, they do not want to study English at home.
However, at school, they study in an environment where English is used completely;
their language proficiency must be different [improved]. For example, they may notunderstand a word for the first time, but when they hear that word repeatedly for thesecond time, the third time, they will get it. Having experienced with 5 or 6 EMI courses
in the Advanced Programs, I have found that students’ language level is much improved(1D – Lecturer, interview, 16 March 2017).
As mentioned above, the students are modest about their progress in their language competence
through EMI courses. As noted by many scholars (Chapple, 2015; Tran et al., 2021), content
lecturers seem not to see their roles in students’ language learning and use through EMI courses
as their main responsibilities in EMI courses are believed to deliver content-area knowledge inEnglish. Content lecturers believe that students’ understanding of the content is the mostimportant. As a result, they tend to deny their responsibilities for teaching English in EMI
courses. Furthermore, Tran (2020) stated that Vietnamese lecturers did not perceive theeffectiveness of collaboration between language lecturers and content lecturers in EMI courses
in terms of linguistic support for students. The lecturers’ lack of language proficiency and EMI
training was also found in her study, which influences the way lecturers deliver the lecture in
English, learners’ engagement in the classroom, and the role of language and content teachingin EMI courses. Accordingly, students blame lecturers’ language proficiency, especiallylecturers’ accents and pronunciation, for the quality of EMI lectures and lecturers’ focus ondelivering the content but avoid communicating with students in English during EMI lectures(Tran et al., 2021). These factors may explain the findings of students’ perceived satisfaction
with their improvements in language competence in this study.
Limitations
The strength of this study is the mixed-methods design with the incorporation of lecturer andstudent voices to address the perceived impact of EMI on students’ language proficiency in

20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

multiple perspectives. However, this study is based on the participants’ reported perceptions
and beliefs, and these may not adequately reflect practices happening in real EMI classrooms
such as which language skills are practiced and how much the first language is used. In
addition, the participants may not respond honestly when they give some comments on
sensitive items such as students’ responses to self-assessment on their own language ability
because they are concerned about losing face. Furthermore, two of the target universities
nominated the participants for the study; therefore, the respondents may avoid being disloyal
to their employers or lecturers. Finally, the target research sites of this study are focal
universities in big cities of three parts of Vietnam; consequently, the results may not be
generalized to other Vietnamese universities in other parts of Vietnam.
Recommendations
EMI courses at the tertiary level are expected to bring students linguistic and non-linguistic
goals (Tran, 2020). However, in an under-resourced context like Vietnam, the implementationof EMI needs to be well prepared and deployed to help students gain linguistic benefits. The
findings of the present study suggest some implications for implementers (students, lecturers,
and universities) and further research in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts.
First, EMI students need to well perceive the importance of their English level before
commencing EMI courses. Students’ English competence needs to be assessed throughstandardized benchmarks such as IELTS, TOEFL, “which are tailored to academic skills”(Nguyen et al., 2017, p. 43). In addition, English language teaching should prepare students forlanguage competence from secondary and tertiary levels. Even when students meet thelanguage requirements for EMI programs, English for specific purposes and English for
Academic Purposes courses should be considered to equip them with skills of using language
academically before they attend EMI courses.
Second, as discussed above, lecturers’ lack of language proficiency may affect students’ language
learning. Therefore, lecturers should be aware of the roles of professional development, especiallyin preparing language competence for delivering the content-area knowledge in English,
particularly their communicative skills (e.g., accent, pronunciation, accuracy, and fluency of
expression in EMI lectures, and in dealing with questions) and the use of English in the academic
environment. For example, they should attain language certificates such as IELTS, TOEFL or takepart in international conferences and training courses for EMI lecturers. They also should consider
consultancy or collaboration with language lecturers.
The findings of this study were mainly based on lecturers’ and students’ opinions. More researchshould be undertaken to understand better the actual impact of EMI on students’ language learning.
For example, classroom observations may provide evidence of how four language skills arepracticed and how much English is used in EMI courses. Pretests and posttests are also a good way
to assess students’ language improvement.

Conclusions
The Vietnamese government encourages the implementation of EMI programs in tertiary EFL
contexts in the expectation that they will improve students’ language ability “as part of thenational internationalization agenda” (Tran, Burke, & O’Toole, 2021, p.49). In this study,
students’ and lecturers’ positive attitudes toward the impact of EMI on students’ language
proficiency, especially on students’ receptive skills (Listening and Reading), suggest alignment
between the government’s intentions and student and lecturer perceptions. The current study’s

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

findings provide one baseline for research on other EMI programs within Vietnam and in nonEnglish speaking countries or for other additional languages as a medium of instruction
programs.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank The International Research Foundation for English Language Education(TIRF) for their financial support.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage.
Byun, K., Chu, H., Minjung, K., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium
teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education,
62, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4
Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English.
International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p1
Collins, A. B. (2010). English-medium higher education: Dilemma and problems. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 39, 97–110. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/48964
Cots, J. M. (2013). Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida,
Spain: Intervention, beliefs and practices. In English-medium instruction atuniversities: Global challenges (pp. 106–130). Multilingual Matters.
http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cronk, B. C. (2019). How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429340321
Davies, N. F. (1976). Receptive versus productive skills in foreign language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 60(8), 440–443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1976.tb03667.x
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon.
British Council. 10.13140/RG.2.2.12079.94888
Goodman, B. A. (2014). Implementing English as a medium of instruction in a Ukrainian
University: Challenges, adjustments, and opportunities. International Journal of
Pedagogies & Learning, 9(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2014.9.2.130
Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary
to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. In L. Wei (Ed.),
Applied Linguistics Review 2 (Vol. 2, pp. 99–119). De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.99
Le, D. M. (2012a). English as a medium of instruction at tertiary education system in
Vietnam. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(2), 97–122
Lee, G. J. (2014). Why students don’t participate in English medium instruction classes in a
Korean university: A case study. English Teaching, 69, 91–117
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.1.201403.91
McKay, S. L. (2014). Commentary: English-medium education in the global society Findings and implications. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 52(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0010
Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. G. (2016). Educational research: Competencies for analysis andapplications (11th ed.). Pearson
Nguyen, H. T., Walkinshaw, I., & Pham, H. H. (2017). EMI programs in a Vietnameseuniversity: Language, pedagogy and policy issues. In English medium instruction inhigher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 37–52). Springer.

23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690900800301
Othman, J., & Saat, R. M. (2009). Challenges of using English as a medium of instruction:
Pre-service science teachers’ perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,18(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v18i2.1331
Pole, K. (2007). Mixed method designs: A review of strategies for blending quantitative andqualitative methodologies. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 35–38.
Seitzhanova, A., Plokhikh, R., Baiburiev, R., & Tsaregorodtseva, A. (2015). Language in
Education. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business, 15(3), 113–116.
https://doi.org/10.15208/pieb.2015.11
Smala, S. (2009). New literacies in a globalised world. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years,
17(3), 45–50.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practices, principles andprocesses. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students andresearchers (pp. 199–218). Sage.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991841
Taguchi, N. (2014). English-medium education in the global society. International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 89–98.
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0004
Tatzl, D. (2011). English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of appliedsciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 10, 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.003
Tran, T. H. T., Burke, R., & O’Toole, J. M. (2021). The evolution of English as a medium of
instruction in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts. In K. M. Bailey & D. Christian(Eds.), Research on Teaching and Learning English in Under-Resourced Contexts(Vol. 8, pp. 45-59). New York: Routledge.
Tran, T. H. T. (2020). Policy and practices in English as a medium of instruction in
Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts. (Doctoral). The University of Newcastle
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher
education. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Lemmens.
Yeh, C.-C. (2014). Taiwanese students’ experiences and attitudes towards English-medium
courses in tertiary education. RELC Journal, 45(3), 305-319.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214555358
Corresponding author: Thi Hoai Thu Tran
Email: hoaithungoaingu@gmail.com

24

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The Impact of Accent among Non-Native English-speaking Biology
Lecturers on Student Comprehension and Attitudes
Alexandra Kolesnikova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaAlina Liubimova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaElena Muromtseva
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaAnton Muromtsev
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russia25

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
This study examined the attitudes of postgraduate biology students of three top-ranked Russian
universities towards the foreign accents of non-native English-speaking lecturers. Fifty
participants responded to a questionnaire, the main purpose of which was to explore the listeners’
perceptions of professors’ accents and their influence on students’ ability to concentrate on andcomprehend the lecture material. The research included a quantitative analysis of gathered
descriptive data. The results of the study show Russian students’ tolerant attitudes to foreign
accents of non-native lecturers and demonstrate their readiness to comprehend non-standard
English-medium speech of non-native representatives of the international natural sciences
academic community.
Keywords: accent perception, foreign accent, non-linguistic professional discourse, Russianspeaking students, sociolinguistics, students’ attitudes

26

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The current global sociolinguistic paradigm welcoming non-standard varieties of English andinculcating tolerant attitudes to their spoken realisations has defined the shift from so-called“nativeness” and foreign accent reduction to achieving intelligibility and comprehensibility ofan utterance in international non-linguistic professional discourse (Chien, 2014; Gill, 1994). The
phenomenon of foreign accent softening, rather than total accent reduction, is said to beintertwined with maintaining a person’s national identity while removing phonological barriers
constraining effective intercultural communication (Gill, 1994; Johnson & Frederick,
1994; Nelson, 2011). In the context of English being a means of international communication
among speakers with different L1 backgrounds and various professional pursuits, the analysis
of non-native interlocutors’ oral speech perception in natural sciences academic discourse
presents a challenge for modern sociolinguistic research.
The objective of this study is to determine the evaluative judgements of Russian postgraduates
towards non-native English-speaking biology lecturers in order to assess their level of tolerance
to accented speech in an academic context. Accent bias has been linked to career possibilities,
including those in academia, as non-native lecturers are commonly judged against native speakerpronunciation standards and ranked lower on dimensions relevant to teaching, such ascompetence and teaching quality (Hendriks et al., 2018). Native English accents have been
historically highly regarded in Russian higher education, being associated with good educationand prestige, making the probability of the presence of accent bias quite high. Maslova (2017)
tapped into the perception of non-native speakers’ (NNS) foreign accent within the linguistic
community of other NNSs. This study, however, seeks to explore Russian students’ attitudes
toward non-native lecturers’ accents and assess their readiness to comprehend non-standard
English-medium speech in the academic context. The most essential question in this study iswhether the presence of a negative attitude towards a foreign accent stops the listener frommaking the effort to concentrate on the content of a lecture.
Literature Review
The concept of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has irreversibly changed the role ofpronunciation, both its acquisition and instruction, in English as a second language (ESL) class.
Much of the current research suggests that there is less emphasis on ESL students struggling tosound native-like (Chien, 2014; Derwing, 2010; Nelson, 2011) as the focus in language
acquisition has shifted to intelligibility and comprehensibility as the most important features of
ESL learners’ speech of any L1 backgrounds, as according to Nelson (2011),
Far from being an issue only across ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ varieties, intelligibility is aconcern across any varieties, whether broadly or narrowly construed (p.33).
Still, much evidence coming from empirical studies shows that there is a huge gap between therequirements for those who use English as a professional tool and those who use it as a meansof communication in non-linguistic professional environments. Regardless of the ELF status andenormous worldwide influence of English, in Wach’s study (2011), which involved 234 subjects,
the majority of respondents (98% in Group A (n=132) and 83% in Group B (n=102)) agreed that
it was preferable for teachers of English to have native-like pronunciation. The study by Coskun(2011) discovered that 38 out of 47 respondents, senior students of the English Language
Teaching department, found having native-like pronunciation very important for a teacher ofEnglish. In the study by Maslova (2017), a questionnaire was administered to 23 teachers and
41 undergraduate students at Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU). The results revealed
that Russian teachers and ELT majors believed that “it was necessary to follow a particular27

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

pronunciation norm while teaching English to those for whom this language is a professionaltool” (p.10). At the same time, appealing back to ELF advocates (Modiano, 2009; Dimova, 2018)
in non-native speaker (NNS) to NNS oral interaction in ELF, it becomes clear thatthe traditional prescriptivism of English language teaching (ELT) in the Expanding
Circle, which emphasizes the benefits of imitating the educated native speaker of SE[Standard English], has become unacceptable (Dimova, 2018, p.51).
Thus, due to the study’s focus on the role of pronunciation in communication between nonnative speakers who use English as a lingua franca, those who belong to the professional
linguistic environment have been excluded. The aim was to study accent perception in nonlinguistic academic communication, namely, in the natural sciences academic community, inorder to find out whether postgraduate students of biology of three top-ranked Russian
universities give much attention to foreign accents of non-native speaking lecturers and to what
extent a foreign accent might be an obstacle in processing accented speech.
Research in foreign accent perception or rating often involves native speakers as listeners andexperts assessing the level of intelligibility of the accented speech of NNS (Gill, 1994; Johnson& Frederick, 1994; Lazaraton, 2005; Lowenberg, 2002; Seidelhofer, 2001) Moreover, experts
and scholars themselves, being frequently zealous advocates of ELF, in their research compare
NNS accents to native pronunciation. For example, Kennedy and Trofimovich (2008) assessed“how closely the pronunciation of an utterance approaches that of a native speaker” (p.461),
while Julkowska and Cebrian (2015) looked at how similar the pronunciation of an L2 speakeris to the pronunciation of a native speaker of a particular language, which seems to contradict
the idea of ELF in terms of sociolinguistic diversity and equality. Therefore, this study wasplanned as the one establishing a purely non-native English-speaking environment with both
listeners and speakers of non-native L1 backgrounds, who use English as a lingua franca forresearch in the field of natural sciences.
Research Questions
In this study, the participants’ attitudes were collected in order to answer the following researchquestions:
RQ1: When students listen to a lecture on biology in English delivered by a non-native speaker,
is it important for them that the lecturer does not have a foreign accent? If so, how important?
RQ2: Does the presence of the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent the students from concentratingon the content of the lecture? If so, to what extent?
RQ3: To what extent can students agree with the statement that non-native lecturers in theirprofessional field should strive to reduce their foreign accents?
Apart from that, Russian-speaking students assessed foreign accents of the representatives of theinternational academic community that came from countries of the expanding circle of English
whose contribution to the further development of every branch of biological sciences wasequally significant and most prominent. The analysis of the classification of academic andresearch-related institutions outlined in the SCImago Institutions ranking of 2018 revealed thatthe three top countries in this regard were China, Germany, and France. Hence, specified pairsof questions (2 per country) were designed:

28

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

RQ4 – RQ6: How easy was it for the students to understand the content of a fragment of alecture delivered in English by a professor from China (RQ4), Germany (RQ5) and France(RQ6)?
RQ7 – RQ9: When students listened to a fragment of a lecture delivered by a lecturer from
China (RQ7), Germany (RQ8) or France (RQ9), did the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent thestudents from concentrating on the content of the lecture?
Finally, some additional statistical tests were performed in order to look for possible meaningfulcorrelations. It was hypothesized that the more the student was concerned about the presence ofa national accent in a foreign lecturer’s speech, the more it would impede their concentration on
the lecture content.
Methodology
The participants in this study were 50 postgraduate biological sciences majors who belong to thenatural sciences academic community of Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), SaintPetersburg State University and Information Technology, Mechanics and Optical design (ITMO)
University. The participants were chosen by the means of convenience sampling from these topranked Russian universities as they had established academic links with Lomonosov MSU where
the study was based. Out of these 50 participants, 41 majored in Biology and 9 in Bioengineeringand Bioinformatics. All the participants had attended or were still attending compulsory classes
of English as a Foreign Language for biologists at the Upper-Intermediate level of language
proficiency (marked B2 in Common European Framework of References) or higher (CEFR,2018).
Prior to conducting the research, the study was piloted on a trial group of 10 participants –students of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Taking into consideration respondents’
feedback and comments, several changes were introduced into the questionnaire.
In the first part of the study, all the participants were administered an anonymous online
questionnaire, which was specifically designed for this study (Appendix 1, Part 1). The items in
the questionnaire matched the research questions of the study. The main aim of the questionnaire
was to explore the participants’ attitudes towards the presence of a foreign accent in the speechof a non-native English-speaking lecturer from their professional field, and reveal the effects ofaccented speech on students’ ability to concentrate on the material without being distracted.
The questionnaire consisted of eleven 7-point Likert items, given that 7-point rating scales canbe referred to as “balanced” (Friedman & Amoot, 1999, p. 119), which tends to increase thedegree of “precision” of participants’ answers (Cohen et al., 2017, p. 327). Each scale point waslabelled by the researchers to minimise inaccuracies stemming from individual interpretation of
numbers.
Anonymity of the questionnaire responses was ensured due to ethical considerations; no personal
data was collected. Out of sustainability reasons the researchers opted for an online
questionnaire; the study was conducted via Google Forms. The participants were provided withdetailed written instructions for each part of the survey. By submitting the questionnaire, theparticipants consented for their responses to be used for research purposes. Each participant
could access the questionnaire link only once to prevent answer falsification.

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

In the second part of the study, the students were asked to listen to a fragment of a lecturedelivered by non-native English-speaking lecturers from China, Germany, and France(Appendix 1, Part 2). The respondents were instructed to fill in their answers after listening to
the recording once. To prevent the participants from making unnecessary appearance-based
judgements, the researchers removed the visuals and solely played an audio version of thefragment of each video. The main criteria for the choice of the video fragments were as follows:
●
●
●
●
●
●

the lecture had to address a biology-related topic;
the speaker had to come from a country which belongs to the Expanding Circle;
the speaker’s mother tongue was not English;
the speaker was proficient in English;
the speaker specialised in one of the branches of biology;
the speaker belonged to the international academic community.

To ensure that the students’ answers to both parts of the questionnaire were adequate, a separate
fill-in-the-blank activity (Appendix 2) was designed, based on the script of each lecture
fragment, and was aimed at checking their real understanding of its key topic points.
Results
Part 1 Descriptive Statistics (RQ1-RQ3)
To analyse the data, the participants’ questionnaire responses were entered into JASP software1.
Responses for Questions 1 to 3 were treated as scale variables with possible integer values (1 to7) corresponding to the questionnaire scale points. The descriptive statistics of the data gatheredin the first part of the survey (N = 50) can be seen below in Table 1:
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Gathered Data (Questions 1-5)

1

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

Valid

50

50

50

Skewness

0.068-0.055-0.057

Missing000Std. Error

0.337

0.337

0.337

Mean

3.56

4.88

4.66

Kurtosis-0.586-0.501-1.279Median3

5

4.5

Std. Error

0.662

0.662

0.662

Mode

3

5

6

Min

1

3

2

Std.
Dev.

1.215

1.081

1.319

Max

6

7

7

https://jasp-stats.org/

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

RQ1: When students listen to a lecture on biology in English delivered by a non-native
speaker, is it important for them that the lecturer does not have a foreign accent? If so,
how important?
For Question 1, the seven-point Likert scale ranging from “does not matter at all” to“fundamentally important” received the following responses. Most students stated that theyfound the foreign accent of a non-native English-speaking lecturer “somewhat unimportant”(n=20), followed by “somewhat important” (n=12), “neutral” (n=8), “not important” (n=6),“does not matter at all” (n=2), “really important” (n=2) and “fundamentally important” (n=0).
Based on this descriptive data, approximately 56% of the participants in this study regard thepresence of the foreign accent in the speech of a non-native lecturer in their professional field
tolerantly. It can be hypothesized that the students are paying more attention to what the speakeris saying rather than how much in common their speech has with the pronunciation patterns ofa native speaker of the English language.
RQ2: Does the presence of the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent the students fromconcentrating on the content of the lecture? If so, to what extent?
For Question 2, most participants stated that a foreign accent of a non-native lecturer “mostly
does not interfere” (n=19) with their ability to concentrate on the lecture content, this answer
was followed by “somewhat interferes” (n=11), “hardly interferes” (n=11), “moderatelyinterferes” (n=6), and “does not interfere at all” (n=3). Generally, it can be concluded thatapproximately 66% of the participants in this study could concentrate on the lecture even if the
speech of a non-native lecturer was characterized by the presence of a foreign accent. Suchstudent experience does not seem surprising: nowadays, when English is being widely used as a
lingua franca, it is hard to imagine a university lecturer who would be unintelligible to the pointthat it would seriously impede students’ concentration. Moreover, considering the extensive
amount of non-native English input that students presumably receive in and out of the university
due to open social media and other Internet resources, an even higher percentage of students
reporting unaffected concentration would be anticipated.
RQ3: To what extent can students agree with the statement that non-native lecturers intheir professional field should strive to reduce their foreign accent?
In the final question of the first part of the survey most students stated that they agreed with thegiven statement for the most part: although 17 participants “totally agreed” with it, these students
did not consider it “crucial” for a lecturer to achieve native-like proficiency when it came to theirpronunciation. Other students shared that they either “rather agreed, than disagreed” (n=13), or“rather disagreed, than agreed” (n=11); some respondents “partially agreed” (n=6) with thestatement or considered it crucial and “absolutely agreed” (n=2). Only one respondent“disagreed” (n=1). Overall, 76% of the participants in this study were in favour of non-native
speaking lecturers involved in English-medium instruction at the university level reducing theirforeign accents. These results appear slightly contradictory to students’ responses in RQ1 and
RQ2 and can be interpreted as a reflection of native speaker bias, as regardless of the reported
satisfactory lecturers’ speech comprehensibility and intelligibility, the students expect theirprofessors to match the native-speaker standard. This situation has been previously reported inhigher education in other national contexts (e.g., the Netherlands) (Hendriks et al., 2018).

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Part 2 Descriptive Statistics (RQ4-RQ9)
Responses for Questions 4 to 9 also were treated as scale variables with possible integer values(1 to 7) corresponding to the questionnaire scale points. The descriptive statistics of the data
gathered in the second part if the survey (N = 50) can be seen below in table 2.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the Gathered Data (Questions 4-9)
Descriptive statistics (3)
RQ4

RQ5

RQ6

RQ7

RQ8

RQ9

Valid

50

50

50

50

50

50

Mean

5.820

5.680

4.980

5.160

3.980

3.940

Median

6

6

5

5

4

4

Mode

6

6

5

5

4

4

Std. Dev

0.873

1.077

1.270

1.251

1.332

1.376

Descriptive statistics (4)
RQ4

RQ5

RQ6

RQ7

RQ8

RQ9

Skewness-0.400-0.642-0.709-0.445

0.415

0.161

Std. Error ofSkewness

0.337

0.337

0.337

0.337

0.337

0.337

Kurtosis-0.392-0.0741.081-0.290-0.334-0.340Std. Error of
Kurtosis

0.662

0.662

0.662

0.662

0.662

0.662

Minimum

4

3

1

2

2

1

Maximum

7

7

7

7

7

7

RQ4 – RQ6: How easy was it for the students to understand the content of a fragment of alecture delivered in English by a professor from China (RQ4), Germany (RQ5) and France(RQ6)?
In Question 4, most students stated that they found understanding the content of the lecture
fragment delivered by the Chinese lecturer “easy” (n=23), this answer was followed by “mostly
easy” (n=12), and “very easy” (n=11). There were no instances of a student who would find thecontent of the lecture fragment somewhat difficult to comprehend.

