30.2577, Review: English; Applied Linguistics: Williams (2018)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2577. Thu Jun 27 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.2577, Review: English; Applied Linguistics: Williams (2018)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:45:24
From: Ozge Guney [ozgeguney at mail.usf.edu]
Subject: English Language Learners’ Socially Constructed Motives and Interactional Moves

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36500017


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-426.html

AUTHOR: Thomas A.  Williams
TITLE: English Language Learners’ Socially Constructed Motives and Interactional Moves
PUBLISHER: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
YEAR: 2018

REVIEWER: Ozge Guney, University of South Florida

SUMMARY

“English language learners’ socially constructed motives and interactional
moves,” written by Thomas A. Williams, aims to investigate (i) the experiences
and attitudes of EFL learners towards language learning in Hungary, (ii)
learners’ collaboration and contribution to task-based speaking tasks in the
classroom, and (iii) different ways of meaning negotiation or the lack thereof
in case of a communication breakdown.  

Chapter One, “Why this? Why now?,” presents a brief summary of five chapters
in the book as well as the justification for the current study. As the author
explains, there is a paucity of research on speaking tasks taking place in
actual language classrooms rather than in a laboratory environment. Also,
there is no study investigating speaking tasks other than oral presentations
in the local context of Hungary, where foreign language proficiency levels are
particularly low compared to those of other European countries. The researcher
offers  task-based language learning and teaching (TBLT) as a solution to the
problem of language teaching/learning in Hungary since the TBLT paradigm hones
a variety of skills such as critical thinking, decision making, problem
solving, collaboration, and communication with a focus on productive speaking
skills rather than linguistic structures.

Chapter Two, “TBLT, interaction, FonF, and SCT,” presents the literature
review building on three theoretical perspectives: task based language
learning and teaching (TBLT), focus on form (FonF), and sociocultural theory
(SCT). TBLT emerged as a subcomponent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
to encourage real-world activities/ tasks where learners use language to
achieve a non-linguistic goal through information gap, problem solving,
decision making, and opinion exchange activities. Drawing a  distinction
between focus on form versus focus on forms is essential at this point. The
former refers to focusing on communicative activities while paying attention
to linguistic forms briefly, whereas the latter refers to dedicating lessons
to teaching of grammatical structures with little in-class interaction. TBLT
is informed by FonF as it encourages interactive teaching/ learning of English
in student-centered classrooms. With its focus on communication, TBLT aligns
with SCT as well; SCT promotes the idea that producing language forms or
meaning making is facilitated, i.e. mediated, through interaction with and
support from someone more knowledgeable - referred to as scaffolding
(Vygotsky, 1987). There is a range of activities that learners can achieve
with outside support but not on their own yet-- referred to as zone of
proximal development (ZPD). Thus, acquisition of knowledge, i.e. language in
this case, occurs when learners are cognitively ready to use new language
forms communicating with others and then internalizing and using them
independently. 

Chapter Three, titled “A socially constructed approach,” lays out the
methodology of the research study with reference to framework, research
design, context, research questions, participants, instruments, and data
analysis process. Framed within the “constructivist” paradigm as developed by
Mannheim ([1936] 2010), this study builds on the idea that no single viewpoint
is superior to others and that each point of view functions to complement
another so that knowledge is socially constructed as a result of different
viewpoints’ being mediated. Since knowledge construction is a social
phenomenon, it shows variation from one society to another. In this respect,
it is the responsibility of researchers to explore how knowledge is
constructed in a particular society by focusing on people’s actions in
everyday surroundings taking a step away from traditional positivist
approaches. Therefore, this study has a qualitative research design with data
collected in a speaking class (classroom-based research) through recording and
analysis of learners’ performances of a speaking task called “Lord Moulton’s
millions” as well as data from questionnaires and semi-structured interviews
with learners. The study was conducted in a “Communication Skills” class at
the Institute of English and American Studies, the University of Szeged,
Hungary. The following research questions were addressed in the study: 

What is the view and experience of these learners as regards English (and
other foreign) language learning in Hungary? 

