Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 12-2012 Towards a classroom community: Interaction, culture and mindfulness in Second Language Learning Janae Suzanne Hollenback Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Hollenback, Janae Suzanne, "Towards a classroom community: Interaction, culture and mindfulness in Second Language Learning" (2012). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. Paper 226. This Creative Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOWARDS A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY: INTERACTION, CULTURE AND MINDFULNESS IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING by Janae S. Hollenback A portfolio submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING Approved: _________________________ Dr. Karin deJonge-Kannan Major Professor _________________________ Dr. Bradford Hall Committee Member _________________________ Dr. Jim Rogers Committee Member _________________________ Dr. Bradford Hall Department Head UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright©JanaeSuzanneHollenback2012 AllRightsReserved iii ABSTRACT Towardsaclassroomcommunity: Interaction,cultureandmindfulnessinSecondLanguageLearning by JanaeSuzanneHollenback,MasterofSecondLanguageTeaching UtahStateUniversity,2012 MajorProfessor:Dr.KarindeJonge‐Kannan Department:Languages,Philosophy,andCommunicationStudies Thisportfolioisacompilationoftheauthor’sworkswhileastudentinthe MasterofSecondLanguageTeachingProgramatUtahStateUniversity.Thecoreof thisworkistheTeachingPhilosophy,whichisprefacedwiththeauthor’s observationsof“whatworks”and“whatdoesn’twork”ineducationbasedonher experienceasastudent.Thisisfollowedbyabriefdescriptionoftheauthor’s intendedprofessionalenvironment.TheTeachingPhilosophyitselfexploresvarious researchandotherinfluenceswhichhaveinspiredtheauthor’sdirectionand preferencesforeffectivelanguageteaching.Thethreeartifactsinthisportfolio constitutetheauthor’sresearchintheareasofculture,language,andliteracy.To concludeanannotatedbibliographyreviewssourcesthathaveinfluencedthe artifactsandteachingphilosophy. (155pages) iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SpecialthankstoDr.KarindeJonge‐Kannanforconstantencouragementand guidance,Dr.BradfordHallformentoringmyadventureinteaching,Dr.Rogersfor beinganexcellentexampleofasocioculturalinstructor,Miloforbeingthebest boyfriendintheentireuniverse,myfamilyいつも(always)fortheirsupport,and Hiranyagarbhaforyoga. JanaeS.Hollenback v CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………….....iv LISTOFTABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………..….vi INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 TEACHINGPHILOSOPHY ApprenticeshipofObservation…………………………………………………………………2 ProfessionalEnvironment………………………………………………………………………..5 PersonalTeachingPhilosophy………………………………………………………………….6 ReflectiononTeachingObservationandTeachingVideo……………………...….24 ARTIFACTS LANGUAGEARTIFACT TheInfluenceoftheL1andSocio‐CulturalFactorsonL2Acquisition………….28 LITERACYARTIFACT DynamicAssessmentforImprovingLiteracyintheL2Classroom……………….59 CULTUREARTIFACT EnglishasanInternationalLanguage………………..…………………………………....78 ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..…....101 LOOKINGFORWARD………………………………………..…………………………………………….138 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………139 vi LISTOFTABLES Table Page 1 RankOrderoferrorsbasedonstudentinterview……………………………………38 2 Krashen’sRankOrder…………………………………………………………………………….38 1 INTRODUCTION MyTeachingPhilosophybeginswithanApprenticeshipofObservation, whichisanoverviewofmy“career”asastudent,spanningsome20+years. Students,beingthedirectrecipientofinstruction,areinsomewaysabetterjudgeof ateachingmethod’seffectivenessthanaprofessionalstudywouldbe.My experiencehasshownthatthebestclassroomsarethoseinwhichthestudentsare activeparticipantsinthelearningprocess.ThePersonalTeachingPhilosophyisa deeperexplorationofmybeliefsonwhatconstituteseffectiveteaching.Ideveloped thisworkaroundfourtenetswhichIconsidertobethemostimportant:standards andresearch,meaningfulinteraction,cultures,andcommunity‐building.Drawing onresearcholdandnew,Ireviewtheoriesonlanguageeducationandidentifythe practiceswithwhichIfeelmostaligned.IamdrawntoSocioculturalTheoryand methodswhichplaceemphasisonstudentcollaborationandanopen,community‐ likeenvironment.Iwouldalsoliketoseekoutwaystointegrateculture,asIbelieve culturetobeinseparablefromlanguage.ThroughoutmyTeachingPhilosophyare shortquotesfromabookonZenmeditationtitledTheBeginner’sMindbyShunryu Suzuki.IincludedthesereferencesasIconsiderpersonalphilosophytobe connectedtoteachingphilosophy.AlthoughIdonotpracticemeditationorZen teachingsasoftenasIwouldliketo,Ibelievetheprinciplesarerelevanttoboth everydaylivingandintheclassroom.Ateacherwhoismindfullypresent‘inthe moment’isabletogivefocusedawareness,compassion,andguidancetostudents. MyhopeisthatIwillinchclosertobecomingsuchateacheroneday. 2 APPRENTICESHIPOFOBSERVATION Asastudentofpubliceducation,Ihavebeensubjecttoasomewhat inconsistentandvariedsystemofinstruction.Amontageofmyexperienceswould includeeverythingfrommindlessworksheetsandtextbookcopyingtohands‐on geometrygamesandstudent‐generatedscienceexperiments.Themontagehas blendedovertimetoformaprism,withteacher‐centeredandstudent‐centeredbeing onoppositeendsofthespectrum.Ifeelthisvarietyhashelpedtoprovidemewith anideaof“whatworks”and“whatdoesn’twork”intheclassroom. Frommoststudents’pointofview,thereiscomfortintheold‐fashioned lecture/drillstyleofteaching.Itistheenvironmentthatmanyareusedto.Butthese samestudentswilllikelyalsoadmitthatalearningenvironmentcenteredon listening,reading,andmemorizationisnotthemosteffectiveinproducinglong‐ lastingknowledge.Theresultofsuchclassroomsleftmede‐motivatedandfeeling veryseparatedfromtheexcitedandcuriousstudentIhadoncebeen.Thetransition fromelementarytomiddle/highschoolwasstartlingtomeasastudent.Whereas myK‐5classesfosteredimagination,creativity,communication,andinteraction,my 6‐12gradeclassesseemedtotakeusintheexactoppositedirection.Itwasas thoughaninvisibleauthorityhaddeclared,“nowthatwehavebuiltuptheirspirits, letuscrushthemintoworkingdrones.”Writtenworkbecameformulaicand structured.Textbooksmorphedintoincreasinglymonotonousandauthoritative volumesofpurefact.Teachers,however,weremorevariedthantheirsubject material.Somewereveryenthusiasticandtriednewthings,andothersweremore setintheirwaysandstuckinroutines.Thisisnottosaythattheroutinemethods 3 wereineffective.However,theeducationfieldisalwaysshifting,withnew, innovativeideasbeingintroducedonaconstantbasis.ThusIbelieveitisimportant forteacherstostayabreastofnewideasandtopracticenewmethodologiesinthe classroom.Teacherswhoareinvolvedinthissortofdialogueareusuallymore interestedinbestpracticesforguidingstudents’throughlearningexperiences.The purposeofeducationisnottopassthetest,passtheclass,oreventograduate.The real,originalpurposeofeducationistolearn.Itismycorebeliefandexperience thatinordertolearn,studentsneedtobeasinvolvedaspossibleinthelearning process. Retracingmyexperiencesinthesecondlanguageclassroom,Ifindverylittle remainsinmymemory.Theteacherofmy12thgradeSpanishclasswasanative speakerwhousedavarietyofmethods,somecommunicative–manynot.Likelydue tolackofuse,theonlySpanishIretainedwasthesinglephrase:“megustaandaren bicicleta.”AsemesterofFrenchincollegeproducedsimilarresults:“J’aimechanter sousladouche.”YearsaftertakingJapanese(levels1‐4)inhighschool,thewritten hiragana/katakanaandmanywordsandphrasesremainedwithme.Butevenwhile livingonamilitarybaseinJapan,Iwasunabletohaveconversationswithmy Japaneseneighbors.Mycommunicationskillswerelimitedtobasicexpressionsand requests.Theteacherduringthosefouryears,alsoanativespeaker,reliedheavily onthetextbook.ShespoketousinEnglisheveninthehigherlevelcourses.Itwasn’t untilIreturnedtoJapanfiveyearslaterandwascompletelyimmersedintheculture thatIacquiredthelanguage.Theshortpreparationcoursepriortomyreturnto Japanwasveryhelpful—IbecamemoreproficientinthosethreemonthsthanI’d 4 everbecomethroughmyfouryearsofhighschoolJapaneseinstruction.The instructorsbrokedownthelanguageintoverysimpleandstructuredgrammatical blocksandusedmanyreal‐worldapplications.Althoughstrongmotivationtolearn waslikelyakeyfactorinmyquickacquisitionofthelanguage,Ibelieveitwasthis simplefoundationlaidbytheinstructorsthathelpedmemakeprogress. UntilmyimmersioninJapan,myoutlookonlanguagelearningclasseshad beengraduallyturningpessimistic.Ifeltdisappointedbyinstructionthatwas enjoyablebutultimatelyunhelpfulinfosteringanylong‐lastingcommunicative ability.However,Ibelieveitispossibleforstudentstobecomeproficientlanguage usersthroughforeignlanguagecoursesthatstresscommunicationwithin socioculturalframesofinteractionandpractice. DanLortie,whocoinedtheterm“apprenticeshipofobservation”,writesthat thestudent“seestheteacherfrontstageandcenterlikeanaudienceviewingaplay” andsuchaperspectiveislimitedtothelecturingandactivitiesthattakeplaceinthe classroom.Studentsdonothaveopportunitiestoviewthe“backstage”preparations, analyses,orgoal‐settingthatconstitutesalargeportionoftheteacher’swork (Lortie,1975,p.62).Asaresult,studentteachersoftenassumean“intuitiveand imitative”styleofteachingbasedontheirobservations,despitehavingacquired contradictorybeliefs. Ihopethatbypracticingmindfulreflectionofmyteaching,Iwillbeableto adopteffectivehabitsasaninstructorofmyownclass.Drawingonmyexperiences of“whatworks”and“whatdoesn’twork”ineducation,Iamdedicatedtomakingmy teachingbeliefsandphilosophyinherentinmyteachingmethods. 5 PROFESSIONALENVIRONMENT IanticipateearningtheMSLTdegreeatUSUwillopenmanydoorsformein theprofessionalworld.Iaminterestedinteachinginavarietyofenvironments,but amespeciallyexcitedtoteachJapaneseatacommunitycollege.Oneofthestrongest motivatingfactorswhichinspiredmetoearnagraduatedegreewastheprospectof teachingaforeignlanguageandbeinginvolvedinastudyabroadprogramata collegeoruniversity.IhopetoimprovemyJapaneseproficiencyinordertoachieve anadvancedlevelontheACTFLscalesothatIwillbequalifiedtoteach.Iamalso interestedinteachingEnglishasaSecondLanguagetoadultsthroughrefugee programsorothernon‐profitorganizations,eitherlocallyoroverseas.UltimatelyI anticipatespendingseveralyearsworkinginothercountriesandlearningnew languages,buildingonmymulticulturalexperiencesandskills. 6 PERSONALTEACHINGPHILOSOPHY InJapanwehavethephraseshoshin,whichmeans‘beginner’smind.’Thegoal ofpracticeisalwaystokeepourbeginner’smind.Emptymindandreadymind. Opentoeverything.Inthebeginner’smindtherearemanypossibilities;inthe expert’smindtherearefew.(Suzuki,1970,p.21) Iamstillverymuchabeginner.Myteachingcareerisfresh.Iamequipped withtheoriesandobservations,butminimalexperience.Togivedirectiontomy teachingIwillberelyingontheresearchofotherprofessionalsandonmyown backgroundasastudent.Mymindisopentoexploringnewideasandtrying differentmethods.AsIprogressinthefield,Ihopetobeabletomaintaina beginner’smindinordertoadapttoanever‐changingworld,improvemypractice, andcontinuallyseekwaystoencouragemystudents. Beingastudentformanyyearshasshownmethatthebestteachersare thosewhoplacestudents’learningastheirtoppriority.Theseteachersapproach eachclassnotwiththequestion“whatwillIteachtoday?”but“whatwillmy studentslearntoday?”Therefore,mineisastudent‐centeredclassroomaboveall else.Inthisteachingphilosophy,IwillelaborateonmethodswhichIbelievecan engagestudentsdirectlyinthelearningprocess,inordertoencouragedevelopment oflong‐termskills,knowledge,andexperiences.Thisphilosophyisestablishedona foundationofresearchandlanguageeducationstandardsandissupportedbythe threepillarsofinteraction,culturalexchanges,andcommunity‐building. Agoodteacherstaysup‐to‐datewithcurrentresearchmethodologies,and setsclearobjectivesfortheclassroombasedonthisresearchandonthegoals studentsaremeanttoachieve.Objectivesshouldthenleadtocreationofassessment 7 andactivities.Myactivitiesencouragecollaborationandinteraction,givingstudents theopportunitytofacilitateoneanother’slearningprocess.Byworkingwithothers, studentsgraduallyinternalizelanguageskillstothelevelwheretheyareableto performtasksindependently.Bothactivitiesandassessmentshouldreflecttasks studentswillencounterintheoutsideworld.Suchauthenticityisinterwoveninto myclassroom,alongwithfrequentexposuretothesourceculture.Students participateinactivitiesanddiscussionsthatencourageanalyzing,observing,and thinkingcriticallyabouttheirownandothers’culturestoexpandtheircultural awareness.Toencouragestudentinvolvementandcreativeuseofthelanguage,I willcreateanenvironmentwhicheasesanxiety,increasesmotivationalfactors,and helpsstudentstofeelincludedaspartofthelargerlanguagecommunity. AFoundationofstandardsandresearchinlanguageinstruction “Thateverythingchangesisthebasictruthforeachexistence” (Suzuki,1970,p.102). Teacherssettheintentionoftheirclasswithobjectives.Beginningwithaset ofobjectivescanallowteacherstoidentifyassessmentsanddesiredoutcomes, whichshouldthenleadtocreationofactivities(Shrum&Glisan,2010).Manyofthe goalssetformyclassarebasedonstandardscenteredonwhatstudentswillbeable todowithlanguage.Iincorporatenationwidestandardsasframeworkswithin whichtoguidemyclassroompractice.TheStandardsforForeignLanguage Learning:Preparingforthe21stCentury(1999)draftedbyacollaborativeboardof teachingassociations,provideacurriculumforK‐12schoolsandhighereducation. Thestandardsclearlyshowashifttowardsanapproachwhichallowsstudentsto 8 “interpret,toexpress,andtonegotiatemeaninginreal‐lifesituations”(Savignon, 1997,p.xi).Impliedinthesestandardsisapromotionofsharing,exchanging, participating,andunderstandingothercultures.Thereisalsoaheavyemphasison communicationstrategiesandcriticalthinkingskills. Aunifiedstandardinlanguageeducationisinpartareactiontotheneedfor studentswhoareabletocommunicateinmorethanonelanguage.Learninga secondorforeignlanguagegrowsinimportanceastheworldinwhichwelive becomesmoreconnected.Technologyandcommunicationareexpandingour connectionsacrossbordersandculturalboundaries.Warschauer(2000)states, Asaresultofchangesinglobalization,employment,andtechnology,L2 speakers[…]willusethelanguagelessasanobjectofforeignstudyandmore asanadditionallanguageoftheirowntohaveanimpactonandchangethe world.(p.530) Ibelievelanguageinstructionshouldbeadjustedtoreflectthisglobalization. Currenttrendsdemandaclassroomexperiencethatwillprovidestudentswiththe confidenceandabilitytocommunicateinthetargetlanguageinvarioussettings. Rivers(1992)states:“Studentssensetheneedtobeabletomixfreelyandeasilyin socialandprofessionalsettingswithpeopleofothercultures,manyofwhomhave beenlearninglanguagessincetheirelementaryschooldays”(p.2).Ihopeto continuallymotivatemystudentsbystressingthebenefitsoflearningalanguage.In additiontothereasonslistedabove,learninglanguagescanalsocontributeto enhancedunderstandingofgenerallanguagestructureandcanimproveoverall intellect(Rivers,1981).Students’effortsintheclassroomcanleadtotheabilityto readandcomprehendliterature,communicatewithothers,andunderstand differentculturesandwaysofthinking(Rivers,1981). 9 Studentswillhavetheirownindividualgoalsforlearningthelanguage. Cortinez(1992)writes:“Inordertohelpstudentslearn,teachersneedtohavesome basicinformationaboutthemassoonaspossible.Inpreparingthecourse,wewill haveclarifiedourgoals;itisnowessentialtofindoutabouttheirs”(p.252). InteractingwithstudentsfromDay1allowsmetobetterguidethembasedon individualneeds. Understandingthedifferentphilosophieswhichhaveshapedthefieldof languageeducationwillhelpestablishgroundworkformyteaching.Inpreparing myclassroom,Iwillneedtonotonlyknowwhylanguagelearningisimportant,but alsohaveknowledgeofhowlanguagelearninghappens.Researchfromboththe pastandpresentoffersmanyusefulinsights. Instructionaltheoriesandmethodshavechangedovertheyearstobecome increasinglystudent‐centeredandcommunication‐based.Untilaroundthe1950s, languageteachingwaspredominatelybasedontheGrammar‐Translationmethod, whichconsistedoflearningvocabularyandgrammarrulesandperformingtext translationactivities(Fromkin,Hyams,&Rodman,2011).Thismethodwasreplaced inmanyschoolsbytheAudiolingualMethod(ALM),whichhadastrongbaseinthe theoryofbehaviorism.ThefocusofALMclassroomswasonhabitformation,correct usage,memorization,anddrills.Althoughtherewasmoreemphasisonoraland auraldevelopment,studentswerenotencouragedtouselanguageincontextualized orcreativeways.Inthepastfewdecadesapushforamoremeaningfullanguage environmenthasledmanyteacherstofavortheprinciplesofCommunicative LanguageTeaching(Lee&VanPatten,2003).Communication‐basedteachingwas 10 foundedonHymes’(1972)modelofcommunicativecompetence,ortheabilityto usegrammaticalcompetenceinavarietyofcommunicativesituations.Savignon (1972)furtherdefinedthiscommunicativecompetenceas“…theabilitytofunction inatrulycommunicativesetting—thatis,inadynamicexchangeinwhichlinguistic competencemustadaptitselftothetotalinformationalinput,bothlinguisticand paralinguistic,ofoneormoreinterlocutors”(p.8).Todevelopcommunicative competence,studentsusetheirlinguisticknowledgeandskillstoexpandbeyondthe abilitytoexpressthemselvesorally,andtonegotiatemeaningamong communicators. Meaningfulinteractionandcreativeuseoflanguage Thebestwayistounderstandyourself,andthenyouwillunderstand everything.Sowhenyoutryhardtomakeyourownway,youwillhelpothers, andyouwillbehelpedbyothers.(Suzuki,1970,p.111) Rivers(1992)assertsthat“useoflanguageiscreative,notimitative”(p.381). Iheartilyagreewiththisstatement.Invitingstudentstousethelanguageasa creativetoolforlearningandconstructingmeaningwillbemycorefocus.Group andpairworkactivitiesformalargeportionofmylanguageclassroom,astheygive studentsopportunitiestoproduceandimproveoutputandtomediatelearning throughcollaboration.Iguidestudents’interactionsbycreatingscenariosand themesbasedonreal‐worldtopics.Studentsaregiventhetoolsandbackground knowledgeneededtoconstructtheirownindividualdialogue,asopposedtorelying solelyonrobot‐likesentencerecitationanddrills(Lee&VanPatten,2003). Exchangeswiththeteacherandfellowclassmatesallowstudentstodevelopskills 11 suchaslisteningcomprehension,thenegotiationofmeaning,andusingcontext cues. Task‐basedactivitiesrequirestudentstousethelanguagetowards completionofacommunicativegoal(Ballman,Liskin‐Gasparro,&Mandell,2001). Ratherthanlearninggrammarrulesinisolation,studentsshouldlearnpractical waystoapplythelanguagetowardstaskssuchasaskingandgivingdirections, planning,andmakingrequests.Knutson(1997)claimsstudentsaremoreengaged andmorelikelytounderstandtextwhentheyreadtoaccomplishatask.Taskscan incorporatemorethanonemodeofcommunicationandrangefromretellingthe storytoapartnertocreatingamaporchartasagroup. Skillsininterpretingtext,audio,andvideoareimportantforlearninga languageandcanbecombinedwithinteractiveactivities.Toassiststudentswith buildingtheirinterpretiveskills,itisimportanttopreviewnewtext,audio,and videowithrelevantcontextualdiscussiontoactivatestudents’priorknowledge.The teachercanalsomodelstrategiessuchaspredicting,skimming,andguessingto encouragesuccessfulinteractionwiththematerials(Shrum&Glisan,2010).By usinga“story‐based”approachtolearninggrammar,theteacherfocusesstudents’ awarenesstogrammaticalstructurewithinalargercontextoflanguageasawhole. ShrumandGlisan(2010)write:“Storytellingisanaturalactivitythatissocially mediatedonadailybasisoutsidethewallsoftheclassroom”(p.223).Using authenticmaterialsasatoolfordiscussingandinterpretingthelanguagecanbea usefulwaytomirrortheclassroomafterreal‐worldinteractions.Tousethese materialseffectively,Adair‐HauckandDonato(1994)recommendusingthePACE 12 story‐basedmodel.InaPACE(Presentation,Attention,Co‐Construction,and Extension)lesson,theteacherbeginswithpresentingthestoryorotherreal‐world contextsuchasradioclipornewspaperarticle.Thispresentationshouldinvolvethe studentsasmuchaspossiblethroughquestionsandactions.Followingthis,the teacherbringsstudents’attentiontospecificlanguageusethroughscaffoldingand usingguidingquestions.Theteacherandstudentsthenengageincollaborativetalk aboutthetargetstructure.Finally,studentsaregivenchancestoextenduseofthe newgrammarskillincreativewayssuchasgamesandrole‐playing.ThePACE story‐basedapproachseemstobeaneffectivemethodforteachinggrammar,asit reliesonguidedparticipationratherthanteachingisolatedrulesorexpecting studentsto“pickup”onthegrammarimplicitly.Collaborationseemstobeavery naturalwaytopromotecreativeexplorationwithalanguage. Throughproducingoutputduringinteraction,studentsareabletonotice gapsintheirexistingsystem(Swain,2000).Studentsalsoneedoutputduring collaborativedialoguetotesttheirhypothesesaboutthewaythelanguageworks, experimentwithnewgrammar,improvefluencyandautomaticity,request feedback,andenhancecommunicationskills.Collaborativeactivitiesengage studentsinproblemsolving,andallowthemtolearnboth“strategicprocessesas wellasgrammaticalaspectsofthelanguage”(Swain,2000,p.100)thuschallenging theirmindstodevelopandgrowinbothlanguageandcognitiveskills. Collaborativedialogueandexchangestransformthelanguageclassroominto adynamicandmeaning‐basedenvironment.Vygotsky(1978)andproponentsof SocioculturalTheory(SCT)placehighvalueoncollaborativeexchangesbetween 13 mentorandnovice.SCTisbasedontheideathathumanslearnanddevelopthrough interactionswiththeirexternalenvironment.Likeusingashovelasatoolto excavatedirt,wecanuseobjectsorsocialinteractionwithotherpeopleastoolsto learnfromtheworld.Thesetoolscanbeusedasmediatorstohelpfilteroutside stimulitoknowledgethatisinternalizedwithinus.Languageitselfisatoolusedto mediateourconnectionwiththeworldandeachother,allowingustothinkand discussconceptsandideasbeyondourimmediateenvironment.Withinthe classroom,itistheteacher’sroletoprovidestudentswiththepropertoolsneeded inordertoaccomplishlanguagetasks,whetheritisindividualwork,grouptasks,or teacher‐studentcollaboration. OfparticularinteresttomewithinthefieldofSCTistheconceptofplay. Vygotsky(1978)claimedthattheimaginaryplayengagedinbychildrenisacrucial vehicleforsocialdevelopment.Withintheclassroom,playallowsstudentstocreate worldsandidentitiesbeyondtheconfinesoftheireverydaylives.Theyareableto adoptrolesthattheywouldnototherwisehavetheabilitytoexperience.Through roleplayandtheateractivities,Iprovideopportunitiesforstudentstoexperiment withactionsandlanguagebeyondtheircurrentstate,thusguidingthemtowards development.Swain(2000)listsoneofsiximportantcomponentsoflanguage learningas‘theaterarts.’Thiscanrelatetoanytypeofrole‐playing,bothscripted andnon‐scripted.Whenstudentsparticipateinrole‐playingandtheater,theyare givenopportunitiestoimaginenewscenariosforlanguagecreation. TheZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZPD),akeytenetofSociocultural Theory,isdescribedasthedistancebetweenastudent’sactualdevelopment,or 14 independentproblemsolving,andpotentialdevelopmentobservablewhile receivingassistancetowardsproblemsolving(Vygotsky,1978).Inotherwords: “whatonecandotodaywithassistanceisindicativeofwhatonewillbeabletodo independentlyinthefuture”(Vygotsky,1978,p.210).Studentscandeveloptotheir potentialthroughworkingwithothers,aswellasthroughassistancefromthe teacher(Poehner&Lantolf,2010).Byworkingwithassistance,studentsgradually internalizeskillstothelevelwheretheyareabletoperformtasksindependently. Teacherscanprovidescaffoldingtohelpstudentsprogresstotheindependentlevel byfocusinglearnerattentiontocertainfeaturesofthetaskandmodelingbehaviors forthestudenttoimitate(Hall,2001). ThissameconceptoftheZPDcanbeappliedtoassessmentpurposes.A “dynamicassessment”(DA)isaninteractiveprocesswhereintheteacherworkson ataskwithastudentinordertofindtherootcauseofdifficultiesastudentmaybe experiencing.Teachersareabletogaugestudentprogressbasedonfeedbackduring interaction,andarealsoabletoprovideinstructionwhichguidesthestudent towardindependentwork(Poehner,2011).Forexample,IintendtoprovideDA sessionstohelpstudentsimprovetheirwriting.Thismightconsistofmeetingwith studentsindividuallytodiscusscommonerrorsintheirpapersandhelpguidethem towardsself‐correcting.Althoughone‐on‐onedynamicassessmentprocedurescan betime‐consuminginalargeclassroom,Iwouldliketoresearchwaystoapplyits principlesasoftenaspossible. Ingeneral,Iuseclassroomtasksasassessmentopportunitiesand incorporateauthenticassessmentstoensurethattestingreflectsinstruction. 