32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Answering RQ5, 90% of the participants stated they were quite comfortable when listening to alecture delivered by a German professor regardless of their foreign accent. However, the French
speaker (RQ6) in English seemed to be more challenging to understand for the participants inthis study, because more than a third (36%) of them reported difficulty in understanding.
Another set of questions tapped into the students’ ability to concentrate on the content of thelecture regardless of the lecturer’s non-native accent (RQ7 – RQ9). The results are demonstrated
in table 3.
For Question 7, most participants stated that the foreign accent of the Chinese lecturer “hardly
interferes” (n=19) with concentrating on and comprehending the content of the lecture fragment,
followed by “mostly does not interfere” (n=12), “does not interfere at all” (n=12), “somewhat
interferes” (n=5), and “moderately interferes” (n=2). Generally, it can be concluded that the vast
majority of the participants in this study (86%) had no trouble understanding the lecturedelivered by a Chinese professor from their professional field.
As for the German lecturer, most participants stated that his foreign accent “mostly does notinterfere” (n=16) with concentrating on the lecture content. Other students shared that theGerman accent in English “hardly interferes” (n=14) with it, this point was followed by “doesnot interfere at all” (n=7), “somewhat interferes” (n=7), “moderately interferes” (n=5) and“interferes very much” (n=1).
As for the French professor, most participants stated that his foreign accent “somewhat
interferes” with their ability to concentrate on the lecture content. Other students shared that the
French accent in English “mostly does not interfere” (n=11), “moderately interferes” (n=11),“very much interferes” (n=7), “hardly interferes” (n=4), “does not interfere at all” (n=2), and“completely impedes concentration” (n=1). See table 3. Generally, it can be concluded that only
34% of the participants in this study did not experience much difficulty concentrating on thecontent of the lecture delivered by the French professor.
Table 3Students’ Responses to Questions 7-9

RQ

Completely Interferes
MostlyDoes notModerately Somewhat
Hardlyimpedesvery
does notinterfere
interferes interferesinterferesconcentrationmuchinterfere
at allRQ7(Chinese)

0

0

2

5

12

19

12

RQ8
(German)

0

1

5

7

16

14

7

RQ9
(French)

1

7

11

14

11

4

2

Part 3 Additional Tests
Another goal was to reveal if there was any correlation between students’ attitudes to theimportance of the absence of accent in their non-native lecturer’s speech and its link to students’
self-reported concentration and comprehension abilities. Spearman’s correlation coefficient
statistics indicated the following (see table 4):

33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 4Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Variables
RQ1

RQ2

Spearman’s rhop-0.341

0.016

Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI-0.565-0.069The results indicate that there is a statistically significant moderate negative correlation between
variables, that is, the more important the absence of accent, the more the foreign accent of the
non-native lecturer speaking English impedes concentration on and understanding of the lecture
content, as reported by the students. These findings might suggest that if a participant sees thelecturer’s foreign accent as an issue, it prevents that individual from making a special effort tobecome accustomed to the phonological peculiarities of the lecturer’s speech in an effort to makesense of the lecture content, which explains the self-reported absence of understanding.
Discussion, Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
In Part 1 of this study, most participants reported that they wanted the non-native biology
lecturers to strive to reduce their foreign accents (RQ3). Combined with the results of RQ1 and
RQ2, this finding seems slightly contradictory. Most students report their tolerance in RQ1 bystating that having or not having an accent is generally not crucially important for a biology
lecturer, as well as admitting that it does not typically impede concentration on the lecture
content (RQ2). However, most respondents still believe that non-native lecturers should try to
reduce their accent, which probably reflects the native-speaker bias persistent in their minds, as
has been previously reported by other researchers in the field (e.g., Kelch & SantanaWilliamson, 2002).
In Part 2, the students’ reported ease of comprehension of accented speech varied according to
the lecturers’ L1 accent, and the Chinese lecturer was judged as the most comprehensible. The
French lecturer was reported as the least comprehensible, with his accent affecting the students’ability to concentrate on and understand the content of lecture. However, generally, most
students still stated that the effect that the non-native accent had on their concentration in thelecture was minimal, except for the French lecturer. The significance of the research also lies in
the finding that the more important the absence of accent was to a particular student, the moredifficult it was for that student to comprehend the content of the lecture and to concentrate on it.
From previous research it is known that speech can be accented but still perfectly
comprehensible (Kang et al., 2010). Therefore, the current findings might suggest that if aparticipant views the lecturer’s foreign accent as an issue, it prevents them from making a special
effort to become accustomed to the phonological peculiarities of the lecturer’s speech in orderto make sense of the lecture content. This would explain the self-reported absence ofunderstanding. The ability to concentrate and comprehend therefore seems to be subjective.
Clearly, self-reported measures are not fully reliable when it comes to comprehension as they
only portray the students’ individual viewpoints. More studies are warranted to compare thestudents’ reported comprehension of non-native lecturers’ accented speech with their actual
quantitative comprehension scores on the same task. It seems that, considering the data gathered
in Part 1, it could be expected that the students’ actual comprehension will be better than what
they report due to the presence of the native-speaker bias.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

However, some limitations should be noted, namely, there is no indication of whether any of theparticipants in this study (1) are simultaneous bilinguals, (2) have extensive experience in third
language acquisition of Chinese, German, or French, or (3) have completed their bachelor’s
degree in the same professional field as their master’s. Future research could exclude from thesample those respondents who come from other professional backgrounds, primarily focusing
on the students who have successfully completed their bachelor’s studies with the major innatural (biological in particular) sciences and have been attending a compulsory English forSpecial Purposes class for at least 3 academic years while not being simultaneous bilinguals.
Conclusion
Overall, this study demonstrated that a majority of study participants regard the presence of theforeign accent in speech of a non-native lecturer in their professional field tolerantly. This neutral
attitude points to the students’ probable readiness to comprehend non-standard English as a medium
of instruction from non-native representatives of the international natural sciences academic
community. However, the presence of native-speaker bias even in non-linguistic academic
environments was also noted. It is hoped that with the continuous future spread of English as a
lingua franca the native-speaker ideology will give way to an enhanced acceptance of academic
professionals from a variety of L1 backgrounds in the eyes of university students so that greater
learning may be the result.
This study and similar studies in other national contexts might prompt other universities dealing
with the same issue to start actively promoting intelligibility-based pronunciation instruction insteadof following a native-speaker model. If intelligibility were to actually become the main criteria forassessing spoken language of a non-native speaker in an academic environment, NNS lecturers andstudents would be more likely to participate in conferences and other international events inacademia without the fear of being misjudged for failing to sound like a native speaker.

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. 2018. URL:
https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
Chien, C. (2014). Non-native pre-service English teachers’ narratives about their pronunciation
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. (2017). Research methods in education. 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.
Derwing, T. M. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language learning and teachingconference, Iowa State University, Sept. 2009. (pp. 24–37), Ames, IA: Iowa State
University.
Dimova, S. (2018). Pronunciation assessment in the context of world Englishes. Assessment inSecond Language Pronunciation, 49–67. UK: CPI Group Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170756-4
Friedman, H. H., & Amoot, T. (1999). Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing
Management, 9, 114–123.
Gill, M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teacher and lecture
comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 348–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889409365409
Hendriks, B., van Meurs, F., & Reimer, A.K. (2018). The evaluation of lecturers’ nonnativeaccented English: Dutch and German students’ evaluations of different degrees ofDutch-accented and German-accented English of lecturers in higher education. Journalof English for Academic Purposes, 34, 28–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.001
Johnson, R., & Frederick, L. (1994). Native speakers’ perceptions of nonnative speakers:
Related to phonetic errors and spoken grammatical errors. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Baltimore,
MD.
Julkowska, I. A., & Cebrian, J. (2015). Effects of listener factors and stimulus prosperities on
the intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness of L2 speech. Journal of Second
Language Pronunciation, 1(2), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.2.04jul
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness andjudgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal,
94, 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x
Kelch, K., & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students’ attitudes toward native- andnonnative-speaking instructors’ accents. CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 57–72. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/85577651?accountid=13042

36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich. P. (2008). Intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness of
L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 64(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
Lazarton, A. (2005). Non-native speakers as language assessors: Recent research andimplications for assessment practice. In L.Taylor & C.J.Weir (Eds.), Multilingualism
and assessment: Achieving transparency, assuring quality, sustaining diversity –proceedings of the ALTE Berlin conference (pp. 296–309). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lowenberg, P. (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World Englishes,21(3), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00261
Maslova, A. (2017). Perceptions of stakeholders towards the choice of pronunciation norms inlanguage teacher education in Russia. Moscow University Young Researchers’ Journal,
6. Retrieved from http://youngresearchersjournal.org/2017/10/perceptions-ofstakeholders-towards-the-choice-of-pronunciation-norms-in-language-teachereducation-in-russia/
Modiano, M. (2009). Inclusive/exclusive? English as a lingua franca in the European Union.
World Englishes, 28(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01584.x
Nelson, C. L. (2011). Intelligibility in world Englishes. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01584.x
Seidelhofer, B. (2001) Closing the conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistic, 11, 133–158.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011
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
Watkins, J. (2016). An introduction to the science of statistics: From theory to implementation.
Preliminary Edition. Retrieved fromhttps://www.math.arizona.edu/~jwatkins/statbook.pdf
Corresponding author: Alexandra Kolesnikova
Email: alex_wd@mail.ru

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Appendix 1 Part 1
1. When you listen to a lecture on biology in English delivered by a non-native speaker, is
it important for you that the lecturer does not have a foreign accent? If so, howimportant?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Does notNot
Somewhat
NeutralSomewhat
ReallyFundamentally
matter at important unimportant
importantimportantimportantall
2. Does the presence of the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent you from concentrating on
the content of the lecture? If so, to what extent?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CompletelyInterferes Moderately Somewhat
Mostly does
HardlyDoes notimpedesvery much interferesinterferes
not interfereinterferes interfere atconcentrationall
3. To what extent can you agree with the statement that non-native lecturers in theirprofessional field should strive to reduce their foreign accent?
1Strongly
disagree2
Disagree

3
Ratherdisagreethat agree

4
Ratheragree
thandisagree5Partiallyagree

6
Totally agree,
but it is not
crucial7
Absolutely
agree, it is
crucialAppendix 1 Part 2
4. How easy was it for you to understand the content of a fragment of a lecture deliveredin English by a professor from China?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Very Somewhat
Somewhat Mostly easy
Easy
Very easy
hard
hard
hard
easy
5. How easy was it for you to understand the content of a fragment of a lecture deliveredin English by a professor from Germany?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Very Somewhat
Somewhat Mostly easy
Easy
Very easy
hard
hard
hard
easy
6. How easy was it for you to understand the content of a fragment of a lecture deliveredin English by a professor from France?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Very Somewhat
Somewhat Mostly easy
Easy
Very easy
hard
hard
hard
easy

38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

7. When you listened to a fragment of a lecture delivered by a lecturer from China, did
the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent you from concentrating on the content of thelecture?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CompletelyInterferes Moderately Somewhat
Mostly does
HardlyDoes notimpedesvery much interferesinterferes
not interfereinterferes interfere atconcentration
all
8. When you listened to a fragment of a lecture delivered by a lecturer from Germany,
did the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent you from concentrating on the content of thelecture?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CompletelyInterferes Moderately Somewhat
Mostly does
HardlyDoes notimpedesvery much interferesinterferes
not interfereinterferes interfere atconcentrationall
9. When you listened to a fragment of a lecture delivered by a lecturer from France, did
the lecturer’s foreign accent prevent you from concentrating on the content of thelecture?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CompletelyInterferes Moderately Somewhat
Mostly does
HardlyDoes notimpedesvery much interferesinterferes
not interfereinterferes interfere atconcentration
all
Appendix 2
Audio segment from video 1. Chinese lecturer. Central nervous system and blood brain barrier
Listen to the speaker and fill in the gaps in the text with the words given below. There are someextra words which you do not need to use.
•drain them •spinal cord •diencephalon •lymph drain bearer •brain stem •die encephalon•telencephalon •blood-brain barrier •cerebellum •gore-tex •vellum •spiral core •cortex
There’re four parts, four big parts of our brain. One is telencephalon here, the biggest part of ourbrain including cortex. Diencephalon here, the middle part, the inside part of our brain.
Cerebellum, this part here and brain stem. Brain stem connects our brain with the spinal cord.
Before we get into the four major parts of our brain, let’s look at the blood-brain barrier.
There’re four parts, four big parts of our brain. One is _____________ here, the biggest part ofour brain including _______________. __________________ here, the middle part, the inside
part of our brain. ____________, this part here and brain stem. _______________ connects ourbrain with the ____________. Before we get into the four major parts of our brain, let’s look at
the ______________.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/advanced-neurobiology1/lecture/jLUk8/1-1-2-central-nervoussystem-and-blood-brain-barrier
Audio segment from video 2. German lecturer. Folic Acid: Preparing for Pregnancy
Listen to the speaker and fill in the gaps in the text with the words given below. There are someextra words which you do not need to use.

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

•fall eight •methylate DNA •petal wealth •folate supply •contraception •bear out•B vitamins •maternal •be vitamins •penetrate RNA •vitamin B9 •nocturnal•phosphate supply •vital benign •fetal health •folates •preconception period
There are specific nutritional aspects in the preconception period which are of importance forboth maternal and fetal health. In particular, folate supply is essential to support healthy fetal
development. Folates comprise a group of substances that belong to the B vitamins. Folate isalso known as vitamin B9. It is essential fornumerous body functions. The human body, forexample needs folate to synthesise, repair and methylate DNA.
There are specific nutritional aspects in the ________________ which are of importance forboth ___________ and ________________. In particular, _________________ is essential tosupport healthy fetal development. _______________ comprise a group of substances thatbelong to the ______________. Folate is also known as ______________. It is essential fornumerous body functions. The human body, for example needs folate to synthesise, repair and_________________.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/nutrition-pregnancy/lecture/CJs4d/folic-acid-preparing-forpregnancy
Audio segment from video 3. French lecturer. Treating oxidative stress as a way of dealing with
the African AIDS epidemic
Listen to the speaker and fill in the gaps in the text with the words given below. There are someextra words which you do not need to use.
•c’est la vie •nutrition •hatred of the prius •ox sedative press•chronically infected •equilibrated •HIV •trance mission •tonically inspected•oxidative stress •maltuition •transmission •get rid of the virus
The scientist is answering to the question: “Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways todeal with the African AIDS epidemics?”
I think this is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission, because, I believe, HIV,
we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system
will get rid of the virus within the few weeks if you have a good immune system, and this is also
the problem of African people. Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative
stress, even if they are not infected with HIV, so their immune system doesn’t work well already.
I think this is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of __________ , because, I believe,_______ , we can be exposed to HIV many times without being ________________, ourimmune system will _______________ within the few weeks if you have a good immune
system, and this is also the problem of African people. Their ______________ is not very______________ , they are in ______________ , even if they are not infected with HIV, so theirimmune system doesn’t work well already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrzV_xnhlGY40

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Exploring the Effects of Automated Pronunciation Evaluation on L2
Students in Thailand
Simon Moxon
Walailak University, Thailand

41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
A significant barrier to effective communication in a second language is the awareness andaccurate reproduction of phonetic sounds absent in the mother tongue. This study investigatedwhether the automated evaluation of phonetic accuracy using speech recognition technology
could improve the pronunciation skills of 105 (88 female, 17 male) Thai undergraduate
students studying English in Thailand. A pre-test, post-test design was employed using
treatment and control sample groups, reversed over two six-week periods. Treatment groupstudents were given access to an online platform on which they could record and submit theirspeech for automated evaluation and feedback via SpeechAce, a speech recognition interface
designed to evaluate pronunciation and fluency. Independent samples t-test analysis of theresults showed statistically significant improvement in pronunciation accuracy of students inthe treatment group when compared to those in the control group (t (89) = 2.086, p = .040, 95%
CI [.083, 3.423]), (t (89) = -4.692, p < .001, 95% CI [-5.157, -2.089]). Pearson’s correlation
analysis indicated a weak to moderate, but statistically significant correlation between
frequency of practise and pronunciation test score (r =.508, p < .001), (r = .384, p = .021). The
study has limitations as the sample group was predominantly female, and time constraints
limited students’ use of the software. Future studies should investigate possible genderdifferences and experiment with different forms of visual feedback.
Keywords: phonetics, pronunciation, speech recognition, SpeechAce

42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Although considered the most important of the four language skills for second language (L2)students, impractical student to teacher ratios and a greater emphasis on teaching grammarmeans speaking is often neglected in the classroom (Gerald, 2000; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017).
To effectively correct pronunciation errors, the student must receive corrective feedback at thetime of the error (Huang & Jia, 2016), yet this can often prove to be impractical in the classroom
unless the lesson’s focus is pronunciation and class sizes are manageable. Assuming thatreceiving feedback in an environment where students felt secure and less exposed might
alleviate their anxiety, the present study investigated the influence on students’ pronunciation
skills after using online speech recognition software. The software is capable of analysing
phonetic accuracy and fluency and delivering instant evaluation and feedback. The study
sought to answer the following research questions:
1. Can the use of speech recognition software positively influence students’ English
pronunciation?
2. Is there a correlation between the frequency of use of the software and improved
pronunciation test scores?
During this research, the author taught speaking, listening, and phonetics in two-hour sessions
to class sizes in excess of 40 students, making one-on-one tutoring impractical. It was observedthat the voicing of word ending sounds, such as the /saIz/ of “exercise”, and pronunciation of
specific phonemes, such as the voiceless dental fricative “th”/θ/ as in “thin”, were problematicfor many of the students.
English major students at Walailak University have a broad range of English-speaking ability
and experience in communicating with native English speakers. Some students studied in
English programmes during compulsory education and had regular contact with native English
speakers from a relatively early age. Other students studied English in traditional programmeswith Thai staff or other non-native English speakers. However, the students with more accurate
English speaking and pronunciation skills and overall speaking confidence were notnecessarily those who studied in English programmes or with native English speakers. Possible
reasons for this may be the insufficient practice of pronunciation or a greater fear of making a
mistake in front of a native speaker. Research has shown that a significant factor in students’
speaking ability is their self-confidence (Aiello & Mongibello, 2019; Ayulistya, 2016; Leong& Ahmadi, 2017). Limited pronunciation skills can often lead to communication breakdown
and raised anxiety (Dewaele, 2007; Dewaele, Furnham, & Petrides, 2008) and a loss of selfconfidence (Donovan & Macintyre, 2004; Gilakjani, 2012). Fear of making a mistake ormispronouncing a word in the presence of their peers can lead to anxiety that prevents thestudent from speaking. Conversely, the teacher may refrain from giving correction for fear of
hurting the student’s feelings (Huang & Jia, 2016).
Considerable research has attempted to define the indicators of fluent speech (De Jong, 2018;
Ejzenberg, 2000; Lennon, 1990; Yang, 2014a). However, based on their survey of 84 L2
teachers teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Tavakoli and Hunter (2018) state that
accurate pronunciation, including accent and intonation, is commonly rated as a criticalindicator of what Lennon describes as fluency in its broad sense (Lennon, 1990). With
increasing demands on students to pass standardised tests such as the International English
Language Testing System (IELTS), where pronunciation is a key descriptor of speaking ability(International English Language Testing System [IELTS], n.d.), the students’ need to practiceand receive evaluation and correction of their L2 speaking is significant. Despite this, L2
students often have limited time inside and outside the classroom in which to practise speaking

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

with a native speaker (Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) or are taught by non-native speakers who may
be lacking in the required L2 teaching skills or grasp of English pronunciation(Kanoksilpatham, 2007).
Literature Review
Pronunciation Barriers
Incorrect pronunciation can often be a barrier to social interaction and lead to misunderstanding(Aiello & Mongibello, 2019; Ayulistya, 2016; Fraser, 2000; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017), which
in turn may cause anxiety and loss of confidence in the speaker (Dewaele, 2007; Dewaele etal., 2008; Gilakjani, 2012). Mother tongue influence, such as missing sounds, intonation, andtonal use, are often attributed to causing pronunciation error (Gilakjani, 2011; Jahandar,
Khodabandehlou, Seyedi, & Abadi, 2012; Lai, Tsai, & Yu, 2009; Latha & Ramesh, 2012). The
listener may also interpret such influences on pronunciation as disfluency in the target language(Brumfit, 1984; De Jong, 2018; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Ejzenberg, 2000; Latha & Ramesh,2012; Lennon, 1990; Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985; Yang, 2014b).
Another problem that arises in terms of pronunciation accuracy and perceived accuracy fromthe listener’s perspective (Christiansen, 2011) is that the English language is no longer a single
standard. Globalisation has led to many English language strains, with different accents
producing different vowel sounds (Hariri, 2012). According to Gilakjani (2012), learners
require significant exposure to the target language to be proficient enough to speak. Still, lackof contact with native speakers and exposure to the target language often hinders their progress.
Khamkhien (2010) found that problems with Thai students’ pronunciation of English words
increased with the number of syllables, which reflects this viewpoint. Following his assessmentof pronunciation of multi-syllabic words by 90 Thai students, he suggests that the issue derives
from word stress and that teaching attention should focus on this area of phonics.
Although exposure to the native language is a significant factor in accurate pronunciation(Kenworthy, 1987), lack of contact and communicative opportunities with a native speaker iscommonplace in some Thai provinces. This issue is more noticeable in rural areas and areas
less frequented by western tourists, where the student to teacher ratio can render one-to-one
communication impractical or impossible (Ngamkaiwan, 2018). Conversely, in cases wherestudents have contact with nationals from different English-speaking countries, watch English
movies, or listen to English pop music, it is not uncommon to detect the influence of such
exposure on their pronunciation and vocabulary. While the listener may perceive different
accents acquired by the L2 students as disfluency or poor pronunciation, Hariri (2012) argues
that pronunciation accuracy is not native-like pronunciation but a measure of speech clarity.
Her study of related literature looked specifically into the role of gender on pronunciation
accuracy. While her findings regarding gender differences in accuracy of pronunciation support
other research findings (Hincks, 2003; Jahandar et al., 2012; Khamkhien, 2010), she concluded
that teaching style did not influence the gender difference.
Pronunciation Pedagogy
Fraser (2000) argues that even in the presence of other errors, such as grammar, successful
discourse can be achieved through good pronunciation. However, research has shown that theteaching of pronunciation in the classroom is often overlooked or allocated the least amount oftime and attention (Derwing et al., 2012; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Fraser, 2000; Gilakjani,
2011; Hariri, 2012), or completely absent from curricula after the introductory stage (Gilakjani,2011). When faced with teaching pronunciation, a lack of professional development,