How does their view and experience inform their attitude to the task-based
language learning and teaching (TBLT) paradigm? 

In what ways do these learners contribute to the implementation of speaking
tasks in the classroom? 

In what ways do these learners collaborate in interaction? 

To what extent does learner interaction actually break down, as generally
assumed, for meaning negotiation? 

To the extent that negotiation for meaning is uncommon in this context, what
might explain this phenomenon? 

The participants were all native speakers of Hungarian. They were 18-24
year-old freshmen with a proficiency range of upper-intermediate to advanced
level of English. In order to answer the first two research questions, the
researcher administered questionnaires (44 participants) and conducted
individual face-to-face interviews (18 participants), which make up the first
phase of the study. The researcher explored the remaining four research
questions in the latter task performance phase of the study, where 57
classroom participants (six of them from Serbia) were observed engaging in two
speaking tasks. The questionnaire consisted of 13 items which were mostly
open-ended, while there were nine interview questions based on the tenets of
TBLT. Task-based speaking tasks were taken from Penny Ur’s (1981) reference
book “Discussions That Work”. The researcher conducted content analysis for
the data from questionnaires and interviews and conversation analysis for the
transcripts from learners’ speaking task performance. 

Chapter Four, “ Learner expectations, learner interactions,” opens with a
literature review of (i) Hungarian learners’ expectations of English classroom
instruction, (ii) teaching practices in terms of the extent to which Hungarian
teachers of English follow the principles of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) versus traditional techniques such as translation studies, drills, and
grammar exercises (iii) English Language Teaching (ELT) training and teacher
education programs in Hungary, and (iv) theoretical background on beliefs of
English language learners. This literature review is followed by results
section and a discussion of questionnaire and interview findings that answer
the first two research questions given above. The results showed that
participants’ experiences of language teaching overall were characterised by
teacher-, grammar-, and translation-oriented classroom instruction with
particular  focus on error correction and form, rote memorization, and
individual work, all of which result in learner anxiety. However, participants
had positive attitudes towards TBLT, hence implications of a possible paradigm
shift in both language learning and teaching practices.  

In sections to follow, the researcher continues to analyse the data from
speaking tasks he observed in his “Communication Class”. Before presenting the
findings related to the third research question, the researcher offers a
review of studies on the part learners play in (re-)shaping the tasks with a
focus on Kumaravadivelu (1991). How students actually interpret and benefit
from classroom tasks might be quite different from the intended objectives of
these tasks as designed by teachers or material developers. The data from
speaking tasks also show that learners made changes to the tasks such as
performing role play rather than doing discussions as given in task
instructions. There were also procedural mismatches such as changes made in
the decision making procedure by coming up with two possible solutions instead
of one as suggested in the instructions. These examples show that tasks are
socially constructed with contributions from both teachers and learners who
modify tasks based on their experiences, motivations, and perceptions. Thus,
learners’ active involvement in the tasks suggests the pedagogic importance of
learner autonomy in language classrooms. Another finding from the data is that
learners employed a variety of constructivists and collaborative processes
such as co-construction, continuers, prompts, self- and other-correction, and
collective scaffolding, all of which are reminiscent of Vygotskian theory
(research question four). Interestingly enough, there was little room for
negotiation for meaning in the conversations of the participants (research
question five). One reason for such lack of negotiation moves among Hungarian
learners is that rote learning of linguistic chunks rather than critical
thinking is encouraged in the overall Hungarian education system. Learners are
generally supposed to show a perfect mastery of linguistic structures with
little room for flexibility in product- and teacher-oriented classes. Another
reason is that interaction generally takes place among non-native speakers of
English and thus might cause a feeling of artificiality for students, which,
in turn, might have a negative effect on willingness to communicate. Finally,
in the local context of Hungary, it might be considered to be arrogant or a
face-threatening act among students even if they are encouraged to ask
questions during classes.