15 Authenticformsofassessmentcanincludeportfolios,oralinterviews,genrewriting, androleplayswhichbetterreflectthetypesofactivitiesstudentswillencounterin theoutsideworld.IshiiandBaba(2003)write:“Themovetowardmore communicativelanguageclassroomshasshiftedthefocusnotonlyofteaching methodologies,butalsoofassessmentapproaches”(p.80).Assessmentshouldbe anongoingprocess,oneinwhichthestudentandteacherarebothinvolvedin trackingthestudent’sprogressinthelanguage(Ishii&Baba,2003).Toensure progressofeachstudent,Imonitorstudentparticipationandcompletionofgroup activitiesinformallyduringclassinteractionsandthroughoral,writing,reading,and listeningactivities.Oralassessments,forexample,enablemetoevaluatestudents basedontheirabilitytoperformtaskssuchassummarizing,explaining,describing, persuading,andinformingwithinsituatedcontextsandsettings.Iestablishrubrics basedonstandardsforwhatthestudentsshouldbeabletodowiththelanguage. Usingavarietyofassessmentmodescanhelptoaccommodatestudentswith differentlearningstyles.Suchassessmentsarealsoconsideredmoreauthenticas theyprovideabetterrepresentationofstudents’“learning,achievement, motivation,andattitudes”(O’Mally&Pierce,1996). Inthissectionofmyphilosophy,Idiscussedvariousmethodsforimproving studentinteractionintheclassroomandthepurposesforsuchactivities.Icontend, however,thatcreativeconstructionofthelanguageisinsufficientwithoutacultural foundationfromwhichstudentscanbuild.Inthefollowingsection,Iwillexplainthe importanceofculturalcontextandinprovidingstudentswithauthenticexperiences ofthelanguage. 16 Sharingculturesintheclassroom “Sometimeswethinkitisimpossibleforustounderstandsomething unfamiliar,butactuallythereisnothingthatisunfamiliartous”(Suzuki,1970,p.85). Ibelievelanguageandcultureshouldnotbeseparated.Lund(2006)states, “…culturalconventionsareexpressedthroughlanguage,andthewayyou communicateisinfluencedandshapedbythecultureinwhichyoulive”(p.76). Cultureplaysanintegralroleinshapingstudents’communicativecompetence (Berns,1990).Incorporatingcultureintheclassroomincludesinstructionin pragmatics,orthe“communicativefunctionsoflanguageinuse”(LoCastro,2012) suchasimplicature,formalandinformalspeechstyles,honorifics,termsofaddress, rituals,routines,andotherdevices(Taguchi,2012).Aspragmaticmisuseofsecond languageismoreoftenattributedtoimpolitenessthangrammatical,phonological, orlexicalerrors,itisespeciallyimportantforstudentstounderstandwaystoavoid miscommunicationintheseareas(LoCastro,2012).Pragmaticknowledgeofthe culturecanbetaughtasawayforstudentstoincreasetheirawarenessofhowto employlanguageinreal‐worldssettings,ratherthanrelyingoncannedtextbook interpretationsoflanguageuse. Ibelieveitisimportanttoextendtheroleofculturetoincludetrainingin interculturalcompetenceinordertopreparestudentsforsuccessfulinteractions withnewcultures.Byram(1997)definesinterculturalcompetenceasdeveloping attitudesofopenness,knowledgeofsocialinteractions,skillsininterpretingand relatingtonewcultures,andcriticalculturalawareness.Throughactivitiesand discussions,studentsinmyclassroomcandevelopskillssuchasanalyzing, 17 observing,andthinkingcriticallyaboutone’sownandothers’culturesinrelationto theother.Suchskillsareespeciallypertinentinthelanguageclassroom.Youngand Sachdev(2011)write: Animportantmotivationfortheadvocacyofinterculturalityareperceptions thatinterculturalcontactandinterchangearegreaterthanever, necessitatingapproachestounderstandingandbrokeringdifferencethrough effectivecommunication.Fromthisposition,languagelearningisthebest placewithintheeducationalfieldforthelearningofandaboutculture, reflectingpowerfulinterrelationshipsbetweenlanguageandculture(p.82). Developinginterculturalcommunicationskillsinvolveslearningmorethanjustthe targetculture’shabitsandcustoms.Itinvolvesanunderstandingofcultureinbroad terms,andthedeeperreasonswhypeoplebehaveandinteractthewaytheydo.As studentslearnaboutdifferentcultures,theylikewisearebetterabletounderstand theirown.Withthispragmatically‐basedknowledge,studentswillbebetter preparedtocommunicatewithspeakersofthetargetlanguageinappropriateand meaningfulways. TheissueofculturebecomesmorecomplicatedwhenteachingEnglishasa SecondLanguage.AsEnglishisusedasaninternationallanguagebypeoplearound theworld,Ibelievethiscarriesimplicationsforhowitshouldbetaught.Students fromforeigncountriesarelearningEnglishtocommunicateinavarietyofsettings withotherswhospeakEnglishasafirstorsecond(orthird,fourth,etc.)language. TheownershipofEnglishisshiftingfromnativespeakersincountriessuchas BritainandtheU.S.tonon‐nativespeakersofdifferentnationalities(Graddol,1997). Becauseofthisshift,Ibelieveteachers’emphasisshouldbelessoncorrect pronunciationandmoreoncomprehensionincommunicativesettings.Itisalso importantforteachersofEnglishtonotonlyunderstandtheirstudents’motivations 18 forlearningthelanguage,butalsotoexposestudentstoavarietyofWorldEnglishes (Deterding&Kirkpatrick,2006)whilepromotingcross‐culturalunderstanding. Theuseofauthenticmaterialscanhelptoexposestudentstolanguageuse thatisamoreaccuratereflectionofthetargetculture,andhelpstudents communicateinwaysthatbetterreflectthecontemporaryuseofthetarget language.Idothisbyaddingup‐to‐dateaudio,print,video,andrealiatothe classroommaterialsthatare“originallyproducedbyandintendedfornative speakersofthetargetlanguageratherthanforlearners”(Frye&Garza,1992). Peacock(1997)recommendsteachersuseauthenticmaterialstoincreasestudents’ on‐taskbehavior,concentration,andinvolvement.Lund(2006)writes:“Individuals arecontextdependentpersonswhosesocialroleswithintheirsocialnetworks cruciallyaffecttheiropportunitiesforlanguagelearning,andtheirwillingnessto takeupthosethatbecomeavailable”(p.60).Exposingstudentstoculturalitems suchasradiobroadcastsandvideos,aswellasplanningvisitsbymembersofthe targetlanguageandfieldtrips,canhelptoconnectstudentstothelanguageand providesourcesofpersonalmotivation. Studyabroadcanbetheultimatesourceofauthenticityforstudents.When participatinginstudyabroadprograms,studentshavetheopportunitytoextend themselvesbeyondtheirperceivedboundariesofselfandconstructasecond cultureintheL2(Aveni,2005).Forthisreason,theymayexperiencesetbackssuch asthreatstoself‐esteem,self‐image,andsenseofsecurity.Inanychangeof environment,wenormallyundergoaseriesofemotionalchangesaswebecome accustomedtothenewsetting.Helpingstudentsknowwhattoexpectwillnot 19 preventtheseemotionsfromoccurring,butcanprovidestudentswith“resources formakingsenseoftheseexperiencesinpositive,patientways”(Hall,2005).Itcan alsolessenthechancetheywillhavenegativecultureshock,developincorrect assumptionsabouttheculture,andimprovetheirabilitytointeracteffectivelywith thenewculturalcommunity.AstudybyBrown,Dewey,andEggett(2012)found thatthemoresocialgroupstowhichstudentsbelonged,thegreatertheirgainsin proficiencywhilestudyingabroad.Studentsshouldbegivenassignmentsthat encouragethemtointeractwithnativespeakerstohelpthembecomeintegrated intothecommunity.Thisallowsthemmoreopportunitiestopracticenegotiationof meaningwithnativespeakersandimprovetheirlanguageabilities. Fosteringaclassroomcommunity “Concentrationshouldbepresentinourthinking.Thisismindfulness.We justthinkwithourwholemind,andseethingsastheyarewithoutanyeffort” (Suzuki,1970,p.115). StudentsconstructL2identitiesintheclassroomjustastheymightdoduring astudyabroadexperience.Whiletheclassroomsettingismorestructuredthanthe environmentofthetargetculture,studentswillstillfindthemselvespushedwithin theboundariesoftheiridentity.Forthisreason,fosteringasupportiveclassroom environmentisoneofmytoppriorities.Iencouragethebuildingofsocialbonds amongthestudentsandprovidethemwiththeknowledgeandskillstoparticipate insocialactivitiesintheclassroom(Hall,2001).Throughfamiliardailyactivity structures,regularroles,andinclusiveparticipationopportunities,studentswillbe abletofeelincludedaspartofthelargerlanguagecommunity. 20 Iftheatmosphereoftheclassroomisnon‐threateningandcooperative, studentsandteacherwillbeabletousethelanguagemoreauthenticallythrough allowingtheirnaturalpersonalitiestoemerge(Rivers,1992).Anxietycanbea significantobstacleoflearning(Arnold&Brown,1999).Forthisreason,Iprefernot torestrictuseofstudents’L1entirely.SmalldosesofL1inthelanguageclassroom canbebeneficialforexplainingdifficultconcepts,givinginstructions,providing feedback,andgenerallyhelpingstudentsfeelatease(Zacharias,2003). Furthermore,apurelymonolingualenvironmentisnotreflectiveoftheoutside world.Inotherwords,“…banningthemothertonguecreatesanartificially constructedenvironmentintheclassroom,whichdisregardsthebilingualreality thatsurroundsit”(Zacharias,2003,p.34). Ibelievestudentanxietycanalsobeeasedbyavoidingover‐corrections,and insteadprovideinputthatmorecloselyresemblesconversationalexchange.The focusshouldbeon‘instructionalconversations’(ICs)orteacher‐student interactionsthathelpstudentsimprovetheirabilitytoexpressconceptsandideas (Tharp&Gallimore,1991).ICsincludemodelingthetargetbehaviorforstudent imitation,providingfeedbackthatguidesstudentstoself‐evaluate,anddirectly affirmingstudentcontributions.Asstudentswillnaturallymakemistakesasthey areattemptingtoformlanguage,Ifocusmyinstructiononerrorsthataffect understandingormayindicatelackoflinguisticknowledgeaboutaparticular structure(Corder,1967).Studentswilloftenrefertotheirfirstlanguagewhen attemptingnewformsofexpressioninthetargetlanguage,especiallyatbeginning proficiencylevels(Chan,2006).Ibelieveitcanbeusefulforteacherstobeawareof 21 possiblelanguagetransferfromstudents’L1,andthesocio‐culturalinfluences whichmayimpacttheiracademicprogress. Manytopicspreviouslydiscussed,suchascreatingarelaxedatmosphereand introducingsourceculturematerials,havebeenshowntoenhancestudent motivation(Dörnyei,2004).Gardner(1985)identifiedtwomaincategoriesof motivation:integrativemotivation,orthedesiretodeveloprelationshipswith targetlanguagespeakers;andinstrumentalmotivation,suchasthedesiretopass theclass.Althoughthesearegeneralandpossiblynotall‐inclusive,Ihavefound Dörnyei’s(2004,2008)work,basedonasynthesisofresearch,providesexcellent examplesofspecificwaystoimprovemotivationinbothareas.Dörnyeicompiledan extensivelistofstrategies,suchasencouragingstudents’positiveattitudetowards thesourceculture(integrative),anddiscussingtheroleoftheL2intheworldand thebenefitsofspeakingit(instrumental).Ihaveselectedadditional recommendationsasfollows(fromDörnyei,2004): 1. Developstudentself‐confidencethroughpraiseandexperiencesofsuccess, andhighlightwhatstudentscandoratherthanwhattheycannotdo. 2. Helpstudentsreachgoalsbyteachingstrategiesforproblemsolving,setting realisticexpectations,creatingobtainablesub‐goals,andpromoteautonomy byallowingstudentstofindalternativewaystoreachtheirgoals. 3. Introduceinstructionalmaterialthatisrelevant,challenging,andvaried enoughtorousecuriosity,whileinvolvingstudentsincourseplanning. 4. Providesufficientguidanceasfacilitatorandnotauthorityfigure,model interestintheL2,andbuildrapportwiththestudents. 22 5. Promotegroupcohesionthroughclassgoalsandsharingofideasand feelings. Eachofthesefeaturespointtoaclassroomwhichpromotescooperationamong studentsandteacherandahighlevelofself‐motivation.Ihopetobeableto promoteenthusiasmforthetargetcultureandlanguagethroughmyownexample, whilehelpingstudentstobeoptimisticabouttheirprogressanddirection. Oneadditionalwaytoformastudent‐centeredandsupportiveatmosphereis throughcultivatingmindfulness.Teacherswhoaremindfullypresentareableto givemorefocustothemoodoftheclassroomandtheindividualneedsoftheir students.Tremmelwrites:“Mindfulnessinsimplesttermsmeanstopayattentionto ‘righthere,rightnow’andtoinvestthepresentmomentwithfullawarenessand concentration”(1993,p.443).Iwouldliketoincorporatemindfulnessprinciplesin allaspectsofmylife,especiallyintheclassroom.Itispossibletoalsoencourage studentstobecomemoremindfulintheirstudiesthroughencouragingthoughtful self‐reflectionandmeta‐cognitivestrategies. Conclusion Weshouldforgetallaboutsomeparticularteaching;weshouldnotaskwhich isgoodorbad.Thereshouldnotbeanyparticularteaching.Teachingisineach moment,ineveryexistence.Thatisthetrueteaching.(Suzuki,1970,p.127). Ibelieveitisimportantasateachertostayup‐to‐datewiththelatest researchinordertoadjusttothechangesinsociety,intechnology,andinour students.Teachersshouldalsobeadaptableintheirdailyinstructiontomeetthe needsoftheclassroom.Ihopetoteach‘inthemoment’daily,fosterasupportive 23 learningenvironment,andcreateinteractivelessonsthatinvolvestudentsinthe meaning‐makingprocess.Theclassroomshouldreflecttheoutsideworldasmuch aspossiblethroughcommunication‐centeredactivitiesbasedinreal‐worldcontexts. Mygoalisforstudentstobeabletointeractacrosscultureswithconfidence,thus preparingthemforencountersinagloballyconnectedsociety. 24 REFLECTIONONTEACHINGOBSERVATIONSANDTEACHINGVIDEO Ihavebeenabletoobserveseveraldifferentteachersduringthe2012 academicyear,inbothEnglishasaSecondLanguageandforeignlanguage classrooms.Eachoftheseclassescangenerallybeclassifiedascommunicative, sociocultural,orworkbook‐centered.Overall,thebestclasseswerethosewitha clearobjective,easy‐to‐followstructure,andseveralinteractiveactivities. Frommyinterpretation,thesociocultural‐centeredclasseswerefocused primarilyonprovidingstudentswithtoolsforaccomplishingataskandguiding themtowardsdevelopmentofskills.Forexample,inanESLclassIobserved,the objectivewasforstudentstobeabletoexpresstheiropinioninclass.Studentstook turnsgivinga3minutespeechbasedontheiropinionofaparticularnewstopic. Studentsintheaudiencewerethengiventhetoolsofsentencestarterssuchas“Did youknowthat…”and“Haveyouthoughtabout…”inordertoexpresstheir disagreementwiththespeaker.Inaseparateclass,theteacherprovidedstudents withthetoolofaVennDiagramtohelpfinddifferencesbetweentwoseparate articles,andhadthemworkingroupstodiscusstheirfindings. InobservingafewotherESLclasses,Ifoundtheinstructioncenteredmostly onworkbookactivities.Theinteractiveactivitiesinthisclasswerethoseinwhich studentsworkedtogethertocompleteinformationgapsinthetextbook,suchas fillinginaschedulebasedontheirpartner’sresponses.Suchactivitiesallowfora smallamountofcreativity,buttheyweremostlyscripted.Duringthehalf‐hourset asidefor“conversationpractice”,studentswereabletoconstructoriginal utterancesandshareinmeaningfulcommunication.Studentswereprovidedwith 25 interestingpromptssuchas“Whatwouldyoudowithamilliondollars?”tofacilitate conversation.Thesepracticesseemedeffective,butcouldpossiblybeimproved uponbyextendedteacherfacilitation. ForTheoryandPracticecourseduringthe2012semester,Iobservedmy fellowMSLTstudentsgiveshortmini‐lessonsonforeignlanguages.Eachofthese lessonswasconductedentirelyintheL2andseemedtofollowthecommunicative approach.Understandinginstructionscanbeverydifficultifyou’vehadalmostno exposuretothetargetlanguage.SinceIknowalittleSpanish(andmanywordsare similartoEnglish),IwasabletofollowtheSpanishlessonsfairlywellbuthada difficulttimerespondinginatimelymannerinresponsetotheteachers’prompts. Thelessonsonunfamiliarlanguagesleftmeveryconfusedastowhattheteacher wantedmetodoandalsounsureofthemeaningofwordsandphrases.Iimitated theteachersaccordingtotheirmodelsbuthadnoideawhatIwasactuallysaying!It seemstheteachersdidnotuseenoughvisualaids,gestures,andotherinput enhancerstofacilitatecomprehension. BecauseofthefrustrationIexperiencedduringtheselessons,Iwas determinedtomakemyownteachingverysimpleandeasytofollow.Mymini‐ lessonwasabeginner’sclassinJapanese.Thiswasoneofmyfirstexperiences teachingJapaneseasaforeignlanguage.WhenplanningmylessonIunfortunately fellintothetrapofmakingassumptionsaboutthestudents’abilitytounderstand me;blindedbymyownknowledgeofthelanguage.Ididstartverysimplywithbasic greetingsbutdidnotprovideenoughvisualsorconnectionstoensurestudents understoodthedifference.Then,Idrewpicturesontheboardthatrepresented 26 noon,morningandnightandexpectedstudentsto“guess”whichgreeting correspondedtoeachpicture.Thestudentswereobviouslyconfusedaboutthis. Next,Imovedto“jikoshoukai”(self‐introductions).Ireviewedthephrases “nicetomeetyou”andmodeledformalvs.informal.Ithinkthestudentsunderstood thedifference,asIusedvisuals,gestures,andstudentsthemselvesasexamples. WhenIintroducedthephrase“mynameis…”studentswereagainconfusedasI triedtoexplainthemaleandfemaleformof“I”(self)=“boku/watashi”.Ipointedto malesintheroomandsaid“boku”,andthenpointedtofemales,saying“watashi.”It seemedstudentsassumed“boku”literallymeantmale,and“watashi”female.So,I modifiedmyinput;labelingthefemalesas“onna”,boysas“oto”.Anothererrorhere wasthatIprovidedtwodifferentwaystosay“mynameis”anddidnotclarifywith theclass.Onestudentaskedafterwardsaboutthis. ThenextactivitywasreviewingtheJapanesealphabets.Ishowedthekanji, hiragana,andkatakanaalphabetsandtriedexplaininghowtheydiffer.Thestudents seemedtoreallyenjoysingingthealphabetsong.Ihadthempracticewritingthe word“goodnight”inhiraganaafterfirstmodeling.Ithenchallengedtheclassto writetheirownnameinkatakana,usingthealphabetchartontheboard.Inalonger class,Iwoulddefinitelytakemoretimegivingexamplesandhelpingstudents becomefamiliarwiththepronunciationbeforeaskingthemtodothis. Overall,Ilearnedmanythingsaboutthedifficultiesofprovidingtheproper inputduringmyexperienceteaching.AlthoughIwasabletonegotiatewiththe studentstoprovidebetterinstructions,thismightnotbesoeasywithalargeror lessvocalclass.Theexperienceofobservingfellowteachersandteachingmyown 27 lessonplacedseveraldoubtsinmymindaboutthecommunicativemethod. AlthoughIdothinkitisimportanttoexposestudentstoasmuchofthetarget languageaspossible,therearesetbackstoteachingentirelyintheL2.Ithinksome communicativemethodsalsodonotprovidestudentswithsufficienttimeand exposuretoprocessthelanguage.Iwouldliketoobservemoreclasses,especially Japanese,togathermoreideasforeffectivelyusingL2intheclassroomandfor creativeeffectiveinteractiveactivities. 28 LANGUAGEARTIFACT TheinfluenceoftheL1andsocio‐culturalfactorsonL2acquisition: AcasestudyofanEnglishlanguagelearnerfromChina 29 INTRODUCTION ThefollowingartifactwasanassignmentforaLinguisticAnalysiscourse, taughtbyDr.JoshuaThoms.Asacasestudy,Irecordedaninterviewwithastudent fromChinawhowasenrolledinUSU’sIntensiveEnglishLanguageInstitute(IELI). Fromtheinterviewandsubsequentanalysis,Ilearnednewskillsbothatthe academicandinterpersonallevel.Ihadneveranalyzedandcategorizedlinguistic databeforeandtheprocesswasenlightening.Duringtheconversation,thetwoofus werefocusedonmeaningandnotongrammaticalcorrectness.However,analyzing herutterancesinwrittenformallowedmetoobservecommonerrorsandareasof miscommunication.Theactualinterviewprocessitselftaughtmetheimportanceof establishingrapportandaskingtherightfollow‐upquestionstoencourage interviewsubjectstoelaborate.Intheclassroom,Iwillneedtousesimilarskillsto helpmystudentsfeelcomfortableenoughtoexpressthemselves. Amajorimplicationofthisarticleistheimportanceofbeingfamiliarwith students’linguisticandsocio‐culturalbackground,andofbeingawareoftheir preferencesforclassroomstyle.Iwouldliketodomoreresearchoninternational students’perceptionsoftheU.S.educationsystem.Myinterviewsubjectseemedto greatlypreferherexperienceinIELItolearningEnglishinChina,whichmademe curioustoresearchtheopinionsofotherstudentsfromAsiancountriesbasedon theireducationalexperienceintheUnitedStates. 30 LiteratureReview ChinesestudentscomprisethelargestgroupofESLstudentsstudyingat universitiesintheU.S.andCanada(Huang&Brown,2009).StudentsfromChina whoattendNorthAmericanuniversitiesexpressseveralchallengesintheir education,includinginadequateEnglishproficiency,unfamiliaritywithUSculture, lackofstudyskills/strategies,academiclearninganxiety,andseparationfrom familyandfriends(Huang&Brown,2009). ThefollowingisacasestudyofaChineseuniversitystudentlearningEnglish asasecondlanguageintheUnitedStates.Usinginterviewdata,thestudyexamines thestudent’slinguisticaptitudeandthesocio‐culturalfactorswhichmayhave influencedthelearnerinheracquisitionofEnglish.Thelinguisticanalysisincludes anevaluationofthegrammaticalerrorsandananalysisofcommonmorphemes basedonKrashen’sNaturalOrderhypothesis(Krashen,1982).Asastudents’first languagehasbeensaidtoimpactacquisitionofasecondlanguage,thisstudent’s Chineselanguagebackgroundwasalsoanalyzedforinstancesofmorphologicaland phonologicaltransfer.Theinterviewwasfurtherexploredforsocio‐cultural influencessuchassocialsupportandclassroomenvironmentwhichmayhave affectedthestudent’scapacitytoacquiretheEnglishlanguage.Theresultsofthe analysisshowevidenceoftransferfromthefirstlanguageandalsodemonstratethat thestudent’ssocio‐culturalenvironmenthasmostlyhadapositiveimpactonher abilitytoacquireEnglish.ThedatafromthisstudycanbeusefulforEnglishteachers whowishtobetterunderstandtheirstudentsbasedonfirstlanguageandcultural background. 31 Languageacquisitionorder Childrendonotacquiretheirfirstlanguagethroughexplicitinstruction,but learnasthey“extracttherulesofthegrammarfromthelanguagearoundthem” (Fromkin,Hyams,&Rodman,2011,p.330).Inaddition,observationshaveshown thatchildrenlearnindevelopmentalstagesthatappeartobeuniversal,regardless ofthelanguage.Brown(1973,citedinKrashen,1982)conductedastudywherein heexaminedthespeechofchildrenatdifferentstagesoftheirdevelopment,and reportedthatchildrenhadthetendencytoacquirecertaingrammaticalmorphemes ofEnglishearlierthanothers.Grammaticalmorphemesincludethe,of,oris. Childrennormallyomitthesemorphemesatearlierstages,andappeartoacquire thematparalleledstagesofdevelopment.Krashen(1997)hypothesizedthat learnersofEnglishasasecondorforeignlanguagefollowasimilarsequenceof acquiringgrammaticalmorphemes,regardlessoftheirfirstlanguage.Krashenrefers totheconceptofacquisitionorderastheNaturalOrderhypothesis.Learnerswill firstacquiretheprogressive‐ing,followedbytheplural‐s,andthecopulatobe.The progressiveauxiliaryandarticlessuchasaandthefollow.Thelearnerthenusually acquirestheirregularpastbeforetheregularpast,followedbythesingulars(asin subject‐verbagreement)andpossessive‐s. Influenceoffirstlanguage Languagetransferreferstotheinfluenceofalearner’sL1onacquiringthe secondlanguage(Chan2006).Oneofthefirststudiestoinvestigatetheinfluenceof firstlanguageonL2acquisitionorderwasconductedbyDulayandBurt(1973). Theirresultsshowedthatamongchildrenwhoparticipatedinthestudy,only3%of 32 languageerrorswereduetoL1interference.However,otherscholarshaveshown evidencethatacquisitionorderdoesinfactdifferaccordingtoalearner’sfirst language.LukandShirai(2009),forexample,investigateddataofChineseESL learners’morphemeacquisition,accordingtotheNaturalOrderhierarchy.They concludedthatwhileevidenceisstilllimited,itappearsChineseL1speakersacquire somefeaturesatintervalsthatdifferfromtheNaturalOrder.Thepossessive,for example,isnormallyacquiredafterpluralsorarticles.However,ChineseL1 speakerstendtoacquirepossessivefirst.ThisisattributedtothefactthatChinese hasamarkerforpossessionwhichissimilartoEnglish(e.g.,Bobdebi=Bob’spen). Chinesedoesnothavemorphemesforpluralsoranarticlesystem,whichmight makeitmoredifficultforstudentstoacquirethesetwofeatures.Inaddition,the Chineselanguagealsolacksamarkerfortense.Pasttenseandfuturetenseare normallyindicatedbytone,context,orbytheinclusionofsuchwordsasyesterday, now,andtomorrow(Jusoff,Leng,Sharmini,&Singaram,2009). AstudyconductedbyChan(2006)containsevidenceoftransferfrom ChinesetoEnglishregardingfivespecificgrammaticalaspects.ThefeaturesChan investigatedwere:missingcopula,adverbplacement,"therebe"structure,relative clauses,andverbtransitivity. Missingcopula:TheChinesecopulasimilartotheEnglish‘tobe’is normallyomittedfromjoiningwithauxiliaryverbssuchas‘can’and‘will’ (e.g.,“Hewill[be]tired.”) 33 Adverbplacement:InChinese,adverbsarenormallyplacedbeforeverbs andauxiliaryverbs.InEnglish,adverbsaremostoftenplacedafterverbs (e.g.,“Iverylikeswim.”) ‘Therebe’structure:TheEnglish‘therebe’isexpressedas‘have’in Chinese(e.g.,“Tableonhavebook.” Relativeclauses:Relativeclausesarepre‐modifyinginChinesebutpost‐ modifyinginEnglish.Chinesedoesnotuserelativepronounssuchas ‘who’and‘which’. Verbtransitivity:VerbswhicharetransitiveinChinesemaybe intransitiveinEnglish.Forexample,thesentence“Iwanttoservethe people”inEnglishwouldbecome“Iwantforpeopleserve”inChinese (Chan,2006). IfaChinesespeakerweretoapplyChinesegrammaticalstructuretoEnglish sentences,errorsofomission,generalization,andwordorderwouldlikelyoccurin thesecategories.InChan’s(2006)study,manyoftheerrorsmadebytestsubjects wererelatedtotransferencefromChineseL1sentencestructure.Chansuggests “callingupontheL1whenproducingoutputintheL2isafairlycommon compensationstrategyamongstudentsoflowerproficiencylevelstoovercome theirdifficultiesintheproductionofunfamiliartargetlanguagestrings”(Chan,p. 66).Chanalsoattributessyntactictransfertoavoidancebehavior,ininstanceswhen astudentmayresorttousingfamiliarstructuresratherthanattemptingunfamiliar structuresinthefearofmakingamistake. 