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

knowledge in incorporating pronunciation instruction into the classroom, and reduced
opportunity to implement pronunciation pedagogy based on research findings, have led toteachers depending more on textbooks and instinct than evidence-based guidance (Derwing &Munro, 2005; Derwing et al., 2012). L2 English, taught by inexperienced non-native speakers,
is also a factor in the fossilisation of incorrect pronunciation in students’ dialect(Kanoksilpatham, 2007). Derwing et al. (2012) also found notable inequalities in task andteaching between textbooks within a series and a lack of clarity in the explanation for students
and teachers. They called for greater integration of pronunciation in the various textbook tasks.
In his research, Gilakjani (2011) concluded that teachers should encourage students to practise
their English-speaking skills beyond the classroom’s confines. However, while this is good inpractice, students are often unable to make appropriate use of the English they learn in classbeyond the classroom’s boundaries (Gumbaridze, 2013). In Thailand, particularly for students
in remote and rural areas, the concept is not so readily and effectively put into practice asopportunities to converse with native English speakers may be scarce and, in the case ofpractising pronunciation, void of adequate corrective guidance. In the absence of propercorrection, speakers may be unaware of their errors, and hence, mispronunciations become
fixed in their regular discourse (Hincks, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Hincks (2003), whoused an application called “Talk to Me (English)”, observed that an improvement inpronunciation accuracy was only noticeable in those students deemed to have poor
pronunciation attributed to their mother tongue accent.
Correcting mispronunciation and providing remedial help to students has been debatedconsiderably in the research literature. While teachers and students may agree that receiving
corrective feedback is necessary (Huang & Jia, 2016), the type of feedback and the timing of
its giving can be problematic and create barriers to accurate pronunciation (Heift & Schulze,
2007; Huang & Jia, 2016). According to Gumbaridze (2013), the schedule for and method ofgiving corrective feedback is a controversial topic regarding teaching methodology as it may
be inappropriate, intrusive, or result in demotivating the student. In terms of correcting
mispronunciation, Hincks (2003) states that the time required to evaluate pronunciation, andinconsistency between raters, are critical factors in error correction. She also notes that
uncertainty on the appropriate form of corrective feedback creates a barrier for teachers in theclassroom. Hincks states that fear of receiving corrective feedback in front of their peers may
prevent students from speaking in the classroom, an argument supported in other research(Gumbaridze, 2013; Huang & Jia, 2016; Terrell, 1997).
Pronunciation Software
With the wide use of mobile technology in the classroom, students have many tools to practiceand assess their pronunciation. Considerable research exists in the area of automatic speech
recognition (ASR) software for language learning, and findings have supported somecorrelation between its use for phonetic training and improved pronunciation (Ayulistya, 2016;
Haggag, 2018; Hincks, 2003; Lai et al., 2009; Olson, 2014). However, the research literature
also suggests a disconnect between research findings and classroom application (Derwing etal., 2012; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Olson, 2014).
ASR offers several advantages over human evaluation, such as instant feedback (Haggag,2018), reduced demand on teacher time, consistency of rater, and quantitative feedback on
accuracy to a very detailed level (Hincks, 2003). As a tool for students to self-assess theiraccuracy (Lord, 2005) and gain valuable practice time beyond class hours, ASR has much tooffer the L2 student in terms of guidance (Hincks, 2003) and accurate identification of45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

mispronounced segmentals (Srikanth et al., 2012). However, Kim (2006) expressed concern
regarding the reliability of scores generated by a computer algorithm. In cases where the ASR
software uses the Hidden Markov Model (HMM), the software compares the sounds received
with phoneme sounds stored in a database to find a probabilistic match (Hincks, 2003). While
this may have some potential for producing false positives when evaluating pronunciation
accuracy, most systems can accurately determine the percentage of deviation between thereceived and stored sounds and calculate an accuracy rating (Hincks, 2003).
Opinion on the use of ASR as a tool for practising pronunciation is mixed. According to
Haggag (2018), ASR promotes autonomous and collaborative learning while offering
automatic evaluation and feedback. In his study of 23 trainee English language teachers, healso found that user satisfaction and appreciation in using the software were high. However,
Setter and Jenkins (2005) argue that more advanced systems, such as Praat, are intended forresearchers and are too complicated for teachers and students to understand. Referring to Praat,
Brett (2004) concluded that, as the software was not intended for this form of use bypronunciation learners, the interface is not suitable and needs redesigning. Olson (2014),
however, rejects these claims and believes ASR systems, such as Praat, could be successfully
used in the L2 classroom. In his research, he found that students reported the visual
representation of the phoneme sounds, which the software generates automatically, helped
many compare the difference between the pronunciation of non-native and native speakers,
while only a few experienced problems using the software. Echoing the benefits regarding thevisual representation of sounds, Hincks (2003) found that displaying contours to represent pitchchanges was attributed to improved intonation. The software used by Hincks, “Talk to Me(English)”, can generate a waveform representation of the sound, similar to Praat, with visual
guidance regarding mouth and tongue positions. However, Hincks raises a significant concern,
pointing out that a focus on pronunciation using ASR software can lead to students deliberately
slowing their speech to emphasise on clarity, consequently having a negative impact on theirspeaking fluency.
The literature offers much debate regarding the suitability of software, such as Praat, inautonomous learning, but agreement on the effectiveness of waveform representation of sounds
generated by such systems diverges. Conversely, there is little in the literature to show thatwaveform representation alone, i.e., void of any corrective guidance, is any more informative
to the student than a numerical rating for each phoneme sound.
MethodVoice Recognition Technology
Prior to this investigation, students were encouraged to use the built-in voice recognition
features of their laptops and other mobile devices, such as the voice-to-text and voice command
accessibility features in Microsoft Windows, or translation applications such as Google
Translate. While these give some form of visual feedback on pronunciation accuracy, that is,
the text and speech are the same, they offer no corrective feedback when the text and speechdiffer. It was also found that the technology could sometimes assume the intended word,
possibly based on rhythmic patterns, or assumed context, even when mispronounced, thus
giving false feedback to the student. For example, using some translation applications withbuilt-in ASR, a phrase such as “We wish you a Merry Christmas” could be badly
mispronounced, yet the ASR could often assume and display the correct version of the text on
the screen if the rhythmic aspect of the utterance were accurate enough.

46

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

A web-based platform was chosen as it would enable easy access for the typical devices
currently used by the students. It would also allow students to access the system remotely whileallowing the teacher to update content and monitor usage without manually updating student
devices. The SpeechAce application programming interface (API) was selected as it offered
the ability to interface with the existing web-based Learning Management System (LMS) used
for the course. It also gave feedback on each attempt at sentence, word, syllable, and phoneme
levels while enabling the recording of each feedback response in the LMS database. SpeechAcealso requires the submittal of a transcript to compare against each submitted sound, which
reduced the potential for encountering the false positives observed in sound only ASR
applications. The website communicated with the programming interface provided by
SpeechAce using a secure socket layer (SSL) (Figure 1). Ten pronunciation exercises were
programmed into the LMS each week for students to attempt. In each exercise, the LMS
presented students with a short sentence on their screen and recorded their voice while saying
the sentence. Students could review and re-record their attempt before submitting for analysis
by SpeechAce. For each pronunciation exercise attempt, the SpeechAce interface returned
detailed feedback in the form of a structured array packet. After saving it to a database, theLMS parsed each packet for the user to see on their screen (Figure 2). The system highlighted
evaluation scores below 70% in graduated shades of red to facilitate the students’ interpretationof the feedback and draw their attention to problematic pronunciation.
The LMS was programmed to offer two forms of exercise; assessment exercise, whichallowed each student to submit only a single attempt at each sentence, and practise exercise,
which allowed unlimited attempts. All students had access to the assessment exercises, but
only students in the treatment group had access to the practice exercises.
Figure 1
Process Flow of Voice Recognition Technology

47

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Figure 2
SpeechAce Feedback, Parsed for the User

Context and ParticipantsThis study was conducted in an English language programme within the Faculty of Liberal
Arts at Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand. The faculty has approximately
750 students studying in English, Chinese, Thai, and ASEAN programmes at bachelor’s degreelevel. Within the context of this study, the population consisted of first-year English major
students aged between 18 and 19 (n = 105, 88 female, 17 male) and studying in the English
programme.
SamplePermission was obtained from the University to complete the study before inviting students toparticipate. The risks to students participating in this study were no different from attending48

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

class or routinely browsing the Internet. The entire population, 105 students, were invited toparticipate in the research and advised that their participation was voluntary and that they could
opt-out at any point during the 12 weeks. They were also informed that any scores collectedduring the study would not impact on their course grades. For generalisation purposes, aminimum sample size of 83 was calculated using the formula defined by Krejcie and Morgan(1970), with a confidence level of 95% and a 5% margin of error. Students were randomly
assigned to one of two groups, Group A and Group B, and instructed on using the website andSpeechAce interface.
Data Collection and Preparation
The research instrument compares the means of pre-test and post-test scores using t-tests(Hincks, 2003). Data were collected during two separate phases of the study and comparedusing t-test analysis. First, all students were invited to attempt an assessment exercise, which
would form their pre-test scores. Students in Group A (treatment group) were then allowed tocomplete the practise exercises at their leisure for six weeks while Group B (control group)
had no access to the system. At the end of the first six weeks, all students were invited toattempt the second assessment exercise, which would form their post-test scores for the firstphase and their pre-test scores for the second phase. The groups were then reversed (Group B
now the treatment group), and the study ran for a further six weeks before all students wereinvited to attempt the third and final assessment exercise, which would form their final posttest scores.
All data were screened for erroneous values and to exclude data from students who did notcomplete all speaking tasks for each of the three assessment exercises. Fourteen students failed
to fully complete all three assessment exercises, leaving data from 91 students usable forfurther analysis. The remaining data were then screened for violations of the assumptions of
the t-test and Pearson Correlation analysis methods. Shapiro-Wilk tests showed no significant
departure from normality for Test 1 (W(91) = .982, p = .225), Test 2 (W(91) = .990, p = .692),
Test 3 (W(91) = .980, p = .178), and the number of practise attempts for Group 1 (W(47) =.968, p = .221), and Group 2 (W(44) = .967, p = .230). No outliers were detected.
Results
Independent samples t-test analysis showed that scores for Test 1 were not significantly
different between the groups, (t (89) = 1.396, p = .166, 95% CI [-.684, 3.917]), suggesting no
significant difference in the level of pronunciation accuracy between the two groups before
treatment. The independent samples t-test was calculated to compare differences in pre-test andpost-test scores between the two groups. The t-test was significant for the first round of pretest and post-test, (t (89) = 2.086, p = .040, 95% CI [.083, 3.423]) and also the second round of
pre-test and post-test, (t (89) = -4.692, p < .001, 95% CI [-5.157, -2.089]). An additional t-test
analysis showed that the difference between Test 1 and Test 3 scores was also significantly
different between the two groups, (t (89) = -2.055, p = .043, 95% CI [-3.682, -0.570]).
Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was used to measure the correlation between thestudents’ frequency of practice and the difference between their pre-test and post-test scores.
The analysis was statistically significant for Group 1, (r =.508, p < .001), and Group 2 (r =.384, p = .021).

49

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Discussion
This research set out to address two questions regarding ASR software use on students’pronunciation accuracy. Addressing research question one, asking whether the use of speech
recognition software can positively influence students’ English pronunciation, the results ofthis study are encouraging and suggest the use of the speech recognition software did have apositive influence on students’ pronunciation test scores, which supports the findings in the
research literature (Ayulistya, 2016; Haggag, 2018; Hincks, 2003; Lai et al., 2009; Olson,
2014; Srikanth et al., 2012). In both rounds of testing, the treatment group displayed astatistically significant improvement in pronunciation accuracy scores when compared against
the control group. Comparison between Test 1 and Test 3 scores showed that, overall, bothgroups attained a level of improvement in their pronunciation accuracy with the improvement
being more noticeable in the scores for group 2.
Research question two explored the possible correlation between the frequency of use of thesoftware and improved pronunciation test scores. Although the correlation between practise
attempts and the difference in pre-test and post-test scores was significant, the strength of thecorrelation (rxy2 = .258 for Group 1 and rxy2 = .147 for Group 2) was considered weak tomoderate (Salkind, 2012). It is proposed that repeated practise of the exact pronunciationphrase was not overly helpful in improving pronunciation accuracy because students may havebeen unable to make appropriate use of the feedback to correct their mispronunciation. This
viewpoint reflects the research literature (Brett, 2004; Setter & Jenkins, 2005). In the present
study, the feedback was given as percentages against each word, syllable, and phoneme andhighlighted in shades of red to reflect degrees of inaccurate pronunciation. While the extent towhich students examined the feedback is not apparent, limitations in the students’ phoneticalknowledge could have made it too difficult for many of them to convert the feedback into
corrective measures. The author suggests that a visual representation of the problematic
phonemes, using waveform and mouth/tongue position diagrams, such as the “Talk to me”
software used by Hincks (2003), would make it easier for students to self-correct their errors.
As animated diagrams or video instruction would be expected to offer better remedial guidance,
having the ability to directly link to such media by clicking on a phoneme in the feedback
would provide greater independence to the student in terms of pronunciation practice in theabsence of a native speaking instructor.
Another aspect that may have caused a weaker correlation between practise and test scores isthat each practice exercise consisted of an entire phrase rather than individual words orphonemes. The practise effect may have been a more significant influence if the interface had
been able to identify the problematic words and phonemes for each student and allow
individuals to practise each in isolation rather than as part of a phrase.
It is noteworthy that a decrease in pronunciation accuracy was observed in each group during
the period when they were not using the interface (Figure 3). This decrease could be attributed
to a general lack of pronunciation practise while not using the interface, which is reflective of
the findings of other studies relating to pronunciation pedagogy (Derwing et al., 2012; Derwing& Munro, 2005; Fraser, 2000; Gilakjani, 2011; Hariri, 2012).
Overall, it was found that Group 2 displayed significantly higher improvement than Group 1
between Test 1 and Test 3, (t (89) = -2.055, p = .043, 95% CI [-3.682, -0.570]). It could beargued that recency effect contributed to Group 2’s better performance in Test 3 as Group 1
had not practised with the software during the six weeks prior to the third test. However, as

50

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

pronunciation scores for Group 2 in Test 2 were observed to decrease below what wasconsidered their baseline level (Test 1), it is felt that other factors, besides practice, may have
had an influence on student pronunciation in this study.
Figure 3
Mean Test Scores

Recommendations
A concerning observation regarding students’ pronunciation in this study was the deteriorationin their accuracy during periods when they did not have access to the practice interface. The
implications for this suggest that pronunciation practice receives insufficient classroom time,or students lack environments where they can practise independently outside of the classroom.
Students in this study had four hours of contact per week in the classroom with a native speaker,
which significantly reduces their frequency of practice and rate at which they can develop theirspeaking proficiency. As suggested by Derwing et al. (2012), the practice of pronunciation
should form an integral part of all EFL teaching rather than be taught independently from otherskills. Based on observations and the research findings, the author echoes this suggestion andrecommends that teachers adopt existing ASR applications and incorporate them into their
independent study and flipped classroom sessions. Teachers should be mindful of theirstudents’ ability to interpret and respond to feedback from ASR systems to prevent them fromfeeling incapable of improving despite repeated attempts.
Another issue raised in this research was the quality and effectiveness of corrective feedback.
ASR systems can significantly facilitate the evaluation and feedback process in terms ofprocessing time, consistency, and protecting students’ emotions. However, those systems
intended for independent study purposes need to consider the user’s ability to interpretfeedback and make the appropriate corrections to their pronunciation. In the case of this study,
the numerical feedback given by the SpeechAce interface, while adequate to identify problem

51

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

areas, does not appear to have been sufficiently user friendly to enable the students toeffectively self-correct their mistakes. This shortfall can potentially demotivate the student if
they fail to achieve higher pronunciation scores despite multiple attempts. Future researchshould look into more effective ways for independent study ASR systems to provide corrective
feedback and how best to incorporate remedial practice tasks that pinpoint the user’s specificpronunciation problems. A more intelligent system should detect a problematic phoneme andpresent the user with remedial practice specific to it. However, a future study should also
investigate any significant benefit in presenting evaluation scores to the user in graphical or
numerical form.
Based on the unusual decrease in pronunciation accuracy observed in Group 2 during the firstround of this study, future research should investigate the factors that may lead to such reduced
accuracy, which, as proposed by the author, may go beyond insufficient pronunciation practice.
A future study should also examine potential gender differences in practising with the
SpeechAce interface.
Conclusion
Pronunciation plays an essential part in effective communication (Fraser, 2000) and is often
assessed in isolation during the standardised tests that EFL students often must complete aspart of induction screening or course evaluation processes. As discussed in the research
literature, teacher and student problems regarding feedback stem from limited contact time andhow and when teachers should give feedback. The potential for loss of face is considered aprime reason for students not wishing to receive corrective feedback in front of their peers. It
is hoped that advances in artificial intelligence software and mobile technology will create aclear pathway that offers students applications that can identify pronunciation errors andprovide corrective instruction through user-friendly interfaces.
Limitations
Although the findings in this research reflect a positive outcome of using ASR for practicing
pronunciation, two factors may have influenced the results, namely sample and time.
Limitations on transactions permitted through the SpeechAce subscription forced a restrictionin terms of the number of participants. First-year students were selected because it was felt theywould have less fossilisation of errors and were also heterogeneous in their prior pronunciation
training. However, this meant the sample was relatively small and predominantly female,which prevented any meaningful analysis by gender. Several studies in the research literaturereported gender differences in different aspects of pronunciation accuracy (Hariri, 2012;
Hincks, 2003; Jahandar et al., 2012; Khamkhien, 2010), which may also have influenced theresults in this investigation. Time constraints on this study meant that students had a relatively
short time using the technology and learning how to interpret the feedback scores to self-correct
their pronunciation errors.
Declarations
Funding
Walailak University, Thailand, funded this work. Research grant: WU63203.
Conflicts of Interest
In my ethical obligation as a researcher, I am reporting that I am employed by and received
funding from Walailak University. The University had no involvement in the design,52

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

collection, analysis, or interpretation of this article’s data or its writing. The University grants
the author permission to submit this article for publication.

53

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Aiello, J., & Mongibello, A. (2019). Supporting EFL learners with a virtual environment: A
focus on L2 pronunciation. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15, 95–
108. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1444
Ayulistya, T. (2016). Improving students' pronunciation through Tell Me More pronunciation
software. Indonesian EFL Journal, 2(2), 110–116.
https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v2i2.643
Brett, D. (2004). Computer generated feedback on vowel production by learners of English asa second language. ReCALL, 16(1), 102–113.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000813
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency
and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christiansen, T. (2011). Fluency and pronunciation in the assessment of grammaticalaccuracy in spoken production: An empirical study. Lingue e Linguaggi, 6, 7–20.
https://doi.org/10.1285/i2239-0359v6p7
De Jong, N. H. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different
disciplines. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 237–254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1477780
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching:
A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL
textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 22–44.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1124
Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). Multilinguals' language choice for mental calculation. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 4(3), 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.017
Dewaele, J.-M., Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2008). Effects of trait emotional Intelligenceand sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language
anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language
Learning, 58(4), 911–960. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00482.x
Donovan, L. A., & Macintyre, P. D. (2004). Age and sex differences in willingness tocommunicate, communication apprehension, and self‐perceived competence.
Communication Research Reports, 21(4), 420-427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409360006
Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In
H. Riggenbach, Perspectives on fluency (pp. 287–313). University of Michigan.
Fraser, H. (2000). Coordinating improvements in pronunciation teaching for adult learners ofEnglish as a second language. Retrieved July 12, 2020, fromhttps://helenfraser.com.au/wp-content/uploads/ANTA-REPORT-FINAL.pdf
Gerald, K. (2000). How to teach pronunciation (1st ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2011). A study on the situation of pronunciation instruction in ESL/EFL
classrooms. Journal of Studies in Education, 1(1), 1–15.