Chapter 5, “Conclusions and future directions,” consists of a recap of
findings presented separately, each with a corresponding research question,
limitations of the study, and directions for future research. Among the
limitations of the study, as referred to by the researcher, are the lack of
quantitative data, lack of video recording for the speaking tasks, and a
relatively small sample size. In this sense, similar studies could be
conducted with different populations such as international students, pre- and
in-service teachers for a comparative study. Also, to make sure that TBLT, as
an intervention, makes a difference on learners’ speaking performance,  pre-
and post-tests could be employed in future studies. 

EVALUATION

This book is valuable in two ways for researchers interested in Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) and English Language Teaching (ELT), curriculum
developers, coursebook designers, English language teachers as well as teacher
trainees. First, the researcher focuses on TBLT as a highly advocated teaching
approach in ELT and does this by collecting data from an actual classroom
environment. The feedback data from learners themselves as they are engaged in
task-based activities in a communication class may inform a diversity of
stakeholders involved in language teaching, since content or activity may
prove fruitless if not informed by the actual users of that content. Second,
this book paves the way to change the traditional approaches to language
teaching and learning in Hungary as an underrepresented region. The researcher
pointed to a very serious and chronic problem in the country, which relies on
teacher-, grammar-, and translation-oriented instruction; and he made a move
towards its solution by offering practical solutions in the local context of a
Hungarian university. 

Another strong point of the book is that, with its qualitative research
design, the study gives voice to its participants and provides an in-depth
data regarding the reactions, thoughts, and attitudes of Hungarian learners
towards TBLT as they are involved with the tasks in an actual classroom. The
researcher has also generously shared all the data from questionnaires and
interviews in the appendix section of the book. Although the researcher
considers it a limitation (as mentioned in the limitations section by the
researcher himself) that his findings are not generalizable, it is known that
qualitative research is exploratory, aiming to provide a thick description of
opinions, motivations and insights into a problem rather than generalizing the
findings. In this respect, the researcher has done an admirable job presenting
the experiences of Hungarian learners of English in their naturalistic
setting, resulting in a rich understanding of the phenomena under
investigation.   

However, the book has some weaknesses relating to its literature review
section (Chapter Two) and methodology section (Chapter Three). In the
literature review section, the researcher includes many of the outside
publications as they are cited in other resources. Also, this section contains
detailed information on TBLT and some other theories of SLA, but they are all
discussed independently from one another. In this sense, the researcher could
have provided his reader with a better understanding of the literature if he
had synthesized the main ideas rather then offering them independently and as
cited in other sources. Also, the literature review section mostly includes
previous theoretical research. The researcher discusses related empirical
studies under the title of “research review” in Chapter Four of the book just
before he presents the results of the study. Such an organisation may be
unconventional for some readers, making it difficult to follow the contents of
the literature review as divided between the two chapters of the book. 

When it comes to the methodology section, there are three points that might be
considered for further revision. First, the research problem derives from the
issues related to ELT in the local context of Hungary, but very limited
information is provided about the macro context of Hungary. The researcher
briefly mentions a couple of times that language proficiency test results
reveal that Hungary lags behind many European countries in terms of language
proficiency, and such failure could be related to the regime change in the
country. It would be helpful for the reader to have some information about how
the regime change affected language teaching policies in the country.
Secondly, although the researcher shares questionnaire and interview items, he
does not give much information about the development process of these
instruments or whether the questionnaire/interview items were piloted before
the study. Finally, the researcher briefly mentions in a sentence that the
qualitative data from questionnaires and interviews were examined through
content analysis and speaking data with conversation analysis. However, he
does not explain the nature of these analyses, nor does he provide any
reference to an outside source on the basics of content and conversation
analysis.  

REFERENCES
 
Mannheim, K. ([1936] 2010). Ideology and Utopia: An introduction to the
sociology of knowledge. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. 

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and
learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45(2), 98-107.

Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1.
Problems of general psychology. Including the volume Thinking and speech. R.
W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ozge Guney is a Ph.D. student in Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
program, University of South Florida. Her research interests include identity
and issues of social justice with a focus on sexuality and religion in the
fields of Second Language Acquisition and English Language Teaching.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2577	
----------------------------------------------------------