34 ScholarssuchasChan(2006)andLukandShirai(2009)havearguedthatthe NaturalOrderhypothesisinaccuratelymiscountstheinfluenceofastudent’sL1. Whileknowledgeofsuchsyntactictransfercanbehelpfulforteachers,socio‐ culturalfactorssuchasanxietyandculturalbackgroundshouldalsobeconsidered whenassessingstudents’linguisticability.Therefore,instancesofpossiblesocio‐ culturalinfluenceswillbeexploredinthefollowingsection. Socio‐culturalinfluences ResearchshowsthattheculturaldifferencesbetweentheU.S.andChinacan affectChinesestudents’academicperformance.Chinaplacesstrongemphasison respectingparentsandteachers.Inaddition,theChineseeducationsystemis examination‐drivenandcompetitive.Goodeducationissynonymouswithhonorfor theChinesefamily.Bycontrast,studentsinU.S.classroomsareencouragedto challengetheteacher,interruptthelesson,andaskquestions.Suchbehaviorcanbe viewedbysomeChinesestudentsasdisrespectful(Huang&Brown,2009).Inan earlierstudybyHuang(2005),Chineseuniversitystudentsreportedtheireducation intheU.S.wasnegativelyaffectedbyexcessivestudentparticipation,groupwork, andtheteachers’failuretofollowtextbookororganizelecturesinaconsistentor traditionalmanner.ManyChinesestudentsalsoreportednegativeexperiences duringtheirtimeintheUnitedStatesbecauseoftheirdifficultymakingfriendswith Americansduetodifferencesincultureandinterests.Thesestudentsoftenavoided participatinginsocialactivities. ClassroomsinChina,includingEnglishasaForeignLanguagecourses,placea heavyemphasisonlistening,rotememorization,andteacherinstruction(Barley, 35 2011).Studentsattendingcoursesthatdemandmuchinteractionandspeakingmay experienceanxiety,whichcanalsoaffecttheirperformance.Inastudyexploring speaking‐in‐classanxiety,Barley(2011)foundseveralfactorsleadingtoanxiety experiencedbyChineselearnersintheEnglishclassroom.Theseincludespeech anxietyandfearofnegativeevaluation,discomfortwhenspeakingwithnative speakers,negativeattitudestowardstheEnglishclass,negativeself‐evaluation,fear offailingtheclass/consequencesofpersonalfailure,speakinginfrontoftheclass withoutpreparation,beingcorrectedwhenspeaking,inadequatewait‐time,andnot beingallowedtousetheL1inasecond/foreignlanguageclass. Becauseeachindividualisdifferent,detailsofChineseculturecannotbe generalizedforeveryone.However,informationonculturaldifferencescanassist teachersseekingtounderstandthesocio‐culturalfactorsinfluencingastudent’s Englishlanguageacquisition.Usingpreviousstudiesspecificallycenteredon Chinesespeakers’acquisitionofmorphologicalfeatureswillalsoaidin understandinglearnerperformance. ResearchQuestions Thefollowingresearchquestionswereusedtoguidetheanalysisofthis study: 1. HowdoesthemorphologicalacquisitionorderofanEnglishLanguage learnerfromChinacomparewiththatofKrashen’sNaturalOrder hypothesis? 2. Howdoesthesocio‐culturalenvironmentofEnglishlanguagelearnersfrom Chinaimpacttheirprogressinlanguageacquisition? 36 Methodology Thisstudywasconductedusingasemi‐structuredinterviewwithanEnglish languagelearner.MeiHua(pseudonym)isa22‐year‐oldfemalefromasmallcityin NortheastChina.LikemostChinese,MeihuastudiedEnglishthroughmiddleschool andhighschool,withsomeEnglishatthecollegelevel.ShemovedtoUtahState UniversityinDecember2011tocompleteherdegreeinHumanResources.The collegesheattendedinChina—NortheasternDianliUniversity—hasacooperative exchangerelationshipwithUtahStateUniversity.ThisisMeiHua’sfirsttimeinthe UnitedStatesandherfirstsemesteratanAmericanuniversity.Sheisenrolledin twoEnglishcoursesthroughUSU’sIntensiveEnglishLanguageInstituteatthethird level(outoffourpossiblelevels).Thefirstcourse,IELI2330“SpokenDiscourseand Cross‐CulturalCommunication,”pairsEnglishlearnerswithAmerican undergraduateclassroomassistantstoimprovestudents’interpersonal communicationandpreparethemforgroupwork.Thesecondcourse,IELI2450 “TopicsforESL,”isaimedatdevelopingstudents’abilitytoread,discuss,present, andwriteaboutspecificacademicsubjects. MeihuawasinterviewedinAprilof2012,neartheendofherfirstsemester atUSU.Thetotallengthoftheinterviewwas45minutes.Inordertoassesssocio‐ culturalfactorsofMeihua’slanguagelearning,shewasaskedquestionsabouther hometown,family,friends,andheranxietylevelintheclassroom.Theinterviewer alsoaskedquestionsaboutMeihua’sexperienceslearningEnglish,bothinChinaand intheU.S.OfparticularinterestwereMeihua’sself‐reportedpreferencesfor learningEnglish;suchasthetypeofmethodsthatprovedmosteffectiveinhelping 37 heracquirethelanguage.Theinterviewwasrecorded,transcribed,andanalyzedfor featuresofKrashen’sNaturalOrderaswellasforthefeatureslistedbyChan(2006). InstancesofeachofKrashen’ssixmorphologicalfeaturesweretalliedaccordingto correctandincorrectusage.ThesetotalswerecomparedtotheNaturalOrder sequence.Theinterviewwasalsoanalyzedbasedoncontentregardingthe interviewee’ssocio‐culturalbackground;includingfamily,sociallife,andclassroom environment. AnalysisofLinguisticAbility Theinterviewdata,althoughlimited,supportthestudybyLukandShirai (2009)whichsuggeststhattheNaturalOrdermaynotaccountfortheL1.Froman analysisofthesixfeatureslistedonKrashen’sranking,itappearsthatMeiHuais mostadeptatusingtheplural‐scorrectly.Therewereonlyfouroutof17times whensheomittedtheplural‐s.MeiHuausedthepossessivecorrectly50%ofthe time.ThismightbebecausetheChinesepossessiveissimilartotheEnglish possessivemarkers.InstancesduringthisinterviewwhereMeiHuawouldneedto usethepossessivewererare,however,aswereinstancesrequiringtheprogressive ‐ing.Heruseofsubject‐verb‐sagreementwasnoticeablylesssuccessful.Ananalysis showed17outof26instancesofincorrectagreement.Anexampleofthisis“the teacherspendalotoftime”.MeiHua’smostsignificanterrorswererelatedtoher omissionofthepasttense.ThisisindirectcontrasttoKrashen’smorphologyorder. However,similartoKrashen’smodel,heruseofirregularverbswasbetterthanher useofregularverbs.Examplesofmisuseincludethesentence“whenIarrivethey rentcartopickmefromairport”.Themeaningofsuchutterancescanusuallybe 38 inferredfromcontext,butoccasionallytheycausedsomemisunderstanding.Mostof MeiHua’serrorswererelatedtotimeandtense.AstheChineselanguagedoesnot havemarkersfortense(Jusoffet.al,2009)hererrorsseemtobecausedbyL1 transference.AtallyofeacherrorandcorrectusageareincludedinTable1.These arecomparedinTable2withKrashen’smodel.Itappearsthatingeneralherrank ordersdidnotmatchupwiththeNaturalOrderhypothesis. Table1.RankOrderoferrorsbasedonstudentinterview RankOrder Total#ofErrors ‐s(plural) ‐‘s(+possessive) ‐ing(progressive) ‐s(agreement) irregularpast ‐ed(regularpast) 4 2 2 17 4 5 Correct usage/Total 13/17 2/4 2/4 9/26 1/5 1/6 RateofSuppliance 76% 50% 50% 35% 20% 17% Table2.Krashen’sRankOrder Learner’sRankOrderbasedonanalysis oflinguisticerrors 1.–s(plural) 2.–‘s(+possessive) 3.–ing(progressive) 4.–s(agreement) 5.irregularpast 6.–ed(regularpast) Krashen’sRankOrderforadultL2 (1997) 1.‐ing(progressive) 2.‐s(plural) 3.irregularpast 4.‐ed(regularpast) 5.‐s(agreement) 6.‐‘s(+possessive) Thelinguisticanalysisofthisinterviewalsoincludedananalysisofthefive morphologicalfeatureslistedbyChan(2006).Someinstancesofeachfeatureare listedasfollows: 1. Missingcopula:Noinstancesfound 39 2. Adverbplacement:“No,it’sonlycantransferthecredits” 3. ‘Therebe’structure:“IhaveinChinaIhaveastudy…intheUStwoyearsI have…ah…Junior?Yeah.Junior.” 4. Relativeclauses:“IthinkIlikethelifeofher”and“Myroommates,it’sa Chinesegirl” 5. Verbtransitivity:“IneedhowtolearnEnglish.” Inthephrase“it’sonlycantransfercredits”in#2,sheplacedtheadverb “only”beforetheverbinsteadofafter,whichcouldbearesultofL1transference.In sentence#3,sheseemstobemisusingtheverb“have”inplaceofa“therebe” structureinconjunctionwiththenoun“Junior”.Withbothsentencesinexample#4, Meihua’serrorsmaybeduetothefactthattheChineselanguagelacksrelative pronouns.Theerrorlistedin#5couldbearesultofconfusionwithverbtransitivity, asitisnotclearhowsheisplacingtheobjectandverb. AlthoughmostoftheerrorsMeiHuamadewererelatedtothoselistedin Krashen’sNaturalOrder,Chan’slistingalsohelpstoaccountforafewinstancesof mistakes,especiallythoserelatedtowordorder.Possiblesocioculturalinfluences affectingMeihua’sEnglishlanguageperformancewillbeexploredinthenext section. AnalysisofSocioculturalInfluences MeiHuahasbeenenrolledinEnglishclassesinChinasinceage12,butclaims intheinterviewthatshewasnotabletopracticemuchspeakinguntilshemovedto theU.S.“Usuallyintheclassonlyone,theteacher,spendalotoftimewritingkey pointsontheblackboardandeverybodytakenotes,”shestated.MeiHua’sEnglish 40 educationwasverytest‐driven.Shesaid“teacherandparentspaymoreattentionto examandgrade.”ShedescribedEnglishclassesinChinaas“boring”andteacher‐ centered,withastrongfocusonlearninggrammarandvocabulary.“AlotofChinese studentgoodatgrammarandreadingbutdon’twellinlisteningandspeaking,”she said. MeiHuaseesalargedifferencebetweentheChineseandNorthAmerican classroomatmosphere,andshegenerallyseemstoenjoythestudent‐centered environmentatUSU’sEnglishprogram.Whiletheliteraturereviewreportedmany Chinesestudentsarewaryofactivitiessuchasdiscussionsandgroupwork,MeiHua appearstothriveinthistypeofenvironment.“Wecandiscusswithdifferent countryintheworldsowecanlearnaboutcultureandwecanpracticemy... speaking,”shesaid.Whenaskedwhichteachingstyleshelikesthemost,MeiHua replied“freedom.”Shesaid,“IthinkIlikeAmericancoursesbecauseitisvery relaxedandwecandoanything.”MeiHuasaidshefeelscomfortableparticipating andspeakinginclass.Shedidnotreportanysignificantlevelsofspeaking‐in‐class anxiety. AlthoughMeiHuahasmoreChinesefriendsthanAmericanfriendsatUSU, sheliveswithAmericanroommates.ShesaidherAmericanroommatestalkwithher often,givingherbothlisteningandspeakingpractice,andteachingherslangand morepopularEnglishwords.MeiHuaalsosaidshehasaChinesefriendwhohas providedadviceonimprovingherEnglish.Inaddition,MeiHuasaidwatching Americanmovieshashelpedherpracticelisteningandspeaking.Astheresearch 41 datashowsthatmanyChinesestudentshaveadifficulttimemakingAmerican friends,MeiHuadoesnotappeartohavethisproblem. Asmentionedintheliteraturereview,familyplaysanimportantrolein Chineseculture.Childrenareexpectedtorespectparentsandtovaluefamily relationships.Educationisalsoofhighimportancetothehonorofastudent’sfamily andcommunity.MeiHuareportedthatwhileherfatherwasverysupportiveofher choicetostudyintheUnitedStates,hermotherandgrandmotherwerenot.This factorcouldproveadeterrenttoMeiHua’slanguageacquisitionaswellasher potentialtofinishschool.AnotherpossibledeterrentcouldbeMeiHua’snegative perceptionregardingherownEnglishability.SheclaimedherEnglishspeakingwas “poor”andmorethanoncementionedherlisteningcomprehensionskillsas inadequate.However,consideringshehasbeenintheU.S.foronlyfourmonths,she seemsfairlyadeptatthelanguage.Whenaskedwhatcouldhelpherbemore confident,shereplied“Ifmylisteningisimprove,IthinkIwillbeconfident.” Conclusion Theanalysisofthissingleinterviewprovidesseveralinsightsintothefactors influencingtheEnglishlanguagedevelopmentofastudentfromaChineselinguistic andculturalbackground.Theresultsindicatethatacquisitionorderofgrammatical morphemesisdependentonthelearner’sfirstlanguage.Additionally,studentswho speakChineseasafirstlanguagemayfollowsimilarpatternsofacquisitionorder. Thestudentinterviewedforthisstudyexperiencedthemostdifficultywithpast tenseusageandsubject/verbagreement.ThisisincontradictionwithKrashen’s NaturalOrderhypothesis,whichassumesthatEnglishlanguagelearners,regardless 42 offirstlanguage,willacquireEnglishatsimilarstages.Inordertobecertainofthese conclusions,furtherstudyisneeded.However,thedatafromthisanalysiscanbe usedtofocusinstructionforChinesestudentsonpasttenseusageandsubject‐verb agreement.Understandingthefactorsinvolvedinastudent’slearningprocesscan helpteachersprovidetargetedcorrectivefeedbackbyfocusingonerrorsofthe samecategory,andcanalsoallowteacherstoanticipatepotentialproblems. Thesocioculturalanalysisdemonstratedthatthisparticularstudentdidnot experiencesetbackslikethosereportedbystudentsinearlierstudies.MeiHuadid notdescribeanyparticularin‐class‐speakinganxietyordispleasurewiththe Americanclassroomstyle.Infact,sheseemedtopreferthestudent‐centeredand relaxedatmosphereofherEnglishclassesatUtahStateUniversitytoher“boring” classesinChina.Ingeneral,thisstudentappearstohaveapositiveattitude regardingherU.S.classroomexperience.AsstudiesshowthatmanyChinese studentsfinditdifficulttomakefriendswithAmericans,itseemsbeneficialtopair ChinesestudentswithAmericanroommates.SocializingwithherAmerican roommatesseemstohaveimprovedMeiHua’sexperienceintheU.S. Theresultsofthisstudyindicatethatthereareexceptionstoevery generalizationmaderegardingaspecificculture.Althoughtheliteraturereview wouldsuggestChinesestudentshaveaneedforincreasedstructureandteacher‐ centeredinstruction,suchconsiderationsmightnotbenecessaryforstudentslike MeiHuawhoseetheU.S.universityclassroomasawelcomereliefincomparisonto theirexperiencesinChineseschools.Whetherthisreflectsashiftingtrendin ChinesestudentperceptionsorwhetherthisMeihuaisanexceptiontotherule 43 remainstobeinvestigated.MeiHuadidshowsignsofshynessandinsecurityinher Englishspeakingability,asshowninstudiestobecommontraitsofstudentsfrom China. AsChinesestudentsarethelargestgroupofESLstudentsatNorthAmerican universities(Huang&Brown,2009),Englishteacherswouldbewell‐servedto becomebetteracquaintedwiththispopulation.Thedatafromthisstudycanserve asastartingpointtoprovideteacherswithknowledgeonfirstlanguagetransfer,in ordertoanticipateChinesestudents’linguisticdevelopmentandincreasestudents’ awarenessofthespecificstructuralfeatureswhichmighthindertheirability. Teachersmightalsochoosetodiscussstudents’preferredclassroomstyleand addresssuchconcernswiththeclasstoeasepotentialdiscomfortwiththeU.S. educationalenvironment.Inanticipationofoverallfeelingsofdiscomfortand anxiety,EnglishteacherscanhelpstudentsfromChinabygivingencouragement, positivefeedback,andbycreatinganatmospherewherestudentscanfeelatease participatinginclassdiscussion. 44 APPENDIX InterviewQuestions Set#1: 1. Tellmeaboutyourhometownandyourfamily. 2. Whydidyouchoosetheacademicmajoryouarestudying? 3. HowmanyyearsdidyoustudyEnglishbeforecomingtotheU.S.? 4. Howwouldyoudescribetheteachingmethodusedbyteachersinyourhome country? 5. CanyoutellmeaboutamemoryyouhavefromyourtimelearningEnglish? 6. Describesomememorableexperiencesyouhadwhenyoufirstarrivedinthe U.S. 7. Whatareimportantgoalsthatyouhopetoaccomplishwhenyouarefinished atschool? 8. HowoftendoyougettopracticeEnglisheveryday? 9. Doyoustudyonyourown?Whatstudymethodshavebeenthemostuseful? 10. WhatEnglishlanguageclassroomactivitiesdoyourememberthemost? Set#2 1. Tellmeaboutthepeopleyouspendthemosttimewith–aretheymostly Englishspeakersorfriendswhosharethesamenativelanguage? 2. Whatkindsofcultureshockhaveyouexperiencedsincemovinghere? 3. Haveyouhadanynegativecultureshockexperiencesthathavemadeit hardertolearnEnglish? 4. Whohashelpedyouthemostwithbeingcomfortableinanewcountry? 45 5. Haveyoufeltanynegativejudgmentsfrompeoplebecauseofyouraccent? 6. WhathasbeenthebiggestobstacletolearningEnglish? 7. Tellmeaboutanexperienceintheclassroomwhereyoufeltproudofyour Englishability. 8. Whatteachingstyledoyouenjoythemost? 9. WhatkindsofinteractionswithothershavehelpedyoupracticeEnglish? 10. Howoftendoyouparticipateintheclassroomdiscussion–doyoufeel comfortablecontributingtotheclassandconfidentinyourspeakingability? InterviewTranscription Researcher:Firstofall,tellmemoreaboutyourhometown. MeiHua:Myhometown’snameisSongye(spelling?).It’sinthenortheastofChina. Andit’sonlyalittlecity. Researcher:Okay.What’syourfamilylike? MeiHua:Myfamily,thereare6peopleinmyfamily. Researcher:Oh,that’sabigfamilyforChina,Ithink. MeiHua:Yeah.Mygrandma,mother,father,othersisterandothersisterhusband. Researcher:Ok,soyouhaveonesisterandherhusband.Andyoualllivetogether. MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:Sothisisyourfirsttimeleavinghome? MeiHua:Yes Researcher:Howoldareyou? MeiHua:(coughs/laughs)22 Researcher:Okay22.Sowasyourfamilysupportiveofyoucominghere? 46 MeiHua:Myfathersupportmeaboutgoingabroad.Butmymotherandmygrandpa, Imeangrandmarejects. Researcher:Soitwasyourideatocomehere? MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:Andyourfatherthoughtitwasagoodidea. MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:Doyouthinkyourmomandgrandmasupportyoumorenowthatyou arehere? MeiHua:TheythinkChinaisfarawayfromAmerican.Theywantmestaywiththem allthetime. Researcher:Howlongdoyouthinkyou’llbehere? MeiHua:Ithink2years.WhenIfinishmyBachelor. Researcher:Twoyears?That’sprettyfast. MeiHua:No,I’matransferstudenthere.IhaveinChinaIhaveastudy…intheUS twoyearsIhave….(laughs)ah…junior?Yeah.Junior. Researcher:You’reaJunior. MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:YouwenttoaChineseuniversity? MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:Whatareyoustudying? MeiHua:Nowitishumanresource. Researcher:Soyouwanttoworkatabigcompany. MeiHua:Yeah,yeah. 47 Researcher:Cool.Ithinkjobslikethat—IthinkithelpsifyouhaveEnglish. MeiHua:NowI’mtakingtheIELIclasses. Researcher:SowhydidyoudecidetocometoAmerica? MeiHua:I…thereisacooperationprogramsbetweenmyprimaryuniversityand USUuniversity. Researcher:Whatisitcalled? MeiHua:NortheasternDianliUniversity. Researcher:Sodidtheyhavescholarships? MeiHua:Noit’sonlycantransferthecredits. Researcher:Soyoudidn’texactlychooseUSU?Imean,didyouhavechoices? MeiHua:No(laughs).It’sonlyonechoice. Researcher:Andwhydidyouchoosehumanresources? MeiHua:Because(becaurse)…Ithink…ah,uh…doyouknow,inChinathereisa famousmovie.Isaboutagirl,howtobecomehumanresource,HR.IthinkIlikethe lifeofher. Researcher:Ohbecauseofthatmovie,youwantedto… MeiHua:Yes. Researcher:That’sinteresting.Whatisthenameofit? MeiHua:Dulalahundaqi Researcher:Ohokay(laughing)I’llhavetolookitup.Ijustwatchedamovie…. MeiHua:Ilikehorrormovie,howaboutyou? Researcher:Youlikehorrormovies?IguessIdon’tlikethemsomuch.Igetbad dreamsifIwatchhorrormovies. 48 MeiHua:Ohokay. Researcher:IwatchedaChinesemovietheotherday.Itwascalled“WhatWomen Want”?Idon’tknow,that’stheEnglishname.Butit’sbasedontheAmericanmovie. It’saboutaguywhocanreadwomen’sthoughts… MeiHua:Ah!IknowIknow.TheactressisGunLee. Researcher:She’sveryfamous? MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:SohowmanyyearsdidyoustudyEnglishbeforeyoumovedhere? MeiHua:Sincemy…little…about12yearsold. Researcher:Youwere12yearsold? MeiHua:Butweonlystudysomethegrammarandvocabulary. Researcher:Soisthatthesameashighschoolandcollege? MeiHua:No Researcher:Canyoudescribethedifferencebetweenschool,highschooland elementary? MeiHua:Wow.It’sveryboring. Researcher:DoyouspeakEnglishinclass? MeiHua:No,no.Usually(uyualy)intheclassonlyone,theteacher,spendalotof timewritingkeypointsontheblackboardandthestudentjusttakenotes.Nobody wanttoaskquestionsand…andIthink…teacherandparentspaymoreattentionto theexamandgrade. Researcher:Soit’smostlylearninggrammarandvocabulary. 49 MeiHua:AlotofChinesestudentaregoodatgrammarandreadingbutdon’twellin listeningandspeaking. Researcher:Andyouwritealottoo? MeiHua:Yeah,before. Researcher:Wasithardtolearnthewritingatfirst,becauseEnglishwritingisalot differentfromChinese? MeiHua:Alittle. Researcher:Sowascollegedifferentfromhighschool? MeiHua:Similar,inthepart…ingeneral,it’ssimilar. Researcher:Sohowdidyoulearntospeakitifyouneverspokeinclass?Howcan youspeaksowellrightnow? MeiHua:Weonlypayattentiontoexamsowedon’tneedtospeakaloud. Researcher:HowdidyoulearntospeakEnglishthen? MeiHua:Althoughmyspeakingisverypoor. Researcher:IthinkyourEnglishisverygood.Veryeasytounderstand. MeiHua:Ah…well,Ialwayswatchmovieand…talkwithmyAmericanfriends. Reseacher:InChina? MeiHua:No,justhere.IusemyI‐phonedownloadsomesoftwaretostudyEnglish. Researcher:Soit’saspecialprogramforhelpingwithEnglish? MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:SohowisIELIdifferentfromschoolinChina? MeiHua:Woah.ThebiggestdifferenceIthinkistheclassroomatmosphere.InChina isveryboringandnobodycaneatsomefoodintheclassroom.AndinELIclasswe 50 havealotofgroupdiscussionandpresentation.SoIthinkitisveryactive,yeah, environment. Researcher:Whatkindofactivitiesdoyouhave? MeiHua:Ithinkit’smoregroupdiscussion.Wecandiscusswithdifferentcountry fromtheworldsowecanlearnmoreaboutcultureandwecanpracticemy... speaking. Researcher:Sowhatkindsofthingsdoyoutalkabout? MeiHua:About…movie,and…sometopicwecantalk. Researcher:Sojustanything. MeiHua:Yeah,anything. Researcher:Howmuchclasstimeisjusttheteachertalking? (noresponse) Researcher:Doestheteachereverjusttalkwhileyoulisten,doestheteachertalk verymuch? MeiHua:Intopicclass,theteachertalkalot.Butinspeakerclasspeopleencourage ustospeakalot. Researcher:HowdoyoulearnthegrammarinIELI;doestheteachertellyouthe rulefirstandpractice?Ordoyoureallylearngrammar? MeiHua:NoI’minlevel3ofIELIclassandtheteachersusuallygivereadingand learntheac‐academicinformationandthevocabulary(wocabulary).Soit’sdon’t havealotofgrammar. Researcher:Yeah,youprobablylearnedmostofthegrammarinChina. MeiHua:Oh…(laughs) 51 Researcher:HowmanylevelsinIELI? MeiHua:4. Researcher:Soonemorelevel?Doyouhaveawritingclasstoo? MeiHua:Writing?No. Researcher:Soyou’reintopicsandspeaking?Sohowdoyoupracticelistening,isit justfromtalkingtoothers? MeiHua:It’savaluablewaytopracticemylistening. Researcher:Afterclass,howoftendoyoupracticeEnglish? MeiHua:Afterclass…Ithinkuh…watchmovie…yeahandtalkwithmyAmerican friends. Researcher:Soyougettopracticeafewtimesaday? MeiHua:Wetalkaboutanythingbutthey…fromthemwelearnaboutAmerican cultureandtraditional…andhabitsandsomeslang. Researcher:Whatisyourfavoriteslang? MeiHua:XYZ.Checkyourzipper(laughs).Andmakejokingwiththefriends.And ah…letmesee…goingbananas?Anddon’thaveaco…co…it’sthemeaningtochill out. Researcher:Oh!Don’thaveacow. MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:That’sanoldone,butIlikeit. MeiHua:AndReesingandshy…meansgetup Researcher:Oh…riseandshine.Sodoyoustudyonyourownafterclass? MeiHua:Yeah. 52 Researcher:Howdidyoustudy?Whatkindofmethodsdidyouuse? MeiHua:AfterclassIalwaysmemorizewordsandsomefamoustitles.Andwatch some…newspaper. Researcher:Soyoulookupwordsyoudon’tknow?Howdoyoumemorizethe words? MeiHua:Idon’tknowhowtoexplaininEnglish.Wecanimagethewordstoother interestingthings. Researcher:Sothat’swhatyoudoonyourown?Soyoudrawpicturesandthings likethat? MeiHua:Yes. Researcher:That’sagoodmethod…somostofyourfriendshere,aretheymostly ChineseorAmerican? MeiHua:Chinese Researcher:Sowhenyoufirstgothere,didyouknowanyAmericans? MeiHua:Yeah. Researcher:Howdidyouknowthem? MeiHua:Fromthe…Idon’tknow…letmecheck(asksfriendinroomaquestionin Chinese)Oh,TVshow. Researcher:Yourfriends?Beforeyoucamehere,didyouknowanyAmericans? MeiHua:Yeah,it’safamous… Researcher:Imeanfriends,didyouhaveAmericanfriends? MeiHua:InChina?No,no.Sorry. Researcher:Sowasithardatfirstwhenyougothere? 53 MeiHua:Yeahit’salittlehard. Researcher:Whatweresomebigculturedifferences,cultureshock? MeiHua:Uh…Iknowgestureaboutdifferent.Inchina,thisgesturemeansvictory. ButIknowinAmerica,it’speace.That’sverydifferent.Butthestopgesture,inChina wedothis. Researcher:Ohokay.Didyouhaveatimewhereyoumadeamistakeorhada misunderstandingbecauseofculture? MeiHua:Iforgot…uh,Idon’tknow…onceIwashmyunderwearinthebathroom, butmyAmericanroommatestheydon’tlikethisbehavior. Researcher:That’strue,wedon’treallydothat.It’sallinthewashingmachine.So yourroommatesareAmerican? MeiHua:TwoAmerican. Researcher:Didyouhaveproblemscommunicatingatfirst?Understanding? MeiHua:Alittle.Becausemylisteningisverypoor.SosometimesIdon’tknowtheir meaning. Researcher:Haveyouhadanyothercultureshockexperiencesthatmadeitharder foryoutolearnEnglish? MeiHua:Idon’tknowthemeaningoftheword.Shuck?Shock? Researcher:Cultureshock?Imean,haveyouhadnegativeexperiencesthatmadeit harderforyoutopracticeyourEnglish?Anythingthatmadeyou… MeiHua:disappoint?Yeah…Hm…Ithink(unintelligible)soIneedtostudyhard. Researcher:AreyouusuallyprettymotivatedandexcitedtolearnEnglish? MeiHua:No,I…hm,I’mnotexcitedinthe…English,butIneedhowtolearnEnglish. 