54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). A study of factors affecting EFL learners' English pronunciation
learning and the strategies for instruction. International Journal of Humanities andSocial Science, 2(3), 119–128.
Gumbaridze, J. (2013). Error correction in EFL speaking classrooms. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1660–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.237
Haggag, H. M. (2018). Teaching phonetics using a mobile-based application in an EFL
context. European Scientific Journal, 14(4), 189–204.
https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n14p189
Hariri, M. (2012). A review of literature: A gender-based study of pronunciation accuracy.
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(22), 4861–
4864.
Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language
learning. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012215
Hincks, R. (2003). Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation. ReCALL,
3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344003000
Huang, X., & Jia, X. (2016). Corrective feedback on pronunciation: Students' and teachers'
perceptions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(6), 245–254.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n6p245
International English Language Testing System. (n.d.). IELTS Speaking band descriptors.
Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/speaking-banddescriptors.ashx?la=en
Jahandar, S., Khodabandehlou, M., Seyedi, G., & Abadi, R. M. (2012). A gender-based
approach to pronunciation accuracy of advanced EFL learners. International Journalof Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(6).
Kanoksilpatham, B. (2007). Navigating pathways to success in ELT. Journal of English
Studies, 3, 6–26.
Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. New York: Longman.
Khamkhien, A. (2010). Thai learners’ English pronunciation competence: Lesson learned
from word stress assignment. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6),757–764. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.757-764
Kim, I. S. (2006). Automatic speech recognition: Reliability and pedagogical implications forteaching. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 322–334.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Lai, Y.-S., Tsai, H.-H., & Yu, P.-T. (2009). A multimedia English learning system using
HMMs to improve phonemic awareness for English learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 12(3), 266–281.
Latha, M. B., & Ramesh, P. (2012). Teaching English as a second language: Factors affecting
learning speaking skills. International Journal of Engineering Research &Technology, 1(7), 1º6.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language
Learning, 40(3), 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x

55

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Leong, L., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English
speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 34–41.
https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.1.34
Lord, G. (2005). (How) Can we teach foreign language pronunciation? On the effects of a
Spanish phonetics course. Hispania, 88(3), 557–567.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20063159
Ngamkaiwan, C. (2018). Encouraging ESL learners to speak English in large classes towards
the combining arrangement activities. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social
Sciences, 4(3), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30804.45444/1
Olson, D. J. (2014). Phonetics and technology in the classroom: A practical approach to using
speech analysis software in second-language pronunciation instruction. Hispania,
97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2014.0030
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.
London: Longman.
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research (8th ed.). Pearson.
Setter, J., & Jenkins, J. (2005). State-of-the-art review article: Pronunciation. Language
Teaching, 38(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480500251X
Srikanth, R., Bo, L., & Salsman, J. (2012). Automatic pronunciation evaluation andmispronunciation detection using CMUSphinx. Proceedings of the Workshop on
speech and language processing tools in education (pp. 61–68). Coling.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–
391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Tavakoli, P., & Hunter, A. (2018). Is fluency being neglected in the classroom? Teacher
understanding of fluency and related classroom practices. Language Teaching
Research, 22(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817708462
Terrell, T. D. (1997). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning.
Modern Language Journal, 61(7), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.2307/324551
Yang, Y. (2014a). Is the speaking fluency strand necessary for the college students to develop
in the EFL class? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 225-231.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.225-231
Yang, Y. (2014b). The development of speaking fluency: The 4/3/2 technique for the EFL
learners in China. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning,
3(4), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2013.624
Corresponding author: Simon Moxon
Email: simon@sitamoxon.com

56

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Implementing Art and Music in Maltese Courses for Non-Native Adults
Jacqueline Żammit
University of Malta
Malta

57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
Malta has currently attracted numerous non-natives who consider the island conducive forbusiness, investment and work. To enhance their working and living experience in Malta,
several foreigners are learning Maltese as a second language (ML2), which could bechallenging to learn, especially its grammar, if second language (L2) learners do not know
Arabic. Furthermore, ML2 is a new subject with a lack of research in its pedagogicalapproaches. Second language acquisition (SLA) can be quite challenging for adults. Various
evidence-based interventions including the use of art and music have been used to enhance
SLA. Art and music play an important role in SLA, such as stimulating communication in L2,
memorising new words and enhancing comprehension skills. The purpose of this study is to
explore the impact of using music and art to enhance adults’ success in ML2. A qualitative
methodology with convenience sampling was used to select 37 adult learners of ML2 who took
part in a one-on-one interview via Zoom. The interviews were analysed, and the study results
revealed that the use of art and music could contribute significantly in enhancing an adultlearner’s academic achievement in ML2, whereas according to the participants, art and music
are not currently used in ML2 courses. Therefore, the study recommends the use of art andmusic in both traditional and online classes to enhance adult learners’ academic achievementin ML2.
Keywords: academic achievement, adult learners, art, Maltese as a second language, music,
second language acquisition

58

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Malta has increasingly experienced an influx of non-native workers, investors and residents.
According to the Global Immigration Service Group (GIS, 2020), approximately 70% of
foreigners who have settled in Malta consider it beneficial to trade, investment and jobs. Many
non-natives study Maltese as a second language (ML2) to improve their working and living
conditions.
Second language acquisition (SLA) is when a student learns a second language (L2) or
subsequent languages after the original subconscious acquisition of an individual’s first
language (L1). Adult learners enjoy significant benefits when they learn an L2, including
stronger motivation to succeed, cognitive benefits, improved communication skills,
integration, enhanced direct connection to other cultures and competitive advantages as abilingual or plurilingual. However, according to the critical period hypothesis, adult SLA
neural mechanisms are slower and less successful than those of children who are younger than
18 (Muñoz, 2017). For example, even though SLA is important for adults since they urgently
require L2 usage, they need to overcome some cultural barriers, have limited amounts of L2 tolisten to and have restricted time to devote to L2 tasks due to adult commitments (Rose, 2016).
Moreover, adults’ SLA is influenced by various factors, such as personality, motivation,
intelligence, commitment and age (Rose, 2016).
An Introduction to the Maltese Language
Maltese is predominantly spoken in Malta. Malta’s geographical position between thecontinents of Europe and Africa, 80 kilometres south of Italy, 284 kilometres east of Tunisia,and 333 kilometres north of Libya (Bonanno, 2008), therefore in the midst of two conflicting
cultural and political powers, and Malta’s history, have made Maltese an intriguing andpeculiar language (Mifsud, 1995). Aside from being a variation of Arabic, Maltese is a mixed
language that uses the Roman alphabet and is part of the South Arabic branch of Central
Semitic, with components of Maghrebi/Siculo-Arabic, Romance (Sicilian, Italian), and English(Camilleri and Sadler, 2016).
Furthermore, 95% of Maltese grammar is Semitic, despite being influenced by both the
Italian/Sicilian and English languages (Mifsud, 1995). While some participants in this research
spoke Semitic languages as L1 or L2, the majority had no knowledge of any Semitic language.
The Maltese grammar can be challenging for ML2 learners who lack such knowledge.
Problem and Purpose Statement
Numerous factors, including extralinguistic and linguistic factors, have significant impacts on
SLA and could be challenging for adult learners. The learners’ linguistic background, such as
the starting age of SLA and the phoneme inventory of the learner’s L1, influences SLA
performance. Similarly, L2 proficiency and phonology are influenced by extralinguistic
factors, which include attention control, working memory, the learner’s motivation, short-term
memory, and lexical learning (Gorin & Majerus, 2019).
Various evidence-based interventions have been used to enhance SLA. Some interventions
include the use of art and music in L2 classes. Art, music and language have similar neural
resources for processing prosody, semantics and syntax (Calma-Roddin & Drury, 2020).
Similarly, art and music have diverse effects on language learning (Chobert & Besson, 2013).
For example, the features of L1 and L2 speech processing, which include the rhythmic structureof speech, supra-segmental vocalic discriminations, segmental vocalic discriminations, andprosodic modality, are significantly impacted by music, especially music expertise (Jekiel &Malarski, 2021). Besides enhancing enjoyable, engaging and productive lessons, art education

59

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

promotes discipline-neutral critical thinking and promotes thinking, reasoning, imagination,interaction and L2 achievement (Shulsky & Kirkwood, 2015). Consequently, this study focuses
on exploring adult learners’ perceptions of the use of art and music in ML2 courses. This isimportant as ML2 is a new subject in the Maltese curriculum due to the ongoing influx offoreigners, and a lack of literature on ML2 pedagogy (Camilleri Grima, 2015; Żammit 2020).
Research Question
Is it beneficial to use art and music while learning Maltese as a second language?
Literature Review
The Impact of Art in SLA
Teachers have incorporated the use of manipulatives, such as photographs or visual images,posters, ceramics, modelling clay, pictionary game, painting, wordless books and drawing to
improve student’s SLA and enhance their holistic academic outcomes (Hartle et al., 2015). The
integration of art in SLA has been shown to promote student engagement, stimulate L2
communication, encourage creativity, increase L2 comprehension, and reduce anxiety
associated with learning, while fostering discipline-neutral critical thinking, self-expression,and accommodation of learning styles, thus leading to effective SLA (Ghandibari, 2015).
Furthermore, the use of art contributes significantly in creating long-lasting memories andstrong impressions in students, while contributing to their success. Teachers have increasingly
used pictures to explain specific concepts and language pedagogy approaches since visuals
arouse students’ interest, leading to increased student engagement and SLA (Shulsky &Kirkwood, 2015). Visual art can improve learners’ understanding of L2 and enhance students’L2 by establishing positive student-teacher relationships, enhancing collaborative learning,providing autonomy support and creating a meaningful engagement (Lastra, 2017)).
Specifically, the use of arts in learning focuses on inducing sensory perception and thoughtful
experiences, which increase students’ cognitive abilities in SLA.
The Impact of Music in SLAMusic is exceedingly relevant in SLA. Specifically, musical factors have diverse effects on
adults’ success in the L2. These factors include extralinguistic effects, for example, connection
to the L2 culture and regulation of mood, musical presentation during instruction, musicalexpertise and musical aptitude.
Musical presentation is defined as musical tasks/activities, such as songs, which tend to be
utilised as a part of the L2 teaching process, and includes musical class exercises, rhythmic
training, singing and listening to music (Rose, 2016). Incorporating music activities, forexample, songs in L2 teaching, and in authentic texts to present L2 vocabulary, pronunciationand grammatical aspects, has positive impacts on numerous SLA aspects (Bokiev, D., Bokiev,
U., Aralas, Ismail & Othman, 2018). Therefore, songs do not only improve learners’ musicalaptitude but also the efficiency of SLA, resulting in improved academic success in the L2(Degrave, 2019).
Effects of Musical Expertise and Training
Musical expertise is defined as the productive and discerning or insightful musical capability
that a person gains through all-embracing or comprehensive informal practice and formal
musical studies and has significant effects on SLA (Chobert & Besson, 2013). For example,
music improves auditory discrimination according to rhythmic cues and pitch, hence

60

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

facilitating the perception of suprasegmental and segmental dissimilarities/differences. As aresult, improved auditory discrimination would lead to enhanced L2 attainment. Brainfunctions and brain organization are greatly influenced by musical expertise. Furthermore,neurophysiological, and behavioural levels show that musical expertise significantly influences
numerous features of speech processing in SLA, which include the production of speech andauditory perception, leading to enhanced SLA (Chobert & Besson, 2013).
Music training and expertise improve perceived word stress or lexical stress cues and influencelexical stress processing in SLA, which develops the understanding of speech soundsegmentation, leading to improved L2 speaking and listening skills (Garami et al., 2017). Jekiel
and Malarski (2021) investigated the effects of musical listening abilities of 50 Polish learnersof English as an L2 before and after a standardized accent training programme. They foundthat musical ability contributes to the production of more native-like L2 vowels and a potential
relationship between rhythmic memory and L2 vowel acquisition before training, and years ofmusical experience after training, suggesting that specific musical skills and music practice canbe an asset in learning an L2 accent.
Bokiev et al. (2018) found that musical training improved the L2 productive phonology,
working memory, pitch perception and musical training/expertise of 45 native English students
learning Spanish as an L2. Moreover, musical training and expertise enhanced phonologicalmemory, which resulted in better grammar, improved word order and L2 speaking skills.
Consequently, Bokiev et al. (2018) recommended the integration of musical training or musicalexpertise in L2 lessons, as it would significantly enhance L2 pronunciation and phonology,
which collectively contributes to adult learners’ SLA.
Impact of Musical Aptitude
Musical aptitude, which is characterised as the ability to discern patterns in sound sets, ishaving a fine sense of rhythm and thus the ability to understand or appreciate music intuitively
and, particularly, to differentiate off-key and off-pitch music (Borland, 2015). Irrespective ofmusic training and experiences, musical aptitude is unique to every individual. Musicalaptitude can play a vital role in facilitating L2 skills. Therefore, persons who have higher
performances on musical aptitude tests tend to have higher cognitive abilities and better L2
learning skills (Borland, 2015).
Borland (2015) found that L2 aptitude, which is independent of general intelligence, issignificantly related to musical aptitude. Adults’ musical aptitude is also attributed to improved
L2 pronunciation and speaking skills and the retrieval of novel word sequences (Borland,2015). Therefore, the use of musical aptitude is strongly assumed to improve SLA in adults.
Methodology
Qualitative Research Method
This study used a qualitative research method to understand the possible effect of theimplementation of art and music in ML2 courses for adults. According to Umeshkumar,
Kothari, and Awari (2016), a qualitative research method offers a deeper understanding of thestudy phenomena. Although qualitative research methods do not generate numerical data, they
provide a clear understanding of participants’ relations, behaviours, attitudes, experiences, andbeliefs (Hennink et al., 2020).
The main rationale for choosing a qualitative research method was that it could provide insights
into the research problem and an understanding of the underlying motivations, reasons and61

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

views of the participants concerning the use of art and music to enhance adults’ ML2. In
addition, qualitative research methods uncover trends in opinions on the current study problem,
which is the use of music and art to enhance adults’ SLA (Rahman, 2017).
The Participants
The researcher used convenience sampling to select samples from the target population(Umeshkumar, et al., 2016). The sampling criterion required that participants were above 18
years old and were learning ML2 at an intermediate level (Level B2).
In this sampling method, all individuals who met the sampling criterion were invited toparticipate in the study (Umeshkumar, et al., 2016). To accomplish the objective of the present
research, the participants had to be easily accessible and available, and they agreed to beinterviewed online due to COVID-19 pandemic for the benefit of reaching their and future
adult learners’ potential in learning ML2.
Determining the study population and calculating the sample size are important issues toresearch success (Garg, 2018). In this research, the sample size included 37 adults who werelearning ML2 at lifelong learning centres and in private lessons taking place in Malta. The
participants consisted of different professionals from diverse countries, who were working in
Malta and interested in learning ML2. The participants’ professions included doctors, nurses,
construction workers, students, managers, salespersons, chefs, beauticians, masseurs,
surgeons, nuns, iGaming managers, receptionists and teachers. Some teachers who werecolleagues of the author recommended the participants who were then recruited on a voluntarybasis via email. All study participants could withdraw from the study without prejudice (Garg,2018). The interviews were conducted at the participants’ discretion and at their preferred time,in compliance with the guidance established by McGrath et al., (2018). With the participants’consent, the online interviews were recorded.
Data Collection Process
Research instrument. One-on-one interviews consisting of 6 unstructured questions wereconducted via Zoom to collect data from 37 participants. The aim of the interviews was todevelop a holistic understanding of the use of art and music to enhance adults’ SLA, to achieve
the study objectives (Umeshkumar, et al., 2016) and to answer the research question.
Development of the interview. Before the study took place, the researcher obtained ethicalconsent from the Faculty Research Ethics Committee (FREC) of the University of Malta. The
researcher then designed an interview guide and held interviews. The participants were awarethat their identities would remain anonymous in the research. The interview questions wereconfidential and the respondents’ names were not required (Surmiak, 2018).
The main interview questions were:
1. Does your Maltese teacher use art and music in class to enhance your Maltese learning?
2. How would you feel if your Maltese teacher used art or music in class?
3. Did the teacher in your home country use music and art in class while teaching you asecond language?
4. What are the benefits and challenges of using art while learning a second language?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using music while learning a second
language?
6. Do you think that you learn more when art and music are used in the language class?

62

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Validity and Reliability
After interviewing the respondents, the researcher used member-checking to assess constructvalidity by distributing the transcripts to the participants for approval. Hence, the researchersought to reduce potential cases of personal bias. According to Thomas (2017), member checks
are critical in obtaining respondents’ permission to use quotes, particularly where therespondent’s identity is at stake.
To achieve a valid sample size, the researcher used convenience sampling of the population.
When using member-checking, the researcher also maintained procedural accuracy and usedself-correcting techniques (Candela, 2019).
Data Analysis
The 37 online interviews took roughly 37 hours since each recorded online interview lasted
approximately one hour. These interviews were recorded between February 11 and February
26, 2021 and were later transcribed. The interview results were categorised into themes andthen thematically analysed and interpreted. The themes emerged from what the participantssaid. During analysis, two main themes were developed. The first theme was using art toenhance adults’ ML2, and the second theme was using music to enhance adults’ ML2. The
information collected was evaluated using content evaluation and the results were summarised
into reports. The NVivo 10 software confirmed the established trends, enabling the researcher
to analyse more of the qualitative findings, uncover additional insights and draw explicit,
plausible hypotheses backed by empirical data while saving time and working more efficiently(Zamawe, 2015). The possible hypotheses were that using art and music is essential in ML2classes, and that participants would report more benefits than challenges in using music and art
in L2 classes.
Findings and Discussion
This section will report the participants’ perspectives regarding benefits and drawbacks ofusing art and music in ML2 classes. Their responses will attend to the research question: Is it
beneficial to use art and music while learning Maltese as a second language? It is hoped thatthe results will serve to inform the effective practice of future teachers of ML2.
Using Art to Enhance Adults’ SLA
In this study, it was interesting to find that since ML2 is a new subject, most Maltese teachers
were trained on how to teach Maltese as a first language and thus, not how to teach ML2. Thiswas due, in part, because the postgraduate course in ML2 pedagogy started in 2018 (Żammit,
2020). Consequently, all participants agreed that art and music were not used in ML2 classes.
These participants were accustomed to the use of music and art in L2 classes when they learned
an L2 in their home country or learned English as an L2 (ESL), even in Malta.
Maltese teachers who teach ESL/EFL or any other L2 have coursebooks on how to teach L2
and follow internationally recognised courses such as TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign
Language), TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language), TESOL (Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages), CELTA (Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages), and the Trinity DipTESOL or Cambridge DELTA (Diploma in Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages) without the requirement of a degree. These courses provide
teachers with an internationally recognized certification to teach English worldwide in a rangeof contexts, and address concepts such as how to use art and music to teach students in a fun
and creative way that motivates them to want to learn (Degrave, 2019).

63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Art has many benefits for ML2 learning. All 37 participants agreed with Rose (2016) who
claimed that using art could improve learners’ understanding of the cultural aspects and thecontemporary issues of L2 society. For example, one participant said:
If the teacher can show us artistic pictures or if we can attend an art
exhibition, I can understand more the cultural aspects and political issuesof Maltese society. (Indian nurse, Interview: 11/02/2021)
Likewise, another participant asserted:
Since we, third-party nationals are learning both the Maltese language
and its culture to obtain our permanent residence permit, artistic pictures
could be used so that Maltese teachers can teach us Maltese literature,
history, culture and geography and we can learn and experience Maltese
like native speakers. (Burkinabè builder, Interview: 24/02/2021)
Correspondingly, another participant stated:
I can better understand the contemporary issues of Malta through its
contemporary art. (Serbian doctor, Interview: 18/02/2021)
All participants supported Martello (2017), who asserted that using art in class enables learners
to learn new vocabulary. Additionally, 34 participants discussed how art could be used in ML2
online classes. For instance, one participant claimed:
It is fun to learn new vocabulary by playing pictionary and guessing ourcolleague’s drawing. This game could also be played online due to
COVID-19 restrictions. I would definitely learn the vocabulary better
than when the teacher translates Maltese words for us or when she gives
us a lot of drilling exercises. (Syrian builder, Interview: 26/02/2021)
Similarly, another participant explained:
I wish that the teacher could show us an artwork online or in class andask us to describe the emotions that the artwork brings out. I would surely
learn a lot of vocabulary in this way. I remember that our English teacher
used this kind of technique to teach us adjectives, and I still remember the
English adjectives through this teaching method. (Palestinian plumber,Interview: 15/02/2021)
Besides learning new vocabulary and motivating the learners to write or discuss the visuals,
this study continues to build on Martello (2017), since according to 32 participants, using art
during ML2 classes could improve their grammatical concepts, especially if it reflects thelearners’ cultural context and motivations, as the following participants asserted:
It is important that if our Maltese teacher selects some artistic pictures,the teacher should first consider our cultural background and interests sothat we will be more interested in learning the new vocabulary or
grammar. (Somali builder, Interview: 11/02/2021)

64

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Besides learning the vocabulary, my Arabic teacher used to teach us verb
conjugations and prepositions by describing what we were seeing in the
pictures. (German iGaming manager, Interview: 26/02/2021)
Building on Rose (2016) concerning music in L2 classes and motivation, 30 participantsrevealed that besides music, art can also help them develop a positive attitude towards ML2,
as for example, one participant claimed:
I love art, especially abstract and surrealist art. It would be great if theteacher could project some artwork, as I would surely be motivated andhave a positive attitude towards the Maltese language. I will remember
the new words more by describing artwork. In Sweden, I learned English
in this way. (Swedish iGaming consultant, Interview: 22/02/2021)
Thirty-five participants asserted that through visuals, teachers can encourage them to discuss
images with their peers using ML2. As a result, continuous practice of ML2 through thistechnique would enhance the student’s ML2, as the following participants explained:
The teacher can also ask us to show her some pictures on our iPhones,
and we can describe these images or talk in Maltese about our personal
stories that our iPhone pictures depict. (Pakistani nurse, Interview:
16/02/2021)
We can bring our photo albums to our class or share our photos online,
and we can talk about them with our peers. Our peers can ask us questions
about our photos, and we can answer them. In this way, we can practise
the Maltese language through our personal photos. (Czech student,Interview: 17/02/2021)
Thirty-two participants contended that using famous artworks of their home country might
encourage them to describe them in Maltese, besides learning more about different cultures
through an intercultural teaching approach, thus confirming Griffith et al., (2016). According
to one participant:
It would be nice if our teacher could ask us to present a picture of any
famous painting or monument of our country, and describe it in Maltese.
The teacher could obviously help us when we do not know how to express
certain words, and we could show the objects on the pictures rather thantranslating from English to Maltese. (Ukrainian doctor, Interview:
15/02/2021)
Additionally, 33 participants supported Lastra (2017),who asserted that using art in L2 classes
can develop L2 listening, writing, comprehension, speaking and reading skills, as the following
participants said:
In my home country, my English teacher used both our personal photos
and fine art paintings to develop our listening, writing, comprehension,
speaking, and reading skills. She used to motivate me a lot to learn
English. That’s what the Maltese teacher should do. I am sure that in this65

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

way, I will remember the words and the verb conjugations better in
Maltese. (Italian chef, Interview: 25/02/2021)
It would be awesome if our Maltese teacher would use pictures or makeus play pictionary to teach us Maltese vocabulary because that would
make me feel more comfortable to practise Maltese whilst describing thepictures or what another student is drawing during pictionary. In this way,
I wouldn’t be afraid of making mistakes, and I guess that more attention
would be given to the picture description rather than to the kind of verbs
that we’d be using. (Pakistani housewife, Interview: 12/02/2021)
According to a participant who was also a teacher, teachers use pictures, wordless books andfilm clips to improve learners’ writing skills:
It would be great if our Maltese teacher would show us artistic pictures
and wordless books; like I do during a writing activity to teach German
as a foreign language. I show a painting to my students and they write
their answers to specific questions about the painting, such as theemotional expression of the girl in the painting or the reason forembracing the moon. (German teacher, Interview: 11/02/2021)
Comparably, a participant asserted:
The teacher could provide a written text for us to read and understand. In
this text, there could be background information, such as the historicalcontext of the artwork that the teacher could show us or insert it in thereading text. (Serbian surgeon, Interview: 23/02/2021)
Similarly, another participant claimed that L2 teachers had used pictures to improve her
speaking skills in L2:
l remember that the German teacher used to show us artworks to getfamiliar with the German culture and also as an opportunity for us to
speak in German by describing what we were seeing in the picture andwhy the painter might have painted in that way or drawn a particularperson or used such colours or texture. (Polish receptionist, Interview:
19/02/2021)
Apart from music, as claimed by Bokiev et al. (2018), 35 participants stated that visuals canimprove their concentration in ML2. For instance, one participant claimed:
An artistic picture can make me concentrate more, reflect and help me
think, besides relating it to my personal experiences. In this way, I candefinitely learn and remember more. (Moroccan student, Interview:
11/02/2021)
The Disadvantages of Using Art in ML2 Class
Although many scholars have mentioned the benefits of using art in an L2 class (Lastra, 2017),
13 participants mentioned some disadvantages of using images during ML2 class. For example,
the following participants explained that a picture can distract them from the lesson:

66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Sometimes, when a teacher used to show me a painting to learn English,
I used to miss the point of the lesson as I thought of something personalor cultural. (Palestinian builder, Interview: 22/02/2021)
Complicated pictures, such as abstract paintings, are very distracting,and I end up not learning anything related to the new language. (Somali
tile layer, Interview: 16/02/2021)
Although Martello (2017) claimed that art can enhance L2 learners’ vocabulary, 13 participants
expressed their concern that they might not learn all vocabulary associated with a specificimage. For example, one participant claimed:
The picture can be so appealing to me that I keep on focusing on two or
three important objects in the picture and learn only those two or three
new words....no more! (Venezuelan maid, Interview: 24/02/2021)
Using Music to Enhance Adults’ SLA
Based on the interview results, the study found that music has significant benefits for enhancing
adults’ ML2 learning. The study supports Rose’s view (2016) and reveals that all participants
would be very motivated to learn ML2 through Maltese music. For instance, a Sicilian doctor
stated:I will be very enthusiastic to attend Maltese classes if the teacher willteach us through Maltese songs. (Sicilian doctor, Interview: 17/02/2021)
Another participant added:
As a shy person, I would participate more if the Maltese language class
was combined with music. (Kenyan nun, Interview: 12/02/2021)
Similarly, a participant claimed:
I really wish that our Maltese teacher would play some Maltese music for
us. Besides learning more about the Maltese culture, I would surely
participate more in the lesson. (Pakistani nurse, Interview: 16/02/2021)
The comments of thirty-six participants confirmed Shulsky and Kirkwood (2015) and Bokiev,
et al. (2018), who revealed that using music makes learning enjoyable, improves the learners’
concentration and enhances participation, which results in improved SLA. It is also worth
noting that all participants discussed how their ML2 teacher could incorporate music into their
online lessons. For instance, one participant stated:
Besides enjoying myself more while learning the vocabulary of newwords, I will concentrate more if the teacher makes us listen to a song andthen gives us the task to fill in the blanks of the song lyrics. Due to thepandemic, this could also be achieved by downloading a song from
YouTube to be shared during our online Maltese classes. (Indian
housewife, Interview: 25/02/2021)
Furthermore, the same 32 participants who claimed that they would be pleased to show theirhome country’s art during ML2 class shared the same passion for their home country’s music.
For example, the following participant claimed:67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

How happy I will be if the teacher asks us to present a song or music fromour home country and then to describe how it makes us feel. I will surely
feel happy to speak in Maltese about the music of my home country.
(Serbian builder, Interview: 26/02/2021)
Similarly, 34 participants stated that music makes them feel relaxed, and they enjoy learning
new vocabulary while it enhances their concentration. These findings are consistent with
Shulsky and Kirkwood (2015) and Bokiev et al. (2018). For instance, the following participants
stated:I would feel more relaxed and concentrate more if the teacher plays somebackground music while we are working on a task in Maltese. (Indiannurse, Interview: 23/02/2021)
I would feel more comfortable, relaxed, and happy if music is played inclass while learning Maltese vocabulary and grammar. (Albanian
beautician, Interview: 22/02/2021)
A participant claimed that she can guess the meaning of Maltese words by using cognates due
to a positive transfer (crosslinguistic influence) (Shatz, 2017) from her Modern Standard
Arabic L1:
How much I enjoy guessing the meaning of words that our Maltese
teacher would present to us through Maltese songs! I am sure that I canguess most meanings correctly as I can relate most Maltese words toArabic (Libyan housewife, Interview: 19/02/2021)
Additionally, all participants revealed that they wished that their teachers would use music in
ML2 lessons because this would improve their ML2 acquisition. These results support Bokiev
et al. (2018) in the argument that songs could be used to improve SLA, as reported by thefollowing participants:
Most songs make me dance. They make me truly happy, and I know that if
the teacher presents Maltese songs in class, the new words will stick in
my mind forever. (Italian salesgirl, Interview: 22/02/2021)
The repetition of songs would definitely make me remember the new
Maltese words. (Turkish chef, Interview: 18/02/2021)
Listening to Maltese songs is very important because it would make melearn Maltese better through the songs’ melodies and rhythms. (Danish
iGaming manager, Interview: 25/02/2021)
It would be wonderful if the teacher played a song and we practise theMaltese language by sharing the feelings and memories that the song
makes us feel. (Italian hairdresser, Interview: 15/02/2021)
Since all participants revealed that ML2 is not taught through music, they recalled theimportance of music when studying an L2 because it transported them back in time. Thisfinding concurs with Chobert and Besson (2013), who asserted that an old song could evoke
vivid memories that take individuals back in space and time due to the deep neural connection

68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

that music generates with romance, heartbreak or other pleasant and painful memories.
Consequently, one participant said:
When songs used to be played in our English-as-a-foreign-language class
in Malta, we used to enjoy the lesson more, laugh more, talk about ourexperiences and nostalgic memories and make friends. (Spanish childminder, Interview: 23/02/2021)
All participants explained how music helps them to learn numerous words, and according to ateacher:
You can’t imagine how many words my students learn when I play a
German song and allow them to sing it. I am always impressed by the
number of words from the song my students used that they magically musthave learned them through songs. (German teacher, Interview:
11/02/2021)
All participants agreed with Bokiev et al. (2018) by stating that songs played during ML2
lessons could improve their grammar. For example, the following participants asserted:
I would like the teacher to play some songs in our lesson because I tend
to forget all grammar rules, but songs make me remember the new words
and the new grammar rules more. (Libyan manager, Interview:
18/02/2021)
As you know, as you grow older, you lose the ability to memorise newwords and grammar concepts. Thanks to music, I can relate a particularlesson to a song. So, I would be very grateful if the teacher played a song
while we are learning a grammatical concept or new words in Maltese. I
will surely remember them more. (Serbian surgeon, Interview:
23/02/2021)
In Sweden, I learned foreign languages through songs. Music creates sucha relaxing and positive environment in class that will make me feel more
confident, relaxed and very interested in learning the vocabulary,grammar, proverbs, idioms and whatever the song provides. (Swedish
iGaming consultant, Interview: 17/02/2021)
Who knows how many new words, sentence patterns, pronunciation,
adverbs, prepositions, and adjectives I learned when I was learning
Spanish through songs! (Filipino carer, Interview: 24/02/2021)
According to Džanić and Pejić (2016), songs are vital language learning materials that could
be utilised to develop every language aspect, besides enhancing motivation and helping
learners develop a love for language learning. Correspondingly, all respondents stated thatmusic could improve their ML2 memory, vocabulary, sentence structure, and pronunciation
skills. A Chinese participant claimed:69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

When I was learning English, I used to listen to music to help me
remember the words, idioms, sentence structure, word pronunciation, andgrammar. (Chinese masseur, Interview: 16/02/2021)
Similar to Rose’s (2016) findings, 35 participants mentioned that music’s melody and rhythm
could contribute significantly in their memorization of verb conjugation patterns. The
following participants stated:
I could link the melody and rhythm of music to the Maltese verb
conjugation patterns. (Thai chef, Interview: 19/02/2021)
Music could definitely help me to memorise verb lists while it is being
played in the background. (German iGaming consultant, Interview:
26/02/2021)
Whilst Lastra (2017) found that visuals help L2 learners in comprehension skills, 31
participants argued that music could also improve their comprehension skills, such as thefollowing participant:
I used to love the background music in a listening comprehension task
when I was learning French. It used to help me understand the text andits meaning more, and also concentrate more. (Palestinian plumber,Interview: 15/02/2021)
Disadvantages of Using Music in ML2 Classes
Twenty-four participants reported some disadvantages of using music in ML2 classes. This
supports Chobert and Besson’s (2013) observation that music can evoke unpleasant and painful
memories, potentially undermining the SLA process. A Polish receptionist asserted:
If a song reminds me of a sad or nostalgic experience, I tend to switch off,
remember the memory, and certainly follow the music without
understanding or learning any new words or anything else related tolanguage learning. (Polish receptionist, Interview: 19/02/2021)
Contrary to the findings of Shulsky and Kirkwood (2015) and Bokiev et al. (2018), 24
participants stated that music could reduce their concentration levels during ML2 lessons, as
the following respondents expressed:
Music in class can definitely distract me. To concentrate and focus, I needtotal silence. (Italian chef, Interview: 25/02/2021)
Sometimes the singer is singing too fast and uses so many words that I
don’t know. This makes it difficult for me to follow. (Turkish chef,
Interview: 18/02/2021)
According to 17 participants, music can make the ML2 lesson boring if the teacher plays asong without considering the adult learners’ preferences. A Czech student explained:
Just imagine if our old-fashioned Maltese teacher plays a song that we do
not like, then the lesson will be so boring. It is important that the teacher

70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

plays the songs we like, but then again, it is very difficult and perhaps
impossible to please everyone’s subjective taste. (Czech student,Interview: 17/02/2021)
Contrary to Bokiev et al. (2018), who related music to good L2 pronunciation, 22 participants
reported that wrong pronunciation or particular words from songs could mislead learners andthus could negatively affect the ML2 learning process, as identified by the following
participant:Sometimes I get the wrong pronunciation or words from songs. Then it isdifficult for me to erase the word I learned from songs because it reallysticks in my mind. (Syrian builder, Interview: 26/02/2021)
Consequently, twenty-six participants reported on their L2 performance improvements
concerning vocabulary and grammar acquisition, and noted that they performed better on L2
tests because of the use of art and music in class. Although the participants commented on thegains in student achievement in L2 concerning vocabulary and grammar acquisition, they did
not mention any scores. Nonetheless, this supports Piri’s (2018) finding that participants who
were subjected to music obtained higher scores in L2 than the no-music group. Therefore,
from the results of this study and others, the use of art and music in L2 classrooms appears tomotivate students and leads to higher grades.
Limitations
There were some limitations to this study. First, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, theresearcher was unable to use a larger sample because some ML2 students did not have accessto the internet or computers. Secondly, the COVID-19 pandemic also posed significant
limitations in terms of conducting the research, especially during data collection. Sometimes
the participants and the researcher had technical problems and a lack of internet connection,
making an interview over Zoom impossible. It was time-consuming to find another time slot
to meet online to continue the interview. Acknowledging these limitations, the research was
nonetheless completed successfully.
Recommendations
According to the participants in this study, art and music were not used in adult ML2 classes,
despite the fact that they were used when learning another L2, such as English, in the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, Malta, or some other country. Therefore, suitable research should
be conducted to determine why teachers are not using art and music in adult ML2 classes. It isalso recommended a new study to investigate the impact of using music and art when teachingan L2.
Other research could focus on how art and music are used in children’s ML2 classes, and how
art and music help learners improve their academic performance in ML2. Another study could
establish a strategy to help in the process of incorporating art and music into ML2 lessons andin the training of ML2 teachers. Another recommendation could be that teachers collaborate
with students to choose appropriate songs or pictures that would not interfere with theirlearning.

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of using music and art to enhance adults’
academic achievement in ML2. According to 37 adult learners, using art and music in teaching
ML2 could make ML2 learning enjoyable and enhance participation and memory while
improving grammar, vocabulary, comprehension skills and sentence structure, contributing toadults’ success in ML2. The art and music that could be used in ML2 could be depicted from
the Maltese culture and thus, the songs would be in Maltese to help in the learner’s ML2
acquisition. Moreover, the participants mentioned some disadvantages to using art and music
during ML2 classes, such as being distracted, incorrect pronunciation of L2, thinking of sadmemories and a reduction in concentration levels. Nevertheless, the additional insights in thisresearch suggest that since the benefits of using art and music in L2 courses seem to outweighthe drawbacks of using them, it is evident that incorporating the fine arts through art and music
would contribute greatly to ML2 and any L2 academic achievement. Thus, the study’s results
can also help L2 teachers adjust their teaching practices to improve the performance andsuccess of L2 students’ learning. With the implementation of more art and music into L2classes, L2 students, L2 teacher trainers, L2 course book authors, and curriculum designers
could become more conscious of the importance of music and art in improving the quality of
their work in classes, course materials, and curriculum decisions. Consequently, the study
recommends the use of art and music to enhance adult learners’ academic achievement in ML2
since the study participants indicated that neither art nor music were used previously in ML2
traditional and online classes.

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Bokiev, D., Bokiev, U., Aralas, D., Ismail, L., & Othman, M. (2018). Utilizing music andsongs to promote student engagement in ESL classrooms. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(12), 314–332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i12/5015
Bonanno, A. (2008). Malta and Sicily: Miscellaneous research projects. Palermo: Officina diStudi Medievali.
Borland, K. (2015). The use of songs in the ESL / EFL classroom as a means of teachingpronunciation: A case study of Chilean university students. PhD thesis. Universitéd’Ottawa, Ottawa. http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-4148
Calma-Roddin, N., & Drury, J. E. (2020). Music, language, and the N400: ERP interference
patterns across cognitive domains. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66732-0
Candela, A.G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report,
24(3), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726
Camilleri Grima, A. (2015). Exploring the acquisition of Maltese by adult foreign learners:
A focus on verbal tense and aspect. Malta Review of Educational Research, 9(1), 57–
77.
Camilleri, M. & Sadler, L. (2016). Relativization in Maltese. Transactions of the PhilologicalSociety, 114(1), 117–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12070
Chobert, J. & Besson, M. (2013). Musical expertise and second language learning. Brainsciences, 3(2), 923–940. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci3020923
Degrave, P. (2019). Music in the foreign language classroom: How and why? Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 412–420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1003.02
Džanić, N. D. & Pejić, A. (2016). The effect of using songs on young learners and theirmotivation for learning English. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 40-54.
Garami, L., Ragó, A., Honbolygó, F., & Csépe, V. (2017). Lexical influence on stressprocessing in a fixed-stress language. International Journal of Psychophysiology:
Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 117, 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.03.006
Garg, G. (2018). Research methodology: Methods and techniques, New Delhi: New Age
International (P) Limited, Publishers.
GIS Survey (2020). Why does Malta attract so many foreign women to work? Global
Immigration Service Group (GIS): https://www.gisgl.com/insight/why-does-maltaattract-so-many-foreign-women-to-work
Gorin, S. & Majerus, S. (2019). Verbal and musical short-term memory: Evidence for sharedserial order processes? Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), 177–205.
https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.426
Griffith, R. L., Wolfeld, L., Armon, B.K., Rios, J., & Liu, O. L. (2016). Assessing
intercultural competence in higher education: Existing research and future directions.
ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12112

73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Hartle, L. C., Pinciotti, P., & Gorton, R. L. (2015). ArtsIN: Arts integration and infusion
framework. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(4), 289–298.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0636-7
Hennink, M., Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative research methods. SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Jekiel, M. & Malarski, K. (2021). Musical hearing and musical experience in second
language English vowel acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 64(4), 1081–1419. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-19-00253
Lastra, C. M. (2017). The benefits of arts education in second language acquisition and in
pedagogy. HSU theses and projects, 22. In:https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/22
Martello, M.B. (2017). The use of visual arts in world language instruction to increase
student motivation and attitude. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Boise, Idaho: Boise
State University.
McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2018). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative
research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149
Mifsud, M. (1995). The productivity of Arabic in Maltese. Proceedings of the 2ndinternational conference of AIDA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 151–60.
Muñoz, C. (2017). The development of language awareness at the transition from primary to
secondary school. In M. Mayo & P. García, (Eds.). Learning foreign languages inprimary school: Research insights (pp.49–67). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters..
Piri, S. (2018). The role of music in second language learning. Studies in Literature andLanguage, 17(1), 75–78.
Rahman, M. S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative andquantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A
literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102–112.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Rose, M. (2016). Use of music in adult second language instruction: A Canadian perspective
mémoire. M.A. Thesis. Canada: Université Laval Québec.
Surmiak, A. (2018). Confidentiality in qualitative research involving vulnerable participants:
Researchers’ perspectives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 19(3), Art. 12. In:https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3099/4268
Shatz, I. (2017). Native language influence during second language acquisition: A large-scalelearner corpus analysis. Proceedings of the Pacific Second Language Research Forum(PacSLRF 2016). Hiroshima, Japan: Japan Second Language Association, 175–180.
Shulsky D. & Kirkwood, D. (2015). Beyond tempra paint: Authentically exploring visual art
in early childhood. Childhood Education, 91(5), 363–396.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2015.1090851
Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful inqualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Umeshkumar, D., Kothari, D.P., & Awari, G.K. (2016). Quantitative techniques in business,management and finance: A case-study approach. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC
Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315367187
Zamawe, F. C. (2015). The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis:
Evidence-based reflections. Malawi Medical Journal, 27(1), 13–15.
https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4
Żammit, J. (2020). The benefits and challenges of distance education in teaching Maltese as
second language to adults. Malta Review of Educational Research, 14(2), 273–299.
Corresponding author: Jacqueline Żammit
Email: jacqueline.zammit@um.edu.mt

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Exploring the Impact of Peer Assessment on EFL Students’ Writing
Performance
Eleni Meletiadou
London South Bank University, UK

77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
Lately, researchers have expressed their concern for EFL students’ poor writing performanceand exam failure. They have indicated that peer assessment (PA) can be successfully
employed to support a better integration of teaching/instruction with assessment of progressin learning. Bearing this in mind, the current study employed a pre-test post-test quasiexperimental design and aimed to explore the effect of PA on 200 Greek Cypriot EFL
students’ writing performance. These adolescent learners attended two writing classes per
week (90 minutes) for a full school year. Teachers received training in PA skills and then had
to train their own students. Students were asked to use a PA rubric which was also devised by
the researcher but negotiated between the students and their teachers during the training
sessions. Paired T-tests were performed to investigate whether students in the control (n=100
students and 10 teachers) and the experimental groups (n=100 students and 10 teachers)
enhanced their writing performance comparing their pre- to post-test scores. The study
outcomes indicated that PA could have a moderately positive impact on students’ writing
performance. The use of PA improved students’ writing performance in 5 aspects: mechanics,
organisation, content, focus, and vocabulary and language use. In response to the need formore experimentation, this study provides recommendations for PA implementation insecondary school EFL writing classes which enable teachers to improve students’ writing
performance.
Keywords: peer assessment, writing performance, secondary education, EFL learning

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Peer assessment (PA), as an alternative form of “assessment for learning” which promotes
learner-centered assessment, has drawn considerable attention for more than four decades(Chang & Lin, 2019; Hoffman, 2019; Meletiadou & Tsagari, 2016; Topping, 2018). It is an
educational arrangement where students judge a peer’s performance quantitatively, forexample, by providing a peer with scores or grades, and/or qualitatively, for example, by
providing a peer with written or oral feedback (Topping, 2017). PA has significant pedagogicalvalue because it enables learners to take part in assessment by evaluating their peers’ learning
process and products (Bryan & Clegg, 2019).
According to the literature, PA supports the learning process by providing an intermediatecheck of student performance against the criteria, accompanied by feedback on strengths,
weaknesses, and/or tips for improvement (Panadero, 2016; Topping, 2017). There can also belearning benefits for peer assessors since they are exposed to other ideas and writing samples
and are able to internalise the assessment criteria and standards (Smyth & Carless, 2020).
However, not all types of peer feedback may lead to an improvement in performance.
Researchers describe several conditions under which peer feedback may have a positive
influence on learning (Schünemann et al., 2017). Involving learners in the assessment
procedure is widely acknowledged as vital to effective self-regulation since it allows learners
to identify mistakes and develop strategies to address them (Zamora et al., 2018). However,the development of PA skills is challenging. It requires continuous and repeated practice forlearners to become competent peer assessors (Andrade, 2016). Engagement in PA presupposesthat teachers can inspire learners and involve them in carefully designed tasks (Race, 2019).
Therefore, participation in PA ultimately intends to have a positive influence on their cognitive
development and motivation towards learning (Adachi et al., 2018).
This study aims to explore whether PA of writing can be used to improve adolescent students’
writing performance and present a PA implementation study in the Greek-Cypriot context sinceaction research in secondary education is scarce. Initially, research studies highlighting the useof PA of writing in EFL contexts will be presented to examine some of the findings in theliterature. Then, the methodology of the study will be described, and its findings will be
rigorously discussed. Finally, conclusions will be drawn, the limitations of the study will behighlighted and suggestions for further research as well as recommendations will be provided.
Literature Review
To date, literature that empirically links quality criteria for feedback to performance
improvement in the case of PA is scarce and few studies adopt a quasi-experimental approach
to explore the impact of instructional interventions on PA efficacy and student learning (Double
et al., 2020). The present study intended to explore whether the effectiveness of PA as alearning tool could be raised through an innovative instructional intervention in secondary
education. It also aimed at developing a deeper learning experience enabling learners to engage
with new information in terms of the written assignment, assessment criteria, and theassessment procedure as opposed to repetitive and ultimately unsuccessful learning (Topping,2017).
There are several principles for effective formative PA which is intended to enhance learning.
First, formative PA should aim at self-regulation enabling learners to monitor their learning,set goals, develop suitable strategies, manage resources, and work consistently to achieve thesegoals. Students should be allowed to take responsibility for and take control of their learning(Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Research indicates that teachers should provide information about