54 Researcher:Soyou’remotivated MeiHua:Yeah,yeah. Researcher:Sowhohashelpedyouthemostwithbeingcomfortablelivinghere? MeiHua:Mybrother,but… Researcher:Yourbrother,here? MeiHua:But…He’sRocky’sfriend.HeandRockygavemealotofhelpwhenIcome here. Researcher:Whatkindofhelp? MeiHua:BecausewhenIarrivetheyrentcartopickmefromairport Researcher:Whatotherwaysdidtheyhelp? MeiHua:Letmesee…anotherperson,myroommates,it’saChinesegirlbuther EnglishisverywellsoshecanhelpmeinEnglish. Researcher:WhathasbeenthehardestpartforyoulearningEnglish? MeiHua:Difficultpart? Researcher:Yeah.Youknowobstacle? MeiHua:Yes. Researcher:WhathasbeenanobstacleforlearningEnglish. MeiHua:Idon’tknow.Maybelistening?Um…Iwillpracticemylistening. Researcher:SotheAmericanaccent,isithardtounderstand?Americanstalkreally fast…doesthatmakeithardertolisten? MeiHua:Yes,itishard Researcher:DoyouhaveanexperienceinclasswhenyoufeltproudofyourEnglish? MeiHua:Proud…? 55 Researcher:Wasthereatimeinclasswhenyoufeltlike,I’mreallygoodatEnglish? MeiHua:Yeah,three,twoyearsagoImakeapresentationandmyteachersaywell done. Researcher:ThatwasinChina? MeiHua:No,that’sinAmerica. Researcher:Twoyearsago? MeiHua:No,twodaysago,sorry. Researcher:Okaysothatwasreallyrecently.Shegaveyougoodfeedback.Doyou likeIELIbetterthantheEnglishclassesinChina? MeiHua:Yes,yes. Researcher:Whatteachingstyledoyoulikethemost? MeiHua:Freedom(laughs). Researcher: Freedom? Ok. So that’s not hard for you? Because I know in Chinese schoolsthereisnotmuchfreedom? MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:Wasithardtogetusedtoatfirst? MeiHua: I think I like American courses because it is very relaxed and we can do anything(laughs) Researcher:Soyoufeelcomfortableparticipating? MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:SowhenyoufirstgotherewereyouveryconfidentwithyourEnglish? MeiHua:No… Researcher:Haveyoubecomemoreconfident? 56 MeiHua:No,I’mnotconfident(laughs) Researcher: What do you think has helped, or could help you you be more confident? MeiHua:Ifmylisteningisimprove,IthinkIwillbeconfident. Researcher: Okay. Let’s see… I’m almost out of questions. So in classes you have discussions and presentations. What other kinds of activities in class are helpful? (pause)Whatactivitiesdoyoulikethemost?(pauses)Canyouthinkofanyspecific thingstheteacherdoes? MeiHua: Let me see… I like the group discussions more… the teacher often gives somethepaperaboutthecontentofthediscussionandwefinishitinclassandthe students are from all over the world we have a lot of different views. And we can discussIthinkitcanpracticemyspeakingIthinkitisveryhelpfultome. Researcher:Sotheteachergivesyousomethingtoreadfirst,andyoudiscuss? MeiHua:Noit’sonlyreadsomearticlesanddothehomework. Researcher:Newspaperarticles? MeiHua:It’stheacademicarticles,it’saboutbioluminescence…and…aboutlike… Researcher: It’s preparing you for other classes, you read these things to prepare youforregularclasses? MeiHua:Yeah,althoughit’salittlehardforme,butIthinkit’sveryinterestingandI thinkIcanfocusonit. Researcher:Didyoulearntowriteessaysinchina? MeiHua:Yeah,Ilearned. Researcher:Soyoualreadyknewhow?Isitdifferent,thewritingyoulearnedthere? 57 MeiHua:It’salittledifferent.Inchina,wedon’tpaymoreattentiontotheformatbut heretheprofessorisvery…abouttheformat. Researcher:Soinspeakingclass,that’smostlydiscussingandpresentations. MeiHua:Yeah Researcher:Doyoupresentonaspecifictopic,or… MeiHua:Abortion? Researcher: You presented on abortion? Wow. You have to pick an academic subject? MeiHua:Yeah Researcher: What was the… what do you wish you would have known about Americabeforeyoucamehere? MeiHua:ActuallyAmericaisfriendly,veryniceandtheycansmileateverybody. Researcher:AndyousaidyoulikedAmericabetterthanChina… MeiHua:Howtoanswer…yeah.Yeah. Researcher:Butdoyouwanttostayhereforever? MeiHua:No,becauseIhaveboyfriendinChina… Researcher:Ohyeah?SoyoutalkonSkypealot? MeiHua:Yes Researcher:Willyougetmarriedwhenyougoback? MeiHua:Maybe Researcher:Ohwow.Twoyears… MiHua:(laughing) Researcher:Hm.DoyouhaveanyadviceformeforteachingEnglish? 58 MeiHua:Ithinkyouwillbegoodteacher. Researcher:Ohthanks! MeiHua:Really,really! Researcher: I don’t really like some parts about English, but I really like the internationalstudents. MeiHua:Ohdoyouspeakanylanguage,ChineseorJapanese… Researcher:IspeakJapanesealittle. MeiHua:Oh.Na‐ni! Researcher:Yeah!AndIcansayni‐how‐ma.That’sall… Okaywelllet’sstoptheinterviewthere. MeiHua:Okay 59 LITERACYARTIFACT Dynamicassessmentforimprovingliteracyinthesecondlanguageclassroom 60 INTRODUCTION ThefollowingartifactwaswrittenforaSocioculturalTheory(SCT)course taughtbyDr.JimRogers.IchosetofocusthispaperonDynamicAssessment(DA). Theresearchwascompiledfromasmallsampleofarticleswhichdemonstrateduse ofDynamicAssessmentinvariousclassroomsettings.DAisverydifferentfrom whatmanyteachersareusedto,asitincorporatesactivenegotiationbetween studentandteachertowardshelpingthestudentimprove.Itisatestingmethod whichmorecloselymirrorsclassroomactivitiesthantraditionalformsof assessment,whichisaconceptinwhichIamveryinterested.Throughwritingthis paper,IwasbetterabletounderstandhowSocioculturalTheorycanbeappliedin theclassroom.AlthoughitcanbedifficulttoincludeDAmethodsinalarge classroomveryoften,Iwouldliketoinvestigatemorewaystoassessmystudents basedonDAprinciples. 61 Abstract Forlanguageteachersseekingtoprovidesupportforstudentsaccordingto theirindividualabilities,dynamicassessment(DA)isapromisingapproachforboth assessingstudentprogressandforguidingstudentstowardsfurtherdevelopment. ThispaperprovidesageneralreviewofthetheoreticalbackgroundofDAbasedon Vygotsky’s(1987)SocioculturalTheoryandhisideasonmediationandtheZoneof ProximalDevelopment.InordertofurtherclarifythepurposesandusesofDAinthe classroom,thetheoreticalfoundationwillbebuiltuponwithasummaryoffour studiespreviouslyconductedondynamicassessmentstrategiesforimproving readingandwriting.EachstudyshowsevidencethatDAtechniquescanhelp improvestudentperformanceandliteracyskills.Thesummarieswillbefollowedby aproposedapplicationofthemethodsusedineachstudyforimplementationina secondorforeignlanguageclassroom. 62 WhatisDynamicAssessment? DynamicAssessment(DA)isaconstructinspiredbyVygotsky’sSociocultural Theory(SCT),althoughVygotskyneverusedtheterminhiswritings.Acolleagueof Vygotsky,Luria(1961)coinedtheexpressionwhencomparingwhathereferredto asthedifferencebetweenstatisticalanddynamicassessmentapproaches.Statistical assessmentisrelatedtotraditionalformsofassessmentwhichshowtheendor cumulativeresultofastudent’sknowledgeusingapsychometricscoreorgrade.The students’gradeisseenasadirectreflectionoftheirability.Littleconnectionexists betweeninstructionandassessment(Poehner,2011)–inmostcases,bythetime studentsreceivefeedbacktheyhavealreadymovedontothenexttaskortest (Poehner&Lantolf,2005).Statisticalassessmentalsofailstoaccountforstudents’ individualdifference.However,studentsinasecondorforeignlanguageclassroom varywidelyintermsoflanguageaptitudeandlanguagelearningmotivation (Dornyei,2008).Incontrasttostatisticalassessment,dynamicassessmentcan actuallyimprovestudentabilityduringthecourseoftheassessmentwhileatthe sametimeevaluatingtheindividualstudent’spotential.Inotherwords,“DAis concernedwithpromotingdevelopment,notjustshowingresultsofdevelopment” (Poehner&vanCompernolle,2011). ThetheoreticalfoundationofDynamicAssessmentisrootedinVygotsky’s conceptoftheZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZPD).Vygotsky(1978)definedthe ZPDas“thedistancebetweentheactualdevelopmentallevelasdeterminedby independentproblemsolvingandthelevelofpotentialdevelopmentasdetermined throughproblemsolvingunderadultguidanceorincollaborationwithmore 63 capablepeers”(p.86).Thelevelofactualdevelopmentreflectstheabilitiesand mentalfunctionswhichastudentisabletodemonstratewithoutthehelpofothers. Vygotskyclaimsthatwhenastudentisgivenassistanceandisabletosuccessfully completeatask,thisisalsoindicativeofthestudent’sdevelopmentallevel.He writes:“whatchildrencandowiththeassistanceofothersmightbeinsomesense evenmoreindicativeoftheirmentaldevelopmentthanwhattheycandoalone” (Vygotsky,1978,p.85,emphasisadded).Learningthroughcollaborationandsocial exchangesarekeycomponentsofVygotsky’stheories.Hedifferedgreatlyfrom manyofhispredecessorswhobelievedlearningtobeanindividually‐based cognitiveprocess.AccordingtoSocioculturalTheory,humanlearningdoesnot occurthroughmentalprocessesalonebutthroughinteractionwiththeoutside environment. VygotskydemonstratedtheconceptofZPDusingthehypotheticalexampleof twoten‐yearoldchildren.Bothchildrenareassumedtohavethementalcapacities ofaneight‐year‐old,inthattheycancompletetasksindependentlyatthesamelevel asanaverageeight‐year‐oldchild.However,withtheassistanceofamentor,one childisabletocompletetasksequaltothatofatwelve‐year‐old,whiletheother childisabletocompletetasksonlytothelevelofanine‐year‐old.Theactual developmentofthechildrenindicates“developmentalcyclesalreadycompleted”(p. 87)whilethepotentialdevelopmentcanbeviewedas“functionsthatwillmature tomorrowbutarecurrentlyinanembryonicstate”(p.86).Throughassistancebya moreknowledgeableteacherorpeer,thedifferencebetweenstudents’abilities emerges. 64 AccordingtoSCT,humanmentaldevelopmentoccursasweinteractwiththeworld. Objects(e.g.books),psychologicaltools(e.g.language),orotherhumansactas mediatorstobridgethespacebetweenourselvesandtheoutsideworld. Asweinteract,theknowledgeandskillswelearnthroughmediation becomesinternalizedortransformedinto“intramental”processes(Poehner,2011). Weencountertheseopportunitiesformediationindailylife.Wecanlearn “spontaneous”conceptsinenvironmentssuchasthoseatworkorhome,orinthe “scientific”conceptsintheenvironmentsofschool(Vygotsky,1986).Scientific conceptsare“systematic,rigorousandopentoinspectionandreflection”(Poehner &Lantolf,2010).Theclassroomenvironmentisanartificialconstructwherein abstractactivitymirrorsreal‐lifeactivities.Itistheteacher’stasktocreate opportunitieswithintheboundariesoftheclassroomformediationamongstudents andforteacher‐studentcollaboration.Duringaclassroomactivity,mediationhelps studentsincreaseabilitiesthatareripefordevelopment(Poehner&Lantolf,2010). Studentsworkincollaborationwithothersusingtoolsalreadyinstockinorderto developnewtoolsforfutureuse.Oncestudentshaveacquiredaconceptorskillto thelevelwheretheyareabletoperformataskindependently,learninghas transformedintodevelopmentandthetaskbecomesinternalizedAccordingto Vygotsky(1978),learningisnotisolatedfromdevelopmentalprocesses,but actuallyprecedesdevelopment. Whenadministeringadynamicassessment,theteachernegotiatesataskas co‐participantswiththestudent(Poehner&Lantolf,2010).Theteacheradjuststhe taskandtheinteractioninordertohelpstudentswithintheirindividuallevelof 65 development.Asteacherandstudentworktogether,theteacherisbetterableto findtheunderlyingcauseofproblemswhichmaybehinderingstudent performance.Thiscanbecomparedtotheinteractionbetweenadoctorandpatient, asthedoctorworkstodetermineadiagnosisbasedonsymptoms.Astheteacher workstosupportthestudent,theyaltertheirmediationaccordingtothestudents’ responsiveness(Poehner,2007).Forexample,ifthestudentisunabletosolvea problemorformulatecorrectusageofthelanguage,theteachercanexplorethe possiblereasonsforthelackofknowledgebyaskingquestionsthatbecome increasinglyspecific.Byobservingstudentresponses,theteachercandiagnose development,gaugingstudentproximitytofunctioningindependently(Poehner, 2011).Inadditiontoprovidingadiagnosis,theteacherisalsoprovidinginstruction tofacilitatethestudent’sgrowthtowardsindependence.Thusassessmentand instructionare“dialecticallyintegrated”(Poehner,2007)duringdynamic assessment.Theultimatepurposeofprovidingassistancetothestudentisnot merelytoarriveattheanswerorsolvetheproblem,buttoguidethestudentto moreindependentwork.Ultimately,thestudentsareguidedtousetheir internalizedknowledgeandnewlydevelopedtoolsforfuturetasks.Developmentis evidencedinhowstudentssolveincreasinglymoredifficulttasks(Poehner& Lantolf,2010).Examplesofthisprocesswillbeprovidedinalatersectionofthis paper. Howisdynamicassessmentdifferentfromothertypesofassessment? Thetheoreticalfoundationofdynamicassessmentisunlikethatof traditionaltypesofassessment.PoehnerandLantolf(2005)discussthese 66 foundationsbyquotingValsiner(2001),whoclaimsthatmostassessmentsare basedona“past‐to‐present”viewwhereindevelopmentisrootedinaperson’s history,andisprogressingtosomeendresult.FromaDAperspective,development occursina“present‐to‐future”fashion.Thefocusisontheprocessofpresent developmentasameanstopredictfuturecapabilities.Asteachersworkwith students,theyareabletocontributeactivelytothedevelopmentalprocess,aswell asidentifythemediationneededtohelpstudentsaccordingtotheirpotential (Poehner&Lantolf,2005). DAdiffersfrombothsummativeassessment,whichismeanttomeasure studentachievement,andformativeassessment,whichingeneralreferstomethods whichprovidefeedbackduringorafterassessmenttoimprovestudentlearning. Formativeassessmentisanunstructuredmethodbywhichtheteacherintervenes orusesscaffoldingtechniquestoguidethestudenttowardagoal.AlthoughDAis closelyrelatedtoformativeassessmentinthisrespect,DAisbasedonapedagogical foundationofmentaldevelopmentandisthereforeconcernedwithimpactingthe student’sabilitytocompletefuturetasksorgoals(Poehner,2007).Thisconceptof transferortranscendenceimpliesthatthroughdynamicassessment,astudentwill beabletosolveincreasinglymorecomplicatedtasks. Howdoesdynamicassessmentworkinthelanguageclassroom? Asmentionedintheaboveparagraph,DAinvolvesmorethanscaffolding. PoehnerandvanCompernolle(2011)claimthat“whatismissingfromscaffoldingis atheoreticalbasisfordeterminingwhentooffersupportandwhentowithholdit,as wellashowtocalibratethequalityordegreeofsupporttoallowlearnerssome 67 amountofstruggle”(p.187).Dynamicassessmentinvolvesasystematicmethodfor jointlycollaboratinglearningbetweenthestudentandteacherortutorandmore capablepeer.Throughobservationofstudent“needs,frustrations,andefforts”the mediatorcanbothalterthemediation/taskinordertoguidethestudenttowards developmentandalsodiagnosepotentialforfuturedevelopment(Poehner&van Compernolle,2011,p.192).ForhelpintheZPDtobeeffective,itmustbegraduated. Theteacherofferstheminimumappropriatelevelofassistancetohelpstudents functionwithintheirownlevelofability,graduallyofferingmoreexplicithelpas needed. LantolfandPoehnerlabeltwodistinctivetypesofdynamicassessment: interventionistandinteractionist.InterventionistDAnormallyconsistsofpre‐ scriptedhintsandpromptsthatincreaseinexplicitnessuntilthestudentarrivesat thecorrectanswer.DuringinteractionistDA,mediationisnotpre‐determinedbutis negotiatedbetweenlearnerandteacher,accordingtothelearner’sneedsand responsestomediation(Poehner&Lantolf,2010).Althoughinterventionmethods aremoreeasilyquantifiable,interactionisttypesofDAaregenerallyregardedas beingmorecloselyalignedwithVygotsky’snotionofZPD(Poehner&Lantolf,2010). Theomissionofapre‐madescriptenablestheteachertodiscoverthesourceofa student’slimitations. Inordertofurtherexploreapproachestodynamicassessment,Iwillreview fourstudiesinwhichinteractionistdynamicassessmentwasusedtoimprove studentliteracy.Thefirsttwostudiesarecloselyrelatedandhaveafocusonreading comprehensionstrategies.Thelasttwostudies,alsorelated,arefocusedonwriting 68 skills.Followingsummariesofeachstudy,aclassroomapplicationofthetwobasic proceduresfordynamicassessmentofbothreadingandwritingwillbeproposed.In thedescriptionofeachstudy,‘mediationsession’referstotheinteractionbetween thetutorandlearner,whereinthetutorguidesthestudenttowardsdiscovering methodsforcompletingatasksuccessfully Study#1:Foreignlanguagetextcomprehension KozulinandGarb(2002)conductedastudyaimedatimprovingstudents’ readingcomprehensionthroughteachingcognitivestrategies.Theassessment consistedofatest‐teach‐testmodel.Studentswerefirstgivenabasicstatictest, afterwhichtheteachersworkedwithstudentsindividually.Tohelpstudentswith incorrecttestanswers,theteacherstargetedthemetacognitivestrategiesneededto successfullycompletethetask.Theteachersthenguidedstudentstowardsbuilding thenecessarymetacognitivestrategies.There‐testshowedoverallimprovedscores, thusreflectingstudents’learningpotentialtobegreaterthantheirinitial performance. Study#2:ESLacademicreadingstrategies AlaterstudybyKozulinandGarb(2004)followedsimilarpatternsasthis 2002study.Alsobasedonareadingcomprehensionassessment,thisstudywas aimedathelpingimmigrantstudentslearningEnglishasathirdlanguagewith metacognitivelearningstrategiesforreadingacademictexts.Theauthorsclaimthat academictextcomprehensionskillsareconnectedtosocioculturalcontexts,which mayprovechallengingforstudentsofdifferentculturalbackgroundandlearning 69 history.KozulinandGarbfurtherassertthatacademicreadingskillsaredeveloped asmuchthroughcognitiveandlearningstrategiesastheyarethroughacquiringthe language.Thestudentsinthestudywereadministeredastandardplacementpre‐ testonreadingcomprehension.Amediationsessionfollowedinwhichtheteacher workedwithstudentstofindboththepre‐knowledge(suchasgrammarand vocabulary)neededtoanswerthetestquestionsaswellasthestrategiesthe studentscouldapply.Studentswerethenguidedtopracticethesestrategies.Mostof thestudentsscoredhigheronthepost‐test. Study#3:ESLcollege‐levelwriting AljaafrehandLantolf(1994)assessedlevel2ESLstudentsenrolledina Writing/Readingcourseatauniversity.Studentsinthetestgroupreceivedweekly mediationsessionswithatutorforhelpwiththeiressays.Duringeachsession,the studentsbeganbyreadingtheiressayandself‐correctinganyerrors.Followingthis, thetutorreadtheessaytogetherwiththestudentandaskedguidingquestionsto helpbringerrorstothestudent’sattention,movingfromgeneraltospecific feedbackinreactiontostudents’responses.Promptsrangedfrom“payattentionto thetenseoftheverb,”to“usethepastparticipleoftheverbhere.”Thetutoralso providedgrammarexplanationsifneeded.Foreachguidingquestionprovidedby thetutor,themediationwasratedonascaleof0–12fromimplicittoexplicit: 0. Tutorasksstudenttoread,finderrorspriortomeeting. 1. Constructionofcollaborativeframepromptedbypresenceoftutor 2. Promptedorfocusedreadingofthesentencethatcontainstheerror 3. Tutorindicatesthatsomethingmaybewrong 70 4. Tutorrejectsunsuccessfulattemptsatrecognizingtheerror. 5. Tutornarrowsdownthelocationoftheerror. 6. Tutorindicatesthenatureoftheerror,butdoesnotidentifytheerror. 7. Tutoridentifiestheerror. 8. Tutorrejectslearner'sunsuccessfulattemptsatcorrectingtheerror 9. Tutorprovidescluestohelpthelearnerarriveatthecorrectform. 10. Tutorprovidescorrectform. 11. Tutorprovidessomeexplanationforuseofthecorrectform. 12. Tutorprovidesexamplesofthecorrectpatternwhenotherformsofhelpfail toproduceanappropriateresponsiveaction.(Aljaafreh&Lantolf,1994) Aftereachsession,thestudents’ZPDwasassessedbasedonthefrequencyand qualityofassistancerequiredfromthetutor.FivelevelswithintheZPDarelisted forthisstudy,startingfrominter‐mentalandleadingtointra‐mental.Levels1‐3 representfeatureswhichthestudentsareunabletonoticeindependently.Level4 indicatesfeaturesthestudentsareabletonoticeontheirown.Level5indicates instanceswherethestudentsareabletocorrectanerror,thusdemonstrating automatedorself‐generatedbehavior.Studentsinthisstudyshowedprogressby beginningtousemeta‐commentsandmovetowardself‐regulation. Study#4:College‐levelacademicwriting CoffinandShrestha(2012)conductedatutormediationstudywithtwo studentsenrolledinacollegebusinessclass.TwointeractionistDAsessionswere heldthroughWikichatandemail;thefirstasapre‐testandthesecondasapost‐ 71 test.Forthefirstsession,thestudentswroteanessayandthetutorprovided writtenfeedbackusingtheparameterssetbyAljaafrehandLantolf(1994)andalso assignedasetofstudyactivitiescenteredonproblemsobservedinthefirstdraft. Thestudentsthencompletedaseparatedraftonanewsubjectusingthefeedback. Thedialogicinteractionswereanalyzedinordertoassessstudentdevelopment basedontheirresponsestomediationandthetypesandamountofmediation needed.ThisreciprocitywasanalyzedbasedonarubriccreatedbyPoehner(2005), asfollows: 1. Unresponsive 2. Repeatsmediator 3. Respondsincorrectly 4. Requestsadditionalassistance 5. Incorporatesfeedback 6. Overcomesproblem 7. Offersexplanation 8. Usesmediatorasresource 9. Rejectsmediator’sassistance Infollow‐upinterviews,bothstudentparticipantsgavepositivereactionsforthe assessmentmethod.TheyreportedtheDAincreasedtheirconfidenceandwas generallymoresupportiveincontrasttomoretraditionalfeedbackmethods,which normallygivelittleexplanationforfinalgradesandfocusmoreontheerrorsthan onexpandingdevelopmentandability. 72 Eachofthepreviousstudiesshowedstudentsimprovedinperformance throughtheDAprocess.Theyhelpedtodiagnoseproblemareasandprovide studentswithdirectsupportindevelopingstrategies,knowledge,andtoolsfor improvingperformance.TheDAsessionsalsohelpedteachersunderstandstudents' individuallearningneeds. HowcanDynamicAssessmentmethodsbeappliedtoaspecificclassroom situation? BecauseperformingDAsuccessfullycanbetime‐consuming(Coffin& Shrestha,2012)andusuallyrequiresone‐on‐oneinteractionbetweenmediatorand student,itmaynotbepossibletoapplyDAmethodsinthelanguageclassroomona continualbasis.Inaddition,mostofthepreviousstudieswerenotoverlyexplicit withdetailsontheactualDAmediationprocess.However,thebasicframeworksof theactivitiescanbeusedasaguideforcreatingsimilarDAsessionsinthe classroomusingtheteacher,classmates,oratutorasmediator.TheexampleDA sessionsaredesignedforaLevel3IntensiveEnglishasaSecondLanguagecourseat thecollegelevel. OutlineforDAofreadingcomprehension: Mirroringstudies#1and#2,aDAprocedureforreadingcomprehension wouldbeginwithaninitialassessmentinreading.Thismightbeastandardreading comprehensiontestusedbytheESLdepartment,atestusedforplacement purposes,orasamplereadingdiagnostictestfoundonlineorinatextbook.The assessmentwouldcontainquestionsthatteststudents’abilitytoemploystrategies 73 suchasfindingthemainidea.Theteacherwouldthenreviewtheteststofindthe areaswhichstudentsareexperiencingthemostproblems. DuringtheDAmediation,thestudentandmediatorreviewthetest collaboratively,focusingonincorrectresponsesonthetest.Theteacherwould beginwithimplicitquestionsandproceedtomoreexplicit.Forexample,when helpingstudentsidentifythemainidea,theteachercouldbeginbydefiningthe conceptofamainidea,andaskingthestudenttorereadthepassagetofindit.An exampledefinitionmightbe:“Themainideaisthemainreasontheauthoriswriting thispaper,orthemostimportantpoint.Usuallyyoucanfindthemainideaifyou knowwhatthepaperisabout.Whatisthepaperabout?Whatistheauthortryingto tellyou?”Ifthestudentanswersincorrectly,theteachercanprovidemoreexplicit guidancebyhelpingthestudentdefinekeywordsandpointingouttheareasina textwhereamainideaisnormallyindicated.Ifastudentisunabletocorrectly answerthequestionaftersufficientteacherguidance,theteachercanthenexplicitly pointoutthemainidea,andexplainwhyitwouldbeconsideredthemainidea. Throughaskingaboutorpointingtokeywordsinthepassage,themediator mightalsobeabletoassesswhetherthestudentislackingspecificlanguageskills. Gapsinstudentknowledgecanthenpromptinstructioninimportantvocabularyor inidentifyingorganizationalpatterns.Astheteachermovesfromimplicittoexplicit questions,thestudentisguidedtofocusattentiononthesekeyitems.Forexample, theteachermightbeginbyasking“Whatdoyouthinkistheauthor’smainpointin thisarticle?Howdoyouknow?Whatkeywordsshowthis?”Ifthestudentdoesnot seemableorwillingtoidentifythekeyareascorrectly,theteachercanexplicitly 74 pointoutthesecomponents,explainwhytheyareimportant.Forwordsthatare unfamiliartothestudent,theteachercanprovideadefinitionwithexamples.Based onstudentresponses,themediatorwouldbeabletodeterminewhetherthestudent islackingknowledgeofthestrategy,hasanincompleteunderstandingofthe strategy,orislackingspecificlanguageskillsneededtocompletethetask.The students’responsivenesstosupportwouldallowtheteachertodeterminewhether thestudentisclosetomasteringthestrategyorstillrequiresinstructiononthe area.Furtherinstructioncanensurethestudentisabletotransferthesame strategicskillstosimilarassignments. OutlineforDAofwritingskills: Adynamicassessmentforimprovingstudentwritingwouldbeginwitha writingassignment.Studentswouldwritearoughdraftonagiventopicfollowing guidelinessetbytheteacher,andsubmitforreview.Beforeamediationsession,it canbebeneficialfortheteachertoprovideinstructiontostudentsonaprocessfor evaluatingtheirownpaperandhavestudentsreviewtheirpeer’spaperforpractice. Theteacherwouldalsoreadstudentpapersandmakenotesofsignificantor commonerrors. TheassessmentsessionwouldfollowguidelinesusedbyAljaafrehand Lantolf(1994).Duringthesession,themediatorwouldbeginbyfirstaddressingany problemsthestudentencounteredduringthewritingprocessoranyquestionsthey hadfrompeerreview.Aftertheseissuesareaddressed,theteacherwouldbring studentattentiontoasentenceorparagraphwhichcontainsanerror.Anexample sentencewithanerrormightbe“YesterdayIseeabirdfly.”Ifthestudentisunable 75 tolocatethesourceoftheerrorafterreadingaloud,theteachercannarrowdown thelocationorevenidentifythetypeoferror.Forexample,theteachermightask suchquestionsas,“Areyouusingpasttensecorrectlyinthissentence?”Insituations whereitisapparentthestudentdoesnotunderstandthemeaningofagrammatical term,theteachercanusethisopportunitytoexplainthedefinitionofpasttense. Finally,ifthepreviouspromptsareunsuccessful,theteacherwillpointouttheexact error:“Youusedthewordseehere,whichisincorrect.”Thestudentwillbegivena chancetocorrecttheerrorindependently,andtheteacherwillprovideincreasingly explicitcluesuntilthestudentidentifiesthecorrectgrammaticalform.Theteacher mightask“Doyouknowthepasttenseofsee?”and“Whyshouldthiswordbepast tense?”Tohelpsolidifytheknowledgeofthecorrectform,theteacherwillendby providinganexplanationofverbswithirregularpasttenseandfurtherexamplesof thegrammaticalconcept. Asmediationoccurs,theteacherwouldassessstudentresponsesand receptivity.Studentresponsesarerankedfrom1to9,asoutlinedbyPoehner (2005): 1. Wasstudentunresponsivetomediation? 