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

expectations and aims. Further, assessment criteria should be explained clearly. Teachers
should cooperate with learners to design assessment rubrics and offer opportunities for learners
to provide feedback (marks and comments) to each other in relation to the defined assessment
criteria. They should also use PA with their students because it encourages low-achieving
learners to work hard and overcome obstacles when learning to write. Learners feel that theirpeers, who take part in PA, share their concerns and provide them with continuous support(Barrot, 2016). This study intends to offer recommendations for PA implementation which may
help teachers use PA of writing effectively in their classes.
One of the goals of using PA in EFL classes is that it can guide learners to reflect more carefullyon the same elements of their own written work (Hicks et al., 2016). As learners enhance theirwriting performance, while comparing their writings and receiving feedback from their friends
and teachers, the possibility of engaging in fruitful conversations in terms of which theyexchange ideas, clarify points, ask questions, and examine as well as reflect on their options
increases (Zhu & Carless, 2018). Peer assessment may foster enhanced learning because
students can provide additional feedback. This type of response is different and is possibly
received and understood more effectively than teacher feedback (Rotsaert, Panadero &Schellens, 2018). Revisions initiated by teacher feedback were often found to be less successful
than those related to peer comments although peer feedback sometimes induced uncertainty(Allen & Mills, 2016). This study indicates ways in which PA can be used by adolescentstudents who wish to improve their writing skills and become more autonomous learners.
Teacher feedback, although highly evaluated by learners is often associated with confusion,
misinterpretation and miscommunication (Edwards & Liu, 2018). On the contrary, peer advice
generates discussion and increases reflection as peers ask for clarification and negotiate
meaning (Kuyyogsuy, 2019). Peer assessment enhances learners’ understanding in terms ofwriting, allows for more self-corrections, checking books, and asking teachers for clarifications
as students are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own assignments (Fan & Xu,
2020). It increases mindful reception as well as the frequency, extent and speed of marks andcomments for learners while reducing teachers’ workload (Ashenafi, 2017). The current study
wishes to explore how involving learners in the assessment procedure may increase the amountand number of assessment opportunities and improve their writing performance. Therefore, thepotential lower quality of student feedback may be an acceptable trade-off if PA enhanceslearner engagement and progress.
Conversely, some studies indicate that learners think that PA is aimless because peers are notregarded as experts, tend to provide positive feedback to friends, and teachers make the final
decisions anyway (Wu & Schunn, 2020). It is crucial to remember, however, that formative
assessment methods can enrich learners’ subsequent performance in summative tests (Dixson& Worrell, 2016). Student engagement in assessment also aims to prepare learners for lifelong
learning (Nguyen & Walker, 2016). Consequently, this study seeks to explore ways in which
secondary school students can develop their professional skills (i.e., reflection) which arevalued by employers.
Peer assessment may also be considered as a luxury or a practice which is, in a way, irrelevant
when the aim is enhanced performance in external high-stakes tests (James, et al., 2017). Sincepeers are not experts, the accuracy of PA varies (Reinholz, 2016). Further, peer assessors’
judgement and comments are often challenged by peer assessees as learners do not have thekind of authority and subject knowledge that teachers have (Topping, 2017). However, PA in80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

this study is used in combination with teacher assessment (TA) as the objective is tocomplement TA and gradually allow students to develop their writing skills.
To sum up, findings in the literature are quite confusing. Although PA may yield various
benefits in relation to student writing performance (Chien et al., 2020), there still seems to bean emphasis on teacher-centred instruction and assessment despite students’ poor performancein formal tests of writing in Cyprus and other countries (Tsagari & Meletiadou, 2015). The
present study aimed at addressing various literature gaps using a semi-experimental design,rarely used by researchers in the field of PA. It also examined the use of PA in secondary
education, a topic which has not been widely explored (Fu et al., 2019). There is still little
research on how to adapt this approach to the school contexts of many countries (Topping,2018).
Therefore, the current study investigated the use of PA as an innovative learning tool which
may enhance EFL students’ writing skills in secondary education. It also provided PA
implementation guidelines for secondary school writing classes. The aim was to enable
teachers to improve student performance, particularly in the field of writing. In the present
study, the researcher investigated the following research question:
1. What kind of an impact does PA have on adolescent EFL students' writing
performance?
Methodology
Participants
The participants in the study were 200, 13-15-year-old students of four public secondary
schools in Cyprus. The participating learners faced considerable problems with their writing
performance and scored relatively low at the end-of-year exams which gradually prepared themfor the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) exams. The learners
randomly formed 20 mixed ability EFL groups which attended two 90-minute writing classes
per week. This was a convenient sample since the researcher had to work with volunteers,
depending on the students and teachers who wished to take part in the study (Mertens &Caskey, 2018).
Participants were all native Greek Cypriots and shared the same cultural and a similar socioeconomic background. These students also had a similar kind of exposure to EFL whichclassified them as intermediate stage (B1) according to the Common European Framework ofReference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). Participation in the present study was voluntaryand conditional on participants and their guardians signing an informed consent form, which
had been previously approved by the Cypriot Ministry of Education.
Instrument
This study employed a multiple-trait approach (Nodoushan, 2014) to assessing student essay
quality prior to and after receiving training in PA. As for measuring the writing scores of thefirst drafts and final versions, two different scoring methods were employed: holistic andanalytic scoring (Han & Huang, 2017). These two measurements were complementary andprovided sufficient information about the participants’ writing abilities. The PA rubric (Table1) was adapted from two lists in White and McGovern (1994) and Jacobs ESL Composition
Profile (Jacobs et al., 1981) to reflect learners’ errors and their examiners’ preoccupations.

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 1The PA Rubric
Criteria/Weighting

Excellent/
Very Good

Good

Average

Poor

Very Poor

A. Content (sample statements for all categories)
1. The main ideas are clear.
B. Organization
1. The writer uses simple linking devices.
C. Vocabulary and language use
1. There are subject/verb agreement errors.
D. Mechanics
1. There are punctuation errors.
E. Focus
1. There is a clear sense of audience.
Analytic score:Content: __(out of 4)
Organization: __ (out of 4)
Vocabulary and language use: __ (out of 4)
Mechanics: __ (out of 4)
Focus: __ (out of 4)
Total score: __ (out of 20)
Holistic score:
Excellent/Very Good

Good

Average

Poor

Very Poor

Students had to read their peers’ essays and reflect on the statements for each category-content,
organisation, focus, mechanics, vocabulary, and language use. They had to assign marks foreach category (ranging from 0 to 4 marks) and then add them to get a final grade (0-20).
Learners were instructed to read the essay under consideration and identify three strengths,
three areas for improvement and provide three suggestions for revision. The aim was tointroduce learners to PA and help them understand how they could reflect on their peers’ andtheir own essays and offer suggestions to improve their work by carefully editing andproofreading it. The aim was to help students assume a more active role by providing metacognitive comments which would allow their peers to revise their work accordingly. The
validity of the PA rubric was explored by consultation with experts, including 8 headteachers,
one inspector, and 10 qualified EFL teachers who had taught at this level for at least 6 years.
Procedure
The study was divided into three phases (Figure 1). In the pre-implementation phase, allinstruments were piloted, and a diagnostic pre-test was administered to ensure that all students
who participated in the study were at the intermediate level. Students were provided with amark but no comments or peer feedback. All essays were marked by their class teachers andan external assessor after a rater calibration session and appropriate training, and 20% of theessays were marked by the researcher.

82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Figure 1
The Procedure of the Study

1. Pre-implementation phase (October-November)
Piloting of the instruments

1. Pre-implementation phase (December-January)
Administration of the pre-test

Teacher and student training

2. Implementation (January)
1st draft of the 1st essay
Feedback (PA or TA)

2nd draft for the 1st essay - Feedback(TA)

2. Implementation (February)
1st draft of the 2nd essay
Feedback (PA or TA)

2nd draft for the 2nd essay - Feedback(TA)

2. Implementation (March-April)
1st draft of the 3rd essay (PA or TA)
Feedback

2nd draft for the 3rd essay - Feedback(TA)

3. Post-implementation (April-June)
Post-test83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The same test was administered at the end of the study. Students had to write the same type of
essay on a different but very similar topic. The aim was to evaluate whether students made any
progress after one school year and which groups made more progress, if any, the control or theexperimental.
Students took part in writing workshops prior to engaging in PA of their writing assignments.
During these workshops, they were instructed how to use the rubric, used it with three sample
papers, and received feedback from the instructor on how their comments and marks alignedwith the instructor grades and comments on the same essays. These hopefully contributed to alevel of comfort and proficiency with the rubric and assignment criteria and possibly enhanced
their ability to provide accurate and reliable PAs. Teachers also received extensive training andhad to attend weekly sessions because the researcher wanted to check the progress of theimplementation. Training and clarity hopefully promoted a trusting environment in theclassroom, which had conferred positive outcomes with PA in the literature so far (Hoffman,2019).
Learners wrote five essays, including a pre-test, 3 essays in two drafts and a post-test. Students
in the experimental groups received peer feedback and teacher feedback once each whilestudents in the control groups received teacher feedback twice (Figure 1). All student groups
were engaged in the experiment once a week for two teaching sessions (45 minutes each) which
added up to approximately 50 teaching sessions. Five compositions (two informal letters as
pre- and post-tests, a narrative essay, a descriptive essay, and an argumentative essay) were
written in class without disrupting the regular programme to exclude variables such as theamount of time spent on task at home and help from others.
Students wrote the three types of essays after being introduced to the specific genre.
Experimental group students received peer feedback and a mark based on the PA rubric andhad to assess one of their peers’ essays. Students in the control groups received teacher
feedback (comments and some corrections of major mistakes) and a grade. Students thenreceived some remedial teaching depending on the challenges they faced in their first draft.
Additionally, they were asked to write a second draft. Teachers were instructed to support theirstudents during the whole procedure but not to intervene with their writing. They provided
corrections, marks, and comments to students’ second draft and after some more remedial
teaching they taught the next genre. The researcher collected students’ drafts immediately after
learners completed each step of the procedure to ensure that teachers followed the researcher’s
instructions regarding the corrections and comments they provided to their students.
Essays were about 4-5 paragraphs (120-150 words each) long. Instructors monitored thestudents but were not involved in the actual editing of the essays. Teachers assumed the role ofa facilitator by explaining any difficult terms or acting as a consultant by offering advice whenneeded. All teachers were asked to avoid overcorrecting students’ work and provide only
occasional basic corrections and comments.
During the feedback sessions, the teacher and student/assessors offered feedback to theirstudents/peers which consisted of both marks and comments based on the PA rubric. In moredetail, all experimental group learners devoted 20 minutes of their normal teaching sessions
using the PA rubric to assess their peers, while the control groups received teacher feedback.
Students were assigned with the correction of their peers randomly and changed every timethey had to assess a new draft. The identity of the student/assessor and the student/assessee

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

were not disclosed to avoid conflicts and bitterness. Anonymity and change ofstudent/assessors also ensured the reliability of the assessment process.
Next, students were asked to re-draft their work. Teacher and peer feedback were provided
with a view to improving successive drafts and prompting more revision. Moreover, thefeedback sessions were structured tightly regarding time to avoid considerable variation amonggroups and to increase student concentration. The time between drafts (usually two week) was
regarded as sufficient for learners to redraft without feeling undue pressure ensuring thereliability of the assessment process. Additionally, students were asked to peer assess only one
draft to avoid any resistance from students.
Learners received remedial teaching depending on their errors. Essentially, the teachers were
instructed to use selected parts with significant errors from students’ essays and encouragethem to identify them and indicate solutions. Teachers also asked students to study theirgrammar book and the handouts they used to self-correct errors in class at home.
Findings and Discussion
The current study explored the way PA influences student writing performance. Paired T-tests
were performed to explore whether students in the control (n=100 students) and theexperimental groups (n=100 students) improved their writing performance comparing theirpre- and post-test scores (George & Mallery, 2016). These revealed that experimental groupstudents improved their writing performance by 3 marks (out of 20) while control groupstudents improved their performance by only .2 marks. This difference was statisticallysignificant (Table 2). It indicated that students who received PA together with TA showed
considerable improvement. This finding was confirmed by previous research (Wanner &Palmer, 2018) which indicated that PA significantly improved the quality of learners’ end
product from draft to final version.
Table 2Findings from the Paired T-tests of the Experimental versus Control Groups (overall score)
M
Pairedtests

T- Control
groupsExperimentalgroupsIndependent Control
T-test (post- groups
test score)
ExperimentalgroupsPosttest
PretestPosttest
PretestSDt

11.73 3.01 .42

p

Cohen’s d.674>.0005

11.59 3.5
11.
3.01 .42
73
10.37 3.22

674 >.0005

11.
3.01 3.9
73
13.38 2.95

.000

.55

This study also concluded that PA was not only suitable for adult learners (Baker, 2016). Its
adolescent participants provided marks for their peers and improved the marks they received
for their own essays through their involvement in the practice of PA and due to the insight they85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

gained into their peers’ work. This allowed them to reflect on their own work and eventually
improve it. Taking into consideration that learners can only process feedback for which they
are developmentally ready, teacher feedback may often be ineffective. Therefore, teachers
should tailor their feedback to student needs but since this is practically impossible especiallyin large classes, this study has demonstrated a way in which feedback can be individualised foreach learner by combining PA, which is more student-friendly, and TA, which is regarded as
more precise.
An independent t-test was also performed to explore differences between the post-test scoresof both experimental and control groups. On average, in the post-test, experimental groupstudents outperformed control group students (Table 2). Both the difference, which wasstatistically significant, and Cohen’s d indicated that there was a moderately positive impact of
PA on students’ writing performance (George & Mallery, 2016; Cohen et al., 2013).
Paired t-tests were also performed to explore how improvement spread across the fivecategories included in the PA rubric (content, organisation, mechanics, focus, vocabulary, andlanguage use) (George & Mallery, 2016). Students were assigned an analytic score per category(0-4 marks). The aim was to further explore which aspect(s) of their writing performanceexperimental group students improved (Table 3).
Table 3Findings from the Paired T-tests of the Five Categories (Analytic Scores)

Control
Paired T- groups
tests
Experimentalgroupstp

Cohen’s dMechanics
Organisation

.00
.42

1.000>.0005.675>.0005

Focus

2.41

.018>.0005

Content(6.16.000>.0005

Vocabulary and -.420
language use
Mechanics
7.16
Organisation
5.5.675>.0005.000 <.0005.000<.0005

.74
.59

Focus
Content

6.16
7.08.000<.0005.000<.0005.86.6

Vocabulary and 8.03
language use.000<.0005.74

Paired t-tests of the pre- versus post-tests scores control group students received revealed that
there was no improvement, which was statistically significant, for mechanics, organisation,
focus, content, and vocabulary and language use (Table 3). The same paired t-tests were
performed for the experimental groups (George & Mallery, 2016). These revealed that there
was improvement which was statistically significant, for mechanics and organisation.
However, there was no improvement which was statistically significant for focus, content andvocabulary and language use (Table 3).
Students in the experimental groups improved their vocabulary more than any other aspect ofwriting (Table 3). This indicates that PA may have a positive impact on different aspects of86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

students’ writing performance. Students read their peers’ essays and learnt new words which
they then used in their own essays. Learners also improved the content of their essays (t=7.08).
They possibly located new ideas in their peers’ work and added new content to their own
essays. Several studies have investigated the revisions made by learners after receiving PA or
TA. These reported that PA leads to more meaning-level revisions while TA leads to more
surface-level revisions (Rotsaert et al., 2018). However, none of these studies have indicatedthat students successfully improved almost all aspects of their writing performance.
In addition, other researchers (Choi, 2013) reported that students, when using peer feedback,mostly concentrated on surface level errors, involving grammatical and spelling mistakes,
instead of deep or semantic level issues such as content. In the current study, the impact of peer
feedback was detected more on deep and semantic level issues rather than surface level issues
possibly because students received training prior to the implementation. This study confirmed
some findings from previous research (Lee, 2015) suggesting that peer feedback mightultimately lead to more language improvement, because students are possibly more willing toparticipate in assessment and learn more easily from their peers since they understand peer
feedback better than teacher feedback.
Students, who participated in this study, also managed to upgrade the mechanics of theirwriting (Table 3) supporting previous research (Yaghoubi & Mobin, 2015). Therefore, they
confirmed that the use of PA can cognitively impact how students organise their thoughts asthey write. Students had the opportunity to reflect on their work, edit and proofread their essays
more carefully after providing feedback to their peers. The findings of this semi-experimental
study about mechanics contradict previous research indicating that there are no significant
gains for EFL students in terms of mechanics when students use PA (Wanner & Palmer,2018). These clearly indicate that PA can have a positive impact on students’ writing byhelping them edit and proofread their work more carefully taking into consideration theirpeers’ comments.
Additionally, students enhanced aspects of their essays related to focus (Table 3). PA allowed
students to better understand the texts including the schematic structure and linguisticfeatures of the genre. It successfully raised students’ awareness of the context, the reader andfacilitated the interpretation of the writer’s intended meaning since experimental groupstudents in this study conformed more to the conventions of the genre in hand. The deliberate
focus on genres, which were included in the PA rubric, helped learners become more awareof the requirements of the different genres and take them into serious consideration whenwriting their essays. Consequently, they developed their meta-cognitive skills since they
were asked to improve their work relying on two kinds of feedback.
However, students were able to refine their language use and organisational skills (Table 3)
less than the other aspects of their writing. Although students looked at their work again, they
did not manage to improve their use of grammar and their organisational skills as more timeand effort is required to improve these aspects of writing. Previous researchers (Edwards &Liu, 2018) reported that a combined focus on both language form and content leads to greater
gains than either focus on form or focus on content alone. This was also confirmed by thecurrent study which showed that feedback on both form and content can result in
improvement in all aspects of writing.
When comparing students’ performance in the post-test, experimental group students seemed
to have improved their performance more in terms of vocabulary, language use and focus(Table 3) rather than in other aspects of writing. This finding indicates that students who used87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

PA enriched their vocabulary and comprehended the requirements of the specific genre usedin both the pre-test and post-test (informal letter) even better. Various measures of text
improvement have been employed in different studies, that is, some researchers considered
improved grammar as a characteristic of enhanced text quality (Liao, 2016). Other researchers
also reported that trained students can provide specific and relevant feedback on global featuresof writing, such as genre, which in turn may result in better quality in their revised drafts(Subaşı, 2014).
Students also improved certain aspects of their writing, for example, mechanics, content, andorganisation (Table 3) slightly less than other aspects. Experimental group students used PA
for a few months with only three types of essays. Previous studies deemed organisation of
information as an important factor in determining text quality as they have shown that PA canimprove students’ organisational skills in writing (Hwang, Hung & Chen, 2014). Previous
research has also indicated that intermediate EFL students improved their texts significantly inorganisation, cohesion and vocabulary when using PA of writing from pre-test to post-test(Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017). However, adolescent intermediate EFL students, who were
inexperienced in PA, needed more time and exposure to this approach to improve these aspectsof their writing performance.
To sum up, the findings of the present study indicated that students who used PA improved
their overall writing performance by 3 marks out of 20, a statistically significant finding, whilestudents who received only TA improved their performance by .14. Finally, students who
employed PA improved their writing performance by at least half a mark out of 4 for each oneof the categories included in the PA rubric, that is content, organisation, vocabulary andlanguage use, mechanics, and focus. These findings revealed that students, who used PA in
their writing classes received multiple benefits in all domains included in the EFL essay rubric.
Consequently, since PA-related learning seems to provide multiple benefits to adolescentlearners in terms of their final summative assessment, it might be a worthwhile exercise.
Therefore, teachers should consider engaging their learners in PA during their classes toenhance their writing performance.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Few studies adopt a quasi-experimental approach to study the impact of instructional
interventions on PA effectiveness and learning (Saito, 2012). Previous studies relied only onmarks to make claims for the potential benefits of PA. Moreover, the absence of a control grouphas been the main weakness of longitudinal studies on feedback in writing (Bitchener et al.,2012). The current study relied not only on students’ overall marks but also on their analytic
scores on five important writing aspects, content, organisation, vocabulary and language use,mechanics, and focus to explore whether PA can have a positive impact on students’ writing
performance. It used both control and experimental groups in a semi-experimental design to
explore in what aspects and to what extent PA could have an impact on intermediate adolescent
EFL students’ writing performance.
For many instructors, the most viable alternative to teacher feedback would be peer feedback.
This has become almost as common as teacher feedback in writing classes (Lee et al., 2016).
The current study suggests that the introduction of PA in EFL classes from an early age may
improve students’ writing performance even more as learners can receive extensive training
and devote a considerable amount of time, that is several years, to learn how to use PA
effectively. It also recommends the use of PA in combination with TA to maximise the benefits

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

of PA and allow students to be exposed to multiple types of feedback. These will allow learners
to reflect on various aspects of their writing.
Peers and teachers tend to focus on different aspects of writing, when asked to provide
feedback, leading to potential differences in improvement in students’ writing. For example, it
has been suggested that teachers may focus on surface-level issues while peers may focus moreon meaning-level issues (Baker, 2016). The positive impact that PA can have on all aspects ofstudents’ writing should be taken into consideration by EFL teachers who face considerable
challenges as they try to help their students improve their writing performance. Such an
outcome conforms to what has been reported by previous studies, namely that PA can engage
students in making reﬂections when they assume the role of tutor as well as tutee (Wang et. al.,2017).
However, while instructive, the findings of this study may not be representative enough toallow generalizations, a challenge to be undertaken in future studies. Although positive effects
were found, it became apparent that the training could have been much more systematic and of
longer duration than was feasible to organise in the available context and time span of thecurrent study. This study focused only on short-term effects of PA training. Therefore, morestructured PA training for both teachers and students and critical reflection on assessment might
have had a more powerful effect on students’ writing performance.
PA needs to be elaborate and frequent as well as focused on learners’ performance, theirlearning needs, and the actions under learners’ control rather than on the learners themselves.
PA should also be timely so that learners can reflect on it and use it in their work or ask forhelp if they need any clarifications. Its goal should be to aid with the assignment at hand andallow learners to understand the assessment criteria even better. It also needs to be suitable tolearners’ conception of learning and previous knowledge as well as attended to and acted upon.
This study also supports research which suggests that students may ignore or misuse teacher
commentary when revising drafts and thus profit when they receive more (peer) feedback (Yu,2019). More importantly, PA is seen by many researchers as a way of giving more control andautonomy to students. It involves them actively in the feedback process as opposed to a passive
reliance on teacher’s feedback to ‘fix’ up their writing (Alzaid, 2017). The findings of thisstudy confirmed that PA can improve EFL learners’ writing skills by allowing them to assume
responsibility for other students’ and their own learning which is in line with previous research(Topping, 2017).
These findings contribute to linguistic theory by suggesting that PA is anticipated to make asignificant contribution to the field of education if sufficient training and support is provided
to all participants and carefully designed tools are used to familiarize learners with the PAprocess. Moreover, PA should be introduced gradually and used on a regular basis as early as
possible, that is even in primary education, and the emphasis should be on the formative use of
PA as an innovative learning-oriented tool employed by teachers to enhance students’ skills.
The present study indicated that PA can be a promising alternative assessment method for EFL
teachers in secondary education. PA may be used to raise a more open assessment culture andempower adolescent students by involving them in assessment. Finally, it assisted in generating
an evidence-based argument regarding the quality of PA as a tool for enhancing EFL writing
skills (Wanner & Palmer, 2018).