2. Didstudentrepeatmediator? 3. Didstudentrespondincorrectlytomediator’sprompt? 4. Didstudentrequestadditionalassistance? 5. Wasthereevidenceofstudentincorporatingfeedback? 6. Wasthereevidencethatstudentovercametheproblem? 7. Didstudentofferanexplanationforhowtheyovercametheproblem? 76 8. Didstudentonlyusethemediatorasaresource? 9. Didstudentrejectthemediator’sassistance? Answering“yes”toquestionswithlowernumbersmightindicateareaswherethe studentwillstillrequiremediation,whileanswering“yes”onhighernumbersmight showareaswherethestudentisclosertoarrivingatanindependentsolution. Throughassessingstudentresponsesinthisway,theteacherwillbeableto ascertainwhichskillsthestudenthasdevelopedandwhichskillswillneedtobe fosteredthroughfurtherassistance.Ifcertainskillsarepredominatelylacking amonggroupsofstudents,theteachercanalsoprovidegrouporclassroom instructiononthatspecificarea. Conclusion Theprecedingoutlinesforimplementingdynamicassessmentprocedures aremeantonlytobeusedasabaseforconstructingmorespecificDAactivities. Teachersarelikelytofindthatadjustmentwillberequiredbasedonclasssize, demographic,age,andoverallclassroomatmosphere.Eachclassisuniquejustas eachstudentisunique.Ageneralguidelineallowsteachersastartingpointtomore easilycreateactivitiesforincorporatingdynamicassessmentprinciplesinthe classroom. AsDAisrootedinVygotsky’ssocioculturaltheory,itisbasedonaseriesof theoreticalfoundationsoflearningthatmayvaryfromthatofmoststandard educationalfoundations.Manyofthepracticesteachersareaccustomedtoderive fromadifferentsetofbeliefsaboutlearninganddevelopment.Theideaofusing 77 hintsandpromptsduringatestseemsalmostlikecheating.Itistheantithesisof isolatedpapertestsperformedintheprivacyofcardboardcubicles.However,most teacherswouldagreethatthemainpurposeofeducationislearningand development,andtestscoresareasecondaryconcern.Withtheappropriateteacher focus,itseemspossibletousesimilardynamicapproachesinalargeclassroom Teacherswhohavere‐framedtheirinstructionalmethodsbasedonSCT principleswillfinditeasiertoincorporateactivitieswhichsupportsociocultural development.Dynamicassessmentpracticescanhelpintegrateinstructionwith assessment,thusfocusingtheattentiononlearningratherthanmerelypassingthe class.Dynamicassessmentsessionscanguidestudentsthroughmediationtowards completingtasks,whiletheteacherisbetterabletoassesstheircurrentand potentialcapacities.InteractionduringDAisacollaborativeeffortwhichleadsto improvementofboththeproductofdevelopmentandtheprocessofdevelopment itself(Lantolf&Poehner,2010).Theresultisthatstudentsarenotonlyabletogrow asindividuals,buttheteacherisbetterabletoassessstudentsonanindividual basis. 78 CULTUREARTIFACT Englishasaninternationallanguage: ExploringperceptionsofEnglishteachersinJapan 79 INTRODUCTION ThefollowingartifactwaswrittenforaResearchinSecondLanguage Learningcourse,taughtbyDr.KarindeJonge‐Kannan.Thetopicwaspersonally relevanttomeandmyfutureteachingcareer.Ihadbeengrowingconcernedabout thewayEnglishisperceivedtopeopleinothercountries.IsEnglishviewedasan imposition,bornefromcolonialism?DoesEnglishthreatentheexistenceofnative languages?Inmyresearch,IcameacrosstheideaofteachingEnglishasan internationallanguage.PeopleinothercountriesneedEnglishasasharedlanguage tocommunicateacrosscountriesandcultures,andEnglishinstructioncanreflect thiswideusage.Myproposedresearchplanistoinvestigateinstructionalmethods inJapan,todiscoverhowEnglishlanguageandcultureispresented.Iwouldliketo carryoutthisresearchinthefuture.Theresultsmightleadtoconcretesuggestions forimprovementsinthewayEnglishistaughtinJapanandothercountries. 80 Abstract Thisobjectiveofthisproposedstudyistoassessteacherperceptionsofhow EnglishistaughtinJapan,givenitsstatusasaninternationallanguage.Englishis usedgloballyamongpersonsofvaryingfirstlanguagesandnativeculturesasa sharedmodeofcommunication(Seidlhofer,2005),andthewidespreaduseof Englishhastransformedthelanguageintoaconglomerationof‘WorldEnglishes’ (Crystal,2011).AsEnglishuseincreasesinJapan,itsinfluenceaffectsthepeople’s viewsoflanguage,culture,race,ethnicity,andidentity(Kubota,1998).Teaching Englishinconsiderationofitsinternationalstatusthusinvolvesredefiningculture, curriculumdevelopment,andpronunciation.Theinsightsgainedfromteachersin bothuniversityandadultEnglishlanguageschoolsinJapanwillaidinassessingthe currentstateofEnglishlanguageeducationandimprovingpre‐serviceteacher training. 81 Introduction Thisproposedstudyisbasedonthefollowingquestion:IfEnglishasan internationallanguageisameansofcommunicationamongpeopleofvariousfirst languages,howdoesthisimpactthewayinwhichitistaughtasaforeignlanguage? WithaspecificfocusontheteachingofEnglishinJapan,theliteraturereviewwill provideananalysisofwhatismeantbytheterm‘Englishasaninternational language’,includingdefinitionsofnativeandnon‐nativespeakersandparametersof globalEnglishuse.AbriefsummaryoftheconsequencesofthespreadofEnglish willbeincluded.Theliteraturereviewwillconcludewithananalysisofthe implicationsforteachingEnglishasaninternationallanguage,includingculture, curriculumdevelopment,pronunciation,teachereducation,andteacherbeliefs.The proposedstudyfollowsamethodologyofsurveysandinterviewsofEnglish languageteachersandclassroomobservationsatvariousEnglishlanguage programsanduniversitiesinJapan.Thepurposeofthestudywillbetogather perceptionsandexperiencesofteachersinpreparingtheirstudentstouseEnglish inavarietyofinternationalcontexts. LiteratureReview Englishasaninternationallanguage Englishisdistinguishedasaninternationallanguageintermsofbothnumber ofnon‐nativespeakersandtheofficialorspecialrecognitionEnglishisgrantedin manycountries(McKay,2002).AnestimatedtwobillionpeopleuseEnglishtoday, ofwhichonly400millionarenativespeakers(Westcomb,2011).Asnativespeakers havebecometheminority,thisimpliesaquestionofEnglishlanguage‘ownership’, 82 andthedominanceofnativespeakermodelsinEnglishlanguageteaching(Coskun, 2011).Spokenasafirst,second,andforeignlanguagebypeopleallovertheworld, Englishcannolongerbeidentifiedwithonesinglecultureorcountry.Thelanguage hasdevelopedintoregionalvarietiesof‘WorldEnglishes’adaptedforuseamong peopleofthesamecultureandforcross‐culturalexchanges(Crystal,2011).The verydefinitionofEnglishasaninternationallanguageimpliesthatnoonegroupcan claimownershipofit.Crystal(2011)writes:“Themorealanguagebecomesa national,thenaninternational,thenagloballanguage,themoreitceasestobein theownershipofitsoriginators”(p.69). Tohelpclarifythedefinitionofnativeandnon‐nativespeakers,manyscholars refertoKachru’s(1989)categorizationofEnglishaccordingtoInnerCircle,Outer Circle,andExpandingCircle.TheInnerCirclereferstocountriessuchasEngland, U.S.,Australia,andNewZealand,whereEnglishisthefirstandsometimesonly languageforthemajorityofpeople.TheOuterCircleincludescountriessuchas Singapore,India,andNigeria,whereEnglishhasspreadbecauseofcolonizationand isspokenasa‘second’or‘additional’language,alongsidelocallanguages.The ExpandingCirclecomprisescountriessuchasChinaandGermanywhereEnglishis thefirstforeignlanguagetaughtinschools,andisspreadasaresultofforeign languagelearning(Kachru,1989). Graddol(1997)criticizedKachru’smodelforgivingprecedencetoInner CirclespeakersandmiscountingthegrowthofEnglishinExpandingCircle countries.Hesuggestedinsteadarowofoverlappingcircles,withtheinfluenceof EnglishspreadingfromtheExpandingCircletotheInner.Graddolalsorenamedthe 83 circlecategoriesasfirstlanguagespeakers(L1),orthosewhospeakEnglishasthe firstandsometimesonlylanguage;secondlanguagespeakers(L2),whouseEnglish asasecondoradditionallanguage,andforeignlanguagespeakers(FL)orthosewho learnEnglishasaforeignlanguage.Thesereorganizedcirclesplaceemphasisonthe ideathat“thosewhospeakEnglishalongsideotherlanguageswilloutnumberfirst‐ languagespeakersand,increasingly,willdecidetheglobalfutureofthelanguage” (Graddol,1997,pg.10).BothKachru’sandGraddol’stermswillbeusedinthis paper. MorethanseventycountrieshavegivenEnglishspecialstatusbyeither makingittheofficiallanguageorrequiringitasaforeignlanguageinschool(McKay, 2002).EnglishisthedominantlanguageoftheUnitedNations,theWorldBank,the InternationalMonetaryFund,worldpolicyorganizations,andmostoftheworld's largebusinesses(Phillipson&Skutnabb‐Kangas,1996).Thus,learningEnglishhas becomeeitheranecessityforcommunicationinsomesettingsoranassethighly regardedasbeneficialintheglobaleconomicmarket. In2000,theJapaneseprimeministerproposedtoadopt“Englishasan officiallanguage”aspartofJapan’splantocultivateJapaneseyouthwhoareableto useEnglishintheworkplace(Hashimoto,2009).Includedintheproposal document,titled“PrimeMinister’sCommissiononJapan’sGoalsinthe21st Century”,wasthenotionthatalargepercentageoftheJapanesepopulation possessedinadequateEnglish‐speakingabilities.Theauthorofthedocument furtherclaimsthatthisinadequacy“imposesrestrictionsonexchangeswith foreignersandcreatesoccasionswhentheideasandopinionsofJapanesepeople 84 arenotappropriatelyevaluated”(citedinHashimoto,2009).Thisstatement emphasizesthedisadvantageJapanesemayencounteringlobalizedsettingsin whichEnglishisthedominantlanguage.Inasense,thePrimeMinister’s Commissionoffersacompromise“betweenthemaintenanceofJapan’scultural independenceandthepromotionofEnglishasanindispensabletoolfor internationalmarketcompetitiveness”(Hashimoto,2009,p.28).Thistension betweennationalidentityandthepressureofglobalizationwillbefurtherexplored inthefollowingsection. ConsequencesofthespreadofEnglishonnativelanguagesandculture Astheworldbecomesmorelinguisticallyintegrated,manypeopleviewthe spreadofEnglishand“western‐influencedglobalculture”asathreattolocal languagesandtraditions(McKay,2002,p.22).Kubota(1998)writes,“perhapsthe mosttroublingwayEnglishexertsinfluenceinJapanisinaffectingtheformationof people'sviewsoflanguage,culture,race,ethnicity,andtheiridentity”(p.296).The influenceonJapanbyInnerCirclecountriesisreflectedinthewayEnglishistaught. AccordingtoKubota(1998),theEnglishteachingmaterialsavailableinJapanese classroomspresentanegativeviewofnon‐westerners.SomeJapanesehave expressedresentmentovertheperceivedAmericanizationoftheirsociety(Kubota, 2002)andothersregardthedominanceofEnglishinJapan‐U.S.relationsasan exampleofunjustlinguisticimperialism(Tsuda,1994). TeachingEnglishinawaythatcombatsitsimperialisticrootsentails addressingthepowerinequalityassociatedwithitshistory.AsteachersofEnglish playaroleintheexpansionofworldwideEnglish,itisimportantforthemto 85 understand“whoseintereststhisprocesshasserved,andwhatideologiesand structurescurrentlyfavourtheincreasedexpansionofEnglishattheexpenseof otherlanguages”(Phillipson&Skutnabb‐Kangas,1996,p.441).Canagarajah(2002) statesthatbecause“inoptingtolearnanduseEnglish,studentsaremakingcomplex ideologicalandsocialchoices”(p.157),itisimportantforteacherstounderstand thehistoryandeffectsofthespreadoftheEnglishlanguage. Teacherscanalsohelpdispelsomeofthemorenegativeconnotations surroundingEnglishbyexposingstudentstoavarietyofEnglishesfromOuterand ExpandingCirclespeakers(Matsuda,2003).Currently,EnglishtaughtinJapan carriesasignificantInnerCircle‐orientation,whichisnotonlyinadequatefor preparingstudentsforinteractionsamongdifferenttypesofEnglishusersona globalscalebutalso“failstoempowerthemwithownershipofEnglish”(Matsuda, 2003,p.721).DetailsontheinclusionofWorldEnglishesintheclassroomwillbe discussedfurtherinthePronunciationsectionofthispaper. ImplicationsofteachingEnglish McKay(2002)claimsthattheinternationalstatusoftheEnglishlanguage impactsitsinstructiondifferentlythantheteachingofmostothersecondorforeign languagesintermsofculture,curriculumdevelopment,pronunciation,andteacher education.Eachoftheseaspectswillbeexploredindetail,withafinalconsideration addressingtheimportanceofteachers’beliefs. Culture Eveniftheyarenotimplicitlyawareoftheiremphasis,EFLteacherspromote eitherassimilationtothetargetlanguage’scultureoridentitywithstudents’own 86 culture(Zacharias,2003).IfEnglishasaninternationallanguagedoesnotbelongto anyonenationorculture,thisimpliesquestionsforwhichculture(s)aretaught, howcultureistaught,andtheroleofthestudents’owncultureintheclassroom. InJapan,thereappearstobeastrongemphasisonteachingEnglishasan internationallanguagewithintheframeworkofJapanesetraditionsandculture (Hashimoto,2009).Inaddition,manypoliciesregardingEnglishasaForeign Languageassociateinterculturalunderstandingwithunderstandingofthewestern world,orglobalizationwith‘Americanization’(Kubota,2002).BecauseJapanese studentswillencounterEnglishfromavarietyofculturalbackgrounds,thisheavy emphasisonJapaneseandwesternculturecouldfailtoprovidestudentswitha moreinclusiveviewoftheworld.Yamanaka(2006)writes,“thereisaneedto includeaswideavarietyofculturalelementsaspossibleinteachingandlearning English,inorderforJapanesestudentstocommunicateeffectivelywithpeoplefrom othercountries”(p.62). Manyscholarsrecommendteachinginterculturalcommunicationskillsin conjunctionwithteachingcultureintheEnglishclassroom(Bennett,1998;Byram, 2000;Forsman,2010;andYoung&Sachdev,2011).Interculturalcommunicationis wellmatchedfortheEFLclassroom“againstthebackgroundoftoday’scomplexand rapidlychangingsocietieswithincreasingamountsoflinguisticandcultural influencesfromdifferentsourcesforstudentstoencounter”(Forsman,2010,p. 503).Teachersandstudentswithcross‐culturalcommunicationskillsareableto adapttheirinteractionsbasedontheculturearoundthem.Byram(2000)has suggestedtheassessmentofsuchskillsbebasedoncompetenciesratherthan 87 knowledgeoffacts.Hedefinedinterculturalcompetenceastheabilitytosee relationshipsbetweencultures,ananalyticalunderstandingofone’sownand others’cultures,andanawarenessofone’sownperspectives.Hefurther categorizesinterculturalcompetenceintofiveassessableelements: 1. Attitudes:curiosityandopenness,readinesstosuspenddisbeliefaboutother culturesandbeliefaboutone'sown. 2. Knowledge:ofsocialgroupsandtheirproductsandpracticesinone'sown andinone'sinterlocutor'scountry,andofthegeneralprocessesofsocietal andindividualinteraction. 3. Skillsofinterpretingandrelating:abilitytointerpretadocumentorevent fromanotherculture,toexplainitandrelateittodocumentsfromone'sown. 4. Skillsofdiscoveryandinteraction:abilitytoacquirenewknowledgeofa cultureandculturalpracticesandtheabilitytooperateknowledge,attitudes andskillsundertheconstraintsofreal‐timecommunicationandinteraction. 5. Criticalculturalawareness/politicaleducation:anabilitytoevaluatecritically andonthebasisofexplicitcriteriaperspectives,practicesandproductsin one'sownandotherculturesandcountries(Byram,2000). Matsuda(2011)claimsthatdevelopmentofthesecompetenciesisimportant bothintheclassroomandintheoutsideworld:“Theabilitytonegotiatemeaning andovercomecommunicationdifficultiesisparticularlycrucialinEILsettings, whereeachpersonbringsintheirownlinguisticandculturalbackgroundto approachcommunication”(p.336).Thecompetencemodelsubsequentlyimplies 88 thatthelanguageteacherencouragetheuseofEnglishasatoolforcommunication ratherthantheachievementofnative‐likeproficiency. Nguyen(2011)writes: IfthegoalofELTistodevelopfluentspeakersofEnglishwhoarecapableof accommodatingthemselvestoawidevarietyofculturalperspectives withoutlosingtheirownsenseofselfandidentity,anydecisiontoinclude only‘NSnorms’inthecurriculumisbothlimitedandlimiting.(p.18) Asnative‐speakernormsarethecommonstandardinmostEFLclassrooms (Matsuda,2003),theroleofcreatingamorediversifiedcurriculuminvariablyfalls totheteacher. CurriculumdevelopmentandstandardizedEnglish EffectiveteachingofEnglishasaninternationallanguageimpliestheuseof instructionalmaterialsthatprovideawidearrayoflanguagevarietiesandculture sources(Coskun,2011).ThemajorityofbeginnertextbooksapprovedbyJapan’s ministryofeducationarebasedonAmericanEnglish,withmostcharacters(i.e., people)inthesebooksfromInnerCirclecountriesandJapan(Matsuda,2003).Ina studyofbothJuniorandSeniorHighSchooltextbooks,itwasfoundthatthe majorityofculturerepresentedwaseitherAmericanorBritish,despiteJapan’s politicalandtradingtieswithmanyInner‐andExpandingCirclecountries (Yamanaka,2006).Matsuda(2011)suggeststhatifstudentsareonlypresented withoneinstructionalmodel,“animpressionmightformthatitistheonlycorrect variety”(p.371).Thisimpressionmighthavenegativeeffectsonthestudents’ encounterswithothervarietiesofEnglishusers,includingattitude,confidencein communicatingwithothervarieties,andabilitytounderstandvariousEnglishes (Matsuda,2011).Becauseoflackofrepresentationintextbooks,itisthereforeleft 89 toteacherstohelpstudentsunderstandthatthedominantmodelofEnglish languageisonlyoneofmanyvarietiesofEnglishwhichexistintheworld. PronunciationandNon‐Nativevs.Nativespeakers InterviewsconductedwithJapanesestudentsandstudentteachersshowed strongpreferenceforAmericanandBritishEnglish,asstudentsviewedthese Englishesas‘pure’,‘authentic’,and‘correct’(Matsuda,2003;Suzuki,2010).This biastowardsfirst‐languagespeakersisreflectedinthedemographicsofEnglish teachersinJapan.Asoftheyear2000,98%ofthe5,444AssistantLanguage Teachers(AET)recruitedbyJET,agovernment‐sponsoredEnglishteaching program,werefromInnerCirclecountries(Monbukagakusho,2001,translatedin Matsuda,2003).TeachersofEnglishfromInnerCirclecountrieshaveanunfair advantageoverlocalteacherswhenenteringtheELTprofession(Zacharias,2003). Canagarajah(1999)referstothetermnative‐speakerfallacy,aphrase originallyusedbyPhillipson(1992),inresponsetothewidespreadpreferencefor nativespeakingteachers.Canagarajahfurtherstatesthatmorethaneightypercent ofallEnglishteachersaresecondorforeignlanguagespeakersofEnglishandmany benefitsareassociatedwithteacherswhocanspeakthefirstlanguageofthe students.Forexample,suchteacherscanprovideperspectivesonlocallanguage andcultures(Sowden,2011).AssecondorforeignlanguagespeakersofEnglish haveundergonetheprocessofacquiringEnglishasasecondlanguage,italso followstheymightbebetterequippedtounderstandtheneedsoftheirstudents (Seidlhofer,2005).Teacherswhospeakthestudents’firstlanguagealsopossessthe abilitytotranslatedifficultconcepts,explainthepurposeofthelessonoractivity, 90 talktostudentsone‐on‐one,assessactualcomprehensionofmaterial,andalso encouragestudentstobemoreateaseintheclassroom(Zacharias,2003). SecondandforeignEnglishspeakingteachersfromoutsidethestudents’ languagebackgroundcanalsoprovideperspectivesonWorldEnglishes,thus preventingstudentsfromfeelingtheirownEnglishisunacceptableifnot conformingtoInnerCirclevarieties(Matsuda,2003).ExposingstudentstoEnglish varietiesmighthelpthemrealizethatthesuccessofcommunicationwithother EnglishspeakersdoesnotnecessarilydependontheformsofEnglishtheyproduce, butratherontheircommunicationskills(Suzuki,2010). WhilesuchconsiderationsastheincorporationofWorldEnglishesand teachinginterculturalcompetencehavebeenproveneffective,teachersmayormay nothavebeentrainedtoincludetheseaspectsintheirclassroom.Investigating teacher’spre‐servicetraininginthisstudywillaidintheimprovementoffuture teachereducationprograms. ImplicationsofteachingEnglish:Teachereducation Themajorityofprogramsforpre‐serviceEFLteachersinJapanarecentered ontheInnerCircle(Matsuda,2003).ScholarssuchasSnow(2006)stressthe importanceofexposingteacherstovarietiesofEnglishbeyondtheInnerCircleand “deconstructingthemythofthenativespeaker”(p.267).Suzuki(2010),anEnglish professoratmultipleJapaneseuniversities,alsorecommendscoursesin multiculturaleducationandinterculturalcommunication.Thesecourseswould includeexposuretonon‐standardvarietiesofEnglishspokenbybothfirstand secondlanguageusers,theobservationofinteractionsbetweenL2speakers,and 91 analysisofthecommunicationstrategiesemployedbysecondlanguagespeakersof English(Suzuki,2010). AlongwithcoursesonWorldEnglishesandcommunication,Sifakis(2007) suggeststhatpre‐servicetrainingincludediscussionsoftheEnglishlanguage’s historyandinfluenceinrelationtoteachers’ownidentityandexperiences.Itis assumedbytheauthorofthisstudythattheEnglishteachersinJapancomefroma varietyofpre‐servicebackgroundsandtrainingprograms.Onepurposeofthis studywillbetoascertainthecontentsofvariousteachers’pre‐serviceeducation.As teachingstylesandmethodologiesarebasedontheteachers’background experiencesandbeliefsinadditiontotraining,teachers’individualbeliefswillalso beexplored. Teacherbeliefs Tsuda(1994)proposedthelabelingoftwodistinctlanguagepolicy paradigms,Diffusion‐of‐EnglishandEcology‐of‐Language,whicharereflectedin languagepoliciesthroughouttheworldandinfluencethemodeanddirectionin whichEnglishisspread.TheDiffusion‐of‐Englishparadigmtoitsextremesupports monolingualism,ideologicalglobalization,andthehomogenizationofworldculture. FollowersofthisparadigmpromotetheexpansionofEnglishasabusinesstool,or asadoorwaytointernationalopportunities.Incontrast,theEcology‐of‐Language paradigmextremeisassociatedwithmultilingualism,maintenanceoflanguageand cultures,protectionofnationalsovereignties,andthepromotionofforeign languageeducation(Tsuda,1994).Thesetwoextremepositionsareendpointsat oppositeendsofabeliefsystem. 92 TeachersofEnglishinvariablypositionthemselvesonthespectrumbetween thesetwoparadigmsthroughtheirbeliefsandteachingpractice.Inaddition,the languagepolicyofateacher’scountry,culture,organization,orinstitutionwilllikely affecttheteacher’spractice.Itisthereforeimportantforteacherstobeawareof theirownperspectiveandtoknow“whoseagendawearefollowing”(Phillipson& Skutnabb‐Kangas,1996,p.441).Ricento&Hornberger(1996)placetheteacherat theheartoflanguagepolicy,ratherthantheplayerwhomerelyimplementswhatis passeddown: ThemostfundamentalconcernsofESL/EFLteachers—thatis,whatwillI teach? how will I teach? and why do I teach?—are all language policy issues…Teachershavedailyopportunitiestomakesmallchangesintheir practices, from the topics they choose for discussion, to how they structure the classroom, to the interest they demonstrate in students’ problems.Theymayreinforcedominantculturalvalues(toonedegreeor another), or they may question and even oppose those values, thereby modeling possible alternative views of social reality often unavailable to students struggling to survive in a new culture or acquiring English for instrumentalpurposes.(p.420) Teachersoftenbasetheirinstructionmoreonbeliefsratherthanresearch‐ basedknowledge(Borg,2011).Thesebeliefsareevidentinteachers'behaviorsin the classroom through teaching approaches, types of materials, and types of activitiesused(Seidlhofer,2005).Asteachersplayasignificantroleintheshifting of attitudes regarding English as an international language, studying their beliefs canprovideinsightforbothteachersandscholarsintheeducationfield. Althoughtherehasbeenagreatdealofdiscussionontheissuessurrounding Englishanditsimplicationsasaninternationallanguage,muchofthishasbeen limitedtotheabstractortheoretical.Researchforpedagogicalpracticeisstillinits infancyandteachershavenotbeengivenapplicablesuggestionsformaking 93 improvementsbasedontheneedtoadapttheirteaching(Matsuda,2011).Withthis outlookontheresponsibilityandpowerofteacherstoshapethechanging landscapeofEnglisheducation,thefollowingstudywillprovideaglimpseintothe currentstateofthefieldfromteachers’first‐handvantagepoint.Theresultswill showwhetherteachersareawareoftheimplicationsofteachingEnglishasan internationallanguage;theirperspectivesoncurriculumdevelopment, pronunciation,andculturewhenteachingEnglishasaninternationallanguage;and whetherteachers’methodologicalapproachreflectstheirperspectives.Special attentionwillbegiventodiscoveringpracticesforteachingculture,aswellas investigatingwhetherteachersfeeltheyareprovidedwithadequateinstructional materials,strategies,andtrainingforpreparingtheirstudentstouseEnglishin internationalcontexts. ResearchQuestions Thequestionsguidingthisresearchareasfollows: 1. TowhatextentareEnglishteachersinJapanawareofthehistoryand implicationssurroundingEnglishasaninternationalorgloballanguage? 2. Towhatextentaretheseimplicationspartofthebeliefsystemofteachersin Japan? 3. Towhatextentarethesebeliefsevidencedintheirteachingpractice? 4. Towhatextenthaveteachersbeenprovidedwithmaterialsandtrainingto preparestudentstouseEnglishasaninternationallanguage? 94 Methodology Inordertoachievetriangulationforthisstudy,datawillbecollectedfroma varietyofsourcesandusingthreedifferentmethods:survey,interview,and observation. Participants Thesurveyquestionnairewillbedistributedtoapoolofuniversityandadult EnglishlanguageclasseswithinTokyo,JapanwithbothJapaneseandEnglish languageoptions.ThesurveyswillbesentwiththeassistanceofEnglishlanguage companiessuchasJET,AEON,andECCForeignLanguageInstitutesofJapan,and throughindividualuniversitiessuchasMcGillUniversity,TempleUniversity,Sophia UniversityInternationalCollege,andLakelandCollegeJapan.Arequestfor volunteerteachersforclassroomobservationandinterviewswillbeincludedwith requestsforquestionnaireswithintheseclassroomspheres.Volunteerswillthen benarrowedtotwentyteachers,withconsiderationsforincludingadiversityof bothnativeandnon‐nativespeakingteachers,aswellasabalanceofgenders,ages, andexperiencelevels. Surveyquestionnaire Surveyquestions,foundinAppendixA,arepartiallyderivedfromZacharias’ (2003)surveyofEnglishteachersinIndonesia. Classroomobservations Theclassroomobservationwillfocusonmaterialsusedinthelesson,the varietiesofEnglishpresentinthelesson,theuseofculture,andpreferredsourceof properpronunciation.ObservationswillbebasedonarubriclistedinAppendixB. 95 Teacherinterviews Semi‐structuredinterviewswillbeconductedafterclassroomobservations inJapaneseandEnglish,dependingonteacherpreference.Interviewswillbeaudio‐ taped,transcribed,andanalyzedusingcomparisonswithclassobservationand surveydata. QuestionsforguidingeachinterviewcanbefoundinAppendixC. DataCollectionandAnalysis Thedatawillbeanalyzedbyorganizingresponsestothesurvey questionnaireusingfrequenciesandstatisticaltesting;compilingwrittencomments onsurveyquestions,analyzingforpatterns,andselectingespeciallyinsightful commentsforinclusionintheresearchreport;classifyingobservationdata accordingtoareas,andsearchingforcommonthemesfoundacrossclassrooms;and compilingteacherresponsestointerviewquestionsaccordingtotopicandgeneral response,sortingintogroupsaccordingtodifferencesinapproachesandbeliefs. Trendsfoundfromonedatasetwillbecross‐examinedwithotherdatasetsinorder toensurecredibilityofthemes. 96 APPENDIXA Questionnaire 1. WhatdoyoufeelisthegeneralmotivationforstudyingEnglishinJapan? a. (Pleasepickthreemostimportantreasons) b. Toaccessmoreinformation c. Tostudyoverseas d. ToreadEnglishbooks e. TowriteinEnglish f. Togetajob g. Tocompetewithotherforeignscholars h. Togainprestige i. Tocommunicatewithpeoplefromothercountries j. Other: 2. WhattypeofmaterialsismosthelpfulforlearningEnglish? a. PublishedmaterialsfromEnglish‐speakingcountries b. MaterialspublishedlocallyinJapan c. Either 3. Pleaseprovideabriefexplanationforyourchoicesabove. 4. Doyoufeelitisbettertousenativespeakerstoteach: (stronglyagree,agree,disagree,orstronglydisagree) a. Pronunciation b. Grammar c. Speaking 97 d. Writing e. Listening f. Reading g. Culture 5. Pleaseprovideabriefexplanationforyourpreferencesabove. 6. Usingthestudents’L1(Japanese)isusefulfor: (stronglyagree,agree,disagree,orstronglydisagree) a. Checkingstudentunderstanding b. Explainingcontentoftexts c. Givingfeedbacktoindividualstudents d. Explaininggrammar e. Explainingvocabulary f. Givinginstructions g. Buildingrapportwithstudents h. Thestudents’L1shouldneverbeusedinclass. i. Other: 7. Iregularly/often/sometimes/neverusethestudents’L1for: a. Checkingstudentunderstanding b. Explainingcontentoftexts c. Givingfeedbacktoindividualstudents d. Explaininggrammar e. Explainingvocabulary f. Givinginstructions 98 g. Buildingrapportwithstudents h. Thestudents’L1shouldneverbeusedinclass. 8. Pleaseprovideabriefexplanationofyourchoicesabove. 9. DoyoufeelthatteachersshouldincludethecultureofEnglish‐speaking countries,andtowhatextent?Pleaseexplain. 10. Howimportantiscross‐culturalunderstandinginEnglishlanguageteaching? Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsaboutyourbackground: 11. Sex:Male/Female 12. Age: 13. Highestacademicqualification: a. Bachelor’sdegree b. Master’sdegree c. Doctoratedegree d. Other 14. Numberofyearsteachingexperience 15. Wouldyoubewillingtoparticipateina15‐minuteinterview? 16. Wouldyoubewillingtoopenyourclassroomtoanobservationconductedby aresearcher? APPENDIXB ClassroomObservationRubric Classroommaterials 1. Wereinstructionalmaterialspublishedlocally,inInnerCirclecountries,or outsidetheInnerCircle? 99 2. Whattypesofmaterialswereused(texts,media,images,other) 3. Towhatextentdidmaterialsincludenon‐nativeEnglishvarieties? 4. TowhatextentdidmaterialspromoteEnglishasaninternationallanguageor inclusionofworldcultures? Students’L1language 1. Towhatextent,ifany,wasJapaneselanguageusedintheclassroom(for clarification,instruction,explainingcontentorgrammar,buildingof repertoire,etc.)? Culture 1. Howwascontentrelatedtostudent’sownculture? 2. Whichculture(s)wereincludedintheinstruction,andhowwerethey presented? Teacher’sattitude 1. WhatviewsonEnglishvarietieswereevidentinteacher’sinstruction? 2. HowdidtheteacherapproachstandardsofEnglishandpronunciation? APPENDIXC TeacherInterviews 1. WhatisyourunderstandingofEnglishasaninternationallanguage? 2. Basedonyourunderstanding,howdoyoufeelEnglishshouldbetaughtto reflectitsstatusasaninternationallanguage? 3. WhichvarietyofEnglishdoyouthinkrepresentsthebestmodel? 4. DoyoufeelthatnativespeakersarebetterteachersforEnglish?Why/why not? 100 5. Howdoyouteachcorrectpronunciationtoyourstudents? 6. Whatdoyoufeelisyourstudent’sopinionofcorrect/standardEnglishand pronunciation? 7. ForwhatpurposesdoyoufeelmostofyourstudentsarelearningEnglish? Whatgroupsofpeopledotheyplantointeractwith?Whichcountriesdo theyplantovisit? 8. Doyoufeelthereisaroleforthestudent’sfirstlanguage(Japanese)inthe classroom?DoyouincludeJapanesewhenteachingEnglish,andinwhat context? 9. DoyoutrytoincludeWorldEnglishvarietiesinyourclassroom?Doyoufeel includingvarietiesisnecessary?Howdoyouintroducestudentstodifferent typesofEnglish? 10. Whatisyouropinionofthetextbooksandmaterialsprovidedforyour course? 11. Whichmaterialshaveyoufoundtobethebestforyourclassroom?Doyou prefertextbooksfromlocally‐publishedorfromEnglishspeakingcountries? 12. Howdoyouteachcultureinyourclassroom?Whatcountriesdoyoufocus on? 13. Doyouteachinterculturalcommunicationskillsorcross‐cultural understanding?Ifso,whatmethodshaveyouusedtoteachthese skills/values? 101 ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY 102 INTRODUCTION Thefollowingannotatedbibliographyprovidesareviewoftheprominent sourcesfeaturedinmyportfolio.Eachcitationisfollowedbyasummaryofthe articleorbookandmypersonalreaction.IbeginwithasourceonZenandreflective practice.Thebibliographyisthenorganizedbytheme,andmirrorstheorderofthe teachingphilosophy:standardsandpurposesforlanguagelearning,researchon effectivepracticesbasedoncommunication,SocioculturalTheoryandassessment, interactiveactivities,pragmaticsandculture,Englishasaninternationallanguage, studyabroad,andclassroomenvironment(includinganxietyandmotivation). 103 Source Tremmel,R.(1993).Zenandtheartofreflectivepracticeinteachereducation. HarvardEducationalReview,63(4),434‐459.doi:9406150116 Summary Traditionally,approachestoteachereducationandreflectiveteachinghave beenbasedonaWesternanalyticalstandpoint.DrawingonZenBuddhism influencesandSchön’s(1983,ascitedinarticle)notionof“knowledge‐in‐action”, theauthorproposesanalternativemethodtoreflectingonteaching.Thistypeof reflectionimpliesbeingimmersedinthepresentmoment.Zenteachesmindful awarenessinallactions,andreturningthemindfromwanderingtothepastor future.Itinvolvesconcentrationinthinking,andobservingthingsastheyare.Itis difficultformostofustodetachfromthestreamofconsciousnessandbepassive observersofourownthoughtsandactions.Theauthorlistsstrategiesforstudent teacherstoimprovetheirattentiontothepresent.Thefirstoftheseisafreewriting exercisewherestudentswritedowntheirstreamofconsciousnesswithout restraint.Thishelpstofocusattentiontotheselfandtheinnermind’smonologue.A secondmethodisexplicitlydiscussingtheartofpayingattentionwithstudent teachers.Teachersneedtobeflexibleandadjustthedirectionoftheclassbasedon theirobservations.Athirdmethodistowriteaboutaneventthatoccurredwhile teaching,andtoreflectontheirthoughtsandemotionsbothduringandafterthe event.Thiscanhelpstudentspinpointthesourcesofproblemsandfindsolutions. 104 Reaction Ihavestruggledwithattentionissuesformostofmylife,althoughIhave neverbeendiagnosedwithADD.Ibelievethisisacommonproblemformany people,especiallyastherearesomanythingstodistractus.Zenandmindfulness areveryappealingconceptstome,asIstrivetopaybetterattentiontothepresent momentinallmydailyactions.WhenIteachyoga,Istrivetobefullyawareofmy studentsandtheircomfortlevels.Languageclassroomsaremuchlessrelaxed,butit canbejustasimportanttobeawareofstudentsinasettingthatrequires interactionandaninvitingatmosphere. Source Shrum,J.L.,&Glisan,E.W.(2010).Teacher’shandbook:Contextualizedlanguage instruction(4thed.).Boston,MA:CengageLearning. Summary Thishandbookprovidesareferencetoolforteacherswhowishtoaligntheir teachingwithperformanceandproficiencystandardssuchasACTFL.Eachsection includesreferencetothefiveCsofForeignLanguageEducation(fromTheStandards forForeignLanguageLearning:Preparingforthe21stCentury).ThefiveCsarelisted asCommunication,Cultures,Connections,Comparisons,andCommunities.The focusontheseareasshowsevidenceofashiftinlanguageeducationfromgrammar andaccuracytocommunicationandcontext.Providingstudentswithmany opportunitiestointeractinthelanguageinmeaningful,task‐orientedactivitiescan haveagreatimpactontheadvancementoftheirproficiency.Thetextbooksuggests teachersbecomeveryfamiliarwiththeACTFLProficiencyGuidelinestohelpthem 105 getaclearideaofwhatstudentsshouldbeabletodo.Basedonthesestandards, teacherscanarrangeactivitiesthatencouragestudentstopracticetheskillsthey willneedtoadvancetothenextlevel.Studentsneedtonotonlybeexposedto naturalconversationsinthetargetlanguagebuttoalsohavemanyopportunitiesto createtheirownnaturaloutput.Thistextbookprovidesideasforinstructionbased onresearchbotholdandnew,centeredonthethreemodesofcommunication: interpersonal,interpretive,andpresentational. Reaction Standardsareimportantforhelpingtheteachertoplanbothinstructionand assessment.IwouldliketostayknowledgeableofACTFLandotherstandardsin ordertoensurethatIstayoncourseandamkeepingmystudents’proficiencyin mind.Ialsoplantohaveasteadybalanceofinterpersonal,interpretive,and presentationalactivities.Cooperativetask‐basedactivitiescanresultinhigher achievementinthelanguagewhileimprovingretentionandinterpersonalskills (Johnson&Johnson,1987,ascitedintextbook).Theteachercanpreparestudents forthetaskbyactivatingpriorknowledgeandintroducingnecessaryvocabulary andgrammar.Sufficientmodelingensuresthatstudentsunderstandwhatis expectedofthem. Source Rivers,W.M.(1981).Teachingforeign‐languageskills(2nded.).Chicago,IL:The UniversityofChicagoPress. 106 Summary Thisbookisbothacollectionofreferencesforteachersandanin‐depthlook atRivers’personalteachingphilosophies.Shebeginswithalookatobjectivesfor languageteachinganddiscussesthebenefitsanddisadvantagesofcommon teachingmethodssuchastheDirectMethod,ReadingMethod,Grammar Translation,andtheAudio‐LingualMethod.Thisisfollowedbyanoverviewof researchinlanguageacquisitionsuchasdevelopmentalstagesandviewsonhow languagesshouldbetaughttofurtherreflectthe“natural”processthatchildren undergowhenlearningtheirfirstlanguage.Theauthormakesthepointthatneither systematicrule‐memorizingnorfree‐formcommunicationclassesseemtoproduce optimallanguageuse.Shewritesthatafocuson“manipulationoflanguageelements whichoccurinfixedrelationshipsinclearlydefinedclosedsystems”mustbe combinedwith“theexpressionofpersonalmeaning”(p.95).Themaincriteriaof activitiesarethusdesignedtoallowstudentstoexpresspersonalmeaninginaway thatreflectsnormaluseoflanguageineverydaylifewithintheboundariesofthe language’ssyntaxandstructure. Reaction Originallypublishedin1968,thissecondeditioncontainsusefulreferences andresourcesforteachersthatarestill,inmyopinion,applicabletoday.While readingafewofRivers’articlesinarecentcollectionofessaysoncollege‐level languageteaching,Ifoundareferencetothisbook.IwasimpressedwithRivers’ approachandinterestedinlearningmorefromher.Thisbookprovidesa comprehensivelookatmanyoftheprinciplesoflanguageteachingwhichIhave 107 encountered,andmanywhichIhaveyettoresearch.Iaminterestedinlearning moreaboutthestagesofreadingandwritinginstructionandbestmethodsfor approachingthosemediumsoflanguage. Source Rivers,W.M.(2002).Teachinglanguagesincollege:Curriculumandcontent.Chicago, IL:NationalTextbookCompany. Summary Astechnologyandcommunicationadvance,interestinforeignlanguagesand internationalstudiesisexpanding.Thisbookcontainsacollectionofarticlesfor teachersandadministratorswhoareinterestedinpromotingforeignlanguages.The editorstatesthatteachersandadministratorsshouldtakeadvantageofthis “Sputnik”eraoflanguageforstudents’needstoadapttoanincreasinglycompetitive andinterdependentsociety.Onewaytomeetthisneedisbyadjustingforawider andmorediversestudentbody.Languagecoursesshouldbeofvalueandinterestto studentsatanylevel.Riverswrites:“Aboringlanguageexperienceforgreatmasses ofstudentsdevelopsandperpetuatesanti‐languageattitudesintheadult community”(p.4).Manyofthearticlesfoundhereproviderationalesforlanguage study,whichincludethedevelopmentofintellectualpowers,understandinghow languagefunctions,andtheabilitytoexpressoneselfwithinanotherframework. Riversdiscussestheneedtoanticipatethediversemotivationsandbackgroundsof first‐yearlanguagestudents,andtoconsiderofferingavarietyofcoursesaimedat differenttypesofstudents. 108 Reaction Theinformationandargumentspresentedinthesearticlesarerelevantto bothschoolpolicymakersandteachers.Ifinditveryinterestingthattheeditor comparesthecurrentforeignlanguagefieldtothespaceraceoftheSputnikera. Languagesareconstantlychanging,andtheresearchforteachinglanguageisalso advancing.Teachingalanguageisdefinitelynotastaticpractice.Teachersmustnot onlyadapttotheshiftsinpragmaticsanduseofthelanguage,butalsotothe advancesinmethodologiesandtechnologies,aswellasnewtypesofstudents.This seemstobethenever‐endingchallengeforteachers:totransformtheirclassroom intoaninteresting,interactiveenvironmentwherestudentsofvaryingacademic levelsandbackgroundscanfeelcomfortable,engaged,andalsofeelthattheyare progressing. Source Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigherpsychological processes.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Summary ToVygotsky,humandevelopmentisaprocessthatoccursthrough interactionbetweeninterpersonal(social)physiologicalfactorsandintrapersonal (individual)psychologicalfactors.Throughoutsidestimuli(toolsofculture, language,etc.),wecanregulateourselvesandchangeourenvironment.Thechanged newenvironmentaffectsouradaptationthroughinteractionwithit.Inthissense, weandourenvironmentareconstantlychanging.Forexample,inevery developmentalstage,childrenattain“themeansbywhichtheycancompetently 109 affecttheirworldandthemselves”(p.123).Vygotskyclaimstherecanbeno universalschemaforhumandevelopmentbecauseourcultureandenvironmentare constantlychanging.Becauselearningissociallyfacilitated(notjust biological/natural),thosewithmoreexperiencecanhelpusspeedupour developmentbyteachinguswhattheyknow.VygotskyusesthetermZoneof ProximalDevelopmenttodescribethedifferencebetweenstudents’actual development–whattheyareabletoaccomplishindependently,andtheirpotential development–whattheyareabletoaccomplishwiththeaidofamentor,teacher, orpeer. Reaction ThisworkprovidesthefoundationforSocioculturalTheory(SCT),whichis gainingpopularityasateachingtheory.SCTcarriesmanyimplicationsforthefield ofeducation,muchofwhichgoesagainstcurrentstandardsoftraditionalschooling. Itstressesinvolvementratherthandirectinput,andmoreimportantlyplaces emphasisondevelopmentandlearningprocesses.Therearesomesimilaritiesand sharedvaluesbetweenSCTandthecommunicativeapproachtolanguageteaching. Languageisacquiredthroughitsuse,especiallywhenusedwithotherstoward completionofacommontask. Source Lantolf,J.P.,&Poehner,M.E.(2005).Dynamicassessmentinthelanguageclassroom. LanguageTeachingResearch(9)3,233‐265. 110 Summary DynamicAssessment(DA)isaconstructinspiredbyVygotsky’sSociocultural Theory.AcolleagueofVygotsky’s,Luria,coinedthetermwhencomparing ‘statistical’to‘dynamic’assessmentmethods.Statisticalassessmentsarebasedon theideathatstudents’resultsonatestdirectlyreflecttheircapabilities.Dynamic assessments,however,alsoshowstudents’potentialcapabilitiesthrougha measurementoftheirperformancewhengivenassistance.OneofthegoalsofDAis toactuallyimprovestudentperformanceduringthecourseoftheassessment process.Thisarticleprovidesabriefhistoricaloverviewofvarioustheorieson humandevelopmentanddescribeshowVygotsky’sconceptualizationdiffersfrom others.Theauthorsviewdynamicassessmentasbasedona‘present‐to‐future’ model,asitprovidesamethodforteacherstomonitordevelopmentthatis emergingwhileactivelycontributingtothedevelopmentasitoccurs.Byworking withstudents,teachersareabletobetterunderstandthetypeofassistancethe studentswillneedinordertoreachtheirnextstageofdevelopment.Teachersactas mediatorsbyfilteringandmodifyingelementsoftheenvironmentinawaythatwill helpstudentslearnandgrow. Reaction LantolfandPoehneraresignificantcontributorstothefieldofSociocultural TheoryandDynamicAssessment.Theirresearchandtheoreticalknowledgeis helpfulinprovidingfurtherunderstandingofVygotskiantheoriesandideas.This articlewasoneofmanybytheseauthorswhichIusedformyfinalpaperon DynamicAssessmentforimprovingliteracy,inwhichIcomparedDAtoother 111 assessmentmethodsandwaysofviewingdevelopment.Theauthorsspentalittle timeoverviewingthedifferencebetweenDAandFormativeAssessment(FA). Althoughthetwodifferinmanyways,thesharedbasiccorebetweenthetwoisthe ideathatonepurposeofassessmentshouldbetohelpstudentsimprovetheirfuture performance. Source Lantolf,J.P.,&Poehner,M.E.(2008).Socioculturaltheoryandtheteachingofsecond language.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress. Summary InterestinVygotsky’sSocioculturalTheoryhasbeenincreasinginthepast years.Thiscollectioncontainsboththeoreticalinterpretationsandpractical applicationsofVygotsky’stheoriesinthelanguageclassroom.Topicsincludethe ZoneofProximalDevelopment,mediation,ActivityTheory,internalization,and verbalization.Thecontentprovidesaviewofthecurrentstateofthefieldof socioculturallearningandtheresearchbeingconductedbasedonitstenets. AlthoughresearchersdifferontheirinterpretationofVygotsky’swork,the collectionisoverallcomprehensiveandhelpfulforgainingadeeperunderstanding ofSCT,especiallyregardingitsuseinthelanguageclassroom.Specificclassroom studieswereconductedonwritingdialogicjournals,improvinglistening comprehensionthroughdynamicassessment,concept‐basedlearningand materialization,service‐learningincorporatingdramaforimprovingtheZPD,and project‐basedlearning.Eacharticleprovidesaspringboardforfurtherresearchand study. 112 Reaction WhileVygotsky’sSocioculturalTheoryhasmanyimplicationsforeducation, scholarshaveonlyrecentlybeguntoexploreapplicationsofSCTinthelanguage classroom.Someoftheactivitiesexploredinthisbookaremoreapplicablethan others,asitseemsmanySCT‐basedworkswouldbedifficulttoimplementinalarge classbutarebettersuitedforsmallclassroomsortutor‐studentinteractions. However,Ibelieveitispossibletousemanyofthemethodsintheclassroomto somedegree,suchaspartnerandgroupwork.Iwasespeciallyinterestedinthe chapteronservice‐learningexperiencesforstudents.Service‐learning(forstudy abroadandlocalserviceifavailable)seemstobetheperfectopportunityfor studentstogreatlyincreasetheirlanguageproficiency,assuchexperiencesare highlymotivating,requirenegotiationofmeaninganddirectinteractionwithtarget languageinterlocutors,andalsohavethepotentialtohavetransformativeeffectson participatingstudents. Source O’Malley,J.M.,&Pierce,L.V.(1996).AuthenticassessmentforEnglishlanguage learners:Practicalapproachesforteachers.Fairfax,VA:Addison‐Wesley PublishingCompany,Inc. Summary WhiletheinformationinthisbookismostlygearedathelpingK‐12ESLor bilingualstudentsinintegratedclassrooms,muchofthematerialcanbeappliedto anyclassroomwithstudentsofanyage.Itincludesstrategiesforassessingoral language,reading,writing,andthecontentareas.Theintroductionprovidesanin‐ 113 depthlookattheneedtoprovidestudentswithalternativeorauthentic assessments.Theauthorsdefinealternativeassessmentas“anymethodoffinding outwhatastudentknowsorcandothatisintendedtoshowgrowthandinform instruction,andisanalternativetotraditionalformsoftesting,namely,multiple‐ choicetests”(p.1).Alternativeassessmentsare“criterion‐referenced”andusually authenticinthattheyreflectclassroomactivitiesandreal‐lifescenarios.Traditional formsofassessmentdonotprovideacomprehensiveviewofstudentabilities,are lesshelpfulinguidingtheteachertowardsimprovedinstruction,andaresometimes lessvalid.Traditionalassessmentalsomaybeunfairtostudentswhoareunfamiliar withthetest‐takingskillsortesttypes.Itisthereforeimportant,especiallywithESL learners,toprovideavarietyoftestingmethods.Thebookcontainsuseful techniquesforapplyingvariousassessmentsintheclassroom,includingtheuseof portfolios,self‐assessments,andpeerassessments. Reaction Thisbookcontainsvaluableandrelevantinformationformypractice,both forteachingEnglishoraforeignlanguage.Itprovidesguidelinesforcreating authenticassessments,includingcheckliststoensuretestsarereliable,valid,fair, measurable,andhaveaspecificlearningobjective.Italsoincludesbothpurposeand procedureforimplementingvarioustypesofportfolios,andcreatingassessment activitiessuchasoralreports,readinglogs,booktalks,andinterviews.Iplantouse someoftheseactivitiesinmyclassroomtoassessstudentsontheirreading,writing, listening,andspeakingabilitiesaswellasguidefurtherinstruction. 114 Source Hadley,A.O.