89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

PA reflects the attempt of the education reform initiatives in many countries, i.e., England andHong Kong, to move from a testing culture to an assessment culture and promote all roundeducation and life-long learning. Within the sociocultural context of countries like Cyprus,
where the stress on measurement and accountability has existed for a long time, the successful
implementation of PA in the way it is intended needs promotion of conversations about
assessment, teaching and learning among all stakeholders, parents, students, teachers, andsenior educational management to promote change, advocate reform, advocate assessment
literacy and define the new aims and associated roles.
Research continues to characterize teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices as largely
incongruent with recommended best practice (Tsagari, 2016). Teachers’ assessment il-literacy
has resulted in inaccurate assessment of students causing them to fail to reach their fullpotential. In an article published by Deluca et al. (2016), the lack of assessment literacy waspresented as professional suicide. Assessment literacy (AL) is seen, therefore, as a sine qua
non for today’s competent educator (Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2020). As such, AL must be a pivotal
content area for current and future staff development endeavours. This will allow teachers tofamiliarise themselves and experiment with a variety of promising alternative assessment
methods, such as peer assessment, in their effort to help their students improve their writing
performance.

90

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H. M., & Dawson, P. (2018). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits andchallenges of self and peer assessment in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluationin Higher Education, 43(2), 294 –306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer
feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561902
Alzaid, J. M. (2017). The effect of peer assessment on the evaluation process ofstudents. International Education Studies, 10(6), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n6p159
Andrade, M. S. (2016). Effective organisational structures and processes: Addressing issuesof change. New Directions for Higher Education, 173, 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20177
Ashenafi, M. M. (2017). Peer-assessment in higher education–twenty-first century practices,challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing
process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
Barrot, J. S. (2016). Using facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: Impact andchallenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 286–301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1143481

Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2019). Innovative assessment in Higher Education: A
handbook for academic practitioners. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429506857
Chang, C., & Lin, H. C. K. (2019). Effects of a mobile-based peer-assessment approach on
enhancing language-learners’ oral proficiency. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1612264
Chien, S. Y., Hwang, G. J., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within thecontext of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking
performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751
Choi, J. (2013). Does peer feedback affect L2 writers’ L2 learning, composition skills,
metacognitive knowledge, and L2 writing anxiety? English Teaching Forum, 68(3),187-–213. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.187
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967
Council of Europe. (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deluca, C., Lapointe-Mcewan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A
review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6

91

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in theclassroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessmenton academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational
Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using google
docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Edwards, J. H., & Liu, J. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms.
University of Michigan Press.
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775
Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research trends and applications of technologysupported peer assessment: A review of selected journal publications from 2007 to
2016. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 191–213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00131-x
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide andreference. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545899
Han, T., & Huang, J. (2017). Examining the impact of scoring methods on the institutional
EFL writing assessment: A Turkish perspective. PASAA: Journal of Language
Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 53, 112–147.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153666.pdf
Hicks, C. M., Pandey, V., Fraser, C. A., & Klemmer, S. (2016). Framing feedback: Choosing
review environment features that support high quality peer assessment.
In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 458 –469). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195
Hoffman, B. (2019). The influence of peer assessment training on assessment knowledge andreflective writing skill. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 863–
875. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-01-2019-0004
Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements,
motivations, and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based gamedevelopment approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2),129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfield, V., & Hughey, J. (Eds). (1981). Testing ESL
composition: A practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
James, S., Lanham, E., Mak-Hau, V., Pan, L., Wilkin, T., & Wood-Bradley, G. (2018).
Identifying items for moderation in a peer assessment framework. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 162, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.032
Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Promoting peer feedback in developing students' English writing
ability in L2 writing class. International Education Studies, 12(9), 76–90.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p76

92

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Lee, M. K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary
students' perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in
student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in thewriting classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815581007
Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy:
Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 168–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347
Liao, H. C. (2016). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWEassisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007

Mertens, S. B., & Caskey, M. M. (Eds.). (2018). Literature reviews in support of the middle
level education research agenda. IAP.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2020.1787750
Meletiadou, E., & Tsagari, D. (2016). The washback effect of peer assessment on adolescent
EFL learners in Cyprus. In D. Tsagari (Ed.), Classroom-based assessment in L2
contexts. (pp. 138-160). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Nguyen, T. T., & Walker, M. (2016). Sustainable assessment for lifelong
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 97–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.985632
Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2014). Assessing writing: A review of the main trends. Studies inEnglish Language and Education, 1(2), 116–125.
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v1i2.1831
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer
assessment. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social
Conditions in Assessment, (pp. 247-266), Routledge.
Race, P. (2019). The lecturer's toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning andteaching. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060205
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer
assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold inpeer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’
perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 33(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15
quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.67

93

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback
mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading
comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395–415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1
Smyth, P., & Carless, D. (2020). Theorising how teachers manage the use of exemplars:
Towards mediated learning from exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1781785
Subaşı, G. (2014). What are the effects of written peer feedback training on Turkish ELT
students' ability to comment on peer writing? Pinnacle Educational Research andDevelopment, 3(9), 1–15. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHAT-ARE-THEEFFECTS-OF-WRITTEN-PEER-FEEDBACK-ON-TOSuba%C5%9F%C4%B1/1429d9b7e7b6c95bb320ad23380dda9f1495cc12
Topping, K. J. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. Routledge.|
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256889
Topping, K. J. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of otherlearners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.1.1.007
Tsagari, D. (2016). Assessment orientations of state primary EFL teachers in two
Mediterranean countries. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(1), 9–30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303276727_Dina_Tsagari_Assessment_Ori
entations_of_State_Primary_EFL_Teachers_in_Two_Mediterranean_Countries
Tsagari, D., & Meletiadou, E. (2015). Peer assessment of adolescent learners' writing
performance. Writing and Pedagogy, Special Topic Issue: Writing Assessment, 7(2),305–328. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.26457
Wang, S. M., Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2017). Analyzing the knowledge construction andcognitive patterns of blog-based instructional activities using four frequent interactive
strategies (problem solving, peer assessment, role playing and peer tutoring): A
preliminary study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 301–
323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9471-4
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student
learning: The crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role offeedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of
feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101897.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897
Yaghoubi, A., & Mobin, M. (2015). Portfolio assessment, peer assessment and writing skill
improvement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(12), 25042511.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.10
Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices fromMaster's students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 40, 42–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004

94

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Zamora, Á., Suárez, J. M., & Ardura, D. (2018). Error detection and self-assessment asmechanisms to promote self-regulation of learning among secondary education
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 175–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1225657
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification andnegotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
Corresponding author: Eleni Meletiadou
Email: elenim@outlook.com

95

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

96

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Teachers’ Misbehaviours in Class and Students’ Reactions: A Case Study
Reem Alkurdi
University of Jordan
JordanSharif Alghazo
University of Jordan
Jordan97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
This study aims to investigate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ misbehaviours
in class and their students’ reactions to these misbehaviours. Towards this end, 60 classroom
observations of six English language teachers (N=10 each) were conducted at a public schoolin Jordan. Moreover, a survey was used to elicit 201 students’ reactions to their teachers’
misbehaviours by gauging their satisfaction with the teachers’ communication styles. Finally,
the teacher participants were interviewed in order to more deeply understand why suchmisbehaviours occurred. Analysis of the data is grounded in the Expectancy Violation Theory.
The results revealed that when the mean value of teachers’ communication style was more than
3 on a 5-point Likert Scale, the students often perceived their teachers as being positive, andthe students compensated most of their teachers’ misbehaviours. However, when the meanvalue was below 3, the teachers were perceived as being negative, and the students reciprocatedfor most of the misbehaviours. The results also showed that the students are more tolerant
towards their teachers’ misbehaviours as long as the teacher is perceived to be positive. The
study provides insights into understanding the student-teacher relationship in EFL classes.
Keywords: compensate misbehaviours, reactions, reciprocate

98

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Educationists in Jordan face many challenges that negatively affect the quality of education.
For example, there is the challenge of over-crowded classes where teachers must spend muchof class time to maintain discipline. This implies that teachers have to double their efforts so
as to both manage classes and provide good teaching. Moreover, there is the problem of poor
facilities and infrastructure which makes the task of teaching more demanding. Educators in
Jordan also complain about parents’ coordination with school personnel despite calls tostrengthen connections between schools and homes. The source of this problem is like theclassic chicken-or-egg question. These challenges are attributed to both the limited resourcesthat schools have and to social and cultural beliefs of the Jordanian people (Alhabahba et al.,2016).
Professional educators also confess that teachers themselves – though valued as they play a
key role in the educational process – may represent a challenge (Asassfeh, 2015). In addition
to having the responsibility of delivering classes, teachers take on other roles in society:parents, supervisors, and social workers, among other things. Teachers are usually criticisedfor their students’ achievement both academically and socially. Thus, teachers are expected tohave pedagogical skills as well as management and communication skills so that they can deal
with students and their parents. Teachers are also required to examine their students’ needs andstyles and work towards matching their own styles to those of their students. Furthermore,teachers are expected to come to class prepared to deliver knowledge and to manage large
classes in the limited time available in each lesson. They have also to respond to parents’
expectations of teaching students both content and imparting morality. These and other
responsibilities have made the teaching profession unfavourable sometimes by those who lackthe skill and ability to work under pressure. The many responsibilities have also led to creatinga dysfunctional atmosphere that is unpleasant for both teacher and students. This situation has
attracted the attention of researchers who try to understand the causes of these objectionableencounters and to provide solutions to remedy the flawed environment for a better quality of
instruction (Alhabahba et al., 2016).
As for the status and teaching of English, it is unquestionable that English has become aninternational language that is necessary for almost all professionals in the world (Jenkins,2017). Jordanian professionals are no exception. English is taught as a foreign language tostudents in Jordan and learning it has become a major concern of most Jordanians. Its spreadover the world has expanded the need to learn it, particularly because it is the language oftechnology and innovation in today’s globe. However in Jordan, learning English represents achallenge to many students who find it a difficult subject. This is the perception of teachers
who also find it a challenge to teach, especially as most of them usually lack a high level ofproficiency to deliver classes in English.
Teaching English demands a considerable amount of effort on the part of teachers who – inaddition to lacking high levels of competency in English – usually lack training in teaching
methodology. This is demanding because teachers must find a teaching method that meets theirstudents’ needs and their own teaching styles. Most English language teachers in Jordan holda degree in English language and literature, rather than in teaching methodology (Al-Hazmi,
2003). However, effective teachers are expected to have – in addition to adequate knowledgeof the subject matter – knowledge of pedagogy and psychology to teach effectively and deal
with students and manage classes (Baderaddin, 2015). Borich (2015) argues that teachers
should have expertise in their subject matter and an ability to manage classes and maintaindiscipline. Moreover, the teacher-student relationship should be based on productive99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

interactions which, as Abrantes et al., (2007) argue, make the learning of the second languageeasier.
This research concerns the study of the teacher-student relationship and explores the negativeside of teachers’ communication styles. The study explores – through observations of theperformance of EFL teachers in class – misbehaviours of teachers and their students’
perception of and response to these misbehaviours. In response to their teachers’ misbehaviours,
students may compensate or reciprocate. When a student compensates for a teacher’s
misbehaviour, the student is not responding in kind with a misbehaviour. Rather, the student
may be nicer or kinder and overlook the bad treatment. However, when a student reciprocates,
the student responds in kind with another misbehaviour. Employing Goodboy’s and Myers’(2015) scale of teachers’ misbehaviours, this investigation seeks answers to the following
research questions:
1. What are the types of misbehaviours that English language teachers commit in theirclassrooms?
2. How do students react to such misbehaviours? Do they compensate and/or reciprocatewith teachers’ misbehaviours?
This study is expected to contribute to mainstream literature on teacher-student relationships,class management, and student achievement in EFL classes. It is hoped that the study gives a
glimpse of how EFL teachers behave or misbehave in class and raise awareness among
educationalists of how students respond to their teachers’ actions and behaviours. Of
significance to this study is the reporting of students’ voices in relation to EFL teachers’
misbehaviours, particularly, from those students whose voices have often remained unheard in
the past. By doing so, the study implements the maxims of student-centred methodologies
which see the student as the centre of the learning process (Nunan, 2013).
Literature Review
The literature on language pedagogy abounds with studies on students’ misbehaviours andsolutions to manage these misbehaviours by teachers. However, little is known about teachers’
misbehaviours in language classes and how students perceive and respond to these actions. As
a result of the little research on teachers’ misbehaviours, three main typologies emerged. The
first was put forward by Kearney, Plax, Hays and Ivey (1991) who examined whether or notteachers represent a cause of instructional and motivational problems in college classes. The
results revealed many misbehaviours ranging from misspelling of words to verbal abuse andthat most students reported that their teachers carried out more than one misbehaviour in alesson. The findings also showed that teachers’ misbehaviours are of three types:
incompetence, offensiveness, and indolence.
In a study to identify other misbehaviours that were not found in Kearney, et al. (1991), Toal
(2001) asked students to evaluate their classroom experiences and their teachers’
misbehaviours. The results indicated that there are three types of misbehaviours:
irresponsibility, derisiveness, and apathy which are similar to those found in Kearney, et al.
(1991). In a third study that aimed at investigating misbehaviours that could result fromteachers’ use of technology, Goodboy and Myers (2015) developed Kearney, et al.’s work andresented new categories to judge teachers’ misbehaviours. In their study, in which an openended survey was used, the researchers found 16 misbehaviours which were categorised under
three labels: antagonism (i.e., lacking interpersonal communication skills), lectures (i.e.,

100

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

lacking both procedural and teaching skills), and articulation (i.e., lacking pronunciation skills).
The researchers concluded that teachers should be aware of what they do appropriately andwhat they do wrongly in class.
Research has also examined effects of teachers’ misbehaviours on students’ achievement andperception of their teachers. Kearney, et al. (1991) showed that teachers’ misbehaviours canhave a detrimental effect on students and their achievement and motivation. Also, Zhang (2007)
conducted a study on college students from different cultural backgrounds studying at an
American university. The researcher hypothesised that culture may have an impact on students’
perception of teachers’ misbehaviours. The findings indicated that students’ motivation
towards learning decreases when they take classes with misbehaving teachers and that –regardless of the cultural background – students perceived their teachers’ misbehaviours as
demotivating. The study also found that incompetence was found to be the most prominent
type of misbehaviour and that offensiveness was the least. In a similar study, Goodboy and
Bolkan (2009) studied the correlation between teachers’ misbehaviours and students’motivation and found that instructors’ misbehaviours resulted in demotivation, dissatisfaction,and ineffectiveness on the part of students.
Kelsey et al., (2004) distributed a questionnaire to gauge students’ perceptions of their teachers’
misbehaviours including immediacy, consistency, and causality. The results revealed thatstudents are aware of teachers’ misbehaviours, are able to identify what counts as
misbehaviour, and can evaluate the source of misbehaviours. They view the teacher as the maincause of these misbehaviours. The findings also indicated that students attributed teachers’
misbehaviours to the personality of the teacher. In a similar exploration, Banfield et al., (2006)
studied the effects of teachers’ misbehaviours on students’ perceptions of their teachers byasking students to complete an Affect Toward Teacher Scale and a Source Credibility Scale.
The results showed that teachers’ misbehaviours significantly influence their students’
perception of teachers and this impact varies in degree. That is, offensiveness had the greatest
impact on students, followed by incompetence and indolence, respectively. The researchersconcluded that teachers’ misbehaviours should be rethought by educationalists because they
have a serious detrimental effect on students. This conclusion was based on the finding thatstudents were unwilling to take classes with misbehaving teachers, particularly offensive
teachers because the offensiveness of teachers was found to greatly affect students’ trust of theteachers.
Upon reviewing existing studies on teachers’ misbehaviours and students’ reactions, it isobvious that most studies were conducted on college students and most often in Western
institutions. Additionally, studies explored the effect of teachers’ misbehaviours on, forexample, students’ perceptions, effective learning, and the credibility of teachers. Moreover, alarge number of studies used questionnaires and surveys to collect their data. As a result, someperspectives remain unexplored. This study fills this gap by examining – through observations,interviews and surveys – teachers’ misbehaviours at the school level, and it identifies students’reactions to such misbehaviours.
Methodology
This section describes the sample and setting of the study. It also shows the data collection
tools and data analysis procedures. The study adopts a mixed-method approach to analyse thedata which are collected by means of three different methods: non-participant classroom
observation, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. This triangulation allowed the101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

researchers to provide an in-depth description of what exactly happens in Jordanian EFL schoolclassrooms. The following sub-sections provide details of the methodology adopted in thisstudy.
Participants
The participants were six EFL teachers and 201 students from a public school in Jordan. They
were all females because the school is a girl-only school. Of the 201 students, 66 were in Grade10, and 135 in Grade 9. Ninth and tenth grade classrooms were chosen for observations becauseof the students’ ability to express thoughts and opinions without any interference from teachersor the researcher. Table 1 below shows the distribution of the sample to level and number.
Table 1
Distribution of the Sample to Level and Number
Class
Teacher CodeNinth (h*)
Teacher hNinth (b)Teacher b
Ninth (g)Teacher g
Ninth (d)Teacher dTenth (a)Teacher aTenth (k)Teacher k*The letters represent the sections’ names.

Number of Students
33
34
34
34
33
33

Data Collection
Three methods were used to collect data to provide a detailed glimpse into what exactly
happened in class. The first was non-participant classroom observation. The first researcher
attended 12 classes with each teacher; however, only 10 classes per teacher were used in the
study. The other two classes were observed at the beginning of the study to allow both teachersand students to become accustomed to the presence of the researcher in order to minimise theobserver paradox. The researcher adopted Goodboy’ and Myers’ (2015) Scale of Instructors
Misbehaviours (IMS). The scale contains 15 items that are in three categories: “antagonism”,
which refers to how teachers behave in class (e.g., yell, speak politely, or listen to different
ideas); “lecture”, which refers to the way teachers manage class; and “articulation”, whichpertains to how the teachers articulate lessons (the observed classes are English classes). The
researcher used the model as a checklist to assist in identifying the following: teachers’
misbehaviours, the frequency of the misbehaviours, and students’ reactions to their teachers’
misbehaviours. After completing the observations, each teacher had 10 checklists of each classthe researcher had observed. The researcher then summarised the observation checklists of all
the teachers, collected the most frequent misbehaviours, and put them in one checklist. From
this process, six checklists emerged. During the observation process, the researcher spotted
students’ reactions, both verbal and nonverbal. Verbal notes of teachers and students weretranscribed and translated into English for analysis.
The second method was a questionnaire which was distributed to students. The questionnaire
was also adopted from Goodboy’ and Myers’ (2015) Students’ Communication Satisfaction
Scale. The scale was in the form of a Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree”. The scale contained eight items, each of which asked about students’ perception of
their teachers’ communication style. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) wasused to analyse the collected data (Huizingh, 2007). If the mean value was more than 3.00, that102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

meant that the teacher had a positive attitude. On the other hand, a mean value less than 3.00
indicated that the teacher had a negative attitude.
The third method was semi-structured interviews which were conducted to give the teachers achance to explain the most common misbehaviour(s). The interview questions were in Arabic
but were later translated into English for the purpose of this research. These interviews
provided a chance for the researcher to explore whether teachers were aware of theirmisbehaviour, and whether teachers had a valid explanation as to why they committed themisbehaviour. Each teacher was asked three or four questions about the most common
misbehaviour. Two themes emerged from the interviews which are analysed below.
Data Analysis
A mixed-method approach was followed to analyse the data. In the quantitative analysis, theresearcher used SPSS to analyse students’ answers after completing the questionnaire about
their teachers’ communication style in order to determine how students perceived theirteachers, either positively or negatively. In the qualitative analysis, the researchers – based onclass observations and fieldnotes – focused on discerning teachers’ misbehaviours andstudents’ reactions toward the misbehaviours. The analysis of students’ reactions focused on
how students perceived their teachers’ misbehaviours and how they reacted, either byreciprocating the misbehaviour or compensating for the misbehaviour. All examples were
written in Arabic, but for the purpose of this research they were translated into English; thetranslation is included between brackets in the analysis below. This was applied to bothcategories, antagonism and lecture, as both included reactions of students. As for thearticulation category (items 14-15), the researchers used “yes/no” to confirm the use of themisbehaviour by the teacher. The researchers noticed that the students’ low proficiency level
led all students not to reply to their teachers’ misbehaviours; thus, articulation was excluded
from the analysis of the results. As for the interviews, they were thematically analysed
according to the most and least frequently committed misbehaviours in the two investigatedcategories: antagonism and lecture. Three or four questions were asked to each teacher
individually, and the first researcher wrote down the answers when teachers were not
comfortable with an audio-recording. After conducting the interviews, the researchers analysedeach one and grouped the answers into thematic categories.
Results
This section presents the findings obtained from the analysis of each of the three methods ofdata collection. As shall be shown below, the use of three methods of data collection allowed
the researchers to draw a more detailed picture of the Jordanian EFL classroom in terms of therelationship between teacher and students. Indeed, the findings provide a glimpse of bothteachers’ and students’ misbehaviours in class, a situation that is rarely explored in educational
research.
Classroom Observations
It should be noted that the classroom observations resulted in a list of committed misbehaviours
and a list of students’ reactions. The analysis of observations was based on the researcher’s
field notes and checklists as consent to video-record classes was not possible. Table 2 below
shows the number of occurrences of the teachers’ committed misbehaviours and students’reactions to their teachers’ misbehaviours. Table 3 shows some authentic examples from theresearcher’s notes on teachers’ misbehaviours and students’ reactions.

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 2
Types and Number of Occurrences of Teachers’ Misbehaviours and Students’ Reactions
Misbehaviour
criteria

Item ofmisbehaviour

Reciprocation

Compensation

Occurrences ofthe misbehaviour

Noreaction

Antagonism

Discriminates
againstcertainstudents
Yells atstudents when
they ask for
help
Screams oryells atstudents
Belittle
students
Criticizes
students’
responses to
instructor
comments orquestions
Goes over thematerial soquickly so it
is difficult totake notes
Lectures in a
dry manner
Argues withstudents
during class
Gives boring
lectures
Teaches in a
confusingmannerLectures in amonotonevoice
Tells students
their opinions
are wrong
because his/her opinion is
right
Tells students
their opinions
are wrong

28

26

54

in one
class

47

5

52

44

4

48

31

15

46

28

16

44

31

4

35

16

15

31

28

1

29

16

11

27

16

9

25

12

7

19

16

___

16

___

15

15

Lecture104

Repeated
misbehaviour
withreciprocatedreactionin twoclassesin threeclassesin one classin oneclass
in one classin one classIAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 3Authentic Examples of Teachers’ Misbehaviours and Students’ Reactions
Students’ Reactions
Teachers’
misbehaviours

1

Students’
Reactions
Belittle students:
Is not it enoughthat your answers
are wrong. Mushbekafi e’no
Ajabatkom ghalat:
you are the onlyclass that I do not
like to come inE’nto el shoubeh elwahedeh e’llebahebeha’dkhulha.
A teacher toastudent:” you aregoing to stay theway you are; youwill never step
forward: Hadalek
zai ma Enti “Class G
Reciprocated all
misbehaviours

Class H
Compensated all
misbehaviours

Class A
Varied in theirreactionsVerbal: A- student to ateacher: “do not talk tome like that: Thikeesh
Maiee Zay Haiek
B- you are the stupid
one (in a hush, but thesurroundings of thestudent’s mates usually
hear the student.
Nonverbal:
A- students deviatesfrom the class bymoving their head awayfrom the teacher in amanner of not accepting
what happened nor
wanting to hear theteacher anymore.

Nonverbal:
A- looking out of thewindow
B- drawing andflipping the bookpages.

Compensated
Verbal:Bahsha majnoneh:
mrat mneha o mrat
belmarasometimes, I feel that
she is mad,sometimes a good
person, but othertimes very bad.
Nonverbal:
Leaving the class105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

2

Yells at students
when they ask forhelp:
1-Ma baaraf
A’sa’li elli konti
thkei maaha
Ask the one youwere talking to
A teacher tostudents: I havealready explainedit!! Ana sharahto
A’bl shoui

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Verbal reactions:A- students threatening
the teacher saying they
will tell their parents tocome to the principal.
B- A student to theteacher: “I already can’t
understand what you
are saying.” Ana Aslanbafhamsh alieke
C- A student to theteacher: “do not yell atme”. Tsarkhesh 3lie
Nonverbal:
A- Gazing, playing withpersonal things

Verbal: Students inthe two times
apologized for not
paying attention

Compensated
Verbal:Miss, Wllaha kont
bsa’lha la’nee masmetek
I swear to God, I was
asking because I
could not hear you.
Nonverbal:
The same student,
who was asking,dropped the pen.

Verbal:we do not understand:mesh fahmeen
slow down: shwai
shwaii!
I can’t follow up, where
are you? Mush am
Balahe’aNonverbal: pretend towrite, stop writing,play, draw, chat

The Teacher usually
gave students time to
discuss the answersof the question
together and thenthey go back to do it.

reciprocated
Verbal:I am not following(while laughing)
Nonverbal:
Sleeping

Aren’t you
listening!!? E’nto
btesmaoush
A’na A’bel shoui
haketo, ma rah
A’rjaa Aeedou
I have just finishedsaying it, I will not
repeat it.

10 Goes over thematerial so quickly
so it is difficult totake notes

Table 2 shows the types of misbehaviours the teachers committed in the two categories ofantagonism and lecture. Antagonism was the highest committed misbehaviour category andfigured in practices such as screaming or yelling at students which was committed 48 times.
To this misbehaviour, students reacted by verbally matching what the teacher did by means ofasking unrelated questions, making noise, and talking to disturb the teacher. For example, whena teacher yelled at one of the students who was asking for help, the student answered her bysaying “ana aslan bafhamish 3alayki (I do not even understand you)”. At another time, astudent said to the teacher “la ts?arkhi 3alay (do not shout out at me)”. Some students
nonverbally responded to this misbehaviour by gazing at the teacher or by closing the book.
The least often committed misbehaviour was arguing with students during class. The reactions
to this misbehaviour were both verbal and non-verbal.

106

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

As for the other misbehaviour category, Lecture, the most frequently noted negative practice
was giving boring lectures which was checked 27 times. Boredom and monotony characterized
the overall atmosphere of classes: The teacher was observed sitting on the chair most of classtime. To this misbehaviour, the students reacted by matching it. For example, some students
flipped the pages while others slept in the class. The least regularly observed misbehaviour wasgoing over the material so quickly that it was difficult to take notes. Students responded bysaying “mis, shwai shwai, mo mla7geen (slow down, we cannot follow)”. One student
intentionally made disruptive during the class. In this category, students mostly non-verballymatched the misbehaviours because when they told the teacher, for instance, to slow down, she
did not listen to them. Therefore, it was easier to react non-verbally.
Face-to-face interviews
After coding and analysing the teachers’ face-to-face interviews, two major themes emerged.
The themes of classroom management and teacher preparedness surfaced repeatedly.
Classroom management. Analysis of the teachers’ answers to the interviewer’s questions
about classroom management revealed that there are two types of management styles: strict
and lenient. Strict teachers showed preference for applying rules and restrictions only whilelenient or soft teachers favoured both strictness and openness. For example, three of theteachers (G, D, A) said that they favour teaching in classes where rules have been previously
set so that – in their opinions – students do not misbehave. Teacher G said that “if you go easy
on students, you will lose them, and then you won’t be able to re-impose order on students.”
The interviewer asked the teacher what behaving properly meant to her, and she replied that “itmeans that students should not argue with teachers and should pay attention during the wholeclass.” Teacher A said, “if you spoil students then you cannot control their behaviour.” Thisshows that some teachers considered strictness much more important than building
relationships with students.
The other three teachers (K, B, H) said that they favour a soft style of classroom management,strongly believing that students need to be heard, respected, and valued. They were of the viewthat students in the teenage years are difficult to manage by means of rules, and that they may
face many problems outside of school. Therefore, they believed that too much dissonance willcertainly backfire in their way of dealing with students at this age. These teachers also believedthat establishing relationships with students is important in causing students to comply withwhat the teachers expect. Teacher B, for example, said “I make them do what I want, but in theend, they made the choice.” Teachers in this category believed in de-centralizing classes;
Teacher H said, “I am no longer the centre of the class, and I let them have a role in preparing
the lessons and explaining lessons to the class.” Teacher K said, “I give them the freedom todo everything as long as it helps me achieve the end goal of the lesson; that can be by changing
seats or playing a little game before starting the class.”
There emerged aspects on which all teachers shared similar views. These aspects related to
struggles the teachers face in classroom management. They were all of the view that the large
responsibilities they have in terms of teaching loads and syllabus design decreases the chanceof being close to their students and establishing good relationships with them. Some of the
responsibilities the teachers shared included preparing, designing syllabi, teaching, conducting
activities, assessing, marking, and providing feedback to students, in addition to their own
personal and familial responsibilities. Moreover, the teachers said that these struggles areintensified by a lack of tools – including technology – that would ease their task of conductingclasses while maintaining the quality of teaching. For these reasons, the interviewer asked the107

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

teachers if they believe they have the capacity to be a role model. The teachers replied that theydid, but that capacity is inhibited by the above-mentioned circumstances, which are out of theircontrol.
Teachers’ preparedness. The interviewer asked the teachers whether they feel prepared togive a class or even to enter the classroom. Most teachers agreed that when they started
teaching, they felt lost because there were no training programs to train them on how to managea class. For example, Teacher K said “I remember the first class I gave. I entered the classhesitantly, and I could tell that students sensed that I was hesitant. I was not ready so I asked
for help, but the common cliché is you will get used to them.” Teacher D said it is not only that
there was no training on class management, but there was also no program for how to teach:“Most of us graduated from universities without any training or a course to prepare us to teach,”
Teacher H said, “we might have problems with teaching, but the main problem is that none of
us was trained to be a teacher.”
The interviewer asked the teachers whether there is any way for them to access new literature,research, and scholarly articles on managing classes and teaching methods that would keepthem updated with the best techniques and strategies to employ in making their classes better.
The teachers responded that they do not have access to such resources, and even if they did,such new methodologies would not suit their classes and their students. For example, Teacher
G said, “I do not care about the new research; this research is not for our classes where 50
students are in one class.” Teacher K said, “I would like to try new things in my class, but I do
not have time as I have to finish the book within the allotted time.” The interviewer then asked
the teachers whether or not training about class management and new teaching methodologies
would help them run classes more positively. In general, the teachers agreed, but noted that
there were other factors that also cause difficulty in the classroom. For example, when students
behave badly in class, and teachers call their parents to come to school to discuss theirchildren’s situation, the teachers find that the parents are often indifferent, and usually do notshow up for such meetings. Fathers usually go to work, and mothers have to stay at home totake care of the house and the younger children.
Discussion
This study focused on teachers’ misbehaviours in EFL classes and how students reacted tothem. It should be recollected that the main purpose of the present investigation is to examine
the relationship between teachers’ communication styles and students’ reactions towards theirteachers’ misbehaviours. The interpretation of the results draws on the Expectancy Violation
Theory (EVT) (Burgoon & Jones, 1976) which provides an insight into understanding why
students matched some of their teachers’ misbehaviours in some classes and mismatched othermisbehaviours in other classes. The EVT stipulates that when people misbehave, theirmisbehaviour is either compensated for or reciprocated depending on how positive or negative
the communication style of the person is. The EVT assumes that when the communication styleis positive, the reaction is most likely a compensation, and when the communication style isnegative, the reaction is most likely a reciprocation.
Drawing upon the EVT premises, the researchers interpreted the reasons behind students’matching of some misbehaviours and mismatching of others. One thing that should be noted
here is that the researchers used matching and mismatching (in place of the EVT’s terms ofcompensating and reciprocating) because both imply the meaning of acting towards themisbehaviour in the same sense of the misbehaviour. For example, shouting out could be108

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

matched by slamming the door. Both display negative attitudes and one of them was a reaction
to the other. Hence, it was best proposed to use these two words to describe students’ reactions
towards their teachers’ misbehaviours. The results presented in the previous section show thatthe students of Teachers D and G were seen to reciprocate all teachers’ misbehaviours; somemisbehaviours were reciprocated more than 10 times. According to the EVT, Teachers D and
G’s communication styles were perceived as negative. The results also show that the studentsof Teachers H and B were seen to compensate all teachers’ misbehaviours and at other times
students did not react. Teachers H and B communication styles were both perceived as positive.
The results have also demonstrated that the students of Teachers K and A varied in theirreactions toward their teachers’ misbehaviours. Teachers K and A’s communication styles
were perceived as positive, but low positive, hence the students’ variance in their reactions
towards the teachers.
This interpretation clarifies why students reciprocate some misbehaviours and compensate forothers, and why they sometimes compensate for and reciprocate the same misbehaviours. Thiscan be attributed to more than one reason. For instance, the teachers with positive
communication styles were seen to imply a good classroom management strategy (Lane et al.,2012). They raised discussions and respected their students’ views and counterviews. They
rarely yelled at students and only used rules of management if discussions failed and they felt
the need to control the students’ actions (Varga et al., 2011). For example, Teacher K yelled at
one of the students when she asked for help saying that “lama t7’als?i 7aki, ra7 ajawbik (whenyou stop talking, I will answer you).” Here, although it was a misbehaviour, the students
compensated for the misbehaviour explaining why she was talking to her friend. Moreover,positive teachers treat students equally; teachers have the authority to decide on who should
participate and when and where they could do so (Briscoe et al., 2009). One teacher was
accused by students to favour one student over others. Teacher H’s students compensated forthat by admitting that the favoured student is one of the best among all other students.
For students, when teachers misbehaved by being biased or not listening to their complaints,
they felt undermined and disappointed which may have led them to cause problems in class(Boynton & Boynton, 2005). On the other hand, when the teacher was perceived to be positive,
students compensated for the act of discrimination by giving the teacher the benefit of the doubt
as occurred in Teacher H’s class. It should be noted that teachers who were perceived as
positive were teachers who may have still committed misbehaviours. However, the manner inwhich the teachers conducted their classes on a regular basis and the good relationships thatthey maintained with their students lead the students to compensate for their teachers’
misbehaviours (Varga, 2017). Negative teachers, on the other hand, may have used strict
strategies inside the class and might have been biased. When teachers called on the same
students repetitively to participate, they did not pay attention to other students (Boynton &Boynton, 2005). As a consequence of teachers’ lacking a positive communication style,students’ behaviours were affected negatively.
From the analysis above, it is obvious that when teachers who were perceived to be positivecommitted a misbehaviour related to how the lecture was progressing, the students were usuallymore forgiving. For negative teachers, it was found that classes were dull and direct; it wasalso found that they taught in a dry manner and covered the material too quickly. Students
reciprocated these misbehaviours as some began not to bring their books to the class. They
stated that they did not understand or follow what the teacher was doing, so why should theybother with the book (Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, 2011). It is important for teachers tounderstand that students come to learn, and that if teachers do not do their job properly, the109

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

students would not be interested in studying. It is easy to spot the reactions of teachers whom
students have reciprocated all misbehaviours or compensated for them. However, it wasdifficult to analyse those whose reactions varied in the class between reciprocating andcompensating, as was the situation with Teachers K and A. For Teacher K, the students havereciprocated two items of the scale in the lecturing category and compensated for the rest. For
Teacher A, the students have reciprocated two items and compensated for the rest. From
students’ reactions, it was concluded that teachers should have both language competency anda positive attitude toward students (Varga, 2017).
The students’ reactions toward their teachers’ misbehaviours show that having both a positive
communication style and competency in the subject matter has a great impact on the students
regarding their attitudes towards learning in general. The students get motivated when theirteachers create a safe and non-threatening environment (Luz, 2015). The methods andstrategies that teachers use make students feel engaged and stimulated to participate in thelearning process. Research on good language teachers reveals that effective teachers areattentive, open to change, and have the potential to face the challenging circumstances ofteaching (Gibbs, 2002). They should be models for their students, providing them with quality
teaching while at the same time maintaining good behaviours and practices.
Conclusion
This study has focused on EFL teachers’ misbehaviours in class and students’ reactions to thesemisbehaviours. In so doing, the study contributes to the field of English language and teachingby giving insights into the enhancement of teachers’ styles and roles in EFL classes. It has
shown that successful teaching is a joint task where teachers and students are affected by eachother’s actions and misbehaviours. The study provides teachers with ideas for providing thekind of quality teaching that every professional would want to implement. Two questions wereraised in this study: What are the types of misbehaviours that English language teachers commit
in their classes and how do students react to such misbehaviours? Do they compensate for
and/or reciprocate teachers’ misbehaviours? The results have revealed that teachers who wereperceived to be positive were considered to be the best while teachers who were thought to be
negative were disliked and even dishonoured by some students. The findings have also shownthat the majority of students value a positive communication style on the part of their teachers.
This communication style motivates students to become more interested in studying thelanguage. As Collier (2005) argued “caring facilitates a sense of connection from which spring
countless opportunities for learning” (p. 353). Students feel active and motivated in classes run
by positive teachers who allow them to express their opinions.
Limitations and Recommendations
This study is limited in the number of observations conducted. With more observations, theresearchers could have found more misbehaviours that would give a more nuanced picture of
EFL teachers’ (mis)behaviours and consequently their students’ reactions. As the time ofobservations was only a month, the researchers did not manage to attend all classes the teachers
gave. Moreover, if a second-hand observer were possible where both could combine the datacollected and compare their findings, the study would have been more reliable. Also, theresistance for video-recording classes is also a limitation. Videoed instances of how teacherscommitted misbehaviours and how students reacted to them would have given a more authentic
view of the matter under investigation. The other limitation is related to the interviews. This
study requires an investigation into why teachers act or speak inappropriately in the EFL
classroom. It would have been better if the students’ points of view were taken into account.

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

However, that was restricted as the teachers and the school principal did not allow the
researcher to interview students alone without the presence of the teachers. Importantly, future
research may examine how unacceptable teacher practices affect second language learning. As
Brown (2014) argues, individual learners possess a fragile language ego that, if faced withteachers’ misbehaviours, will become a detriment to successful learning. Krashen (1982)
argues that many factors, including teachers’ misbehaviours, cause the affective filter to raise
which ultimately affects success of the learning process. This is reminiscent of Schumann’s(1986) Acculturation Model which shows how social distance negatively influences theoutcomes of the learning process.

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Abrantes, J., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning
performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960–964.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.026
Alhabahba, M., Pandian, A. & Mahfoodh, O. (2016). English language education in Jordan:
Some recent trends and challenges. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1156809
Al-Hazmi, S. (2003). EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends andchallenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 341–344. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588509
Asassfeh, S. M. (2015). Prospective EFL teachers: What language learning beliefs do they
hold? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0154-1
Banfield, S., Richmond, V. & McCroskey, J. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviours onteacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–
72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343400
Borich, G. (2015). Observation skills for effective learning: Research-based practice, (7thed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633206
Boynton, M. & Boynton, C. (2005). The educator’s guide to preventing and solving
discipline problems. Alexandria: ASCD.
Briscoe, F., Arriaza, G. & Henze, R. (2009). The power of talk: How words change our lives.
California: Corwin Press.
Brophy, J. (2011). History of research on classroom management. In C. Evertson & C.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, andcontemporary issues (pp. 17–43). New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). New York:
Longman.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations andtheir violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x
Collier, M. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. The Urban Review,
37(4), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0012-4
Creswell, J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Evertson, C. & Weinstein, C. (2011) (Eds.). Handbook of classroom management: Research,
practice, and contemporary issues. New York: Routledge.
Gibbs, C. (2002). Effective teaching exercising self-efficacy and thought control of action.
Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research
Association. New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology.
Goodboy, A. & Bolkan, S. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects
on student communication behaviour and traditional learning outcomes. Western
Journal of Communication, 73(2), 204–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856089

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Goodboy, A. & Myers, S. (2015). Revisiting instructor misbehaviors: A revised typology anddevelopment of a measure. Communication Education, 64(2), 133–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978798
Huizingh, E. (2007). Applied statistics with SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249390
Jenkins, J. (2017). An ELF perspective on English in the post-Brexit EU. World
Englishes, 36(3), 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12269
Kearney, P., Plax, T., Hays, E. & Ivey, M. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What
students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39(4),309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369808
Kelsey, D., Kearney, P., Plax, T., Allen, T. & Ritter, K. (2004). College students’ attributionsof teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53(1), 40–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135760
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lane, K., Lynne, H., Menzies, H., Oakes, W., & Kalberg, J. (2012). Systematic screenings ofbehaviour to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York: Guilford
Press.
Luz, R. (2015). The relationship between teachers and students in the classroom:
Communicative language teaching approach and cooperative learning strategy to
improve learning. Unpublished masters’ thesis, Bridgewater State University,
Massachusetts, USA.
Nunan, D. (2013). Learner-Centered English language education: The selected works ofDavid Nunan. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096888
Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Hite, S., El‐Dinary, P. & Brown, R.
(1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery
County, Maryland, SAIL program. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 10(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356940100102
Rimm-Kaufman, S. & Sandilos, L. (2011). Improving students’ relationships with teachers toprovide essential supports for learning. American Psychological Association,
Accessed August 24, 2020 at https://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of multilingual & multicultural development, 7(5), 379–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1986.9994254
Toale, M. C. (2001). Teacher clarity and teacher misbehaviors: Relationships with students’affective learning and teacher credibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Morgantown: West Virginia University.
Varga, M. (2017). The effect of teacher-student relationships on the academic engagement ofstudents. Unpublished master’s thesis, Goucher College.
Yassin, B. (2015). Challenges of teaching English language to English language learners at
private universities in Jordan. Arab World English Journal, 6(2), 265–274.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2834395

113

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Zhang, Q. (2007). Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A
cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Communication Education, 56(2), 209–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601110104
Corresponding Author: Sharif Alghazo
Email: s.alghazo@gmail.com

114

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Reviewers – Volume 9 – Issue 3
The editorial team would like to thank the following reviewers for their contributions to thepeer review of this issue. Their dedication and assistance are greatly appreciated.
Associate Editors
Dr Hasan Al-Wadi
University of Bahrain, Bahrain
Dr Murielle El Hajj Nahas
Lusail University, Qatar
Senior Reviewers
Dr Najwa Saba ’Ayon
Rafik Hariri University, Lebanon
Dr Shiao-Wei Chu
National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taiwan
Dr Saadia Elamin
University of Khartoum, Sudan
Dr Mikel GarantBeijing Institute of Technology, China
Dr Habsah Hussin
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
Dr Andrew Leichsenring
Tamagawa University, JapanDr Elena Mishieva
Moscow State University, Russia
Dr Leonardo Munalim
The Philippine Women's University-School of Arts & Sciences and School of Education,
Philippines
Dr Akihiro Saito
Tokyo University of Science, JapanDr Claudia Sánchez
Texas Woman's University, USA
Dr Bethe Schoenfeld
Western Galilee College, Israel

115

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Dr Meliha Simsek
University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
Reviewers
Dr Nina Adriano
Bulacan State University-Bustos, the Philippines
Dr Aliya Aimoldina
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Kazakhstan
Dr Hazim Al-Dilaimy
Al Maarif University College, Ramadi Iraq
Dr Eugenia Charoni
Flagler College, Florida, USA
John Michael Villar Faller
Independent Academic
Dr Liping Gao
Leaping Education Ltd, UK
Dr Suhair Safwat Hashim
University of Sulaimani, Iraq
Dr May Olaug Horverak
Birkenes Learning Centre, Norway
Dr Koban Koçİzmir Democracy University, Turkey
Nourreddine Menyani
Tofail University Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Kenitra, Morocco
Dr Serpil Meri-Yilan
Ibrahim Cecen University, Turkey
Dr Hema Rosheny Mustafa
Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia
Dr Maryam Niami
Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch, Iran
Dr Linh D Nguyen
Roi Et Rajabhat University, Thailand
Dr Urarat Parnrod
Songkhla Rajabhat University, Thailand

116

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Dr Smriti Singh
Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India
Dr Jaine Tarun
Isabela State University, Philippines
Dr Michinobu Watanabe
Toin Gakuen High School, Yokohama, & Komazawa University, Tokyo

117

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

118

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

117

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

the iaforjournal of education

ISSN: 2187-0594
118