(2001).Teachinglanguageincontext(3rded.).Boston,MA:Heinle& Heinle. Summary Thismethodstextforlanguageteachersprovidesanoverviewofvarious teachingtheoriesandpractices,alongwithaliterature‐basedcritiqueofeach. Krashen’sMonitorTheoryiscomparedtocognitivetheory;theformerplacingmore emphasisonthesimilaritiesbetweenfirstandsecondlanguageacquisition.The bookalsoreviewstheACTFLstandards,whichareincreasinglyconcernedwith performingfunctionsorreal‐worldtasks.Theauthorplacesheavyemphasison context,whichisdefinedinthetextas“circumstancesorsettingsinwhichaperson useslanguage”(p.23).Materialshouldbemeaningful,inthatitisrelatedto students’existingknowledge.Teacherscanactivatestudents’priorschema,aterm coinedbyBartlett(1932),byrelatingnewlanguageitemswithconceptsfamiliarto students.Thiscanbedonethrough“authenticdiscourse‐lengthinputorthrough languagelearningmaterialsthatsimulateauthenticinput”(p.161)orvisual organizers.Thetextalsolistspracticesforthedevelopmentofproficiencyin listening,reading,speaking,andwriting.Regardinglisteningcomprehension,the authorcitesJames(1986)whorecommendedteachersintroducemorelistening activitiesearlyinthelearningprocesstomotivatestudentsandhelpthemfeel successful.Lund’s(1990)functionsofthelisteningcomprehensionprocess, accompaniedbypossiblestudentlistenerresponses,arelistedtoguideteachers’ listeninginstruction. 115 Reaction Forpre‐teacherssuchasmyselfwhoneedareviewofimportantconcepts andideasforsecondlanguageteaching,thesetypesoftextbookscanbeveryhelpful. Thisbookprovidesboththeprosandconsofdifferenttheoriesandpractices,and eachsectionissolidlybasedonresearch.Iagreewiththeauthor’spremisethat contextshouldbegivenhighpriorityinthelanguageclassroom.Studentsshouldbe exposedtothelanguageasitistrulyusedinthetargetlanguagesetting.Simply learningthegrammarandvocabularyisinsufficientforstudentswhowishtouse thelanguageoutsidetheclassroom.Authenticmaterialsareessentialforcreatingan environmentthatcloselymirrorstheoutsideworld. Source Berns,M.(1990).Contextsofcompetence:Socioculturalconsiderationsin communicativelanguageteaching.NewYork,NY:Plenum. Summary Thepushforcommunicativecompetencehasshiftedfocustothecontexts andfunctionsoflanguageuse.Bernsclaimsteachersshouldhaveanunderstanding ofthesocialandculturalcontextofthetargetlanguageandthepurposesof speakersinusingthelanguage.Theculturalsettingandpersonalhistoryofeach speakerdetermineswhatisappropriateforeachsituation.Speakersdependon contexttomakethelanguageintelligibleacrosscultures,andtheyalsodependonan appropriatemodelasastandardforcompetence.Bernsdiscussestheuseof communicativelanguageteachingtoaccommodatelanguageuseinwidelydiverse settings.Communicativelanguageteachingshouldnotbedefinedasonesingle 116 method,butshouldhavecertaincharacteristics.Thesecharacteristicsinclude recognizingcultureforitsroleinshapinglanguage,assessingcompetenceinrelative terms,allowingfordiversity,andviewinglanguageasasocialtoolformaking meaning.Thisbookprovidessamplesofcommunicativelanguageteaching approachesbasedonGermany,Japan,andIndia.TheexampleforJapaneseis proposedforuseinbeginninglevelEFLcoursesinJapan,usingSavignon’s interactionalapproach.Activitiesincludeproblem‐solvingtasks,explorationsof dialogue,andothertaskssuchasdescribingthestudents’neighborhood.Attention tosituation,meaning,context,culture,andboththecommunicativeandsymbolic functionofthelanguageareconsidered. Reaction Themainfunctionoflanguageisthecommunicationofdesires,needs, thoughts,andideas.Toreflectthis,languageinstructionshouldbebasedondoing thingsusinglanguageratherthanonrecitationanddrills.Inaddition,activities shouldallowstudentstousethelanguagesfortheirindividualsocialpurposesby permittingarangeofpurposesandtargetsocialsituationsandgroups.Ithink communicativelanguageteachingapproacheshavemuchtooffer,andIappreciate Berns’listingofthecharacteristicsofthisapproach.Iagreewiththeconsiderations fordiversityandvarietyinlanguage,aswellasthestressonrelativityintermsof correctness. 117 Source Knutson,E.K.(1997).Readingwithapurpose:Communicativereadingtasksforthe foreignlanguageclassroom.ForeignLanguageAnnals,30(1),49‐57. doi:10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1997.tb01316.x Summary Therearemanyfactorswhichcanaffectastudents’abilitytoreadand comprehendatext.Thisarticleisadiscussionontheeffectofpurpose.Knutson identifiestwomainpurposes:readingforpleasureandreadingforinformation. Readingforpleasureisnotgenerallyassociatedwiththeacademiccontext; however,Krashen(1982,citedinarticle)hasstatedthatpleasurereadingcanbean effectivesourceofcomprehensibleinput.Schoolscankeeplibrarieswithliterature invariouslanguages,includingshortreadingsuchasmagazinesandchildren’s books.Teacherscanalsoassignstudentstoreadatextoftheirchoiceandeither presentthereadingtotheclassorwriteareport.Readingforinterestandreading forapurposecanincreasemotivationandstudents’abilitytocomprehendthetext. Astudyshowedthatbringingstudents’awarenesstospecificinformationinatext canspurinterest,especiallyiftheinformationisrelevanttothestudent.Teachers canassignstudentstoreadatexttofulfillaspecificgoal,eitherbasedonacademic purposesorreal‐worldpurposes.Real‐worldpurposesincludereadingtravel brochurestowardsthetaskofplanningatrip.Othertaskscanincludere‐ constructingthestorywithpeersordrawingpicturesbasedonthetext. 118 Reaction Pre‐readingactivitieshavebeenshowntoenhancecomprehension,butthey canalsoprovidestudentswithasenseofpurposeforreading.Previewingatextasa classcanbringstudents’attentiontoareasofinterest,whileelicitingpredictions androusingcuriosity.Readingassignmentsshouldhaverelevantmeaningto studentsandshouldgobeyondblandtextbooknarrationssuchas“theJohnson familywentonvacation…”towhichstudentshavenopersonalconnection.My undergradworkwasinEnglisheducation,andIamverypartialtolanguagearts.I wouldliketousemybackgroundtoprovidestudentswithtaskswhichhelpthem interactwithreadingassignmentsatapersonallevel. Source Adair‐Hauck,B.,&Donato,R.(2002).ThePACEModel:Astory‐basedapproachto meaningandformforstandards‐basedlanguagelearning.TheFrenchReview, 76(2),265‐276.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3132708 Summary ThePACEmodelprovidesawayforteacherstouseamoredialogicapproach tolearninggrammar,throughusingauthentictext,video,oraudiomaterial.PACE standsforPresentation,Attention,Co‐Construction,andExtension.Duringthefirst stage,theteacherpresentsthematerialtotheclassbybuildingonpriorknowledge andinvolvingthestudentstomakethestorycomprehensible.IntheAttentionstage, theteacherleadsadiscussionwithstudentsandasksguidingquestionstohelp themfocusonaspecificgrammaticalstructure.DuringCo‐Construction,theteacher engagesthestudentsincollaborativedialogaboutthestructure.IntheExtension 119 stage,studentsusethetargetstructureinnewwaystohelpthembecomeadeptat usingthegrammar.Throughlearninggrammarinastoryformat,studentsaregiven thewholeratherthanshortsnippetsofunconnectedgrammar.Whentheformat includesinterestingcharacters,problems,aclimax,andresolution,theirinterestis piquedandtheyarebetterabletorecallinformationlater.Collaborativediscussions andexplaininggrammarfunctionsintheirownwordsallowstudentstotake meaningfromthelanguage. Reaction ThePACEmodelalignswithSocioculturalTheoryasitcontextualizesthe languageandshowsthe“bigpicture”.DuringtheAttentionandCo‐Construction phases,theteacherguidesandchallengesthestudentstowardssolvinglanguage problemsontheirown.Thisnaturallyleadsstudentstodevelopment.Alongwith thesepositiveresults,thePACEmethodalsohasthebenefitofbeingmotivatingand interestingtostudents.Imyselfdreadthethoughtofteachingorlearninggrammar inisolatedform.Ilearnedmyfirstlanguageinsituatedcontext,andIplantoteach secondlanguagewithinmeaning‐basedcontextsaswell. Source LoCastro,V.(2012).PragmaticsforLanguageEducators.NewYork,NY:Routledge. Summary Thestudyofpragmaticsincludesaconsiderationforthesocialdimensionof languagepractice.Thiscanincludeeverythingfromtheintentionsofthespeakers, tothesituationandthesocialdistance.Cross‐culturalpragmaticsstudieslanguage useofpeoplefromdifferentculturalbackgrounds,whereconflictingvaluesand 120 worldviewscanresultinmiscommunication.Interlanguagepragmaticsreferstothe linguisticsystemwhichlanguagelearnersdevelopastheytransferknowledgefrom onelanguagetotheother.Thisbookadvisesteacherstoteachpragmatic competenceintheclassroombyhavingstudentsenactvaryingsocialroles.Thiscan bedonebyallowingstudentstoaskquestionsandparticipateinactivitiessuchas roleplaysandsimulations.Especiallywhenstudentsliveinanareawhereexposure tothetargetlanguagecommunityisnotpossible,itisimportantfortheteacherto haveknowledgeofthepragmaticfeaturesofthesecondlanguage.Whileteaching politegrammaticalformsappropriatefortheculture,theteachercanraisestudents’ awarenessbydiscussingthereasonsbehindsuchpolitenessanditsmeaningtothe culturalcommunity.Providingreal‐worldexamplesofdiscoursepatternsand allowingstudentstoactoutsimilarsituationscanpreparethemtointeract appropriatelyintheoutsideworld. Reaction Humaninteractioncanbeverydelicate,especiallywhencommunicating acrosscultures.Perceptionsofpolitenessandappropriatenessdiffergreatlyby culturalbackground.Teachingstudentstonavigatethesedelicatewatersinvolves muchmorethanteachingformulasforsaying“thankyou”and“I’msorry”inthe secondlanguage.Iwouldliketohelpstudentsunderstandthecoreculturalvalues behindspeechactsthroughreflectionsandcomparisonswiththeirownculture.I wouldliketoalsoraisestudents’awarenessofhowthelanguageisusedbyexposing themtoauthenticdialogsamplesandhavingthemanalyzethedifferentfactors involved. 121 Source Taguchi,N.(2012).Context,individualdifferences,andpragmaticcompetence. Tonawanda,NY:MultilingualMatters. Summary Whichresourcesarethemostusefulinimprovingpragmaticcompetence? Theauthorsoughtananswertothisquestionbyconductinglongitudinalstudyof JapanesestudentslearningEnglishatabilingualuniversityinJapan.Theauthorlists pragmaticfeaturesasincluding“speechacts,conversationalimplicature,formalvs. informalspeechstyles,honorificsandpolitenessterms,termsofaddress,ritualof smalltalkandotherdiscoursegenres,routinesandformulaicexpressionsand conversationmanagementdevices”(p.1).Studentsparticipatinginthestudy completedatestthreeseparatetimesoverthecourseoftheyearinordertotrack theirprogressindevelopingtheirpragmaticskillsinlisteningandspeaking.The listeningtestassessedstudents’abilitytounderstand“implicatures”(p.98)andthe speakingtestassessedtheirabilitytogiverequestandopinionsincertainsituations ofimposition.Eightstudentswerechosenforcasestudiesbasedontheirsocial activity.Overall,studentsdevelopedmorequicklyintheirabilitytoperformlow‐ impositionthaninhigh‐impositionspeechacts.Thesetypesofspeechactsare commonamongfriendsandrepeatedoftenbyteachers.Studentshadmuchless exposuretohigh‐impositionacts,especiallyastheteacherdidnotplacegreat emphasisonpragmaticappropriatenessduringclasscommunication.However, theircompetenceimprovedwithincreasedinteractionandexposuretodifferent formsofconversation. 122 Reaction Iwasinterestedtolearnoftheeffectthatindividualdifferencescanhaveon pragmaticdevelopment.Students’motivation,learningstyle,andpersonalityall haveanimpactontheirprogress.Thosestudentswhoeitherhadmoresocial connectionswithnativespeakersorahighermotivationseemedtoshowmore improvementthanothers.Forexample,studentswithmoreEnglish‐speaking friendshadmoreexposuretosituationsthatrequiredsensitivitytopragmatics.In addition,studentswithadesiretolearnwouldtakenotesandseekopportunitiesto enhancetheirknowledge.Theauthornotedthatdirectinputfromteacherswasalso veryhelpful–whenteachersignorestudents’inappropriateness,itcansometimes putthosestudentsatadisadvantage. Source Hall,B.J.(2005).Amongcultures:Thechallengeofcommunication.Belmont,CA: Wadsworth. Summary ThiswasthetextbookrequiredfortheInterculturalCommunication(SPCH 3330)classItaughtasaGraduateInstructorduringSpring2012semester.Itwas writtenbymysupervisingteacherandtheheadofLanguages,Philosophyand CommunicationStudiesdepartment,Dr.Hall.Thebookcontainsmanynarratives,as itis“groundedintheideathatpeoplemakesenseoftheirworldthroughaprocess ofchoosingandtellingnarrativestothemselvesandothers”(Preface,xiv).The narrativesaremeanttogivespecificexamplesthatillustratebroadpointsabout culture,providingacomprehensiveandobjectiveviewofculturaldifferences. 123 Communicatingacrossculturesinvolvesanunderstandingofvariousaspectsthat defineculturesuchasworldviews,norms,andvalues.Thecontentalsohelps studentstoidentifyverbalandnon‐verbalmisunderstandings,stereotypingand prejudice,andtypesofinterculturalconflictaswellastipsformanagingconflict. Reflectionquestions,self‐assessmentsandactivitiesallowstudentstoapplythe materialintheirdailylives.Simplyteachingstudentsaspectsofthetarget language’scultureoftenleadstostereotypingorgeneralizing,andmayalsonotbe comprehensiveasthetargetlanguagecanimplyawidespectrumofcultures. SignificantexamplesincludeSpanish,FrenchandEnglish:thepeoplewhospeak theselanguagesareverydiverseandliveinmanydifferentcountries.Therefore, teachinginterculturalcommunicationskillscanprovetobemorehelpfulto studentswhowishtohavesuccessfulinteractionswithdifferentculturesboth locallyandabroad. Reaction Ifoundthisbookveryinsightfultoreadonitsown,anditwasalsovery helpfulinguidingaclassroomtowardsmeaningfuldiscussionandactivities.WhenI firstbeganteachingthisclass,Ididnotseeastrongcorrelationbetweenthecourse contentandsecondlanguageteaching.However,Inowseethatthecontentcanbe applieddirectlytothelanguageclassroom.Ienjoyedteachingthisclassimmensely. Asacommunication‐basedcourse,itcanbeveryinteractiveandengagingfor students.Iplantousemanyofthesametextmaterialsandactivitiesinmyfuture languageclassroomtopreparestudentsforstudyabroadexcursions. 124 Source Young,T.J.,&Sachdev,I.(2011).Interculturalcommunicativecompetence: ExploringEnglishlanguageteachers’beliefsandpractices.Language Awareness,20(2),81‐98. Retrievedfromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.540328 Summary ThisarticleisbasedonastudyofteachersintheUS,UK,andFrancewho implementedinterculturalcommunicativecompetence(ICC)componentsintheir Englishlanguagecourses.Theincorporationofsuchcompetenciesinlanguage instructionhasbeenadvocatedinresearchliterature,butlittlestudyhasbeendone oftheactualapplicationofsuchaframeworkintheclassroom.Theauthorwrites: “GiventheubiquityofEnglishlanguageteachingandlearning,withvarietiesofthe languageservingasvehiclesforcommunicationbetweenpeopleworldwide,itis arguedthatitisespeciallyimportantthatinterculturalawareness,skills,andknow‐ howareprioritisedinthemyriadcontextswherethe‘global’languageislearned andtaught”(p.TheteachersparticipatinginthisstudyusedByram’slanguage‐ pedagocialmodelofICC.Theirbeliefsandpracticeswererecordedusingdiaries, focusgroups,andquestionnaires.Theresultsshowedthatwhilemostteachers believedintheimportanceofinterculturalcompetence,thisbeliefwasnotalways evidentintheirclassroompractice.Teachersalsoreportedalimitedamountof supportinsyllabiandtextbooksforeffectivelypromotingICC. 125 Reaction Iaminterestedinlearningmorepracticalwaysforteachingculture,aswellas researchingmoreaboutthe‘linguisticrelativityhypothesesasmentionedinthis article.Thisandotherstudiesstresstheneednotonlytoincorporateelementsof ICCinpre‐servicetrainingforlanguageteachers,butalsoforincreasedpedagogical frameworksfromwhichteacherscangatheractivitiesforfosteringICCdevelopment intheclassroom.IplantoadoptpracticalapplicationsfromByram’smodelswhen teachingICCskills. Source Matsuda,A.(2003).IncorporatingWorldEnglishesinteachingEnglishasan internationallanguage.TESOLQuarterly,37(4),719‐729.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588220 Summary EnglishisseeninJapanasanimportanttoolforenteringnewfieldsinthe globalmarketplaceandimprovingopportunities.Theauthorstressestheneedto matchstudents’desiretouseEnglishininternationalsettingswith“pedagogical approachesthatteachEnglishasaninternationallanguage(EIL),inpartthrough inclusionofvarietiesofWorldEnglishes”(p.719).ResearchofEnglishlanguage teachinginJapanshowsthatEnglishismainlytaughtbasedonAmericanorBritish Englishtextbooks.Matsudareferencespreviousresearchsheconductedin2002to explorecurrentpracticesandtoprovideperspectiveonreasonsforincorporating WorldEnglishesintheEnglishlanguageclassroomtobetterpreparestudentsto interactwithbothnativeandnon‐nativespeakersinanypartoftheworld.The 126 authorfurtherclaimsthatteachingWorldEnglishesinvolvesmorethanjustan asidementionbutanentireshiftinthewayEnglishlanguageisviewed,“adifferent wayoflookingatthelanguage,whichismoreinclusive,pluralistic,andaccepting thanthetraditional,monolithicviewofEnglishinwhichthereisonecorrect, standardwayofusingEnglishthatallspeakersmuststrivefor”(p.726). Reaction Thispiecealignswellwithmyownresearchpaper.Theauthordiscussesthe issuesteachersshouldconsiderwhenteachingEnglishasaninternationallanguage inJapan.Matsudahasdoneresearchandwrittenseveralarticlesonthesubject, includingassessingperceptionsofJapaneseregardingnativespeakersand“correct” pronunciationofEnglishandreviewingrepresentationsoftheEnglishtypesfound intextbooks.TheauthorisastrongadvocateforadaptingEnglishlanguage classroomsandEnglishteachertrainingtoincludeawidervarietyofcultural representationsandWorldEnglishes.Ithinkherwritingsareespeciallypertinent sincesheisJapaneseandhasaccesstoJapaneseculturalperspectivesandimportant academicsettings.Ihopetobeabletocommunicatewiththisauthorsomedayfor adviceonteachingandalsotopossiblycollaborateonlanguagepolicyprograms. Source McKay,S.L.(2002).TeachingEnglishasaninternationallanguage:Rethinkinggoals andapproaches.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Summary ThisworkprovidesanoverviewoftheconceptofEnglishasaninternational languageandtheimplicationsofteaching/learningEnglish.McKaywrites,“teaching 127 andlearningofaninternationallanguagemustbebasedonanentirelydifferentset ofassumptionsthantheteachingandlearningofanyothersecondorforeign language”(p.6).ThecurrentEnglishusersaregreatlydiverse,withawidevariety offirstlanguagesandreasonsforusingEnglish.Intheinternationalcontextaswell asinnative‐speakersocieties,thelanguageischangingandsomeofthesechanges mayaffecttheintelligibilityofEnglishasitisunderstoodamongpeople.The relationshipbetweentheEnglishlanguageanditsculturesisre‐examinedregarding teachingofdiscoursecompetence,useofculturalmaterialsintheclassroom,and culturalassumptionsthatguideteachingmethods.Theauthorarguesthatthe currentmodelof“nativespeaker”shouldberevisedbasedonbilingualstandards. McKayalsoarguesforredefiningthestandardsofEnglishstructureanddiscourse, andalteringteachingmethodsconsistentwiththelocalcultureoflearning.The bookisdirectedtoteachersofEnglishtostudentswhowish“tocommunicatewith thosefromanothercultureandtoparticipateinagrowingglobalcommunity.” Reaction McKayprovidesanexcellentsummaryoftheissuesIdiscussinmyresearch artifact.IaminterestedinlearningabouttheimplicationsofteachingEnglishasa second/foreignlanguage,givenitsstatusintheworldasaninternationallanguage.I feelithasprovidedmewithseveralinsightsintoadaptingmyteachingtomeetthe needsofmystudents.BecauseIdonotwanttopromotetheuseofEnglishasa monolingualpowerhousewhichdominatesotherlanguagesandcultures,Iwantto learnwaystoreconcilemyteachingmethodstoanon‐biased,open,and multiculturalenvironment. 128 Source Deterding,D.,&Kirkpatrick,A.(2006).EmergingSouth‐EastAsianEnglishesand intelligibility.WorldEnglishes,25(3/4),391‐409. Summary Englishisusedasalinguafrancaorsharedlanguageofcommunicationby peopleallovertheworld.Theauthorsofthisstudyexploredthelevelof intelligibilityduringcommunicationamongpeoplefromvaryingfirstlanguages. ConversationsamongEnglishlanguageteachersfromdifferentcountriesinSouth‐ EastAsiawererecorded,transcribed,andanalyzedforinstancesofabreak‐downin understanding.Theresultsshowedverylittleproblemsassociatedwith intelligibility.Theauthorsusethisasevidencetoshowthatinsomecasesitiseasier forspeakersfromsimilarL1backgroundstounderstandoneanotherbecauseof sharedpronunciationfeaturesandsentencestressplacement.South‐EastAsianL1 speakers,forexample,havecommonpronunciationofthedentalfricative“th” soundwith“t/d”,andfortheinitial“p”sound,whichcansoundlike“b”. Misunderstandingswereoftencausedbyunfamiliaritywiththecontent,orby pronunciationfeaturesnotsharedbycountries.TheauthorssurmisethatasASEAN countriesinteract,theemergingEnglishlinguafrancawillbecharacterizedbymany ofitsownfeaturesofpronunciation. Reaction Thiswasaninterestingarticlewhichhelpedmetogainamorein‐depth understandingoftheconceptoflinguafranca,aswellasotherimportanttermsused forlinguisticanalysispurposes.Ipresentedthisarticleinmyresearchclassasa 129 reviewandcritique.Idothinkthatsinceintelligibilityissodifficulttodetermine objectively,theauthorsmighthavebenefittedfrompost‐conversationinterviews withthesubjects.Overall,theymadeasoundcaseforreconsideringthenotionof “correct”English.TheysuggestthatlearnersfromSouth‐EastAsiancountrieswill eventuallynolongerneedtorefertoexternalnormsfortheirteachingmaterials. Source Zacharias,N.T.(2003).Asurveyoftertiaryteachers’beliefsaboutEnglishLanguage TeachinginIndonesiawithregardtotheroleofEnglishasagloballanguage. (MA‐ELTThesis).AssumptionUniversityofThailand:Bangkok,Thailand. Summary Zacharias’paperisbasedonfourquestions:“HowshouldEnglishbetaught inlightofitsroleasaninternationallanguage?Whatkind(s)ofEnglishshouldwe teach?DoestheteachingofEnglishmeanthatweneglecttheroleofourL1andour ownlocalculture?WhoisthebestEnglishteacher(e.g.nativespeakersornon‐ nativespeakers)?”(p.1)Inordertofurtherexplorethesequestions,theauthorused questionnaires,classroomobservations,andinterviewdatatoconductastudyof EnglishteachersinIndonesia,withafocusontheirbeliefsregardingEnglish.The resultsshowedthatteachersgenerallyviewedthelearningofEnglishasapathway tobetteremployment,andanecessityinordertocompeteintoday’sglobalizedera. Mostteachersbelievethatnativespeakersareidealinsomecasesbutthat nativenessshouldnotbethedeterminingfactorforhiringateacher.Inaddition, manyfeltthatusingEnglish‐speakingcountriesasculturalreferenceswas sometimestoodistantforstudents.Theclassroomobservationsshowedthatthe 130 students“respondedpositivelywhentopicswherepresentedcross‐culturallyrather thanfromanAnglo‐centricperspectiveonly”(p.96). Reaction ThedirectionofmyresearcharticleonteachingEnglishasaninternational languagewasinfluencedgreatlybythisthesispaper.Ihadbeeninterestedin writingapaperabouttheimplicationsofteachingEnglishinothercountries,given thelanguage’scomplicatedhistory.ThefocusofZacharias’paperwasperfectformy intentions.Thepaperincludesanoverviewoftheterminology,whichhelpedto providemanyleadsformyliteraturereview.Iwouldliketoconductasimilar researchstudyinJapan,surveyingEnglishteachersandtheirexperienceteaching EnglishinJapan. Source Aveni,V.P.(2005).Studyabroadandsecondlanguageuse:Constructingtheself. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. Summary Currentlythereseemstobemuchdiscussionamongteachersandscholars ontheimportanceofencouragingstudents’communicativecompetence.Theauthor ofthisbookstatesthatcompetenceextendsbeyondcommunicationandinvolves theconstructionofselfandsecondcultureintheL2.Bothintheclassroomandin studyabroadprograms,studentsareconstantlyintheprocessofconstructingthe selfwithintheboundariesofthenewlanguage.Therecanbemanylimitations whichpreventstudentsfromdevelopingtheirproficiencyinthelanguage,suchas threatstotheirself‐esteem,image,orsenseofsecurity.Theinformationpresented 131 inthisbookprovidesguidanceforteacherstobetterunderstandthegoalswhich mayfactorinmotivatingastudenttointeractintheclassroom,andalsogive insightsintopreparingstudentsforthestudyabroadexperience.Proper preparationbeforestudyabroadcanlessenthechanceastudentwillexperience negativecultureshockorhaveincorrectassumptionsabouttheculture.Itcanalso helpstudentsfeelmoreconfidentintheirabilitytointeractwithpeopleinthetarget language. Reaction Studyabroadprogramshavegreatpotentialtohelptransformstudents,but withouttherightpreparationastudent’sstudyabroadexperiencecanprovetobe useless,uneventful,oreventerrible.Unlessstudentsfeelcomfortableusingthe languageandmakingmistakes,theywilllikelyendupspendingmostoftheirtime abroadspeakingwithfellowexpatsintheL1.Iftheyhavenotbeenequippedwith theskillstoadapttointerculturalmisunderstandings,theymayrejectthenew cultureorgiveuponthelanguagealtogether.Ifounditinterestingthatthe emotionsstudentsexperienceinastudyabroadprogramaresimilartothose experiencedinthelanguageclassroom.Itcanbeveryunnervingtointeractinthe classroom,especiallygiventhelimitationsoftheearlystagesofproficiency.This bookprovidesgreatinsightsintothemindofthelanguagelearnerandmethodsfor helpingtoalleviatesomeofthefeelingsofanxietyandlostidentitywhichstudents mayhave. 132 Source Brown,J.,Dewey,D.P.,&Eggett,D.(2012).Japaneselanguageproficiency,social networking,andlanguageuseduringstudyabroad:Learners’perspectives. TheCanadianModernLanguageReview,68(2),111‐137.doi:10.3138 Summary Understandinghowandtowhatextentstudentsacquirelanguagewhile studyingabroadcanhelpprogramdesigners,teachers,policymakers,parents,and studentsinvolvedinstudyabroad.Thisstudyfocusesonsocialinteractionsand languageuseofstudentsstudyingJapanesewhoparticipatedinstudyabroad programsinJapan.Studentsweresurveyedontheirself‐perceivedproficiency developmentoverthecourseoftheirtimeinJapan.Theyreportedgainingmost proficiencyintheintermediateandadvancedlevelsofACTFL(AmericanCouncilon theTeachingofForeignLanguages)SpeakingProficiencyGuidelines,whilethey gainedtheleastproficiencyatthenoviceandsuperior‐levelabilities.Thestudents werealreadyabletoperformatnovicelevelsinmanyareasbecauseoftheir educationbeforethestudyabroad.Studentsoverallreportedgainsinfluencyand vocabularyuse,andontasksatintermediateandadvancedlevelssuchasnarrations anddescriptions.Theauthorsfoundthatthemoresocialgroupstowhichstudents belonged,thegreatertheirgainsinproficiency.Theliteraturereviewofthisstudy includesadescriptionofLong’s(1996)InteractionHypothesis,whichstatesthat conversationsinvolvingnegotiationofmeaningwithmoreexperttarget‐language speakinghelpstofacilitateacquisition.Theauthorsofthisstudyagreethatlanguage 133 isnotinputbutatoolforconnectingwithothers.Learnersdevelopinthelanguage throughsocialinteraction,andthusareabletoincreasetheirabilitytointeract. Reaction Theimplicationsofthisstudyprovideguidanceforteachers.Tohelp studentsprepareforsituationsabroadwheretheycanadvanceatthesuperiorlevel, teachersshouldleadactivitiesthatexposestudentstoadvancedtypesofexchanges suchasdebates,arguments,anddiscussingabstracttopics.Whileabroad,students shouldbegivenassignmentsthatencouragethemtointeractwithnativespeakers inmeaningfulways.IthasbeenshownbyMilroy(1980)andothersthatbeing integratedintoaspeechcommunityhelpstopromotelanguageability.Itisalso recommendedforstudentstostayinthecountryforatleastayearforoptimal acquisitionofthelanguage. Source Luk,Z.P.,&Shirai,Y.(2009).Istheacquisitionorderofgrammaticalmorphemes impervioustoL1knowledge?Evidencefromtheacquisitionofplural‐s, articles,andpossessive’s.LanguageLearning,59(4),721‐754. Summary TheauthorsofthisarticlearguethatKrashen’sNaturalOrderHypothesis, whileapplicabletosomelanguagessuchasSpanish,doesnotaccountforfirst languagetransferenceinotherlanguages.Multiplestudiesofnativespeakersof Japanese,Chinese,SpanishandKoreanwerereviewedforacquisitionof grammaticalmorphemes.TheresultsshowedthatnativespeakersofJapanese, Korean,andChineseusuallyacquireplural–sandarticleslaterthanpredicted,and 134 possessive‐‘searlierthanpredictedbyKrashen’sordering.Thestudyprovides evidencethatacquisitionofgrammaticalmorphemesmightnotbeuniversalas previouslypredictedbyKrashenandmanyothers.Instead,transferencefromtheL1 issignificantenoughtoaffecttheL2acquisitionorder.Insomeareaswherethe grammaticalstructureoftheL1issimilartoEnglish,thelearnertypicallyacquires themorphemesooner;whereasstructuresthatarelessfamiliarwillnormallytake longertoacquire.Lateacquisitionoftheplural‐s,forexample,canbearesultoflack ofpluralmarkingsinJapanese.JapaneselearnersofEnglishthereforemightfindit difficulttodifferentiatebetweencountnouns.Ontheotherhand,acquiring possessive‐’smightbeeasierbecausetheJapanesemarkerforpossessiveisvery similartoEnglish. Reaction AninterviewIconductedwithaChineseESLlearnersupportedtheargument forL1languagetransference.Ifoundthattherankingofthisstudent’serrorsdidnot matchupwithKrashen’snaturalrankingorder.Moreover,hercommonerrorscould betracedtostructuresinEnglishthatdidnotexistinChinese,suchastheplural‐‘s. Thisinformationisrelevanttoteachersseekingtopinpointspecificareaswhere languagetransferenceisinterferingwithstudents’abilitytolearnthelanguage. Source Mak,B.(2011).Anexplorationofspeaking‐in‐classanxietywithChineseESL learners.System,39(2),202‐214. 135 Summary Anxietycanbeasignificantobstaclepreventingstudentsfromlearningthe languagetotheirbestability.Thisarticlesummarizesastudyofspeaking‐in‐class anxietyofChineseESLstudentsinHongKong.TheauthorusedtheForeign LanguageClassroomAnxietyScale(FLCAS)tosearchforfactorswhichcontributeto students’speaking‐in‐classanxiety.Theanalysisshowedthatthemainfactorswere fearofnegativeevaluationbyteacherandpeers,fearofspeakingwithnative speakers,negativeperceptionoftheEnglishclassroom,fearoffailure,andnegative self‐evaluation.Asurveydistributedtostudentsshowedadditionalfactors contributingtospeaking‐in‐classanxiety,suchasbeingaskedtospeakwithout preparation,beingcorrectedbytheteacher,notbeinggivenenoughwait‐time,and notbeingallowedtousethefirstlanguage.Speechanxietyandfearofnegative evaluationwereconcludedtobemorerelatedtopersonalitythantestanxiety, whichisatemporaryreactiontoacademicstress.Tohelpstudentswhomayhave anxiety,theauthorlistedseveralrecommendationsforteachers.Theseinclude providingsufficientwait‐timeandgivingfocustoaccuracyandfluencyat appropriatemoments. Reaction ThisisanarticleIusedformylinguisticanalysisresearchpaper.Itprovided backgroundformystudiesofsocio‐culturalinfluencesonChinesestudent proficiency.Inanygivenclassroomsituation,itislikelyateacherwillhaveoneor morestudentswithspeaking‐in‐classanxiety.Iwanttobeabletohelpallmy studentsfeelincluded.Negativeattitudestowardsclasscancontributetoanxiety. 136 Providingsufficientpreparationtimeisimportantinanylanguageclass.Theauthor states:“Usingthetargetlanguageinfrontoftheclasscanbefrustratingasthe processplaceslinguistic,cognitiveandpsychologicaldemandsonthelearner.Itis thereforerecommendedthatteachersshouldensurethatlearnersaregiventimeto preparethespeech/presentationbeforebeingaskedtospeakinfrontoftheclass.” Source Dörnyei,Z.(1994).Motivationandmotivatingintheforeignlanguageclassroom. TheModernLanguageJournal,78(3),273‐284.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/330107 Summary Discussingthecomplicatedsocialrolethatmotivationplaysinlanguage learning,Dörnyeiliststhemanyrolesoflanguageitself.Languageis: a)acommunicationcodingsystemthatcanbetaughtasaschoolsubject,b) anintegralpartoftheindividual’sidentityinvolvedinalmostallmental activities,andalsoc)themostimportantchannelofsocialorganization embeddedinthecultureofthecommunitywhereitisused.(p.274) Learningalanguageinvolvesmuchmorethanlearningnewinformation,andmany factorsareinvolved.Inthisarticle,Dörnyeireviewsmanyofthevariousstudieson languagelearningmotivation,providingawell‐researchedbasis.Thesetheoriesare thensynthesizedintopragmaticprinciples,andrefinedintostrategiesforteachers’ use.Eachstrategycanbeclassifiedunderoneofthreelevels:LanguageLevel,(the languageitself),LearnerLevel(thestudentsintheirpersonaldimension),and LearningSituationLevel(thesocialaspects).Thereare30strategieslisted,butI 137 wouldnarrowthemdowntoaboutfivethemes:raisestudents’self‐confidence,help studentssetandreachgoals,incorporateinterestingandrelevantcoursematerial, beamodelofmotivationfortheclass,andpromoteacommunity‐typeatmosphere. Reaction Iconsidermotivationtobeabsolutelyessentialtolearning:thegreaterthe motivation,thegreatertheachievement.IwasgladtofindDörnyei’swritingsand theircomprehensibleanalysisontheresearchofmotivation.Whileallofthe strategieslistedinthearticlearerelevanttomypractice,afewstoodoutmorethan others.Theconceptof“modelinginterestintheL2”wassomethingIhadnot consideredpreviously,butIthinkmodelinginterestinvolvesmorethanjustbeing anenthusiasticteacher.Ibelieveitcouldalsohelptopointoutinterestingaspectsof thelanguagetostudents,sharestoriesaboutlearningthelanguage,andencourage studentstobeplayfulwiththelanguage.Explicitlyteachingstudentshowtosetand reachgoalsisalsoanexcellentstrategywhichIwouldliketoincorporateona regularbasis. 138 LOOKINGFORWARD OneofthemainreasonsIamdrawntoteachingisbecauseIloveprogressing andlearningnewthings.Asateacher,Iwillhaveampleopportunitiestoimprove mypractice,tobecomemoreknowledgeableonthecontentofmyinstruction,and toresearchnewideasinmyfield.Growinginconfidenceandknowledgewillallow metofocusmoreongivingpersonalandfocusedsupporttomystudents.Tobetter servemytargetstudentpopulation,Iplantobeanadvocatefortheimportanceof learningforeignlanguagesandinternationalstudies,andforimprovingeducation policiesintheU.S.andabroad. 139 REFERENCES Adair‐Hauck,B.,&Donato,R.(2002).ThePACEModel:Astory‐basedapproachto meaningandformforstandards‐basedlanguagelearning.TheFrenchReview, 76(2),265‐276.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3132708 Aljaafreh,A.,&Lantolf,J.P.(1994).Negativefeedbackasregulationandsecond languagelearningintheZoneofProximalDevelopment.TheModern LanguageJournal,78,465‐483.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/328585. AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.Standardsforforeign languagelearning:Preparingforthe21stcentury.Alexandria,VA:ACTFL. Retrievedfromhttp://www.actfl.org Arnold,J.,&Brown,H.D.(1999).Amapoftheterrain.InArnold,J.(Ed.),Affectin languagelearning(p.1‐24).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. Aryadoust,S.V.,&Sepassi,F.(2007).TestingtheNaturalOrderhypothesisonthe frameworkofthecompetitionmodel.TheLinguisticsJournal,2(1).Retrieved fromhttp://www.linguistics‐journal.com/August_2007_fs&sa.php Aveni,V.P.(2005).Studyabroadandsecondlanguageuse:Constructingtheself. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. Ballman,T.L.,Liskin‐Gasparro,J.E.,&Mandell,P.B.(2001).Thecommunicative classroom.Boston,MA:Heinle. Basturkmen,H.,&Varnosfadrani,A.D.(2009).Theeffectivenessofimplicitand expliciterrorcorrectiononlearners’performance.System,37(1),82‐98.doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.04.004 140 Bennett,M.J.(1998).Interculturalcommunication:Acurrentperspective.InMilton J.Bennett(Ed.),Basicconceptsofinterculturalcommunication:Selected readings.Yarmouth,ME:InterculturalPress. Berns,M.(1990).Contextsofcompetence:Socioculturalconsiderationsin communicativelanguageteaching.NewYork,NY:Plenum. Brantmeier,C.(2008).Meetingthedemands:Thecircularityofremodeling collegiateforeignlanguageprograms.TheModernLanguageJournal,92(2), 306–309.doi:10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2007.00719_8.x Brown,J.,Dewey,D.P.,&Eggett,D.(2012).Japaneselanguageproficiency,social networking,andlanguageuseduringstudyabroad:Learners’perspectives. TheCanadianModernLanguageReview,68(2),111‐137. Byram,M.(1997).Teachingandassessinginterculturalcommunicativecompetence. Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters. Byram,M.(2000).Assessinginterculturalcompetenceinlanguageteaching. Sprogforum,18(6),8‐13.Retrievedfrom http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr18/byram.html Canagarajah,A.S.(1999).ResistinglinguisticimperialisminEnglishteaching.Oxford, UK:OxfordUniversityPress. Canagarajah,A.S.(2007)LinguaFrancaEnglish,multilingualCommunities,and languageacquisition.ModernLanguageJournal,91,923‐939. Chan,A.Y.W.(2006).Syntactictransfer:EvidencefromtheinterlanguageofHong KongChineseESLLearners.TheModernLanguageJournal,88(i),56‐74. 141 Coffin,C.,&Shrestha,P.(2012).Dynamicassessment,tutormediationandacademic writingdevelopment.AssessingWriting,17,55‐70.doi: http://dx.doi.org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003 Corder,S.P.(1967).Thesignificanceoflearners’errors.InternationalReviewof AppliedLinguistics,5,161‐170.doi:10.1515/iral.1967.5.1‐4.161 Cortinez,V.(1992).Theexcitementofliterature:alifelongpursuit.InRivers,W.M. (Ed.),Teachinglanguagesincollege:Curriculumandcontent(245‐261). Chicago,IL:NationalTextbookCompany. Coskun,A.(2011).FutureEnglishteachers’attitudestowardsEILpronunciation. JournalofEnglishasanInternationalLanguage,6(2),46‐68.Retrievedfrom http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED527146.pdf Crystal,D.(2011).TheconsequencesofglobalEnglish.InInstitutoCervantesand theBritishCouncil(ed.),Wordforword:Thesocial,economicandpolitical impactofSpanishandEnglish(pp.67‐72).Madrid:Santillana.Retrievedfrom http://www.davidcrystal.com/DC_articles/English135.pdf DeKeyser,R.M.,&Goldschneider,J.M.(2002).Explainingthe“NaturalorderofL2 morphemeacquisition”inEnglish:Ameta‐analysisofmultipledeterminants. LanguageLearning,51(1),1‐50.doi:10.1111/1467‐9922.00147 Dörnyei,Z.(1994).Motivationandmotivatingintheforeignlanguageclassroom. TheModernLanguageJournal,78(3),273‐284.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/330107 142 Dörnyei,Z.,&Csizer,K.(1998).Tencommandmentsformotivatinglanguage learners:resultsofanempiricalstudy.LanguageTeachingResearch,2(3), 203‐229. Dörnyei,Z.(2008).Thepsychologyofthelanguageleaner:Individualdifferencesin secondlanguageacquisition.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc. Dougill,J.(2008).JapanandEnglishasanalienlanguage.EnglishToday,24(1),18‐ 22.doi:10.1017/S0266078408000059 Dulay,H.,&Burt,M.(1973).Shouldweteachchildrensyntax?LanguageLearning, 23,95‐123.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐1770.1973.tb00659.x Forsman,L.(2010).EFLEducationinthenewmillennium:Focusonthepromotion ofawarenessofdifferenceanddiversity.ScandinavianJournalofEducational Research,54(5),501–517.doi:10.1080/00313831.2010.508926 Fromkin,V.,Hyams,N.,&Rodman,R.(2011).Anintroductiontolanguage(9thed.). Boston,MA:WadsworthCengageLearning. Frye,R.,&Garza,T.J.(1992).Authenticcontactwithnativespeechandcultureat homeandabroad.InRivers,W.(Ed.),Teachinglanguagesincollege: Curriculumandcontent(225‐245).Chicago,IL:NationalTextbookCompany. Gardner,R.C.(1985).Socialpsychologyandsecondlanguagelearning:Theroleof attitudesandmotivations.London,UK:EdwardArnold. Gardner,R.C.,&Lambert,W.E.(1972).Attitudesandmotivationinsecondlanguage learning.Raleigh,MA:NewburyHouse. Gobel,K.,&Helmke,A.(2010).InterculturallearninginEnglishasforeignlanguage instruction:Theimportanceofteachers’interculturalexperienceandthe 143 usefulnessofpreciseinstructionaldirectives.TeachingandTeacher Education,26(6),1571‐1582.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.008 Graddol,D.(2000).ThefutureofEnglish?Aguidetoforecastingthepopularityofthe Englishlanguageinthe21stcentury.TheBritishCouncil.Retrievedfrom http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning‐elt‐future.pdf Hall,B.J.(2005).Amongcultures:Thechallengeofcommunication(2nded.).Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. Hall,J.K.(2001).Methodsforteachingforeignlanguages.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ: Prentice‐Hall,Inc. Harper,S.M.(2011).Countingthecostsofaglobalanglophonichegemony: ExaminingtheimpactofU.S.languageeducationpolicyonlinguistic minoritiesworldwide.IndianaJournalofGlobalLegalStudies,18(1),515‐ 538. Hashimoto,K.(2009).Cultivating‘JapanesewhocanuseEnglish’:Problemsand contradictionsingovernmentpolicy.AsianStudiesReview,33,21‐42.doi: 10.1080/10357820802716166 Huang,J.(2005).ChallengesofAcademicListeninginEnglish:ReportsbyChinese Students.CollegeStudentJournal,59(3),553‐569. Huang,J.,&Brown,K.(2009).CulturalfactorsaffectingChineseESLstudents’ academiclearning.Education,129(4),643‐653. Hymes,D.H.(1972).Oncommunicativecompetence.Philadelphia,PA:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. 144 Ishii,D.,&Baba,K.(2003).LocallydevelopedoralskillsevaluationinESL/EFL classrooms:Achecklistfordevelopingmeaningfulassessmentprocedures. TESLCanadaJournal,21(1),79‐96.Retrievedfrom http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/viewFile/275/208 Jusoff,K.,Leng,K.T.P.,Sharmini,S.,&Singaram,N.(2009).Thesecondlanguage acquisitionofpasttensemarkerinEnglishbyL1speakersofChinese. CanadianSocialScience,5(3),133‐140.Retrievedfrom http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/j.css.1923669720090 503.016 Kachru,B.(1989).TeachingworldEnglishes.CrossCurrents:AnInternational JournalofLanguageTeachingandCross‐CulturalCommunication,16(1),15‐ 21. Knutson,E.K.(1997).Readingwithapurpose:Communicativereadingtasksforthe foreignlanguageclassroom.ForeignLanguageAnnals,30(1),49‐57. doi:10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1997.tb01316.x Kobayashi,Y.(2011).Expanding‐circlestudentslearning‘standardEnglish’inthe outer‐circleAsia.JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment, 32(3),235‐248.doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.536239 Kozulin,A.,&Garb,E.(2002).DynamicassessmentofEFLtextcomprehension. SchoolPsychologyInternational,23(1),112‐127.doi: 10.1177/0143034302023001733 145 Kozulin,A.,&Garb,E.(2004).Dynamicassessmentofliteracy:Englishasathird language.EuropeanJournalofPsychologyofEducation,114(1),65‐77.doi: 10.1007/BF03173237 Krashen,S.D.(1977).TheMonitorModelforadultsecondlanguageperformance.In M.Burt,H.Dulay,&M.Finocchiaro(Eds.),ViewpointsonEnglishasasecond language(pp.152‐161).NewYork,NY:Regents. Krashen,S.D.(1982).Principlesandpracticeinsecondlanguageacquisition. Retrievedfromhttp://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/ Principles_and_Practice.pdf Kubota,R.(1998).IdeologiesofEnglishinJapan.WorldEnglishes,17(3),295‐306. Kubota,R.(2002).TheimpactofglobalisationonlanguageteachinginJapan.InD. Blocks&D.Cameron(Eds.),Globalisationandlanguageteaching(pp.13–28). London:Routledge. Lantolf,J.P.,&Poehner,M.E.(2010).Dynamicassessmentintheclassroom: Vygotskianpraxisforsecondlanguagedevelopment.LanguageTeaching Research,15(1)11‐33.doi:10.1177/1362168810383328 Lee,J.F.,&VanPatten,B.(2003).Makingcommunicativelanguageteachinghappen (2nded.).NewYork:McGrawHill. LoCastro,V.(2012).PragmaticsforLanguageEducators.NewYork,NY:Routledge. Long,M.(1996).Theroleofthelinguisticenvironmentinsecondlanguage acquisition.InRitchie,W.andBhatia,T.(Eds.)Handbookofsecondlanguage acquisition(pp.413–468).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress. 146 Luk,Z.P.,&Shirai,Y.(2009).Istheacquisitionorderofgrammaticalmorphemes impervioustoL1knowledge?Evidencefromtheacquisitionofplural‐s, articles,andpossessive’s.LanguageLearning,59(4),721‐754. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐9922.2009.00524.x Lund,K.(2006).Theawarenessofcontextinsecondlanguageacquisitiontheories. InH.L.Anderson;K.Lund;&K.Risager(Eds.),Cultureinlanguagelearning (pp.57‐86).Aarhus,Denmark:AarhusUniversityPress. Luria,A.R.(1961).Studyoftheabnormalchild.AmericanJournalofOrthopsychiatry: AJournalofHumanBehavior,31,1–16. Mak,B.(2011).Anexplorationofspeaking‐in‐classanxietywithChineseESL learners.System,39(2),202‐214.doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002 Maree,D.J.F.,&Murphy,R.(2009).Revisitingcoreissuesindynamicassessment. SouthAfricanJournalofPsychology,39(4),420‐431.Retrievedfrom http://www.ucc.ie/en/apsych/staff/rm/murphy394.pdf Matsuda,A.(2003).IncorporatingWorldEnglishesinteachingEnglishasan internationallanguage.TESOLQuarterly,37(4),719‐729.Retrievedfrom Matsuda,A.,&Friedrich,P.(2011).Englishasaninternationallanguage:A curriculumblueprint.WorldEnglishes,30(3),332‐344. McKay,S.(2002).TeachingEnglishasaninternationallanguage.Oxford,UK:Oxford UniversityPress. Monbukagakusho[MinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology]. (2001).Eigoshidohouhoutoukaizennosuishinnikansurukondankai houkokushiryou[Reportmaterialsforameetingonpromoting 147 improvementsinEnglishteachingmethods].Retrievedfrom http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/018/toushin/0101 10c.htm Nguyen,M.(2011).Learningtocommunicateinaglobalizedworld:Towhatextent doschooltextbooksfacilitatethedevelopmentofinterculturalpragmatic competence?RELCJournal,42(17),17‐30.doi:10.1177/0033688210390265 Oskoz,A.(2005).Students’dynamicassessmentviaonlinechat.CALICOJournal, 22(3).Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/a‐148 Students%20Dynamic%20Assessment%20Via%20Online%20Chat.html Peacock,M.(1997).TheeffectofauthenticmaterialsonthemotivationofEFL learners.ELTJournal,51(2),144‐156.Retrievedfrom http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org.dist.lib.usu.edu/content/51/2/144.full.pdf Phillipson,R.(1992).LinguisticImperialism.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress. Phillipson,R.,&Skutnabb‐Kangas,T.(1996).EnglishOnlyWorldwideorLanguage Ecology?TESOLQuarterly,30(3),429‐452.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587692. Poehner,M.E.(2005).DynamicassessmentoforalproficiencyamongadvancedL2 learnersofFrench.UnpublishedPhDdissertation,PennsylvaniaState University. Poehner,M.E.(2007).Beyondthetest:L2dynamicassessmentandthe transcendenceofmediatedlearning.TheModernLanguageJournal,91(3), 323‐340.doi:0026‐7902/07/323–340 148 Poehner,M.E.(2011).Dynamicassessment:Fairnessthroughtheprismof mediation.AssessmentinEducation:Principles,PolicyandPractice,18(2),99‐ 112.doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.567090 Poehner,M.E.,&Lantolf,J.P.(2005).Dynamicassessmentinthelanguage classroom.LanguageTeachingResearch,9(3),233‐265.doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr166oa Poehner,M.E.,&Lantolf,J.P.(2010).Vygotsky’steaching‐assessmentdialecticand L2education:Thecasefordynamicassessment.Mind,Culture,andActivity, 17(4),312‐330.doi:10.1080/10749030903338509 Poehner,M.E.,&vanCompernolle,R.A.(2011).FramesofinteractioninDynamic Assessment:Developmentaldiagnosesofsecondlanguagelearning. AssessmentinEducation:Principles,Policy&Practice,18(2),183‐198.doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.567116 PrimeMinister’sCommissiononJapan’sGoalsinthe21stCentury(2000).Japan’s goalsinthe21stcentury:Thefrontierwithin.Retrievedfrom http://www.kantei.go.jp Rivers,W.M.(1981).Teachingforeign‐languageskills.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityof ChicagoPress. Rivers,W.M.(1992).Theundergraduateprogram1:Coursesforallcomers.InW. Rivers(Ed.),Teachinglanguagesincollege:Curriculumandcontent(pp.1‐ 19).Chicago,IL:NationalTextbookCompany. Savignon,S.J.(1972).Communicativecompetence:Anexperimentinforeignlanguage teaching.Philadelphia,PA:CenterforCurriculumDevelopment. 149 Savignon,S.J.(1997).Communicativecompetence:Theoryandclassroompractice. NewYork,NY:McGraw‐Hill. Seargeant,P.(2005).GlobalisationandreconfiguredEnglishinJapan.World Englishes,24(3),309‐319. Seidlhofer,B.(2005).Englishasalinguafranca.ELTJournal,59(4),339‐341. Shrum,J.L.,&Glisan,E.W.(2010).Teacher’shandbook:Contextualizedlanguage instruction(4thed.).Boston,MA:CengageLearning. Snow,M.A.,Kamhi‐Stein,L.D.,&Brinton,D.M.(2006).TeachertrainingforEnglish asalinguafranca.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,26,261‐281. Sowden,C.(2011).ELFonamushroom:theovernightgrowthinEnglishasaLingua Franca.ELTJournal,66(1),89‐96.doi:10.1093/elt/ccr024 Suzuki,A.(2010)IntroducingdiversityofEnglishintoELT:studentteachers’ responses.ELTJournal,65(6),145‐153.doi:10.1093/elt/ccq024 Suzuki,S.(1970).Zenmind,beginner’smind:InformaltalksonZenmeditationand practice.Tokyo,Japan:Weatherhill,Inc. Swain,M.(2000).Theoutputhypothesisandbeyond:Mediatingacquisitionthrough collaborativedialogue.InJ.P.Lantolf(Ed.),SocioculturalTheoryandSecond LanguageLearning(pp.97‐114).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Tremmel,R.(1993).Zenandtheartofreflectivepracticeinteachereducation. HarvardEducationalReview,63(4),434‐459.doi:9406150116 Tsuda,Y.(1994).ThediffusionofEnglish:Itsimpactoncultureandcommunication. KeioCommunicationReview,16,49‐61. 150 Valsiner,J.(2001).Processstructureofsemioticmediationinhumandevelopment. HumanDevelopment,44(2/3),84‐97.doi:10.1159/000057048 Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigherpsychological processes.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Warschauer,M.(2000).ThechangingglobaleconomyandthefutureofEnglish teaching.TESOLQuarterly,34(3),511‐535.doi:10.2307/3587741 Westcomb,J.(2011).English:Astatusreport.Spotlight,9(11),28‐33.Retrieved fromhttp://www.davidcrystal.com/DC_articles/English136.pdf Yamanaka,N.(2006).AnevaluationofEnglishtextbooksinJapanfromthe viewpointofnationsintheInner,Outer,andExpandingCircles.JALTJournal, 28(1),57‐76.Retrievedfromhttp://jalt‐ publications.org/archive/jj/2006a/art4.pdf Young,T.J.,&Sachdev,I.(2011).Interculturalcommunicativecompetence: ExploringEnglishlanguageteachers’beliefsandpractices.Language Awareness,20(2),81‐98.doi:10.1080/09658416.2010.540328
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz