English language teaching reading principles methodologies study skills research content
based learning cognition speaking development classroom interaction linguistics
techniques technology grammar psychology motivation listening pragmatics resource
based learning discourse participation phonetics vocabulary assessment skills education
attitudes syntax independence semantics learner training communication approaches
autonomous learning sociolinguistics strategies materials self-access writing genre
learner centred curriculum evaluation morphology course design teacher training
resource based language learning English language teaching reading principles
methodologies study skills research content based learning cognition speaking classroom
rEFLections
KMUTT Journal of Language Education
techniques technology grammar psychology motivation listening pragmatics resource
based learning discourse participation phonetics vocabulary assessment skills education
attitudes syntax independence semantics learner training communication approaches
autonomous learning sociolinguistics strategies materials self-access writing genre
learner centred curriculum evaluation morphology course design teacher training
resource based language learning English language teaching reading principles
methodologies study skills research content based learning cognition speaking classroom
research English language teaching integrative testing eliciting listening comprehension
communication strategies discourse competence assessment individual differences self
esteem cooperation self-directed learning portfolios collaborative learning peer teaching
classroom culture monolingual classes non-native speakers language awareness
groupwork metalanguage jigsaw reading discipline negotiation of meaning interaction
observation journals managing innovation curriculum renewal micro-skills projects tasks
affective strategies keywords formulaic phrases metaphors conversation analysis lexical
approaches continuous assessment rhetorical structure text input monitoring participation
Volume 10
January 2007
ISSN 1513-5934
Volume 10
January 2007
rEFLections
KMUTT Journal of Language Education
Department of Language Studies
School of Liberal Arts
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Thailand
Editorial Staff
Editors: Jonathan Hull & Wareesiri Singhasiri
Editorial Board: Suvalee Chinkumtornwong, Pornapit Darasawang,
Sonthida Keyuravong, Wilaksana Srimavin, Nuantip Tantisawetrat,
Saowaluck Tepsuriwong, Ananya Tuksinvarajarn, Richard Watson Todd,
Kulawadee Yamkate
Research Assistant: He Murray
Information for contributors
rEFLections is an annual publication featuring original articles on a wide
range of EFL topics, mostly in Thailand. We welcome contributions from all
sources. No payment will be made but contributors will receive two free
copies of the journal.
Manuscripts for articles should be no longer than 5,000 words and should
follow the conventions of the articles in this issue as far as possible. Please
include an abstract and a biographical note. Send 2 hard copies together with
a diskette (preferably Microsoft Word), or attach the article as a Word
document to an email, to the editors at the address below:
Department of Language Studies
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Bangmod
Tung Khru
Bangkok 10140
Thailand
Email:
Fax:
[email protected] & [email protected]
(662) 428 3375
Deadline for the next issue: 31st October 2007
Editorial
This volume of rEFLections contains a wide variety of articles. As in past volumes, several of the
articles pertain particularly to issues in teaching and learning English in Thailand. The leading
article, however, co-authored by Richard Watson Todd, Wilaksana Srimavin and Tharinee
Boonyuen, goes well beyond this frontier and looks at problems facing researchers analyzing
discourse. It begins with a comprehensive review of discourse analysis. Then, focusing on
ethnomethodological approaches, the authors show how unconscious biases can affect the process
of analyzing classroom discourse. They go on to describe the difficulties they had analyzing their
own data on teacher questions and recommend that, in addition to researchers’ perspectives,
teachers’ and students’ perspectives should be included in studies on classroom discourse.
Monthon Kanokpermpoon’s article takes a careful look at the similarities and differences between
Thai and English consonants and suggests that, in general, English sounds that do not occur in
Thai tend to pose greater difficulty than sounds common to both languages; however, syllable
position is an additional factor causing difficulty as is sound interchangeability that pertains in
one language but not the other. The article has extensive recommendations for teachers seeking to
address their Thai students’ problems pronouncing problematic consonant sounds in English.
The third article, by Chayaporn Kaoropthai and Wilaksana Srimavin, investigates teachers’
beliefs and actual practice with specific reference to feedback strategies. They found that
strategies that appear to require little conscious effort were used more frequently than teachers
believed while those that require considerable conscious effort were utilized less often than they
perceived. The authors stress the importance of reducing the gap between teachers’ perceptions
and their practice, and they suggest ways of doing so.
In their article, Thanasorn Visutwarin and Wareesiri Singhasiri review the similarities and
differences among three popular paper-based monolingual learner’s dictionaries. Drawing on the
literature for expected characteristics of both macrostructure and microstructure of dictionaries,
the authors found considerable similarities as well as differences; the latter ranged from such
factors as the use of colour and picture dictionaries to the size of controlled defining vocabulary
and words deemed to be frequently used. The latter factor, the authors believe, may derive from
the dictionaries’ use of different language corpora. The article concludes with recommendations
for learners, teachers and compilers.
The next article, by Napaporn Ngamwilaipong, Pornapit Darasawang and Wilaksana Srimavin,
looks at communication strategies used to try to solve lexical problems in writing. The authors
trained their undergraduate subjects to think aloud while writing and used their written work and
think-aloud protocols as well as semi-structured interviews as instruments. The findings show
that the subjects used L1-based literal translation ubiquitously as well as a considerable amount of
L2-based approximation. The authors recommend the use of both direct and embedded training in
communication strategies along with awareness-raising of the process of writing.
Jonathan Hull’s article is a diary study looking at his own teaching of both a graduate and an
undergraduate class. Such studies inevitably suffer from a considerable amount of subjectivity
and the author sought to reduce this problem by conducting two data analyses. One issue found in
his teaching was that, as a non-Thai speaker, he spent considerable time teaching vocabulary
items before students could work on tasks prescribed by the syllabus. His undergraduate data also
provided some evidence for task types that seemed to motivate these learners to speak English.
Jonathan Hull & Wareesiri Singhasiri, Editors
Contents
Problems Analysing Discourse and Teacher Questions from a
Researcher’s Perspective
Richard Watson Todd, Wilaksana Srimavin & Tharinee Boonyuen
Page
1
A Preliminary Investigation of English and Thai Consonants
Monthon Kanokpermpoon
10
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice Concerning Feedback Strategies
Chayaporn Kaoropthai & Wilaksana Srimavin
22
A Comparison of Three Monolingual Learner’s Dictionaries
Thanasorn Visutwarin & Wareesiri Singhasiri
33
Communication Strategies to Solve Lexical Problems in Writing
Napaporn Ngamwilaipong, Pornapit Darasawang & Wilaksana Srimavin
48
Using Diaries to Promote Reflection on Teaching
Jonathan Hull
55
Problems Analysing Discourse and Teacher Questions
from a Researcher's Perspective
Richard Watson Todd
Wilaksana Srimavin
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Tharinee Boonyuen
TPN Flexpak, Bangkok
Abstract
Discourse analysis, especially ethnomethodological approaches, has become a
powerful tool for investigating classrooms. However, such analyses run the
risk of relying on subjective researcher interpretations of data and of
unconscious biases influencing the findings. In this paper, we will present a
case study of an attempt to investigate problematic teacher questions which
highlights these risks. The main implication of this case study is that
discourse analyses must take into account multiple perspectives on the
discourse.
Discourse analysis
The term discourse analysis was first used by Zelig Harris in 1952, but the discipline
really came of age in the 1970s with the publication of several seminal works,
especially in the analysis of classroom discourse. In 1975, Sinclair and Coulthard
published a functional analysis of classroom language identifying the influential IRF
(initiation – response – feedback) pattern of classroom interaction; in 1979, Mehan
identified a similar pattern through an ethnographic approach; and in 1977, van Dijk
produced possibly the most ambitious attempt to provide a grammatical description of
discourse as text.
These three works represent three different schools of discourse analysis (McCarthy,
1991). The work of Sinclair and Coulthard initiated what became known as the
Birmingham school of discourse analysis which, based on the work of Halliday (e.g.
1970; 1973), focused initially on functional analyses of discourse (McCarthy, 2001)
before broadening into other areas such as lexical cohesion (e.g. Hoey, 1991). Van
Dijk's work was part of text linguistics or text grammar (see also e.g. de Beaugrande &
Dressler, 1981; Mann & Thompson, 1988) which attempted to address the cognitive
processing of written discourse. Mehan was instrumental in showing the applications of
a broad range of ethnomethodological approaches in American discourse analysis,
including conversation analyses, interactional analyses and ethnographies.
All three schools have produced findings and generated theories of great value, yet they
view discourse in different ways and use very different methods of analysis. Text
grammarians have largely focused on written texts (for a text grammar analysis of
classroom discourse, see Watson Todd, 2005) viewing discourse as language products
above the level of sentence; functional discourse analysts have investigated both spoken
and written discourse from linguistic perspectives; and ethnomethodologists have taken
a more sociological approach and viewed discourse as a dynamic process.
These different views of discourse and different focuses of analysis require different
approaches in analysing discourse data. Both text grammarians and functional discourse
1
analysts often aim to produce generalisable and replicable research. In doing this,
research within these two schools often sets up clearly defined and operationalised units
and categories of analysis. Ethnomethodologists, on the other hand, are often interested
in the intersubjective and context-dependent nature of specific instances of discourse.
As such, ethnomethodological studies tend to rely on researcher interpretations of
discourse and run the risk of producing impressionistic (Watson-Gegeo, 1988), selective
(Stubbs, 1986) and ultimately vapid (Chaudron, 1988) summaries of the discourse data.
From the perspective of outsiders to ethnomethodology, these studies may appear
subjective and unreliable. The various approaches to ethnomethodology, however, do
have strict underlying research methodologies as clear and rigorous as those of text
linguistics and functional discourse analysis.
Ethnomethodological approaches
American discourse analysis comprises several different approaches to analysing
discourse. Predominant among these are the ethnography of communication,
interactional sociolinguistics and conversation analysis.
The ethnography of communication aims to produce thick, detailed, holistic
descriptions of social settings and the interactions that take place in them. While the
research methodology may be flexible, there are two key aspects that characterise
ethnographies. First, they involve detailed observation over a long period of time
(Saville-Troike, 1996; Watson-Gegeo, 1988). Second, they often combine emic
(insider) and etic (outsider) perspectives with the researcher as participant (Erickson,
1996; Watson-Gegeo, 1988), and therefore lengthy descriptions of the researcher may
be necessary (Rampton et al., 2002). The process of conducting an ethnography
generally involves noting key features in events, describing patterns, interpreting the
meanings of the patterns, and then explaining these within the larger context.
The second approach, interactional sociolinguistics, also requires long-term study in
order to create familiarity with the context and often involves emic perspectives (Hall,
2002). It differs from ethnography in that recurrent events need to be identified and
recordings made, and these recordings need to be analysed through repeated viewings in
order to provide insights into relationships between self and society (Schiffrin, 1996).
Conversation analysis differs from other ethnomethodological approaches in its view of
context. Rather than seeing context as a predetermined environment for interaction, this
approach views context in micro terms as being created through the interaction (Mori,
2002). Conducting a conversation analysis does not involve collecting emic
perspectives; instead, the focus is on the interaction itself. Thus, instances of a certain
phenomenon are collected, transcribed and analysed inductively in great detail (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005; Hall, 2002). Since each interaction is viewed as unique in
conversation analysis, there is no attempt to identify generalisable patterns from the
data.
While these three ethnomethodological approaches clearly vary greatly in research
methodology, each approach provides fairly rigorous and justified guidelines for
conducting research. Researchers deciding to follow an ethnographic approach may
produce nearly worthless research if they do not follow these guidelines. Examples of
poor ethnomethodological research include so-called blitzkrieg ethnographies where the
research is conducted in too short a timeframe to allow full familiarity with the context
2
(Saville-Troike, 1996) and research where “reliance on a few anecdotes [is] used to
support the researcher's theoretical point of view or conclusions” (Watson-Gegeo, 1988,
p. 585).
In this paper, we intend to criticise a research study taking an ethnomethodological
approach. We will then highlight one key danger in conducting such research – the
reliance on subjective interpretations of data – by examining our own attempts to
identify problematic questions in classroom discourse. By doing this, we hope to be able
to draw up further guidelines for conducting effective discourse analyses.
A sample criticism
Before we provide a brief criticism of one research study taking an ethnomethodological
approach, we should stress that the majority of articles in the field follow the guidelines
for conducting research and are careful to avoid overinterpreting the data. In other
words, while such research usually attempts to draw inferences from the discourse data,
care is taken to ensure that these inferences do not go beyond what is apparent in the
data.
However, in some research a concern on the part of the researcher to find evidence to
support a particular theory may lead to an unconscious overinterpretation of the data. As
a potential example of this, we will examine a brief extract from Tsui, Morton, Mok &
Ng (2004). In choosing this article, we do not intend to question its value; rather, we are
focusing purely on the methodological issues of privileging etic researcher perspectives
and unconscious bias in interpretation of data in ethnomethodological research.
The article we have chosen to criticise is one in a published collection where two of the
article authors are also editors of the book. The book, Classroom Discourse and the
Space of Learning, examines several different aspects of classroom discourse, especially
the importance of discernment and variation in learning and the construction and
constitution of spaces for learning, including how teachers and students collaboratively
construct meanings through classroom discourse. This last point is important in the
article by Tsui et al., which examines how the teacher's use of questions shapes the
space of learning.
As an example of the use of questions, Tsui et al. analyse an extract from a physics
lesson (extract 5.11, pp. 133-134) which focuses on how a reed relay works. The key
focus of their analysis is on how the teachers and students collaborate in the discourse,
and, after showing how six of the main concepts in the discourse were introduced by the
teacher and five by the students, they conclude that “the understanding of the processes
involved was co-constructed by the teacher and the students” (p. 135).
However, looking back at the transcripts (the data analysed by Tsui et al.), the claim
that five concepts were introduced by the students is far from certain. In some cases, the
students are simply selecting words from teacher utterances to repeat. For instance, let
us look at a short stretch of discourse taken from the article and shown in extract 1.
Extract 1
T:
Strong light shines on the LDR, I've told you before, and the electric resistance
value drops. OK, what effect will it have on the electric current on this side of
the circuit?
3
S:
Electric resistance drops.
In this extract, the student's answer which Tsui et al. argue is adding new meaning to the
discourse is also a partial repetition of the teacher's previous utterance. In other cases,
although the students do add new information to the discourse, this information is given
in response to closed teacher questions which control the content of the information that
the students add. Continuing the discourse from extract 1, an example is shown in
extract 2.
Extract 2
T:
Electric resistance drops, the electric current ...?
S:
Increases.
While the word 'increases' is introduced into the discourse by a student, it is the teacher
who controls its introduction, and the meaning introduced is not selected by the student.
Indeed, of the five concepts the authors claim are introduced by the students, only one
comes in response to an open question without teacher prompting and this concept is a
restatement of previous teacher-controlled student input which the teacher had rejected.
Thus, of the 11 key concepts identified by the article authors, it appears that 10 of them
were under the control of the teacher. The authors' conclusion that discourse
understanding was co-constructed is therefore suspect.
Before we continue, we should point out that our own interpretation is similarly suspect.
This realisation leads to two questions. First, why is it difficult to interpret classroom
discourse reliably? Second, why did Tsui et al. interpret the discourse in the way they
did? The first question highlights the difficulty of ensuring reliability in
ethnomethodological research. This is partly due to the multitudes of potential
interpretations of any given stretch of discourse and partly to tendencies to privilege
researcher perspectives on the discourse over those of other parties and, even when
there are several researchers, to provide only one supposedly definitive researcher
interpretation of the data. The second question highlights a potential unconscious bias in
interpreting data so that it supports a theory the researchers are proposing.
In the context of Tsui et al. (2004), these two issues, while problematic, are not so
serious that they devalue the research findings. In other contexts, however, privileging
researcher perspectives and unconscious biases in interpretations could have such a
serious impact on the research as to render it meaningless. We will next give an
example of such a context by looking at the preliminary stages of some research we
tried to conduct into problematic teacher questions.
Background of the study
The research into teacher questions originated in the teaching practice of one of the
authors (TB) when she was studying a Masters degree in Applied Linguistics with the
two other authors as her tutors. Towards the end of the semester, she became concerned
about the quality of her questioning, specifically why students did not respond to some
of her questions. These questions to which no reply was given she termed problematic.
Since there was little time remaining in the semester to record her lessons, we decided
to start examining problematic teacher questions using published extracts of classroom
discourse. To this end, we chose ten extracts of eliciting taken from Watson Todd
4
(2003). These extracts came from various lessons on first-year undergraduate English
language courses at a Thai university with four different teachers. Since the extracts
focused on the eliciting stage of the lessons, there were numerous examples of teacher
questions for us to analyse. In total in the ten extracts, there were 163 teacher turns
which included questions and 276 questions in all (including repetitions).
Using these extracts as the data, we aimed to conduct an analysis to see if we could
identify any patterns in the reasons why students found certain questions difficult to
answer. In taking this approach to identifying the causes of problematic teacher
questions, we are working within a framework of functional discourse analysis. If we
were fortunate, we hoped to be able to use the extracts to identify the causes. A more
likely outcome was that we would be able to identify potential patterns in the data
which could be used to guide further research into questions involving teacher and
student perspectives in addition to the researchers' analyses.
Our preliminary research, then, did not follow an ethnomethodological approach but did
involve examining and interpreting discourse from the researchers' perspectives. Also,
while we had no theory we were trying to support, our individual concerns could guide
our interpretations of the discourse. So, although we were not taking a purely
interpretive ethnomethodological approach, it appeared that any issues in conducting
research that we encountered could shed some light on such an approach and on
discourse analysis in general.
Identifying problematic teacher questions and their causes
To start our analysis of the extracts, we needed to identify the problematic teacher
questions. Working separately, we each drew up lists of problematic questions and then
met together to compare our lists. It quickly became apparent that we were using very
different principles to identify problematic teacher questions. One of us was identifying
any question which did not receive a response from the students as problematic; another
was basing her identification on whether she had difficulty understanding the question
irrespective of whether it received an answer or not; and the third took a more
interpretive approach by identifying those questions which needed to be repeated or
paraphrased or which did not receive an answer but which she also found interesting in
some way.
Clearly, we needed to agree on what we meant by problematic teacher questions.
Starting from the initial reason for conducting the research, we came up with three main
criteria for identifying problematic teacher questions:
•
Questions which elicit no response from students.
•
Questions which receive an incorrect answer, where incorrect means that the
response is in a completely different semantic field from that expected.
•
Questions that need to be extensively paraphrased or translated by the teacher
before they receive a response.
Having set up these criteria, we then separately reanalysed the extracts to identify
problematic teacher questions by applying the criteria. This time, there was more
agreement, but still a surprising amount of difference. Of the 49 questions that at least
one of us identified as problematic, all three of us agreed on only 13 questions, with a
further 16 questions being agreed upon by two of us. Even attempting to follow the
5
criteria, 20 questions were identified as problematic by only one of the three
researchers.
On further discussion, we found that we could agree that 26 of the questions could be
identified as problematic teacher questions. We therefore decided to try to identify why
these 26 questions were problematic. To avoid the problem of using completely
different criteria to identify the causes of the problematic questions, we first attempted
to posit some potential causes and came up with five possible reasons:
•
The language, especially lexis, used in the questions could be difficult for
students to understand.
•
Long complexly phrased questions could be more problematic.
•
Divergent questions could be more problematic than convergent questions
(Orlich et al., 1998).
•
Referential questions could be more problematic than display questions (Lynch,
1991).
•
Questions which are conceptually very broad could be problematic (Watson
Todd, 1997).
Bearing these potential causes of problematic questions in mind, working separately
again, we analysed the 26 questions and their contexts to attempt to identify why they
were problematic.
Even though we based our analysis on the five possible causes, we still found many
further possible causes including a lack of context and a lack of clear purpose for the
questions. Nevertheless, from our analysis, most of the problems with the questions
appeared to be caused by either difficult language or excessive broadness of the
questions. However, there was still a lack of agreement in our three analyses. We totally
agreed for only 4 questions; two of us agreed on 16 questions; and for the other 6
questions, we each identified different causes.
Again, it was apparent that there was a lack of agreement between the three researchers
even when we were using criteria to guide our analyses. Although we could have
continued working by discussing our different analyses in an attempt to reach a
consensus, we were aware that our personal interpretations of the data were having a
large effect on the findings. From this, we decided that it was not possible to conduct a
valid and reliable investigation of problematic teacher questions if we were to base our
analysis only on the researchers' perspectives.
Discussion
The attempted research we have reported falls within functional discourse analysis, an
area which generally involves less interpretation of the data than ethnomethodological
approaches. Even within this type of discourse analysis, however, by basing our
analysis only on the researchers' perspectives, the effects of personal interpretations on
the findings became clearly apparent.
The research into problematic teacher questions illustrates the tendency in discourse
analysis to privilege researcher perspectives over those of other parties. For instance, in
the 18 issues of the journal Language and Education between 2003 and 2005, 15 of the
17 articles which involved analyses of transcripts of classroom discourse relied solely
on researchers' perspectives. The problems with such a heavy reliance on the researcher
become apparent in one of these articles where, in discussing a short transcript, the
6
authors write, “On a purely speculative note, it is reasonable to assume that Carl has
copied texts before, or that he is known to perform so poorly that his being finished
raises suspicion” (Tholander & Aronsson, 2003, p. 217). Rather than making an
assumption, why did the authors not try to gain Carl's or the teacher's perspectives?
Similarly, in the case of the research by Tsui et al. (2004), it would be interesting to
know whether the students agree with the researchers' conclusion that the discourse was
co-constructed or whether they believe that the teacher was controlling the direction of
the discourse.
Yet, there does not need to be such a reliance on the researcher. In examining genre
analysis of written discourse, Swales (2004) suggests that there are four discoursal
protagonists whose perspectives could be taken as the principal interpretants: the writer,
the readers, an expert analyst or a corpus analysis excluding human informants. In
analysing classroom discourse, the parallel perspectives would be those of the teacher,
the students, an expert and a corpus analysis.
The paucity of attempts in discourse analysis to account for perspectives other than
those of the researchers is worrying. While it may be justifiable on practical grounds
within text grammar analyses, from our case study of problematic teacher questions, we
have seen how many problems it can cause in functional discourse analysis. In
ethnomethodological approaches, where interpretations of discourse form the main
body of the findings, the reliance on teacher perspectives is even more potentially
problematic. Presumably, this is one of the reasons why guidelines for conducting
ethnographies of communication stress the need for insider perspectives (Duff, 2002;
Watson-Gegeo, 1988). For classroom discourse, these insider perspectives would be
those of the teacher and students.
Taking insider perspectives into account does not mean discounting researcher
perspectives. One key argument in favour of privileging researcher perspectives is that
people can only identify things they know (so that, for example, in needs analyses in
language classrooms, language learners are unlikely to state a need for, say,
communication strategies since they may not know that such strategies exist). The
greater specific knowledge of the researcher may allow issues in discourse to be
identified which would not be apparent if only teacher and student perspectives were
considered.
While privileging researcher perspectives may be justifiable (especially if used in
conjunction with other perspectives), caution must be exercised to reduce the effects of
unconscious biases in interpreting discourse. The lack of agreement in our research into
problematic teacher questions illustrates the potential impact of personal interpretations
of data, even though we were not trying to find support for any particular theory. In the
case of Tsui et al. (2004), their desire to find support for a theory involving coconstruction of meanings may have led to the researchers unconsciously identifying coconstruction of meanings when it did not really exist. To avoid situations like this,
comparisons of multiple perspectives, whether of different discourse protagonists or of
more than one researcher, can be used. Where the multiple perspectives match, such
comparisons can increase the reliability of the interpretations of the discourse; where
multiple perspectives conflict, this suggests that the research procedures need to be
revised (as in the case of the research into problematic teacher questions) or that
7
different equally valid interpretations of the discourse exist. In either case, comparing
multiple perspectives can only strengthen the research.
Conclusion
While we believe that discourse analysis has been one of the most insightful and
productive approaches to researching classrooms, there are problems with the
methodology used in much research into classroom discourse. These problems are most
apparent in ethnomethodological approaches, although they can occur in any discourse
analysis. The problems are over-reliance on researcher perspectives in interpreting
discourse and the possibility of unconscious biases influencing the findings. To avoid
these problems, we believe that other perspectives, particularly those of the teacher and
students, must be taken into account when conducting analyses of classroom discourse.
References
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
Duff, P. A. (2002) The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and
difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream.
Applied Linguistics 23 (3) 289-322.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Erickson, F. (1996) Ethnographic microanalysis. In McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. H.
(eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, pp. 283-306. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (2002) Teaching and Researching Language and Culture. London:
Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970) Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.)
New Horizons in Linguistics, pp. 140-165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Harris, Z. (1952) Discourse analysis. Language 28 (1) 1-30.
Hoey, M. (1991) Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lynch, T. (1991) Questioning roles in the classroom. ELT Journal 45 (3) 201-210.
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a
functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3) 243-281.
McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (2001) Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mori, J. (2002) Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis
of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics 23
(3) 323-347.
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C. & Gibson, H. W. (1998) Teaching
Strategies: A Guide to Better Instruction, fifth edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C. & Harris, R. (2002) Methodology in the analysis of
classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 23 (3) 373-392.
8
Saville-Troike, M. (1996) The ethnography of communication. In McKay, S. L. &
Hornberger, N. H. (1996) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, pp. 351-382.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1996) Interactional sociolinguistics. In McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. H.
(eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, pp. 307-328. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The
English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1986) Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tholander, M. & Aronsson, K. (2003) Doing subteaching in school group work:
Positionings, resistance and participation frameworks. Language and Education
17 (3) 208-234.
Tsui, A. B. M., Morton, F., Mok, I. A. C. & Ng, D. F. P. (2004) Questions and the space
of learning. In Marton, F. & Tsui, A. B. M. (eds.) Classroom Discourse and the
Space of Learning, pp. 113-138. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977) Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988) Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL
Quarterly 22 (4) 575-592.
Watson Todd, R. (1997) Classroom Teaching Strategies. London: Prentice Hall.
Watson Todd, R. (2003) Topics in Classroom Discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Liverpool.
Watson Todd, R. (2005) A fuzzy approach to discourse topics. Semiotica 155 (1-4) 93124.
Richard Watson Todd is Associate Professor in the Department of Language Studies at
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT). He has a PhD from the
University of Liverpool and is the author of several books and numerous articles.
Wilaksana Srimavin is Assistant Professor in the Department of Language Studies,
KMUTT, where she has worked for over 20 years. Her research interests focus on
classroom interaction for teaching and learning.
Tharinee Boonyuen gained a masters degree in Applied Linguistics from KMUTT and
now works at TPN Flexpak. She is interested in conducting critical discourse analyses
of classroom interaction.
9
A Preliminary Investigation of English and Thai Consonants
Monthon Kanokpermpoon
Language Institute, Thammasat University
Abstract
This paper examines similarities and differences between Thai and English
consonants. It determines areas of difficulty when Thai students try to
pronounce English consonantal sounds. It is found that some English sounds
that do not occur in Thai phonology tend to pose great difficulty; these
sounds include /γ/, /ϖ/, /Τ/, /Δ/, /ζ/, /Σ/, /Ζ/, /τΣ/ and /δΖ/. Sounds that exist
in Thai but can occur in different syllable positions in English also tend to
be difficult to pronounce; examples include /φ/ and /σ/. In attempting to
tackle the problem of sounds nonexistent in Thai, Thai students are likely to
substitute Thai sounds for English sounds. An additional problem is the
interchangeability of /λ/ and /Ρ/ in Thai, erroneously transferred to English.
To alleviate the problem sounds for Thai learners of English, this paper
recommends that teachers follow listening and speaking pedagogy for
pronunciation in terms of recognition, discrimination and production.
Consonant sounds
Regarding the analyses of Jotikasthira (1999), Bowman (2000), Ronakiat (2002), Arya
(2003) and Tuaycharoen (2003) on a comparison between Thai and English phonology,
this paper presents a rough idea of aspects Thai students may encounter when learning
to utter English consonants. While there are 21 Thai consonant phonemes, English has
24 such sounds (Tuaycharoen, 1990), as shown, respectively, in Tables 1 & 2 below
(the highlighted symbols are voiceless).
Table 1: Thai consonantal sounds
Labiodental
Bilabial
π
πΗ
Plosive
τ
τΗ
β
μ
Nasal
Fricative
Lamioprepalatal
Alveolar
Palatal
Velar
/
κ
κΗ
δ
ν
φ
Glottal
Ν
σ
η
τ⎭
τ⎭Η
Affricate
Ρ
λ
Tap
Lateral
Semivowel
(ω)
ϕ
ω
Palatal
Velar
Table 2: English consonantal sounds
Bilabial
Plosive
Nasal
π
Labiodental
Dental
β
μ
τ
φ
Fricative
Affricate
Alveolar
ϖ
Τ
Δ
δ
ν
ζ
σ
κ
Σ
τΣ
♦
(ω)
10
Glottal
γ
Ν
Ζ
δΖ
η
λ
Lateral
Approximant
Postalveolar
ϕ
ω
As can be seen from both tables, there are both similarities and differences between
English and Thai consonantal sounds, which are now discussed.
Plosives
In Thai, an aspiration is a key in distinguishing different phonemes. The aspirated
counterparts of /π/, /τ/ and /κ/, i.e. /πΗ/ /τΗ/ and /κΗ/ indicate that they are different
phonemes. For example:
/π/
/τ/
/κ/
Æ
Æ
Æ
/πα⎤/ <ปา>
/τα⎤/ <ตา>
/κα⎤/ <กา>
/πΗ/
/τΗ/
/κΗ/
Æ
Æ
Æ
/πΗα⎤/ <พา>
/τΗα⎤/ <ทา>
/κΗα⎤/ <คา>
In English, however, an aspiration indicates allophonic distribution of a phoneme. It is
not a feature to indicate phonemic realization of the sound.
As can be seen from the above two tables, voiceless aspirated phonemes in Thai, /πΗ/,
/τΗ/ and /κΗ/, are not problematic to pronounce in English initial syllable position
because, in English, the phonemes /π/, /τ/ and /κ/ are pronounced with aspiration: [πΗ],
[τΗ] and [κΗ]. When voiceless plosive phonemes in English follow the sound /σ/, they
are pronounced without aspiration, which is the same as Thai voiceless unaspirated
phonemes /π/, /τ/ and /κ/. This can be generalized that, when Thai students utter the
sounds /π/, /τ/ and /κ/ in initial position in English, they do not have any difficulty at
all.
Examples: Aspirated feature of English plosives
Voiceless plosives
Voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive [πΗ]
Voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive [τΗ]
Voiceless aspirated velar plosive [κΗ]
Examples
pan [πΗΘν], pie [πΗαΙ], pat [πΗΘτ]
tie [τΗαΙ], ten [τΗεν], tall [τΗ ⎤λ⎧]
key [κΗι⎤], kite [κΗαΙτ], can [κΗΘν]
Examples: Unaspirated feature of English plosives
spy
Æ
/σπαΙ/
not
[σπΗαΙ]
stay
Æ
/στεΙ/
not
[στΗεΙ]
sky
Æ
/σκαΙ/
not
[σκΗαΙ]
Ronakiat (2002) notes that, even though the pronunciation of [πΗ], [τΗ] or [κΗ] after
the phoneme /σ/ is understood by native speakers of English, it might seem unnatural in
actual speech.
A problem arises when Thai students learn to pronounce the sounds /π/, /τ/ and /κ/ in
final syllable position in English. In Thai, the three sounds are pronounced with no
audible release: [π|], [τ|] and [κ|]; in English, however, the final sounds /π/, /τ/ and /κ/
are uttered in three different ways:
1.
2.
3.
Aspiration: [πΗ], [τΗ], [κΗ],
Non-aspiration: [π], [τ], [κ], and
No audible release: [π|], [τ|], [κ|].
11
Examples:
Key words
sop
lot
sack
Pronunciation variation
Aspirated
Unaspirated
Inaudible
[σ πΗ]
[σ π]
[σ π|]
[λ τΗ]
[λ τ]
[λ τ|]
[σΘκΗ]
[σΘκ]
[σΘκ|]
Thai speakers who learn English voiceless plosives in the final syllable tend to
pronounce the final plosives with inaudible release, which may confuse native speakers
of English as not being pronounced at all. Thus, it is suggested that Thai speakers
practise pronouncing English voiceless plosives finally with more puff of air (or with
aspiration).
When it comes to the voiced counterparts of English and Thai plosives, Thai learners
do not have any difficulty in pronouncing the sounds /β/ and /δ/ in English initial
syllables at all since Thai phonology allows such phonemes to occur. The English
voiced velar plosive /γ/, however, may cause difficulty for Thai learners of English in
all syllable positions since there is no such sound in Thai. It is likely that the sound /γ/
in English is replaced with the Thai /κ/ (voiceless unaspirated velar plosive) because
the voice onset time (henceforth, VOT) in releasing the sound /κ/ is so short that
English native speakers may perceive the sound as having a voiced feature in it, /γ/
(Bowman, 2000). That is why it is so difficult for Thai learners to pronounce the /γ/
sound correctly; they tend to pronounce it with its voiceless counterpart, /κ/. For
example:
good
ago
league
[γΥ>δ]
[↔∪γ↔Υ]
[λι⎤γ]
Æ
Æ
Æ
[κυ⇔⎤τ|]
[α∃/ κο⎤]
[λι∃⎤κ|]
All of the English voiced plosives, when pronounced in a final syllable, pose a lot of
difficulty for Thai learners to master since, in Thai phonology, there is no voiced
plosive occurring finally, and voiceless plosives, /π/, /τ/, /κ/ and ///, even though they
can occur finally, are pronounced with no audible release (due to short VOT). In this
case, it is suggested that, when learning to pronounce English voiced plosives, Thai
students should try to vibrate their vocal cords to have a voiced feature in each
phoneme. In English, voiced and voiceless plosives can be identified as being
pronounced differently by the length of the vowel preceding each plosive. If a voiceless
consonant occurs before a long vowel, the vowel tends to be shortened. A short vowel,
when followed by a voiced consonant, tends to be pronounced longer than it is
normally uttered (Ronakiat, 2002).
Nasals
Thai learners have no difficulty in uttering nasals in English (Ronakiat, 2002). In Thai,
the sounds /μ/, /ν/ and /Ν/ occur initially and finally in a syllable. In English, the
sounds /μ/ and /ν/ occur in an initial position of a syllable, and they, as well as the
sound /Ν/, occur finally in a syllable. That is why Thai students have no difficulty in
pronouncing English nasals at all. However, a problem arises when the sounds /μ/ and
/ν/ function as syllabics, meaning that they are pronounced without any vowel. This
function does not exist in Thai; therefore, it poses difficulty for Thai students to master.
For example:
12
Syllabic m
rhythm [∪♦ΙΔμ⎯]
prism [∪π♦Ιζμ⎯]
Syllabic n
sudden [∪σ℘δν⎯]
listen [∪λΙσν⎯]
In order to practise pronouncing syllabics in English, it is suggested that Thai students
place their articulators of the syllabic when they are uttering the consonant preceding it;
this way, no vowel is pronounced and the syllabic occurs in English syllables.
The sound /Ν/ is usually spelled ng in English or is sometimes written as nk (Ronakiat,
2002). For example:
Spelling ng
sing /σΙΝ/
strong /στ♦ Ν/
Spelling nk
link /λΙΝκ/
trunk /τ♦℘Νκ/
When words such as sing and strong are attached with a suffix, -er, for example, Thai
students are prone to be confused and add the sound /γ/ before the suffix. It is noted that
the asterisk (*) is marked in front of a word, phrase or sentence to signify that such a
starred word is not usually acceptable in English. For example:
strong /στ♦ Ν/ Æ
sing /σΙΝ/
Æ
stronger /∪στ♦ Νγ↔/
singer */∪σΙΝγ↔/
As can be seen from the above examples, the correct pronunciation of singer is a
challenge for Thai learners. Therefore, it is recommended for Thai students to
understand that, when the root word is a verb ending in –ng and a suffix is added, it is
pronounced /Ν/ with no intrusion of the sound /γ/ at all (Ronakiat, 2002). For example:
Æ
Æ
belong /βΙ∪λ Ν/
sing /σΙΝ/
singer /∪σΙΝ↔/
not
*/∪σΙΝγ↔/
singing /∪σΙΝΙΝ/
not
*/∪σΙΝγΙΝ/
Æ
belonging /βΙ∪λ ΝΙΝ/
not
*/βΙ∪λ ΝγΙΝ/
Fricatives
English fricatives impose great challenges for Thai students to pronounce correctly
since, in English, fricatives are very rich compared to Thai’s three fricatives, namely
/φ/, /σ/ and /η/. All of these three sounds occur as initial syllables in Thai, with no final
fricatives at all. According to Ronakiat (2002) and Kanokpermpoon (2004), these three
fricatives are not difficult for Thai learners to utter when they are in initial syllable
position; other English fricatives, however, are difficult to pronounce due to their
absence from Thai phonology.
In English initial position, voiceless fricatives /Τ/ (mostly spelled th) and /Σ/ (usually
spelled sh) tend to be challenging for Thai students to master (Ronakiat, 2002, and
Kanokpermpoon, 2004). This is due to the fact that the two sounds do not exist as Thai
initial syllables. However, Tuaycharoen (2003: 50) has indicated that, presently, Thai
students are likely to be influenced by Amerasian and Eurasian singers and actors who
use /Σ/ for /τ⎭Η/, as “most Thai youngsters appear to follow suit”. For example:
English word with initial th
thin - /ΤΙν/
Mostly replaced with
*/τΗιν/
13
thanks - /ΤΘΝκσ/
*/τΗΕ⇔Νκ/
English word with initial sh
shoe - /Συ⎤/
shop - /Σ π/
Mostly replaced with
*/τ⎭Ηυ⎤/
*/τ⎭Η ⇔π/
All of the English voiceless fricatives /φ/, /Τ/, /σ/ and /Σ/ (see highlighted symbols in
Table 2 above), when occurring word finally, are likely to impose great difficulty for
Thai students to pronounce since, based on the analysis of Thai plosives and nasals
above, there are only four Thai final plosives /π/, /τ/, /κ/ and ///, and three final nasals
/μ/, /ν/ and /Ν/. All of them are pronounced inaudibly (cf. Abramson, 1972, and
Tuaycharoen, 1990). Therefore, Thai students are prone to replace English final
voiceless fricatives with their corresponding Thai finals or omit them. For example:
English words with final voiceless fricatives
puff - /π℘φ/
breath - /β♦εΤ/
kiss - /κΙσ/
cash - /κΘΣ/
Replaced with
*/πΗα⇔π/
*/βΡε⇔τ/
*/κΗι⇔δ/
*/κΗΕ⇔τ/
English voiced fricatives /ϖ/, /Δ/, /ζ/ and /Ζ/ are likely to pose great challenges for Thai
students to utter since none of them exist in Thai in any syllable position. As a result,
the replacement of English voiced fricatives with Thai consonants tends to occur across
three syllable positions (initial, medial and final). For example:
Initial voiced fricatives
van - /ϖΘν/
then - /Δεν/
zoo - /ζυ⎤/
genre - /∪Ζ ν♦↔/
Replaced with
*/ωΕ⎤ν/
*/δεν/
*/συ⎤/
*/τ⎭ ΝΡ↔⇓/
Medial voiced fricatives
living - /∪λΙϖΙΝ/
breathing - /∪β♦ι⎤ΔΙΝ/
easy - /∪ι⎤ζι/
pleasure - /∪πλεΖ↔/
Replaced with
*/λι⇔⎤πωι⇓Ν/
*/βΡι⇔⎤δι⇓Ν/
*//ι⇔⎤σι⇓⎤/
*/πΗΡε⇔τ⎭ΗΦ⇓⎤/
Final voiced fricatives
leave - /λι⎤ϖ/
soothe - /συ⎤Δ/
please - /πλι⎤ζ/
beige - /βεΙΖ/
Replaced with
*/λι⇔⎤π/
*/συ⇔⎤τ/
*/πλι⇔⎤τ/
*/βε⇑⎤τ/
Regarding the above evidence, it is recommended that Thai students pay particular
attention to the practice of English fricatives in all syllable positions. In practising, they
should try to articulate each sound correctly with a voiceless feature before moving
towards the voiced counterpart. Here are examples of practice recommended to
students (see Kanokpermpoon, 2004, for more examples).
14
1. /φ/ - /ϖ/ Move the lower lip towards the upper teeth by having a narrow gap between
them. Try pronouncing /f/ before vibrating the vocal cords to produce the sound /v/.
2. /Τ/ - /Δ/ Move the tongue tip towards the upper teeth or in between the upper and
lower teeth. Leave a narrow gap between them. Try pronouncing the sound /Τ/ without
vibrating the vocal cords before vibrating them to produce the sound /Δ/.
3. /σ/ - /ζ/ Move the tongue blade towards the gum ridge by leaving a narrow gap
between them. Pronounce the /s/ sound before vibrating the vocal cords to produce the
sound /z/.
4. /Σ/ - /Ζ/ Pronounce the /Σ/ sound by moving the front and blade of the tongue
towards the area behind the gum ridge. Raise the upper lip and pronounce the sound
without vibrating the vocal cords. When familiar with the sound, vibrate the vocal cords
to produce the sound /Ζ/.
For the English sound /η/, Thai students do not have any difficulty in pronouncing it
due to the existence of the sound in Thai. For example:
hi - /ηαΙ/
hello - /ηε∪λ↔Υ/
he - /ηι⎤/
However, Kanokpermpoon (2004) has observed that /h/, which is silent in words such
as honour, hour and exhaust, may, somehow, lead Thai students to pronounce it,
resulting in its existence in their pronunciation.
Affricates
Regarding the Thai phonetics, there are only two affricates available, namely a
voiceless aspirated alveolo-palatal affricate /τ⎭Η/ and a voiceless unaspirated alveolopalatal affricate /τ⎭/ (Harris, 1972). Comparing these to English, there are two different
phonemes available, /τΣ/ and /δΖ/. The accounts of Thai learners’ pronunciation may
be seen from different researchers as follows.
Based on an analysis of Bowman (2000), Thai affricate /τ⎭/ (or, in Bowman’s analysis,
/τΣ/) should not be a problem for Thai learners to utter “since the voice onset time of
the vowel succeeding the articulation of Thai /τ⎭/ is considerably shorter than for
English /τΣ/, causing it to sound almost indistinguishable from English /δΖ/” (Bowman,
2000: 45). In the same way, the Thai aspirated /τ⎭Η/ tends to be similar to English /τΣ/
(in initial position), which is, therefore, substitutable accordingly. In contrast to the
analysis of Bowman (2000), Jotikasthira (1999) posits that the sounds /τΣ/ and /δΖ/ do
not occur in Thai and they are considered problem sounds for Thai learners to utter.
Ronakiat (2002) notes that the Thai aspirated affricate /τ⎭Η/ is normally substituted for
the English /τΣ/ since the places of articulation of the two sounds are very close; as a
result, the two sounds are quite similar to each other. However, to pronounce the
English /τΣ/ correctly, it is recommended that Thai learners raise their tongue tips to the
area behind the alveolar ridge and press the articulators tightly before gradually
releasing them so that the air can flow out. Ronakiat (2002) further notes that, in
pronouncing the English sound /δΖ/, Thai learners use Thai unaspirated affricate /τ⎭/ to
substitute the target sound, resulting in a clear difference between voicing of the two
sounds. Therefore, to pronounce the sound /δΖ/ correctly, Thai learners of English
should try to voice the sound with the same articulation as that of /τΣ/.
15
In pronouncing the English affricates /τΣ/ and /δΖ/ in final position, Thai students tend
to pronounce them with great difficulty in the same way as that of English fricatives
(cf. Fricatives section above) since, according to Ronakiat (2002), they tend to replace
the sounds with Thai final plosives and nasals, that is /π/, /τ/, /κ/ and ///, and /μ/, /ν/ and
/Ν/, respectively. For example:
English words with final affricates
church - /τΣ∈⎤τΣ/
George - /δΖ ⎤δΖ/
Replaced with
*/τ⎭ΗΦ⇔⎤τ|/
*/τ⎭ ⇔⎤τ|/
Laterals
Based on Tables 1 and 2 above, English and Thai laterals are quite similar, at least in
the initial position, so Thai learners of English are unlikely to pronounce them wrongly.
However, when the lateral /λ/ occurs word medially and finally in English, the
realization of the two positions is quite different from that of the initial position. In the
words of Roach (2002), ‘clear l’, with the raise of the front of the tongue, “will never
occur before consonants or before a pause” (Roach, 2002: 61) while ‘dark l’,
pronounced with the raise of the back of the tongue, “will never occur before vowels”
(Roach, 2002: 61). In an analysis of Ronakiat (2002), ‘dark l’ occurring word finally in
English tends to pose a great challenge for Thai learners of English to master since they
usually replace it with Thai nasal /n/ or omit it. For example:
English words with final lateral
ball - /β ⎤λ⎧/
call - /κ ⎤λ⎧/
Replaced with
*/β ν/
*/κΗ ⎤/
Approximants
In English, there are three approximants, /ω/, /ϕ/ and /♦/, the former two existing in
Thai with a tap /Ρ/. Ronakiat (2002) accounts for the difference between English and
Thai /ω/ in that the former is pronounced with more rounded and protruded lips than
the latter, but this does not challenge Thai learners. When considering the sound /ϕ/ in
English and Thai, Thai learners of English do not normally have any difficulty in
pronouncing it due to its similarity across both languages. However, a difficulty in
pronouncing the English sound /ϕ/ arises when it occurs secondly as a consonant
cluster after the sounds /φ/, /ϖ/, /η/, /τ/, /δ/ and /ν/ in British English, and the sounds
/φ/, /ϖ/ and /η/ in American English. Thai learners tend not to pronounce it correctly
due to the nonexistence of such a cluster in Thai (Ronakiat, 2002). Word examples of
this phenomenon are few, view, huge, tune, due and new.
The English sound /♦/ has two distinctions in pronunciation in terms of rhotic accent
and non-rhotic accent. British English is considered to represent a non-rhotic accent
because, in most dialects, the spelling ‘r’ is usually pronounced when it occurs word
initially or medially, but, word finally, only when it is followed by a word beginning
with a vowel sound. In American English, however, the ‘r’ is pronounced across
syllable positions and most Americans use a retroflex approximant /©/ interchangeably
with /♦/ (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo, 1998; and Roach, 2002).
Examples:
red
bird
British English
/♦εδ/
/β∈⎤δ/
American English
/♦εδ/
/β∈∏δ/
16
car
/κΑ⎤/
/κα∏/
When Thai learners of English try to utter the English sound /♦/, two potential
problems arise (Ronakiat, 2002). First, Thai people often use [λ] in place of /λ/ and /Ρ/
in Thai syllable and this tends to transfer to the pronunciation of English /♦/. This
results in a misunderstanding in their speech.
Examples:
read
lead
English
/♦ι⎤δ/
/λι⎤δ/
Thai
*/λι⇔⎤τ|/
/λι⇑⎤τ|/
Second, the use of the Thai tap /Ρ/ instead of using the English /♦/ (in careful reading)
results in a mispronunciation of the English ‘r’.
Examples:
read
red
English
/♦ι⎤δ/
/♦εδ/
Thai
*/Ρι⇔⎤τ|/
*/Ρε⇔⎤τ|/
In order to pronounce the sound /♦/ correctly, it is recommended that Thai learners of
English raise their tongue tips approximately to the area behind the alveolar ridge but
never make contact with the roof of the mouth. While articulating, they have to vibrate
their vocal cords and optionally round and protrude their mouth.
Teaching implications
As can be seen from the above analysis, it is important to note here that Thai teachers
of English who are willing to improve the pronunciation of their students, especially
regarding English consonants, take a deeper analysis of their students’ pronunciation
when they are articulating English consonants. If problem sounds are found, it is
recommended that teachers follow the process of pronunciation teaching (Hubbard et
al., 1994), which consists of recognition, discrimination and production. Also, to train
students, pronunciation pedagogy that moves from listening (discrimination) to
speaking (production) is advised. The following is an example of a pedagogical
technique in pronunciation training of the sound /Σ/.
• Recognition
EFL teachers are advised to analyse the root cause of students’ pronunciation errors.
For example, if a Thai student of English utters the sound /τ⎭Η/ instead of /Σ/ in words
such as shoe, nation, or fish, it can be recognized that the sound /Σ/ does not exist in
Thai and Thai learners of English are prone to use their native Thai fricative /τ⎭Η/ in
place of the target sound /Σ/. From Bowman’s (2000) analysis, recognizing that the
feature /τ⎭Η/ is quite similar to that of the English sound /τΣ/, except the raising of the
tongue tip for the target sound, it is therefore advisable that EFL teachers train their
students to listen to and identify the sound /τΣ/ before the sound /Σ/, and to have them
practise articulating the sound /τΣ/ before the target sound /Σ/.
• Discrimination
After analysing the root cause of the /Σ/ pronunciation error, the next step of training
EFL learners to produce the target sound correctly is to have them listen and
discriminate it from their familiar sound, in this case the closest familiar sound to /τ⎭Η/
in Thai is that of /τΣ/ in English (Bowman, 2000). In listening and speaking pedagogy,
17
Hubbard et al. (1994) recommend that students are exposed to listening at word level
prior to sentence level. In addition, they should be exposed to the problem sound in
different syllable positions (Kanokpermpoon, 2004). Teachers should try having their
students discriminate between the sounds /τΣ/ and /Σ/ by raising their left hands when
they hear the sound /τΣ/ and their right hands for the sound /Σ/.
Words for discrimination (listening)
1. chip /τΣ/
5. ship /Σ/
9. sherry /Σ/
2. catching /τΣ/
6. cashing /Σ/
10. ditch /τΣ/
3. wash /Σ/
7. watch /τΣ/
11. wish /Σ/
4. share /Σ/
8. chair /τΣ/
12. chop /τΣ/
After students can discriminate the two sounds correctly, they should listen to sentences
containing the familiar sound /τΣ/ and the target sound /Σ/. Again, if they hear the
sound /τΣ/, the teacher should have them raise their left hands, and their right hands for
/Σ/.
Sentences for discrimination (listening)
1. Where did you buy the sherry from?
2. The chip looks beautiful.
3. Paul gives his share to his friend, Peter.
When students can discriminate the target sound from their familiar sound, it is time to
proceed to the production practice.
• Production
In helping EFL students correctly pronounce the target sound, in this case /Σ/, it is
important to drill them, ranging from sounds in isolation to minimal pairs and sentence
reading (Hubbard et al., 1994); also, teachers should try to drill sounds which are
familiar to students prior to the target sounds. The first part of practising the target
sound /Σ/ correctly is to have students repeat words with the familiar sound prior to the
target sound. Teachers should pronounce correctly both the familiar sound and the
target sound phonetically. Here are some examples to practise /Σ/, starting with the
familiar sound /τΣ/ and moving to the target sound /Σ/.
Words with familiar sound for drilling (speaking)
chat, church, catch, search, chair, watch, ditch, teach
Words with target sound for drilling (speaking)
share, sherry, cash, push, wash, posh, shop, shoe, shine
18
Immediately, after drilling both the familiar sound and the target sound, students should
practise pronouncing the target sound in minimal pairs with the familiar sound.
According to Kelly (2003), working with minimal pairs is one of the activities that can
be used to train students with pronunciation difficulties. “Minimal pairs are words or
utterances which differ by only one phoneme” (e.g. Kelly, 2003, p. 18). In this case, the
words chip /τΣΙπ/ and ship /ΣΙπ/ are minimal pairs since both words have only one
phoneme difference, /τΣ/ and /Σ/, in the initial position. Here are examples of minimal
pairs of the familiar sound and the target sound, /τΣ/ and /Σ/.
Minimal pairs for drilling (speaking)
chip /τΣ/
ship /Σ/
catching /τΣ/
cashing /Σ/
watch /τΣ/
wash /Σ/
which /τΣ/
wish /Σ/
chair /τΣ/
share /Σ/
After drilling the minimal pairs, students should pronounce the target sound in
sentences; again, teachers should have them practise the familiar sound before the
target sound.
Sentence pairs for drilling (speaking)
- Where did you buy the cherry from?
- Where did you buy the sherry from?
- Paul gives his chair to his friend, Peter.
- Paul gives his share to his friend, Peter.
Finally, teachers should have students practise the target sound in a sentence or
paragraph format, possibly using tongue twisters, and make sure that they can
pronounce the target sounds correctly. Here is an example.
A paragraph for practising (speaking)
She sells sea shells on the sea shore;
the shells that she sells are sea shells, I’m sure.
So if she sells sea shells on the sea shore,
I’m sure that the shells are sea shore shells.
Conclusion
The number of consonants in English is a lot greater than in Thai. English sounds that
do not exist in Thai are likely to pose a great challenge for Thai learners of English to
utter as are sounds common to both languages but which occur in different syllable
19
positions. Possible solutions for Thais to tackle their pronunciation difficulties are to
use their Thai phonetics in place of the English sounds or to omit the target sounds
completely. With careful consideration of the differences between the two sound
systems, it is recommended that Thai teachers of English guide their students using
listening and speaking pedagogy, comprising recognition, discrimination and
production. Through the process of careful practice, Thai EFL learners’ awareness of
their pronunciation will be raised and their spoken English will be more
comprehensible.
Acknowledgements
The writer would like to thank Associate Professor Nantana Ronakiat, PhD, for her
invaluable knowledge of phonetics obtained during his MA study at Thammasat
University. Her efforts in phonetics study and research will always stay in the writer’s
heart.
References
Abramson, A. (1972) Word-final stops in Thai. In J. G. Harris & R. B. Noss (eds.), Tai
Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 1-7. Bangkok: Central Institute of English
Language.
Arya, T. (2003, December) Reduced forms and liaisons in the teaching of English to
Thai learners. PASAA 34: 30-43.
Bowman, M. (2000, October) A contrastive analysis of English and Thai and its
practical application for teaching English pronunciation. The English Teacher 4
(1) 40-53.
Deterding, D. H. & Poedjosoedarmo, G. R. (1998) The Sounds of English: Phonetics
and Phonology for English Teachers in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Harris, J. G. (1972) Phonetic notes on some Siamese consonants. In J. G. Harris & R.
B. Noss (eds.), Tai Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 8-22. Bangkok: Central Institute
of English Language.
Hubbard, P., Jones, H., Thornton, B. & Wheeler, R. (1994) A Training Course for
TEFL (7th impression). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Jotikasthira, P. (1998) Elements of Spoken English. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn
University Press.
Jotikasthira, P. (1999) Introduction to the English Language: System and Structure (2nd
ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Kanokpermpoon, M. (2004, January-June) English fricatives: A problematic area of
Thai students’ pronunciation. Cultural Approach 4 (7) 61-76.
Kelly, G. (2003) How to Teach Pronunciation (4th impression). Malaysia: Longman.
Roach, P. (2002) English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course (3rd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ronakiat, N. (2002) A Textbook of Sounds, Sound Systems and Accents in English.
Bangkok: Thammasat University Press. (In Thai)
Tuaycharoen, P. (1990) Phonetics and Practical Phonetics. Bangkok: Thammasat
University Press. (In Thai)
Tuaycharoen, P. (2003, January-June) A reflection of Thai English. Journal of
Language and Linguistics 21 (2) 47-65.
Monthon Kanokpermpoon is a lecturer at the Language Institute, Thammasat
University. He obtained his BA in Business English from Assumption University, an MA
in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Thammasat University, and a
Certificate in Practical Phonetics for Teaching English Pronunciation from Mahidol
20
University. His areas of specialization include phonetics application in listening and
speaking pedagogy, and applied linguistics. He can be contacted at
[email protected].
21
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice Concerning Feedback Strategies
Chayaporn Kaoropthai
Wilaksana Srimavin
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Abstract
This study aims at surveying what strategies teachers believe they use in
giving feedback, what strategies teachers actually use in giving feedback
and the relationship between their perceptions and the reality. The six
subjects were teachers who taught Fundamental English II at King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT). Each of them
was observed teaching once and then asked to rank feedback strategies by
perceived frequency of use. The results show that some of the perceptions
about frequency of use match the actual strategies they used in class but
some of them do not. Some feedback strategies, such as zero feedback and
repeating student utterance, were used more frequently in actual practice
than teachers believed, possibly since those feedback strategies do not
require a conscious thinking process; on the other hand, the strategy
summarizing strategies was used less in practice, perhaps because this
strategy needs a great deal of conscious effort.
Introduction
In the era of globalization, life-long learning plays an important role in teaching and
learning language. This view brings about changes in teachers’ roles. As the saying
goes, “you can bring the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink” (Scharle &
Szabo, 2000: 4). Comparing this to teaching, teachers can provide all the necessary
circumstances and input, but learning can only happen if learners are willing to
contribute. Therefore, teachers have to regulate their teaching strategies in order to
help students become autonomous so that they succeed in language learning.
The way to encourage fruitfully our students to be life-long learners emanates from
teachers. Thus, as teachers, we should attach significance to helping learners be able
to reflect on their learning so that they can make progress with it. As Lewis (2002)
points out, ‘feedback’ can be provided by teachers or by students themselves. Before
students are able to give feedback by themselves on their learning, however, they need
some guidelines from teachers. In other words, teachers’ feedback can provide some
information for learners to realize the way to reflect on their learning. In addition, it
can enable learners to discover what and how to give feedback by themselves. For
this reason, in this study, the researchers emphasize feedback from teachers,
especially in the classroom.
What is teacher feedback?
Cole & Chan (1987) characterize that, in the classroom, feedback can be any form of
communication that attempts to provide information to students about the quantity or
quality of their performance in a learning situation. Furthermore, Cole & Chan (1987:
242) mention that feedback is information that is “fed back to individuals about the
appropriateness of their actions and responses”. It flows from a teacher to students in
22
order to inform students of their correct responses and their errors. So, what the
teacher says about students’ performance in the classroom is called teacher feedback.
There are many ways in which teacher feedback can be classified. Cole & Chan
(1987: 242-6) provide the following six categories that teachers use most frequently:
Positive and negative feedback: When teachers inform students whether their
responses are appropriate or correct, it is called positive feedback, for example,
“That’s right” or “That is a good answer”. In contrast, when teachers inform students
that their behavior or performance is inappropriate or incorrect, it is called negative
feedback; one example of this is “Not right”.
Reinforcement and punishment: Reinforcement aims to strengthen a particular
student’s behaviour or response, for example, “Keep up the good work”. When
teachers reinforce or act to strengthen responses, teachers are informing students that
they have made appropriate responses. On the other hand, if teachers punish or act to
weaken responses, they are informing students that there are some mistakes in the
responses, for example, “Your grammar rules are weak”. This is called punishment;
its aim is to weaken a student’s particular behaviour or response.
Intended and non-intended feedback: If the students have the same interpretation of
the feedback message as the teachers intend, it is called intended feedback. Watson
Todd (1997: 91) gives an example where the teacher says, “But what about the
tense?” and the student may interpret this as meaning “There is a mistake with the
tense”. On the other hand, where students have different perceptions of the original
message from their teachers’ intention, it is called non-intended feedback.
Evaluative and non-evaluative feedback: Statements that contain words like “Good”
or “Bad” are evaluative feedback; they focus on students’ performance. On the other
side, non-evaluative feedback makes no judgment on students’ performance, for
example, “You have made two mistakes” (Watson Todd, 1997: 91).
Verbal, symbolic and non-verbal feedback: Cole & Chan (1987: 246) state that
“Verbal and symbolic feedback refer to language … and symbolic … forms of
communication given to inform students of the correctness or incorrectness of their
responses”. On the other hand, when teachers smile, nod or use physical acts to
respond to students’ performance, it is called non-verbal feedback.
Corrective feedback: This provides some information on correct responses and errors
plus instruction to correct errors to remedy particular problems in students’ learning;
for example, when students make errors on grammar rules, teachers may re-explain
the rules to them.
The importance of teacher feedback
Since the view of autonomous learners has an impact on teaching and learning
language, teacher feedback can have two main advantages. The first is the information
that students get from teacher feedback – this can help them improve their subsequent
performances. Cole & Chan (1987) say that feedback is the information that allows
students to check the adequacy of their performance and monitor their learning
23
progress. Watson Todd (1997) states that teacher feedback enables students to check
their own performance and monitor the progress of their learning. As a result,
feedback is one of the vital factors in students’ learning.
The second main advantage is that feedback can make learners conduct their learning
effectively because, when teachers give feedback to learners in positive ways, they
motivate learners to learn. Feedback aims at enabling students to improve their future
efforts. Williams & Burden (1997: 136) assert that:
“if feedback actually provides information to learners that enables them to
identify specific aspects of their performance that are acceptable and
capable of improvement by some specified means, it should motivate and
help students to move into the zone of the next development”.
The way teachers use give feedback may differ from teacher to teacher. It depends on
their beliefs. What goes on in their classrooms will be influenced by their beliefs
about the learning process. To illustrate, Williams & Burden (1997: 206) explain that
teachers’ actions in the classroom and their interactions with their learners will mirror,
either implicitly or explicitly, their beliefs about learning, their views of the world,
their self-views, and their attitudes towards their subject and their learners. As
Richards & Lockhart (1994: 29) state, this view of teaching is “based on the
assumption that what teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe”. As a
result, teachers’ beliefs may influence the giving of feedback in classroom teaching.
What are teachers’ beliefs?
Teachers’ beliefs are defined in various ways. Johnson (1995) broadly defines the
term by saying that beliefs shape our representation of reality and guide both our
thoughts and our behaviors. Woods (1996) describes teachers’ beliefs as what a
person knows that affects thinking, interpretation and planning action. Also, Pajares
(1992: 307) states that the beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions and
judgments, which, in turn, affect their behaviors in the classroom. According to this
definition, teachers’ beliefs have a powerful impact on their actions. Similarly, the
ways that each teacher gives feedback differ because they have dissimilar beliefs.
How do teachers’ beliefs influence their giving feedback?
Teachers’ personal views of their roles in the classroom are under the influence of
their beliefs. Johnson (1995) states that beliefs guide teachers’ expectations,
judgments and decisions. One example of this is that the way teachers give feedback
to students is shaped by their beliefs. Thus, feedback strategies given to learners differ
depending on each teacher’s individual beliefs.
To examine how teachers’ beliefs influence their giving feedback, Wright (1987: 62)
identifies two basic types of teacher: transmission teachers and interpretation
teachers. Briefly, transmission teachers seem to be teacher-controlled because they
use their power as teachers to control their learners; they concentrate on the
knowledge of their subject. On the other hand, interpretation teachers prefer to
distribute responsibility for learning among the learners. This seems to be learnercentered because the teachers’ duties are to persuade and appeal to students to develop
their knowledge of the subject.
24
From these two kinds of teachers, it appears that there are different beliefs which
imply different feedback styles. Wright (1987) believes that the main task of
transmission teachers is to evaluate and correct learners’ performance. For this reason,
the ways the teachers in this group give feedback to students are different from those
of the interpretation teachers, who believe that their main task is to distribute
responsibility for learning among learners. For example, in the classroom,
transmission teachers check the correctness or incorrectness of learners’ responses
whereas interpretation teachers praise or encourage learners for positive efforts to
maintain learners’ motivation to do their work. As a result, teachers’ beliefs have an
impact on the way feedback is given.
Differences between teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual practices
Since we know that teachers’ beliefs play an important role in relation to their actual
practices, some differences between teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual practices
should be considered. When teachers know what kind of teacher they want to be, this
is called ‘teachers’ stated beliefs’. Johnson (1996: 33) quotes a pre-service teacher
(Maja), who described her feeling of “knowing why you are teaching something, what
the learning outcome is, and how it fits into the overall goals for the students”. The
term ‘actual practices’ refers to the real situation in the classroom, which Johnson’s
(1996: 34) pre-service teacher describes as “what life is really like in an ESL
classroom”. In the real classroom, sometimes teachers’ stated beliefs match their
actual teaching and sometimes there are some mismatches between the two.
Some researchers have studied the relationship between teachers’ stated beliefs and
actual practices, and they have found some consistency between the two. Richards
(1998) gives an example that teachers’ planning decisions provide a framework for
interactive decisions that are related to classroom management and organization. In
contrast, some studies have found inconsistency between stated beliefs and practices.
Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis (2004: 245) give an example that “a study by Borko and
Niles (1982) found that teachers’ stated educational beliefs were unrelated to how
they grouped students for instruction”. A key issue is what factors cause differences
between teachers’ beliefs and actual practices, two of which could be said to be the
following.
Complexity in classrooms: There are some causes for complexity in classrooms such
as time, learners’ differences and teachers’ differences. Johnson’s (1996: 34) preservice teacher gives an example that there is a constant flow of interruptions, such as
“knocks at the door, announcements over the loud speaker, the attendance sheet,
students flying in, students flying out”. These things might mean that teachers cannot
give the feedback intended because teachers are unable to concentrate on their
teaching.
Tensions: Trainee and inexperienced teachers are often stressed while teaching
because of lack of meaningful instructional activities, lack of knowledge about
students and lack of academic preparation in the content area (Johnson, 1996). For
example, when students test trainee teachers’ knowledge, this makes trainee teachers
feel tense.
25
How to give feedback?
Since teachers have differing beliefs about teaching language, there are various ways
of giving feedback that are based on their beliefs. In language classrooms, there are
two stimuli for feedback: content and form. Richards & Lockhart (1994) state that
feedback on students’ spoken language may be a response either to the content or the
form. The term ‘content’ refers to what students say without checking grammatical
errors. The term ‘form’ refers to grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and discourse
features; feedback on form is directed toward the accuracy of what students say.
Selecting the ways of giving feedback depends on the situation of teaching and
learning. In regard to the English curriculum at KMUTT, the main focus is on taskbased activities. Nunan (1989: 10) defines the term ‘task’ as “a piece of classroom
work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or
interacting in the target language while their attention is primarily focused on
meaning rather than form”. In addition, Krahnke (1987: 58) maintains that “the intent
of task-based learning is to use learners’ real-life needs and activities as learning
experiences, providing motivation through immediacy and relevancy”. From these
definitions of ‘task’ and ‘task-based learning’, we can see that teachers’ roles in the
classroom have to be changed so that teachers can help learners reach the objectives
of the lesson. As a result, giving feedback in some courses at KMUTT tends to put an
emphasis on content rather than form; however, this does not mean that feedback on
form is ignored.
The reason that this study focuses on feedback is that the researchers believe it can
help students develop self-confidence, stay on task, and keep students responsible for
their own learning. The ways that teachers respond to students or deal with affective
factors, especially to increase motivation or build a supportive classmate in order to
help students’ performance, are not easy. There is a variety of possible strategies for
giving feedback. The following list represents a slightly modified version of Richards
& Lockhart’s (1994: 189) set of strategies:
Table 1: Feedback strategies (adapted from Richards & Lockhart 1994)
Feedback strategy
Description
Acknowledging a correct
The teacher indicates that a student’s answer is
answer or indicating an
correct or incorrect by saying, for example, “Good”,
incorrect answer
“Yes”, or “Mmm”.
Praising or criticizing the
The teacher praises a student for an answer, “Yes, an
utterance
excellent answer”.
Repeating the student
The teacher repeats a student’s answer.
utterance
Expanding or modifying the
The teacher responds to an uncertain or incomplete
utterance
answer by providing more information, or
paraphrasing the answer in the teacher’s own words.
Asking follow-up questions
The teacher asks some questions to expand a
student’s utterance.
Summarizing
The teacher gives a summary of what a student said.
In reality, teachers sometimes do not give feedback to their students; for this reason,
the researchers think that zero feedback should be included as a category of feedback.
26
Zero feedback or no feedback is one strategy whereby teachers do not inform students
of the correctness or incorrectness of their responses (Cole & Chan, 1987). So, zero
feedback shows implicit feedback. This means that students do not know exactly
whether their responses are right or wrong because the teacher does not react directly
to their responses.
The research questions in this study are:
1. What strategies do teachers actually use in giving feedback?
2. What strategies do teachers believe they use in giving feedback?
3. What is the relationship between what strategies teachers believe they use and
what they actually use in giving feedback?
Research methodology
This section provides information on the participants in the study, the instruments,
procedures and data analysis.
Participants
The six subjects, four female and two male, were all teachers of Fundamental English
II (LNG 102) in semester 1/2005, a fifteen-week course organized by the Department
of Language Studies, School of Liberal Arts at KMUTT; they all met their students
twice a week. They had between two and ten years of teaching experience. They were
willing to have their teaching observed, and the researchers observed each of them
once for about 100 minutes.
Instruments
Observation sheet: This was used to find out what strategies the teachers actually used
in giving feedback. It was written in English and consists of seven feedback strategies
(adapted from Richards & Lockhart, 1994: 189) (see appendix).
Ranking scale form: The ranking scale form was a survey on the teachers’ beliefs
about feedback strategies. Its objective was to find out what strategies teachers
believed they used in giving feedback. This instrument consists of the same seven
feedback strategies as in the observation sheet.
Procedures
Stage 1: Preparation
1. The instruments (observation sheet and ranking scale form) were designed.
2. The subjects were selected.
3. Each subject was asked for permission to observe his or her teaching once and an
appointment was made for the observation.
Stage 2: Data collection
1. The first researcher observed each class and recorded on the observation sheet the
feedback strategies each subject used while teaching.
2. After the subjects had finished their teaching, they were informed that giving
feedback strategies was the main focus of the observation. Then the first researcher
distributed the ranking scale form to the subjects and asked them to rank the strategies
they thought they had used by frequency (1 = most frequent; 7 = least frequent); to
avoid bias, the obtained data were not shown to the subjects.
27
Data analysis
To answer Research Question 1, the researcher counted how many times each strategy
was recorded on the observation sheet and then ranked them by frequency (1 = most
frequent; 7 = least frequent). The data from the ranking scale form were used to
answer Research Question 2. Then, in order to answer Research Question 3, the data
from both instruments were compared by using Spearman’s rank order correlation.
All the data are presented and interpreted in the following section.
Results
The findings are presented as rankings of teachers’ believed and actual use of
feedback strategies and as a correlation between teachers’ beliefs and practice.
Rankings of teachers’ believed use and actual use
Subject F
Subject E
Subject D
Subject C
Subject B
Feedback strategies
Subject A
Table 2: Feedback strategies ranked by teachers’ believed use and actual use*
X
Asking follow-up
questions
2
(4)
3
(2.5)
2
(4)
2
(1)
3
(2)
3
(3)
2.50
(2.75)
Summarizing
1
(6)
4
(6)
4
(6.5)
5
(6.5)
4
(5.5)
2
(6)
3.33
(6.08)
Expanding or
modifying utterance
5
(2)
2
(2.5)
3
(5)
3
(4.5)
2
(3.5)
5
(4)
3.33
(3.58)
Acknowledging
correct, or indicating
incorrect, answer
Repeating student
utterance
Praising or criticizing
utterance
Zero feedback
6
(1)
1
(6)
5
(2.5)
4
(4.5)
5
(3.5)
4
(1)
4.17
(3.08)
4
(7)
3
(3)
7
(5)
6
(1)
7
(6)
5
(4)
6
(1)
1
(6.5)
7
(2.5)
1
(2)
6
(6.5)
7
(3)
1
(1)
6
(7)
7
(5.5)
7
(2)
6
(6)
1
(6)
4.17
(2.33)
4.83
(5.83)
5.67
(4.33)
* Numbers without brackets represent subjects’ perceived rankings; those in brackets represent actual
rankings observed (1 = most frequent; 7 = least frequent).
From the right column in Table 2, it can be seen from the numbers without brackets
that the teachers believed that they used various strategies in giving feedback,
especially asking follow-up questions, and they believed that they used zero feedback
the least. The bracketed numbers in the table show that the teachers actually used
different feedback strategies from those they believed they used; in particular,
repeating the student utterance was the most frequently used strategy while
summarizing was the least frequently used.
28
Correlation between teachers’ beliefs and actual practice of giving feedback
In Table 3, Spearman’s Rho is used to measure the correlation between the teachers’
beliefs and actual use of feedback strategies. It can be seen that, for most of the
teachers, there are differences between the feedback strategies they believed they used
and those that they actually used. However, whereas there is no significant correlation
between the observer and five of the six subjects, a significant correlation exists
between the observer and one subject (Subject E).
Table 3: Correlation between teachers’ beliefs and actual practice
Observer-Subject
Correlation
-0.36
O-A
0.00
O-B
-0.61
O-C
0.59
O-D
O-E
0.80
0.36
O-F
Significance = p<0.05
p-value
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
p<0.05
n.s
Table 4 shows that there is a general pattern for most teachers that some of the
feedback strategies in their beliefs match their actual use of strategies but some of the
beliefs do not match their actual practice. However, the relationship between the
strategies the teachers believed they used and those they actually used differed among
the teachers. These results are discussed further in the following section.
Subject C
Subject D
Subject E
Subject F
Repeating student
utterance
Acknowledging correct, or
indicating incorrect,
answer
Zero feedback
Summarizing
Expanding or modifying
utterance
Praising or criticizing
utterance
Asking follow-up
questions
Subject B
Feedback strategies
Subject A
Table 4: Differences between believed use and actual use of feedback strategies
Differences
-3
5
5
-1
0
5
X of
modulus
of
difference
3.16
5
-5
2.5
-0.5
1.5
3
2.91
2
-5
3
1
-2
-0.5
3.5
-2.5
-2
4
-1.5
-1.5
1.5
-1.5
-1.5
-5
-4
1
2.83
2.75
1.58
0
1
-5.5
-0.5
-1
0
1.33
2
0.5
2
1
1
0
1.08
29
Discussion and implications
This discussion begins by focusing on the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs
and practice and then considers ways of reducing the gap between their beliefs and
practice.
The relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and their actual practice
From the findings, it can be interpreted that zero feedback and repeating the student
utterance need little conscious effort, so they are used more frequently in actual
practice than the teachers believed. The two strategies do not require teachers’
thinking process. The teachers ignore or only repeat the students’ responses. On the
other hand, summarizing requires a great deal of conscious effort, it requires teachers’
thinking process, so it is hardly used. To employ summarizing strategy, firstly, the
teachers need to collect enough information from students’ responses, they have to
analyze the obtained information, and then present the oral summary by selecting the
main points. However, the students’ responses may be too short for teachers to use
summarizing strategy. As revealed by the findings that the teachers’ beliefs and their
actual practices do not match each other, this may result in failure of teaching.
Teachers may evaluate and consider their teaching with reference to their beliefs,
while students evaluate and consider their learning with reference to what actually
occurred, i.e. the practice. These conflicting viewpoints may lead to misunderstanding
between teachers and students. If, however, the gap between teachers’ beliefs and
practice is reduced, such misunderstandings are less likely to occur.
Ways of reducing gap between teachers’ beliefs and their actual practice
Some suggested ways of reducing the gap between teachers’ beliefs and their actual
practices are shown as follows:
Having some explicit rules or regulations: The researchers believe it is necessary for
some teachers to set up some explicit rules or regulations for the classroom along with
the students so that teachers are able to control classroom realities. It can be seen that
teachers’ tensions occur because teachers lack the ability to manage what happens in
the classroom. So, if they develop their ability to have a sense of controlling things
along with the rules or regulations, the mismatch between their beliefs and their actual
practices may be reduced.
Ensuring rapport between teachers and students: In addition, teachers should have a
balanced relationship between themselves and their students. This means that they
should be neither too close nor too distant from the learners so that the latter can trust
their teachers. This is important because, if learners trust their teachers, it is possible
that they will believe in the feedback they receive. Teacher feedback will have value
when learners apply it to develop their performance.
Being life-long learners: Teachers should be life-long learners. They should take
opportunities to acquire new knowledge by reading and attending seminars and
teaching training in order to develop their teaching competence. One of the ways
teachers can increase their professional competence is to reflect on their teaching.
Richards & Renandya (2002: 385) state that “teachers should constantly develop not
only their knowledge of the subject but also their knowledge of pedagogy”. One way
to help teachers reflect on their teaching is diary writing. Larrivee (1999) states that
30
diary writing is a kind of self-reflection that teachers are able to use to explore and
reflect on their teaching and also talk to themselves in the process of writing their
diaries. Richards & Ho (1998) state that the objective of diary writing is to engage
teachers in awareness-raising of their teaching by reflecting deeply on their lessons.
From the information above, it is obvious that there are some feedback strategies that
need more conscious effort from teachers. Therefore, they should encourage
themselves to perform the various feedback strategies. In so doing, they need to
develop themselves in terms of their thought and teaching by reflecting constantly on
what they do in the classroom to acquire new knowledge for adjusting their ways of
teaching and raise their level of professional skills.
Conclusion
In the realization that giving feedback is one of the essential skills teachers use in the
classroom, this study attempts to show the relationship between strategies teachers
believe they use and those they actually use in giving feedback. The findings highlight
that the feedback strategies used depend on teachers’ differences. Since every
feedback strategy can play an important role in teaching and learning language in
class, teachers should be aware of some relationships between the strategies they
believe they use and those they actually use in giving feedback. Obstacles sometimes
occur unexpectedly in the classroom and these might prevent teachers from utilizing
strategies they intend to use. Therefore, in order to foster their own professional
development, teachers may need to set up discipline in the classroom, balance the
rapport between themselves and their students and be life-long learners. Doing this
may help teachers decide which feedback strategies suit the realities of the classroom.
The researchers hope that the findings and the suggestions in this study will be useful
for other teachers who would like to develop themselves in terms of giving feedback.
References
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2004) Teachers’ stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25
(2) 243-270.
Borko, H. & Niles, J. A. (1982) Factors contributing to teachers’ decisions about
grouping students for reading instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior 4: 127140.
Cole, P. G. & Chan, L. K. S. (1987) Teaching Principles and Practice. Sydney:
Prentice Hall.
Johnson, K. E. (1995) Understanding Communication in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (1996) The vision versus the reality: the tensions of the TESOL
practicum. In Freeman, D. & Richards, J. (eds.), Teacher Learning in
Language Teaching, pp. 30-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krahnke, K. (1987) Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Larrivee, B. (1999) Authentic Classroom Management: Creating a Community of
Learners. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Lewis, M. (2002) Giving Feedback in Language Classes. RELC: Singapore.
Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
31
Pajares, M. F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: clearing up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research 62 (4) 307-331.
Richards, J. C. (1998) Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Ho, B. (1998) Reflective thinking through journal writing. In
Richards, J. C. (ed.), Beyond Training: Perspectives on Language Teacher
Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002) Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scharle, A. & Szabo, A. (2000) Learner Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Watson Todd, R. (1997) Classroom Teaching Strategies. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D. (1996) Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decisionmaking and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wright, T. (1987) Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appendix: Observation sheet (adapted from Richards & Lockhart 1994)
Date: _________________
Subject: ________________
Strategies
1. Acknowledging correct, or indicating incorrect, answer
2. Praising or criticizing student utterance
3. Repeating utterance
4. Expanding or modifying utterance
5. Asking follow-up questions
6. Summarizing
7. Zero feedback
Frequency
Total
Comment:
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Chayaporn Kaoropthai has an MA in Applied Linguistics (English Language
Teaching) from King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. She works as a
class teacher in the English Program for Talented Students (EPTS) at Patumwan
Demonstration School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Assistant Professor Wilaksana Srimavin works in the Department of Language
Studies, School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
She works as a teacher of English to undergraduate and graduate students in several
faculties for both compulsory and elective courses. Although her expertise is in
Teaching Techniques, she also has an interest in Self-Assessment in Resource-Based
Learning in the MA Program run by her department for more than ten years.
32
A Comparison of Three Monolingual Learner’s Dictionaries
Thanasorn Visutwarin
Suan Dusit Rajabhat University
Wareesiri Singhasiri
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Abstract
This study was conducted to examine similarities and differences among
three monolingual learner’s dictionaries (MLDs). The selected MLDs,
resulting from a survey of 200 first-year KMUTT students’ use of MLDs,
were Oxford Student’s Dictionary of English (2001), Longman Active
Study Dictionary (2004) and Macmillan Essential Dictionary (2003). To
analyze for both macrostructure and microstructure, this study used
Hartmann’s (2001) and Jackson’s (2002) criteria. For macrostructure, all
three MLDs included basic essential components that good dictionaries
should contain: use of defining vocabulary, language contents (collocation,
grammar of words) and illustrations and a guide to the dictionary; however,
only three minor items differed among the three dictionaries, viz. the
introduction, the total number of entries and the content of reference
sections. For microstructure, there were six elements which resemble each
other: headwords, homonym numbers, illustrative sentences, word classes,
pronunciations and miscellanea; however, there were two elements which
differ from each other: how to organize frequently-used and polysemous
words.
Introduction
Dictionaries have played a crucial role in foreign and second language teaching and
learning. They are regarded as “the repository of final linguistic authority, a bank
account of words and meanings to be drawn upon in moments of need” (Wright, 1998:
3). Dictionaries used in ELT will be mostly either monolingual or bilingual. According
to Chanawangsa (1996), monolingual ones can be classified into two types: one for
native speakers and the other for learners of English. Moreover, monolingual learner’s
dictionaries (MLDs) available on the market can be subdivided into three main levels:
elementary, intermediate and advanced.
For this study, the researchers are interested in MLDs as teachers in Thailand nowadays
try to encourage students to make use of this type of dictionary in place of bilingual
ones. This is because MLDs provide meanings in English and the language explained is
easy to understand compared to those designed for native speakers. In addition, there
are grammatical information and authentic samples of the language, which indicate
how words are actually used rather than how convention may deem that they should be
used. Thus, it could be said that MLDs are used as one tool to assist students’ selflearning, which is very important in independent learning and indispensable for every
learner of English.
Purpose of study
This study aims to answer the research question: how do three monolingual learner’s
dictionaries compare?
33
Monolingual learner’s dictionaries (MLDs)
MLDs, whether in book form, on CD or available on the Internet, are those written in
only one language (in this case, English). Even though most dictionaries are
monolingual in this sense, the abbreviation MLD is used to describe dictionaries written
specifically for language learners of English, not native speakers. Moreover, in the
literature on lexicography, they are interchangeably referred to as ELT or EFL
dictionaries.
There are lots of aspects of MLDs to be investigated but our focus here is general
characteristics that MLDs should possess. According to Bejoint (2000), Hartmann
(2003), Ilson (1985) and Tickoo (1989), there are altogether ten such characteristics:
1. Word lists These are selected according to the criteria of frequency and usefulness;
that is, the word list recorded in an EFL dictionary puts emphasis on the words learners
should know and has well-balanced inclusion of several kinds of words such as archaic
words, dialects and technical jargon. Moreover, the coverage of entries is usually
around 50,000 items for the intermediate level.
2. Definitions These are confined to the more limited vocabulary of foreign learners;
that is, since foreign users are still learners, the language used in the definitions of
words is kept relatively simple and more controlled compared to that written for native
speakers.
3. Polysemous words The different senses of headwords are distinguished by means of
running numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.); and, in cases of detailed meaning, letters are used after
the numbers (1a, 1b, 1c, etc.). Nowadays, signposts tend to be used in front of the
polysemy in order to aid rapid searches for desired meanings.
4. Collocational information Collocational details are usually provided in boldface in
example sentences or separate usage boxes.
5. Grammatical information According to Jackson (1985), there are four kinds of
grammatical information we might expect to find in dictionary entries (i.e. inflections,
word class labels, syntactic information and example sentences).
6. Pronunciation Phonetic transcription is international; that is, word pronunciation is
mostly indicated in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) system. The purpose
served by pronunciation is to advise users who are unsure of the spoken form of a word
by recommending a suitable pronunciation for it. Besides, both American and British
English pronunciation and stress are often provided.
7. Stylistic information This is typically provided by usage labels. Knowing stylistic
information is particularly useful for students to use a dictionary as an encoding tool
when they write an essay or article.
8. Example sentences According to Cowie (1978: 129), they have three functions: to
“indicate the syntactic distribution of words in their various senses”, “throw light on the
meanings of the words” and “encourage the learner to compose sentences which are
lexically and syntactically new”.
34
9. Etymological information This is rarely provided, that is, information about word
history is usually avoided in MLDs. Chanawangsa (1996) observed that, although this
kind of information is not necessary for learners, it is useful when having to guess the
meanings of the words.
10. Textual transparency Clarity of printed characters as well as page layout and layout
of entries are believed to enhance accessibility of information for users.
Dictionary structure
Hartmann (2001: 59) gives the explanation of dictionary structure in a diagrammatic
form as follows:
MEGASTRUCTURE
MACROSTRUCTURE
Outside Matter
Front Matter
Middle Matter
Back Matter
Entry 1 …………………….. Entry n
MICROSTRUCTURE
Headword
Left-core
Right-core
(formal)
(semantic)
Comment
Comment
Figure 1: Dictionary structure (Hartmann, 2001)
In Figure 1, the macrostructure and outside matter constitute what Hartmann called
megastructure, which is the overall design of a dictionary. The macrostructure is shown
as a sequence of entries (from 1 to n), preceded, interrupted and followed by outside
matter in the form of front matter (such as a preface, table of contents and
acknowledgements), middle matter (such as illustrations and language notes) and back
matter (such as reference section, contents and appendices).
Hartmann’s microstructure, adapted from Wiegand (1991), is shown as consisting of
headword and subdivided into the left-core formal comment and the right-core semantic
comment. In brief, both formal and semantic comments constitute microstructure or the
way of showing how various information categories are arranged within entries.
Criticizing dictionaries
In order to criticize a dictionary, it is certainly desirable to have a sound methodology
or some guidelines for measuring its quality and suitability. A few guidelines or criteria
are available in the literature. Based on Jackson (2002), criteria for evaluating a
35
dictionary can be derived from two possible sources: internal criteria and external
criteria. The first one derives from what a dictionary says about itself, or what the
editors claim for it; this kind of information can be found in its preface and often makes
claims about features that distinguish it from other dictionaries or demonstrate its
superiority over its rivals. The other derives from the metalexicography, taking into
account the linguistic requirements for a lexical description and considerations of
dictionary design and production. Moreover, Rundell (1998) reinforced Jackson’s
external criteria by proposing two more sets of criteria for the evaluation of
dictionaries: one set related to presentation and accessibility; the other related to
content.
Methodology
Selected dictionaries
This survey was conducted to find out how 200 first-year KMUTT students use
dictionaries, as it was hoped that the findings would point to recommendations on what
features learners should look for in choosing a dictionary. In the survey questionnaire
used in this study, there were five dictionaries, all of which are at intermediate level:
Oxford Student’s Dictionary of English (2001), Longman Active Study Dictionary
(2004), Collins Cobuild Learner’s Dictionary (2003), Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary
(2001) and Macmillan Essential Dictionary (2003). The results revealed the students’
preferences in purchasing and using these dictionaries, as follows: Oxford Student’s
Dictionary of English (38%), Longman Active Study Dictionary (26%) and Macmillan
Essential Dictionary (18%). Since these three dictionaries were chosen by a total of
82% of the students surveyed, they were chosen for this study.
Dictionary comparison
In order to compare these three MLDs, criteria were set based on Hartmann’s (2001)
and Jackson’s (2002) ideas about the general characteristics of MLDs. In other words,
the checklist in macrostructure comparison arose from a combination of Jackson’s and
Hartmann’s ideas; specifically, Jackson’s internal criteria and Hartmann’s outside
matter were incorporated into the checklist. Moreover, microstructure comparison came
from the application of MLDs’ general attributes; that is, a certain number of
headwords and their details from the three MLDs were randomly chosen for
comparison.
Findings
Macrostructure of three MLDs
The table below shows the comparative analysis of ten items of outside matter in three
MLDs: Oxford Student’s Dictionary of English (OSDE), Longman Active Study
Dictionary (LASD) and Macmillan Essential Dictionary (MED). We can see from the
table that all three dictionaries contain items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 whereas the rest
(items 1, 2 and 10) occur in either two or only one of the dictionaries.
Only MED contains an introduction (item 1); it summarizes what the dictionary is
about and gives users important pieces of information. In its one-page introduction, the
editor-in-chief claims that MED focuses on both word meanings and the most basic and
important features of the English language that intermediate learners of English should
know. He continues by highlighting two major resources: a large bank of data (220
million words of written and spoken texts) and expertise in being able to select what is
36
most important for learners. Moreover, he claims to include more entries than any other
intermediate learner’s dictionary.
Table: Comparison of macrostructure of three MLDs
Items
Dictionaries
OSDE
LASD
MED
×
×
9
47,000
45,000
×
1. Introduction
2. Total vocabulary entries
9
3. Abbreviations & labels
4. Edition (year of publication)
st
9
th
9
st
1 (2001)
4 (2004)
1 (2003)
9
9
9
~ 3,325
3,000
3,500
9
9
9
9
9
9
2,500
2,000
2,300
10.1 Phonemic spelling
9
9
9
10.2 Irregular verbs
9
9
9
10.3 Geographical names
9
×
9
10.4 Periodic tables of elements
9
×
×
10.5 Expressions using numbers
9
×
×
5. Guide to dictionary
6. Frequently-used words
7. Illustration pages (picture
dictionary)
8. Study pages & exercises with keys
9. Defining vocabulary
10. Reference sections:
This claim interests the researchers in making a comparison on the total number of
entries of the three MLDs (item 2). A vocabulary entry here means the information of
the whole set of a headword. OSDE’s and LASD’s back covers inform us that the total
numbers of entries are 47,000 and 45,000 words, respectively, whereas MED gives no
information on the total number of entries despite claiming in its introduction to have
more entries than any other intermediate learner’s dictionary. It may be said that these
figures correspond to the word lists recorded in EFL dictionaries for intermediate
learners, typically around 50,000 items (see the literature review above on MLDs). To
the researchers, the total number of entries might be a factor that users consider when
deciding which dictionaries to buy.
For item 3 (abbreviations and labels), all three dictionaries use abbreviations and labels
that hardly differ, for example, the abbreviations [I], [T], [phr v] and [BrE] for,
respectively, intransitive, transitive and phrasal verbs, and British English. Moreover,
the list of this information is provided in the front matter of all three MLDs. To the
researchers, abbreviations and labels are like signs to users to pay special attention to
how words are used. Experienced users who are familiar with them may think they are
not necessary but those who are novices may consider these as a matter of necessity.
This could help students when they have to write their essays in English and edit their
assignments by themselves.
37
For item 4 (year of publication), the first edition of OSDE was published in 2001 and
that of MED in 2003 whereas the fourth edition of LASD was published in 2004. If a
criterion for comparing and contrasting the quality of a dictionary is its frequency of
publication and revision, then LASD, in its fourth edition, would be the best of all. This
is because regular revision and publication is an indication of a dictionary’s popularity
amongst users, and there may be a tendency to take account of contemporary words and
meanings according to the nature of the language, which is always changing.
For item 5 (guide to dictionaries), all three MLDs provide similar information on how
to use dictionaries, which can be categorized into seven groups. The first one is how to
look up headwords such as homonymy, polysemy and compounds. The second is the
explanation of how to search for words and phrases relating to the headwords (e.g.
idioms, phrasal verbs and derivatives). The third is the matter of meanings: how to
organize polysemous words, information on the number of defining vocabulary, the
way meanings of each word are listed in order of frequency or history of meanings, etc.
The fourth relates to grammar: explanation of word classes, codes, inflected forms, etc.
Fifth, the way words are used is explained through patterns (e.g. prevent sb from doing
sth, protect sb from sth), labels (e.g. not before a noun, spoken, informal). The sixth is
about how to choose the right words and a section on vocabulary building, which are
given by usage notes. The last is the explanation of pronunciation, for which all three
use the IPA system. Moreover, among these three MLDs, only OSDE provides
exercises with keys to familiarize users with the components and terms used in the
dictionary.
For item 6 (frequently-used words), all three MLDs focus on frequently-used entries
but differ in the number employed. LASD’s guide to the dictionary informs us that
there are 3,000 words; MED clearly specifies 3,500 words for intermediate learners to
learn; however, OSDE says nothing about the number of frequently-used words. The
researchers counted 3,325 words approximately (i.e. between 3,000 and 3,500). To the
researchers, some important words in one dictionary might not be important in the
others; for example, the words ‘flexible’ and ‘campaign’ (labeled as a noun) are given a
one-star rating in MED but are ordinary headwords in the other two. The reason,
according to Scholfield (2006) and Summers (2006), may be because each publisher
employs different language corpora, which causes these apparent differences in word
frequency.
For item 7 (illustration pages and picture dictionary), all three MLDs provide
illustrations and picture dictionaries for users but the way they are organized varies.
Illustrations in OSDE are spread throughout the book under a particular headword from
an entry a1 to an entry zn; for example, pictures will appear over or under words or
phrases like ‘arachnid’, ‘bar code’, ‘car’, ‘diffuse’ and ‘energy’. For LASD,
illustrations are in the middle matter and they comprise a picture dictionary section.
Apart from the picture dictionary in the middle matter, illustrations in LASD are also
distributed throughout the book, as in OSDE. For MED, as in LASD, illustrations are in
the middle matter, and they are also categorized according to topics such as houses and
animals. Moreover, illustrations in MED are dispersed throughout the book under or
over a particular headword, as in OSDE and LASD. Among the three MLDs,
illustrations in LASD are the most colorful whereas the others still use black and white.
38
For item 8 (additional study pages), all three MLDs provide plenty of topics to study.
OSDE contains 38 pages of 16 topics such as prefixes and suffixes, punctuation and
taking notes; LASD has 24 pages of 12 topics, for example, intensifying adjectives and
adverbs, modal verbs and writing essays; and MED has 23 pages of 14 topics, for
instance, new technology, metaphors and text types. Among various topics on the study
pages, there are two topics which all three MLDs have in common: collocations and
phrasal verbs. This implies that all three dictionaries emphasize the importance of
collocations and phrasal verbs.
For item 9 (defining vocabulary), although all three MLDs employ controlled defining
vocabulary, they differ in the number of words used. OSDE’s dust jacket tells us that
2,500 words are used as defining vocabulary; MED claims to utilize 2,300 words and
LASD uses only 2,000 words. Neither MED nor LASD provide a list of defining
vocabulary in the back matter whereas OSDE does. Moreover, OSDE informs us that
any words that are not in the dictionary’s 2,500 word-defining vocabulary are shown in
capital letters and are usually explained in round brackets (e.g. the word ALLERGY,
shown in Figure 2: OSDE (a) below). For MED, if a word used in a definition is outside
the defining vocabulary, it is shown in capital letters but with no explanation, so users
need to look up that word separately (see Figure 2, MED (b)). As for LASD, if a word
used in the definition is beyond the restricted defining vocabulary, it will be shown in
upper case either with or without explanation (see Figure 2, LASD (c)).
The word outside
defining vocabulary
with no explanation
The word outside
defining vocabulary
with explanation
OSDE (a)
MED (b)
LASD(c)
LASD (c)
Figure 2: How MLDs deal with words beyond controlled defining vocabulary
For item 10 (reference section), it can be seen that OSDE provides a more
comprehensive range of items in its reference section than the others. These are: 1)
phonemic spellings, 2) irregular verbs, 3) geographical names, 4) periodic tables of
elements, and 5) expressions using numbers. MED gives three out of five items which
are the first three items above. LASD gives only the information on phonemic spellings
and irregular verbs, and the researchers think that the reason why it excludes the last
three items is that, compared to the first two, they are not directly involved in language
learning.
39
Microstructure of three MLDs
Similarities of components within an entry
The following are the elements which are the same within entries: 1) headwords, 2)
homographs, 3) illustrative sentences, 4) word classes, 5) pronunciation, and 6)
miscellanea.
1. Headwords
2. Homographs (homonym numbers)
3. Example Sentences
6. Miscellanea
LASD
OSDE
5. Pronunciation
4. Word classes
MED
Figure 3: Illustration of similarities of components in an entry
1. Headwords These are words placed at the beginning of the entry (e.g. the word
‘charm’ in Figure 3); they are listed in alphabetical order whether they are written as
one word (e.g. iceberg) or two (e.g. ice cap) or with a hyphen (e.g. ice-skate). OSDE
gives headwords in general (not only frequently-used words) in blue (color is not
shown in the figure), LASD in light blue and MED in black.
2. Homographs These have different running homonym numbers; in other words, the
same word sometimes belongs to more than one word class, in which case, it is shown
as a separate entry with a small number in superscript at the end of the headword. As
can be seen from Figure 3, the headwords with superscript 1 are nouns and with
superscript 2 are verbs.
3. Illustrative sentences These are given in italics, whether in the form of phrases or
sentences, after the definition of each headword (see Figure 3). Examples are very
important as they help users understand the headword and show how it is used in
context. It can be noted from Figure 3 that OSDE and MED provide examples in both
sentences and phrases whereas, in LASD, only phrases are provided.
40
4. Word classes These are shown after the pronunciation, followed, depending on part
of speech, by information on whether a word is countable, uncountable, transitive,
intransitive, etc. It can be noted from Figure 3 that the word ‘charm’ can be both a noun
and a verb; as a noun, it is labeled [C/U] and, as a verb, it is labeled [T].
5. Pronunciation This is shown by using IPA. A list of phonemic symbols is given on
the back covers of OSDE and MED and on the inside front cover of LASD. It can be
noted from Figure 3 that LASD provides American pronunciation of the word,
indicated by the insertion of a dollar sign ($) such as
in front of it
whereas OSDE and MED do not.
6. Miscellanea Synonyms, antonyms, derived words, related words and cross references
are either shown after the definition of the headwords or at the end of the entry; in
Figure 3, the word ‘charmer’ is a derived word located at the end of the entry.
Moreover, in order to serve users’ needs, there is full coverage of both American and
British English (both orthographical and phonological) even though all three publishers
are based in Britain.
Dissimilarities of components within an entry
1. Organization of frequently used words The symbols MLDs use to show frequentlyused words vary (see Figure 4). OSDE uses one blue star, which is in front of the blue
headwords (color is not shown in the figure), indicating frequently used words. In
contrast, in LASD, they are printed in red, contrasting with headwords in general,
which are printed in light blue. In MED, they are highlighted in red with a star rating
ranging from one to three, depending on their importance and frequency, whereas
general headwords are printed in black (cf. Figure 3).
LASD
OSDE
MED
Figure 4: Organization of frequently-used words
It can be noted that, by using one to three stars, MED provides more detail on degree of
word frequency than the other two. Words with one star mean fairly common words
such as ‘campaign’, ‘enthusiastic’ and ‘import’; two stars denote very common words
such as ‘behave’, ‘friendly’ and ‘intelligence’; and three stars indicate the most
41
common and basic words such as ‘easy’, ‘go’ and ‘have’. However, after the
researchers checked these frequently-used words denoted by one to three stars in MED
against the other dictionaries, it appears that all of these nine words except for
‘campaign’ are also marked as frequently-used words in OSDE and LASD. In other
words, frequently-used words in one dictionary may not appear as frequently used in
others. To the researchers, this is a natural phenomenon when talking about word
frequency since publishers choose a variety of corpora as bases for compiling their
dictionaries.
2. Organization of polysemous words
OSDE
LASD
MED
Figure 5: Organization of polysemous words
The way polysemous words are organized varies (see Figure 5). When meanings are
very different, they are shown as separate senses with numbers. For MED, entries with
five or more meanings will have a meaning menu, which is in red (color is not shown in
the figure), at the top of the entry to make it easier for users to find the specific meaning
they are looking for. For LASD, there are two ways in which the presentation of
meanings is organized. First, if the entries have a few meanings, the presentation of
meaning is in nesting form, which is all of the meanings or information is written
within a single paragraph without using a new line to begin a new sentence. Second,
entries with five or more meanings will use a new line to begin a new sentence in place
of nesting. As for OSDE, the arrangement of meanings is done by means of nesting.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that there are some differences in the ways definitions are
arranged. The first two are quite alike. However, for LASD, there is a collocation box
42
after the second definition when using the word ‘bill’ in this sense. This is a very useful
and practical way to teach and learn vocabulary items. Also for the same meaning of
‘bill’, both OSDE and LASD provide the word ‘check’, which is the American English
equivalent of ‘bill’ in British English, but MED does not.
Moreover, from the third definition onwards, it can be seen that the meanings given
differ; for example, the third definition in OSDE and LASD is “a piece of paper money
or note” whereas in MED it is “a written document that contains a proposal for a new
law”, which is the fourth meaning in OSDE and LASD. These might be explained from
the information in LASD’s guide to the dictionary, which says that the meanings of
each word are listed in order of frequency (i.e. the most common meaning is shown
first). In addition, as already mentioned, the three dictionaries were compiled from
different corpora, which may provide different ranks of word frequency.
Conclusion
Having presented the findings of macrostructure and microstructure of three MLDs,
there follows a summary of the arguments for and against each dictionary.
For OSDE, there are four main disadvantages. They are its lack of an introduction, the
matter of page and entry layout, the guide to the dictionary and illustrations. First, the
researchers believe that it could be useful to consider the inclusion of an introduction in
the front matter of the dictionary. This is because the introduction normally sets the
scene for users and gives reasons why the dictionary should appeal to potential users,
why users should possess it and, sometimes, its superiority over its competitors.
Second, the researchers think that dictionary compilers should consider the possibility
of innovating the presentation of page and entry layout in order to increase students’
extrinsic motivation. This is because the target groups or customers are learners who
are still at secondary level or at tertiary level as first- or second-year students aged
around 15-18 years. Learners studying at these levels need a highly motivating
dictionary at the outset. When they use a dictionary because they are interested in it or
realize its value, whatever it looks like, they would not have much trouble using it. The
third point is the guide to the dictionary, which may be too detailed for some learners
compared to those of LASD and MED. Also, there should be some tips on using the
dictionary so that it is more user-friendly and easier to access. Last, illustrations spread
throughout the dictionary are still in black and white; using colorful illustrations may
have a great effect on users’ extrinsic motivation.
For OSDE’s advantages, there are four. The first one is that it includes the total number
of entries (47,000), more than LASD and MED. This implies that OSDE can best serve
the needs of intermediate learners in terms of the total number of headwords. Second,
compared to the other two dictionaries, OSDE contains more information on language
(collocations, verb patterns, affixes, etc.), study skills (taking notes, essay writing, etc.)
as well as encyclopedic information. This implies that, aside from vocabulary, there are
chances for learners to acquire or pick up additional aspects of language, such as
geographical names and periodic tables of elements. Third, OSDE uses more defining
vocabulary (2,500 words) compared to MED and LASD (2,300 and 2,000 words,
respectively); this would probably help to clarify word meanings. Last, the way OSDE
handles the words beyond restricted defining vocabulary is the most user-friendly since
the explanation of the words is presented in parentheses immediately after them; this
could save users’ time to search for these words again in the dictionary.
43
As for LASD, the drawbacks are its lack of an introduction, the least information about
language contents and reference sections and inconsistency in organizing the words
beyond restricted defining vocabulary. In terms of inconsistency of the words outside
defining vocabulary, there are two ways in which the explanation is presented: the
explanation is provided in brackets immediately after the definitions or there is no
explanation in brackets after the words beyond the defining vocabulary.
The advantages of LASD are its modernity, its guide to the dictionary and illustrations.
In terms of modernity, to date, LASD has been published four times compared to
OSDE and MED, both of which have been published only once. This may reflect the
popularity of LASD among its users; and, having been published frequently, it is likely
that neologisms tend to be stored according to the nature of the English language,
which is always changing. In terms of its guide to the dictionary, LASD’s organization
is more compact and descriptive than OSDE’s and MED’s. This could be more userfriendly to our young learners. The last point is LASD is more colorful than the other
two; also, apart from color illustrations distributed throughout, there is a separate
picture dictionary section in the middle.
For MED, there are three main pitfalls. The first one is its illustrations, which are still in
black and white, although a few of them use red in the pictures. The second is its claim
in its introduction to include more entries than any other intermediate learner’s
dictionary. In spite of this claim, MED gives no information about the total number of
entries, which is another important factor involving users’ consideration for buying a
dictionary. The third one is its arrangement of the words outside defining vocabulary;
that is, the explanation of the words is not provided. This is not user-friendly enough
because, if learners do not know the meanings of the words outside defining
vocabulary, they have to look them up again apart from their headwords. For its
superior points, MED contains an introduction and makes use of a meaning menu for
the polysemous words with five or more meanings. This is very user-friendly as it could
help users look up the meanings more easily and quickly.
Pedagogical implications
In this section, the salient points arising from the findings of the macrostructure and
microstructure of each of the three MLDs are discussed; also, possible solutions to the
problems arising and recommendations from this study are proposed. These points are
considered from three viewpoints: those of learners of English, teachers of English and
publishers.
To the researchers, there are at least two major issues regarding Thai learners of
English in using MLDs. The first one is that they do not normally like to use MLDs.
This may be because, in their opinion, MLDs are difficult to use and they often think
they do not have enough vocabulary to understand the meanings given in English.
Moreover, according to Scholfield (1982), the greatest difficulty for learners when they
use monolingual entries is to find the right place in the headword list. This may be
because MLDs provide word definitions in English; as mentioned above, students often
claim the language in the definitions is way above their heads. Based on the findings of
the study, this problem may be solved by making the explanations of the meanings
easier to understand than the words being defined by using basic vocabulary that the
learner is likely to know already as all three MLDs did by using controlled defining
44
vocabulary. The second issue is that Thai learners may not be aware of how MLDs can
be best utilized; in other words, not many learners really know how to use them to
assist their learning. This problem could be considered in two ways: they do not know
what kinds of information are available in MLDs; and the manner in which dictionaries
present their information often impedes access. Thus, training to use MLDs is essential.
For teachers of English, there are at least three major issues the researchers would like
to note. First, they should act as good models of dictionary users to their students.
Without this requirement, how can they train students to use MLDs? Second, they
should encourage students to realize the importance of using MLDs in English
language learning, and one way to do so is to give them recommendations for selecting
a good dictionary. Based on this study, there are several criteria to be used as the
starting point for consideration, for example:
•
Are the contents of dictionaries modern?
•
Are the explanations of use clear and simple? Do they have sufficient coverage?
•
How many headwords are there in the dictionaries?
•
Do they reinforce frequently-used words?
•
How can students look for information on homonymous and polysemous words?
•
How much defining vocabulary should be selected?
•
Is any encyclopedic and cultural information provided?
For publishers, they might find the findings of this study useful especially some
drawbacks to each MLD already mentioned in the conclusion; for example, the matter
of introductions, illustrations, page and entry layout, the inclusion of explanations of
words beyond controlled defining vocabulary and consistency in organizing words
outside controlled defining vocabulary. The researchers believe that, if publishers can
truly improve some of these problems, including innovating and modernizing their
products, Thai students may gradually turn to and enjoy using MLDs compared to
bilingual ones. However, it would be an accepted fact that, as expressed by Kirkpatrick
(1985: 7), “it is impossible for any one dictionary to satisfy the needs of everyone,
wide-ranging and diverse as these needs are”. This point corresponds to Atkins’ (1985:
17) idea that “the flavor of a dictionary is not the same, thus the value of a dictionary
work must be estimated by its use”.
To conclude, the researchers would like to use Johnson’s (1755) saying, given in his
dictionary, that “a dictionary is like a watch, even the worst one is better than none, but
even the best, we cannot expect absolute precision”. This statement clearly gives a very
clear idea that, although dictionaries are reliable sources of information for teachers and
learners of English, yet they are not the final answer to English language teaching and
learning; instead, they are like essential tools language learners should use with great
care.
References
Atkins, B. T. (1985) Monolingual and bilingual learners’ dictionary: A comparison. In
R. F. Ilson (ed.), Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT
Documents 120: 17). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bejoint, H. (1981) The foreign student’s use of monolingual English dictionaries: A
study of language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics 2 (3) 207222.
45
Bejoint, H. (1994) Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries.
Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Bejoint, H. (2000) Modern Lexicography: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chan, A. Y. W. & Loong, Y. (1999) Establishing criteria for evaluating a learner’s
dictionary. In R. Berry, B. Asker, H. Hyland & M. Lam (eds.), Language
Analysis, Description and Pedagogy. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology.
Chan, A. Y. W. & Taylor, A. (2001) Evaluating learner dictionaries: What the
reviews say. International Journal of Lexicography 14 (3) 163-180.
Chanawangsa, S. (1996) Lexicopedia. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language
Institute.
Cowie, A. P. (1978) The Place of Illustrative Material and Collocations in the Design
of a Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (2001) Teaching and Researching Lexicography, 1st edition.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.) (2003) Lexicography: Critical Concepts, 1st edition.
London: Routledge.
Ilson, R. F. (1985) Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT
Documents 120). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jackson, H. (1985) Grammar in the dictionary. In R. F. Ilson (ed.), Dictionaries,
Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT Documents 120: 173). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Jackson, H. (2002) Lexicography: An Introduction, 1st edition. London: Routledge.
Johnson, S. (1755) A dictionary of the English language. In Retraining NeuroPage.
Available online at http://nnod.com/NNB/Convey/neuropage/PIE_11.html
[accessed 8th March 2006]
Kimmel, M. (1997) Bilingualised dictionaries: How learners really use them. System
25 (3) 361.
Kirkpatrick, B. (1985) A lexicographical dilemma: Monolingual dictionaries for the
native speaker and for the learner. In R. F. Ilson, (ed.), Dictionaries,
Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT Documents 120: 7). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Longman, (2004) Longman Active Study Dictionary, 4th edition, Harlow, Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
MacFarquhar, P. & Richards J. (1983) On dictionaries and definitions. RELC Journal
14 (1) 111-124.
Macmillan, (2003) Macmillan Essential Dictionary, 1st edition, Oxford: Macmillan
Education.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, (2001) Oxford Student’s Dictionary of English, 1st edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rundell, M. (1998) Recent trends in English pedagogical lexicography.
International Journal of Lexicography 11 (4) 316.
Scholfield, P. J. (1982) The role of bilingual dictionaries in EST/EFL: A positive view.
Guidelines 4: 84-98.
Scholfield, P. J. (2006) In What is New about Word Frequency? Available online at
http://www.longman.com/dictinaries/llreview/lrfreq1.html
[accessed
29th
March 2006]
46
Stark, M. P. (1990) Dictionary Workbooks. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Summers, D. (2006) Corpus Lexicography: The Importance of Representativeness in
Relation to Frequency. Available online at http://www.longman.com/
dictionaries/llreview/r3summer.html [accessed 29th March 2006]
Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) (1989) Learners’ Dictionaries: State of the Art. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional English Language Centre.
Wiegand, H. E. (1991) Printed dictionaries and their parts as texts: An overview of
more recent research as an introduction to thematic issue. Lexicographica
International Annual 6: 44.
Wright, J. (1998) Dictionaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thanasorn Visutwarin is a lecturer of English at Suan Dusit Rajabhat University. His
research interests are lexicography and learner autonomy.
Wareesiri Singhasiri teaches both postgraduate and undergraduate courses at KMUTT.
Her interests are learning strategies and self-access learning.
47
Communication Strategies to Solve Lexical Problems in Writing
Napaporn Ngamwilaipong
Pornapit Darasawang
Wilaksana Srimavin
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Abstract
The successful use of communication strategies in writing can help the
writer communicate in difficult situations, including that of insufficient
vocabulary. This study aims to investigate what communication strategies in
writing students use to solve problems at the lexical level. Since this was a
qualitative study and the researchers wanted to collect in-depth information
from the subjects, there were only three subjects who were assigned to do a
written task for which, in order to observe how they tackled their writing
problems, they could not use dictionaries or ask other people for assistance.
The results show that the students usually used literal translation and
approximation. The reasons for using these strategies are awareness of
language accuracy, fluency of writing and the audience’s comprehension.
Introduction
The teaching of writing in the classroom has often focused on either product-oriented or
process-oriented approaches. The former focuses on written products in terms of quality
of writing; students are expected to create a good product of writing. On the other hand,
the latter looks at writing in terms of process and encourages students to write as many
ideas as they can with less anxiety about correctness (Nunan, 1991). Nevertheless,
teaching writing skills in the classroom has ignored the ways students themselves tackle
the difficulty caused by a lack of the necessary linguistic knowledge in writing or how
they use communication strategies to convey their meaning (Blair-Kerr, 1993).
Consequently, it might be worthwhile to investigate which communication strategies
students use to complete a written task. One of the problems students have when trying
to communicate in English is not having enough vocabulary. Therefore, this research
aimed to investigate the communication strategies used in writing in order to answer the
research question: what communication strategies in writing do students use to solve
problems at a lexical level? It is expected that the exploration of this study would help
teachers organise student training on how to use communication strategies successfully.
Communication strategy types investigated in this study
A communication strategy is a method which learners consciously use when they are
facing a problem about their insufficient command of the target language in order to
keep their communication going (Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1977, cited in
Tarone, 1983). Typologies of communication strategies proposed in this study are
applied from Bialystok’s, Faerch & Kasper’s and Tarone’s classifications (Bialystok,
1983; Tarone, 1977, cited in Tarone, 1983; Faerch & Kasper, 1983) (see figure below).
Communication strategies regarding writers’ behaviour when they cope with
problematic words while writing consist of two main types: achievement strategies and
avoidance strategies.
Avoidance strategies are employed when writers encounter problems and try to get over
them instead of avoiding them and are divided into L2-based strategies, or strategies
48
which require writers to apply their knowledge of the target language to employ those
strategies; and L1-based strategies, or strategies which require writers to use their
native language to deliver the message. L2-based strategies, are also classified into
three sub-strategies: circumlocution, in which writers describe the characteristics or
actions of unknown words in English instead of using the exact vocabulary (e.g.
‘someone who tells you about news on TV’ for a news reporter); approximation, in
which writers use an English word which has roughly the same meaning as the one they
want to write, or a synonym (e.g. ‘pipe’ for waterpipe); and word coinage, in which
writers create a new word based on English language system (e.g. ‘airball’ for balloon).
L1-based strategies, on the other hand, are composed of two sub-strategies: literal
translation, in which writers create a new word based on Thai language system (e.g.
‘big part’ (สวนใหญ) for most) and language switch, in which writers write a Thai term
directly without translating it into English, or phonologically transfer the sound from
Thai word (e.g. เจาหนาที่ฝายทะเบียน for registrar).
Avoidance strategies, on the other hand, are used when writers decide to avoid or stop
delivering the message. There are two sub-strategies in this category: message
abandonment, in which writers try to write first but finally skip writing it, that is, they
make a linguistic attempt to tackle the problem word, and finally leave an incomplete
word (e.g. ‘seri---’ for serious); and topic avoidance, in which writers do not even try to
write the difficult word and move on to the next point immediately. An overview of
communication strategy types focused on in this study is shown in the figure below.
Communication Strategy
1. Achievement
A. L2-based
2. Avoidance
A. Message Abandonment
B. L1-based
1. Circumlocution
1. Literal Translation
2. Approximation
2. Language Switch
B. Topic Avoidance
3. Word Coinage
Figure: An overview of communication strategy types
Methodology
Subjects
The subjects were three students whose English was at intermediate level. They had an
expressive personality; that is, they tended to talk about their feelings. This trait was
necessary as think-aloud methodology requires subjects to verbalise what they think.
49
Instruments
In order to investigate the use of communication strategies, three instruments were
employed: think-aloud protocols, subjects’ written assignments and semi-structured
interviews.
Think-aloud protocols: The think-aloud technique was used in the form of ‘concurrent
verbalisation’; that is, the subjects had to report what they were thinking while writing
their assignments.
Subjects’ written assignments: The tasks were considered along with the think-aloud
protocol and the interview in order to detect the communication strategies employed.
The material was one assigned written task of 700-800 words. The topic was ‘What do
you think about LNG 101?’ (LNG 101 is the English course the subjects took with the
first researcher). The instructions in the task were in Thai so that the subjects could
understand clearly what they had to do. The think-aloud protocols were used as the
main instrument in parallel with the subjects’ written assignments. If there were unclear
points, the interviews were used to probe for clarification.
Semi-structured interviews: Each interview consisted of around twenty questions, was
conducted in Thai and audio-taped. The subjects were interviewed individually after
they had submitted their written work with their cassette tapes containing their thinkaloud protocols to the first researcher. After analyzing the data gained from the thinkaloud protocols and the subjects’ written assignments, the interview was used to probe
for further information about any strategies that were not reported in their think-aloud
protocols and to find out their experience of English learning because it could affect
their choice of communication strategies.
Procedures
The three main stages in the study are presented as follows:
a) Training stage
Before writing, the subjects, together in a group, were trained to think aloud. The
training was applied from Ericsson & Simon (1987) and consisted of three main steps
as follows:
Step 1 Asking the subjects to play an activating memory game: In a group, the subjects
were asked to play a game to activate their memories. They had to take turns saying the
names of fruits. The next subject repeated the previously nominated fruits and added
another fruit. The game could enable the subjects to be more alert for the real training
session.
Step 2 Introducing communication strategies to the subjects by elicitation: The first
researcher introduced the communication strategies by asking questions (e.g. what
should you do if you cannot think of a vocabulary item while writing an essay?) in
order to check the subjects’ background knowledge of communication strategies.
Step 3 Teaching the subjects how to think aloud: The subjects were trained how to
express the strategies through the think-aloud technique. The first researcher began by
describing the think-aloud technique, its usefulness and how to make an effective thinkaloud protocol. Then, she demonstrated how to think aloud while writing. Next, in
order to plan what to write in the sample task, the subjects were given two minutes to
think about their English courses at high school. After that, the subjects were trained
50
individually how to think aloud while writing about their English courses at high
school. The short paragraph took around 15 minutes to finish. While each subject was
writing, the researcher sat with them; if they said little, she tried to encourage them to
say more.
b) Writing stage
The subjects had to do the written task individually and think aloud while writing.
There were three requirements: they could not use outside resources, such as their
dictionaries or peers; they had to write around 700-800 words; and they could not stop
the tape recorder while writing.
c) Interviewing stage
After transcribing and analysing the protocols, the first researcher prepared the
interview questions. The subjects were interviewed individually 3-4 days after they
handed in their written tasks. The questions were about how the students coped with the
problems while writing the task in order to check the strategies the subjects used.
Data analysis
The data from the think-aloud protocol and the semi-structured interviews were
analysed by grouping the same strategies together.
Data presentation and interpretation
The think-aloud protocol revealed that all the subjects in this study usually thought in
Thai first, then, tried to translate their ideas orally into English before writing them
down; in other words, they tended to use literal translation as a basis for writing every
English sentence. This might be because they were thinking aloud in Thai, so the
researcher was not certain whether they were employing literal translation or whether it
was the influence from the think-aloud protocol. Therefore, the researcher decided not
to count this strategy in this study; however, when they were not successful in using
literal translation, they turned to other communication strategies. The table shows the
strategies the subjects chose to use.
Table: Communication strategies reported
Types of communication strategies
Number of strategies used
Subject Subject Subject
A
B
C
Circumlocution
3
Achievement Approximation
13
Word coinage
0
L2-based
Literal translation
every
L1-based
sentence
Language switch
0
Message abandonment
1
Avoidance
Topic avoidance
3*
20
Total strategy use
* the highest number reported for each strategy
51
9*
14*
6*
every
sentence
1
9*
2
41*
4
8
2
every
sentence
4*
2
0
20
Total
16
35*
8
every
sentence
5
12
5
81
From the table, the subjects employ both achievement and avoidance strategies.
Considering the use of achievement strategies, L2-based strategies outnumber L1based ones. In looking at L2-based achievement strategies, the subjects used
approximation the most (35 times), followed by circumlocution and word coinage (16
times and 8 times, respectively); significantly, for L1-based strategies, the data show
that literal translation was used in every sentence, while language switch was used 5
times. For avoidance strategies, message abandonment was used the most (12 times),
followed by topic avoidance (5 times).
Regarding each subject’s strategy use, the findings show that Subject B used all L2based achievement strategies the most as well as message abandonment. Topic
avoidance was employed the most by Subject A while Subject C relied more on the
L1-based strategy, language switch. The fundamental goals of using communication
strategies were on the product which focused on accuracy of the language, fluency of
writing process and awareness of the audience who would read the written
assignment.
The choices of communication strategies employed by each subject depended on
various factors: learners’ learning experience (e.g. being taught directly by teachers
and transferring from other skills or other courses), learners’ behaviour (e.g. risktaking and making an attempt to communicate) and the writing situation (e.g. time
constraint and lack of permitted outside resources). The use of L2-based achievement
strategies (circumlocution, approximation and word coinage) was mostly affected by
being taught directly, as reported by Subjects B and C; meanwhile, avoidance
strategies (message abandonment and topic avoidance) were employed with respect to
time constraints as reported by all three subjects.
From the interviews, it transpired that Subjects B and C, who tended to use L2-based
and L1 based strategies the most, learnt the use of communication strategies from
their teachers in high school; in contrast, Subject A, who relied more on avoidance
strategies, had never been taught them before. This could show that, in order to train
students to use communication strategies, teachers should take their students’ learning
experience into account so that they can provide suitable training. This point is now
pursued in the discussion.
Discussion and implications
From the results, two main points are discussed, training in communication strategies
and teaching the writing process.
Training in communication strategies
Basically, communication strategies can be taught through two approaches: direct
training and embedded training (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).
To conduct direct training, first, the teacher needs to assess students’ strategies in
order to link a new strategy with the ones students already possess by interviewing
them, asking them to think aloud while performing a particular task, or asking them to
answer questionnaires. Then, the teacher should explain the use of communication
strategies, explicitly including the name, the purpose of the strategy use, its
usefulness, etc. (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Finally, the teacher
should demonstrate how to use the strategy by verbalising her own thinking process
52
while employing a particular strategy as a model for students to see how to use
communication strategies.
In embedded training, students are provided with activities aiming to elicit the use of
that strategies that teachers intend to teach but are not explicitly told the reasons why
they are being trained (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). To conduct embedded
communication strategy training, Tarone & Yule (1989) suggest that, firstly, teachers
should ask students to observe an example of communicative exchanges which has
problematic points; next, they identify which strategy is employed to solve each
problem; lastly, they are asked to evaluate the degree of success of each strategy used.
As the data also reveal that the subjects were also aware of their audience while
writing, which is a focus of the writing process, the process of writing should be taken
into consideration.
Teaching the process of writing
The process of writing is often separated into three steps: pre-writing, writing and
rewriting and editing (Hedge, 1988). It is also possible that teachers present each
communication strategy while teaching each step of the writing process, as suggested
below.
Pre-writing is the first step where writers plan and generate ideas before writing. Good
writers should possess two senses: a sense of purpose and of audience. One way to
help raise students’ awareness of audience is to provide them with contextualizing
tasks, writing tasks that give contexts. Hedge (2000) suggests that teachers can assign
a role to each student before asking them to write to each other.
The second step where writers make the first attempt to write is writing and rewriting.
The outcome is a first draft. From the findings, the subjects learned how to use
communication strategies by observing their peers. Therefore, teachers should use
collaborative writing in class where students can observe how their friends plan and
make a draft and learn how their friends solve writing problems by using
communication strategies (Hedge, 1988).
The editing step is the final stage, where surface details like grammar, spelling and
punctuation are considered. Regarding the data, some of the subjects used some
communication strategies because they wanted to make their tasks more accurate.
Therefore, the concept of self-correction appearing in the editing step, in which
students are asked to assess and correct their own language use, should be taken into
consideration as it could help students become accurate in their own use of language
(Edge, 1989).
Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate communication strategies used for solving lexical
problems in writing. The reasons for employing these strategies are awareness of
language accuracy, fluency of writing and the audience’s comprehension. The factors
affecting the use of strategies are learners’ learning experience, learners’ behaviour and
the writing situation. The data also reveal the subjects’ process of writing, that is, they
were aware of audience and they evaluated whether their language use was correct. This
study therefore recommends that, in writing classes, teachers should train students how
53
to use communication strategies and to focus on the process of writing including the
technique of self-correction.
References
Bialystok, E. (1983) Some factors in the selection and implementation of
communication strategies. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
Blair-Kerr, H. (1993) Developing communication strategies. Practical English
Training 13 (1) 54.
Ericsson K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1987) Verbal reports on thinking. In Faerch, C. &
Kasper, G. (eds.) Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983) Plan and strategies in foreign language communication.
In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication.
London: Longman.
Edge, J. (1989) Mistakes and Correction. London: Longman.
Hedge, T. (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991) Language Teaching Methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York: Newbury House.
Tarone, E. (1977) Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress
report. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. S., (eds.), On TESOL ’77:
Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language. TESOL: Washington,
D.C.
Tarone, E. (1983) Some thoughts on the notion of ‘Communication Strategy’. In
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication.
London: Longman.
Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989) Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Napaporn Ngamwilaipong is a lecturer of English in KMUTT. Her academic interests
include communication strategies, strategy training, material development and
application of technology in the language classroom.
Pornapit Darasawang teaches both postgraduate and undergraduate courses at the
Department of Language Studies, KMUTT. Her interests are learner autonomy, selfdirected learning and self-access learning.
Assistant Professor Wilaksana Srimavin has worked in the Department of Language
Studies, School of Liberal Arts, KMUTT, for over twenty years, teaching both
postgraduate and undergraduate courses.
54
Using Diaries to Promote Reflection on Teaching
Jonathan Hull
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Abstract
This diary study reports on an experienced teacher’s reflections on his
teaching of two classes, one undergraduate and the other graduate, over half
a semester. The data were subjected both to content analysis and keyword
analysis, the latter to mitigate to some extent the effects of subjectivity.
Issues found for the undergraduate class include the role of task type in
motivating students to use English during group work, the amount of time
expended on the pre-teaching of vocabulary and, related, a tendency to
teacher-centredness; in contrast, in the graduate class, there was extensive
evidence of teacher digression from lesson plans.
Introduction
In recent years, it has virtually become a mantra to say that learning to teach is, or
should be, ‘a lifelong process’ (e.g. Arends 1989). This article investigates diary
writing, arguably one of many possible ways in which this highly laudable objective can
be approached. Specifically, this study attempts to show how, through writing a diary,
an experienced teacher (the writer) can maintain, or even enhance, an awareness of
some patterns of success and failure in the second-language (L2) classroom.
Having taught for more than thirty years, I was regularly receiving reasonably positive
feedback from my students, both at undergraduate and graduate levels, on the regular
midterm and end-of-term evaluations conducted by my university department.
However, Thai culture seeks harmony and avoidance of loss of face and there is a long
tradition of respecting teachers highly (e.g. O’Sullivan & Tajaroensuk 1997), so I felt
that my students’ feedback on my teaching was probably far too indulgent. In any case,
students’ evaluations are only one of many possible sources from which teachers can
receive feedback on their work in the classroom.
Inspiration to conduct this study was triggered by my experience of supervising teacher
trainees in a course (LNG 614: ‘Teaching Techniques in Practice’) in the MA in
Applied Linguistics at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT).
One of the requirements of this course is that trainees write journals reflecting on their
teaching practice. Reading their reflections, I noticed the rich reflective quality of the
trainees’ journal writing. It seemed to me that the trainees’ task of having to sit down
and write about the lessons they had just taught raised their awareness of their teaching,
and the trainees themselves reported that they felt likewise; that is, the reflective writing
seemed to allow issues that might otherwise have remained unnoticed to rise to the
conscious level (e.g. Bartlett 1990 and Watson Todd 1997). These issues could then be
discussed during supervision sessions attended by both trainees and supervisors (as
reported in Hull et al. 2004).
My next thought was that, if reflective writing could be so generative for trainee
teachers, it could surely be similarly developmental for more experienced teachers as
well as for teacher trainers. However, rather than revealing the probably fast-changing
patterns of an inexperienced teacher, it would be more likely to reveal the ingrained
55
patterns of an experienced one (a point supported in the literature cited below). Thus,
the purpose of this paper is to describe the process of conducting a diary study with a
view to encouraging other teachers, whatever their experience, to consider writing their
own teaching diary or journal.
Journals and diaries
The literature often uses the terms ‘journal’ and ‘diary’ in free variation, perhaps
because they each refer to introspective writing. Indeed, Richards et al. (1992: 106)
define a ‘diary study’ for research in first-language (L1) and L2 acquisition as “a
regularly kept journal”. However, despite the obvious overlap between the two terms,
they often refer to two distinct reflective writing processes.
Journals tend to be written in the knowledge that their contents are in the public domain
and that there are readers such as teacher trainers (e.g. Brinton et al. 1993) or colleagues
(e.g. Brock et al. 1992) whereas diaries are often written in the understanding that their
contents will only be made public with the writer’s permission (e.g. Bailey & Ochsner
1981). Sometimes, diarists edit their writing to remove confidential or sensitive
information before making it public, something that is routinely done when diaries are
used for research purposes. Thus, diary writing is likely to be particularly writer-centred
and unconstrained.
The title of this paper refers to the use of a diary rather than a journal because there
were no readers during the period I wrote about my classroom teaching and I modified
my writing, albeit very slightly (see procedures, below), before producing a public
version of part of it.
Reflective writing on language teaching
The literature abounds with positive reasons for teachers to utilize diary writing to
reflect on their teaching. Diary writers may, for instance, read and reread their diaries
from time to time in order to identify emerging issues and focus on these in their future
teaching and diary writing. Gebhard (1999) has pointed out that language teachers’
reflecting on their experience as language learners through introspective writing can
influence their beliefs and practices. This is echoed in Lortie’s (1975) idea of the
‘apprenticeship of observation’, by which he means that all of us, as students, observe
teachers and that this experience, if we become teachers, can influence our teaching.
Tait (2004) has written about how such writing can lead to reflection through four
continuing stages: identifying or reassessing an issue, considering options for future
action related to this issue, experimenting in the classroom with alternative approaches,
assessing the impact of the changes, and so on. In a similar vein, Gebhard (1999) says
that, however long their teaching experience, diarists can explore their teaching by
focusing on a particular issue, such as lesson planning, observing what happens when
implementing a plan, reflecting on plans that contain deliberate innovations or on the
consequences of ‘real-time’ decisions to deviate from plans. (Later, I’ll discuss the use
of ‘guide questions’ to create a focus on particular issues.) This cyclical process, as
Gebhard (1999: 79), citing others, has noted, can “function as a place to celebrate
discoveries, successes, and ‘golden moments’ (Fanselow 1987) as well as to ‘criticize,
doubt, express frustration, and raise questions’ (Bailey 1990: 218)”.
56
Reflecting on variation in the content of diary writing, Gebhard (1999: 86-87) has
observed that novice teachers “tend to limit their questions to those about teaching
techniques, ways to solve teaching problems, and survival concerns”. Such issues
include how to deal with learners’ errors, give clear instructions and provide feedback
on students’ writing. In contrast, experienced teachers “seem to raise questions that
transcend concern with ‘What can I do tomorrow in class?’ and ‘What is the best way to
teach?’”. Instead, they express concerns about student learning and teaching issues.
Such issues might be how to balance spontaneous communication with keeping control
through discipline, and the use of real-world language as opposed to artificial classroom
language (e.g. Freeman 1991).
In addition, as Numrich (1996: 148) observes, careful analysis of teachers’ diaries
“offers insights into some of the unobservable factors influencing their experience”, in
other words, factors that would not be apparent to an observer. Such factors can only
readily see the light of day through mentalistic data such as those available from
firsthand reflective writing or verbal reporting and include the processes that lead to
decisions to deviate from lesson plans or, for that matter, sticking to them rigidly.
Methodology
Background
This study reports on two of the four courses for which I kept a diary. One of these was
LNG 334: ‘English for Information Technology 4’, an undergraduate credit-bearing
language course for mature final-year students pursuing a degree in Information
Technology (IT). The students were aged 25-45 approximately (N=32), and their
English proficiency ranged from elementary to lower intermediate. They were all
employees of Telephone Operations Thailand (TOT) and had been earmarked for future
promotion within the company. The other course was ‘Language Improvement’, a noncredit-bearing language course for first-year graduate students of applied linguistics that
had three components: academic writing (N=5), speaking (N=4), pronunciation (N=1);
since the latter only had one student, resulting, atypically, in one-on-one teaching, I
have not reported on this component in this study. These students had been selected as
needing extra language work as their proficiency level (mid-intermediate to upperintermediate) was deemed insufficient for study at masters level.
Procedures
I wrote a diary entry as soon as possible after each lesson taught during the first half of
Semester 2 (seven weeks) in the academic year 2003-04. I managed to write all the
diary entries on the same day as I taught the class with the exception of one entry,
which was written the following day; I completely forgot to write entries for two classes
I taught during the data collection period. In total, there were fourteen diary entries for
the undergraduate class and twelve entries for the graduate class (covering both
academic writing and speaking components of the latter class); entries were of varying
lengths.
There is a substantial literature on information processing theory (e.g. Simon 1979) and
the human memory (e.g. Baddeley 1990) that points to the importance of recording
introspections concurrently with the target event or as soon as possible afterwards. This
procedure is actually quite a challenge logistically, and, inevitably, most entries were
written (word-processed) under considerable time pressure (e.g. in breaks between
classes).
57
In all entries, I sought to reflect as deeply as I could on how I felt the class had
progressed. However, I wrote with an open mind and did not seek to focus on any
particular aspect of my teaching; I did not, for instance, use any guide questions (see
discussion below). After the writing ended, I reread the entire diary to ensure that it was
suitable for the public domain, both in terms of avoiding breach of confidentiality and
ensuring that it would be comprehensible. This necessitated only very minor changes,
most of which involved minor linguistic points, such as clarifying pronoun references.
Data analysis
Having completed all the diary entries, following Pechsuttitanasan’s (2005) diary study,
I analyzed the data in two ways. First, for a content analysis, I read and reread the
entries several times with the aim of finding themes, patterns and significant events,
which were then grouped into broad categories. Subsequently, for a keyword-frequency
analysis, I used Simple Concordance Program (SCP), version 4.07, discounted all the
function words (prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) since they do not convey sufficient
meaning for the purposes of this study, and listed all content words that occurred twenty
or more times in each diary. Table 1 is shown below to help clarify this analysis (the
findings in the table are discussed in the results section below).
Table: Frequencies of content words
Frequency Word
212
student(s)
55
one
46
be
37
class
30
all
25
two
24
asked
21
writing
20
lab, what
Neither of these analyses is without problems: analyzing diary data for content is highly
subjective (see discussion and limitations below); in contrast, word-frequency analyses,
while less subjective, are mechanical and provide no context. Nonetheless, conducting
the frequency analysis provided a way of monitoring, at least to a small extent, the
subjectivity in the content analysis.
Results
This section begins by presenting and interpreting the findings from the content analysis
and ends with those of the word-frequency analysis.
Findings from the content analysis
Five broad categories or themes emerged from the content analysis of the data, all
exclusive to either the undergraduate or graduate class:
• Motivating students to use English during group work (undergraduate class)
• Dealing with unknown vocabulary (undergraduate class)
• Teacher-centredness (undergraduate class)
• Interpreting lesson plans flexibly (graduate class)
• Coping with inadequate technology (undergraduate class)
58
Each of these categories will now be illustrated with diary extracts and interpreted. It is
important to note that these extracts represent themes running through the data, not oneoff observations, though, as will be shown, some of the themes seemed to be of shortterm concern, covering two or three weeks rather than the whole of the data-gathering
period. In addition, the extracts may contain themes other than the one being illustrated,
partly because, as will become apparent, some of the themes are intertwined.
Nevertheless, ellipses are used in some of the extracts for the purpose of focusing
clearly on a particular theme. Furthermore, the data presentation is predominantly
descriptive; however, while there is no attempt at a formal comparison of the data from
the two classes, obvious points of convergence and divergence are noted.
Motivating students to use English during group work
This is a perennial issue in classes where all the learners share the same L1, probably
more so in contexts where English is a foreign language (EFL) than where it is a second
language (ESL). Moreover, even within EFL contexts, it is likely to be more of an issue
in essentially monolingual societies (such as Thailand) than in those where more than
one language is widely used and code-switching is a norm for many people (e.g.
Switzerland). The extract below illustrates the problem with the undergraduate class.
“…Even … with a class of 32 students, all of whom know each other well
and all of whom are Thai speakers, it’s hard to have all students speak
English for the duration of … group work. In a way, all such oral tasks for
this lower intermediate level in an EFL setting contain … artificiality … In
speaking to each other in L2 rather than in L1, the students are, in effect,
playing a role.” (Extract 1, third of fourteen entries, LNG 334)
Thus, while this finding is clearly no great revelation, it did serve to focus my attention
on something I had long tolerated uncritically in my lower-proficiency classes. Clearly,
there is no easy solution as teachers cannot expect such students to move to an ESL
environment even for a short duration. In addition, teachers should be sensitive to local
culture. Essential to Thai culture are ‘face’, ‘sabai’ (feeling comfortable) and ‘sanook’
(fun) (e.g. Adamson 2003); thus, an overly strict policy of ‘English only’ for students at
this relatively low level might backfire in terms of quality of classroom atmosphere.
Thus, instead of attempting to apply greater discipline, I decided to consider the kinds
of speaking tasks I was giving these students. The task that precipitated the above diary
entry required the students to exchange information with each other about what they did
during the preceding semester break. This kind of task has been popular in recent years
because it is deemed ‘communicative’ and involves personalization and information
gap; students have a chance to talk about their own lives. However, in a context such as
this, where the students had all known each other for several years both as colleagues at
work and as university students, it seems certain that exchanging such information
would more naturally be done in L1.
I therefore decided to devise tasks that I hoped would foster a sense among these
students that the use of English was necessary to accomplish the task. For instance, I
used role play activities in which one student in each pair had to play the role of a nonnative speaker (NNS) (see appendix). Although some students still spoke Thai some of
the time during such role plays, it seemed that, when they played the role of the NNS,
they had fun (‘sanook’) pretending to their partner that they could not speak Thai. In the
59
appended role play activity, the students also developed the idea of hospitality,
something for which Thailand is well known, by asking lots of their own questions
about how the NNS was settling into a new life in Thailand.
Thus, the conventional wisdom that personalization is an important ingredient in
designing L2 speaking tasks did not seem to pertain to these students; rather, because
they would naturally use L1 Thai to talk to each other about their own lives, playing a
role, albeit an artificial one, where L2 English would be needed seemed to encourage its
use.
Dealing with unknown vocabulary
Unlike the problem of sustaining learners’ use of English during group work, the issue
of teaching unknown vocabulary came as a big surprise to me. I had not realized the
excessive amount of time I was regularly devoting to explaining unknown vocabulary
items to these undergraduate students, as illustrated in this extract.
“The materials contain a lot of vocabulary that is hard for the majority of
these students and it always seems to take ages checking that everyone has
understood. The TA [teaching assistant] often translates, but I need to be
sure he understands the difficult vocabulary items, too! Also, students ask
questions about vocabulary items. This is partly as they are motivated and
partly, perhaps, as they have a rather bottom-up approach to the
materials.” (Extract 2, seventh of fourteen entries, LNG 334)
This is clearly an issue where teachers who are native speakers of Thai would be able
judiciously to use translation and where foreign teachers working long-term in Thailand
would benefit professionally from learning some Thai so that they could use the same
technique. A quicker, but logistically awkward, solution might be for non-Thaispeaking teachers to add a stage to their lesson preparation by identifying all the
difficult vocabulary items that are deemed necessary for students to complete tasks and
then ask a Thai colleague to provide translations, perhaps on an overhead transparency
in Thai script.
Again, however, I found myself looking at the materials I was using, ones that had been
prepared by the department specifically for this course, and wondering if, even with
translations, they contained a vocabulary overload. Nevertheless, when courses are
taught concurrently in several parallel classes and the students have the same midterm
and final exams, there does not seem to be a quick or easy way to change the materials.
In this case, however, there appeared to be a rare opportunity for flexibility. Although
the course is the last of four courses taught to all undergraduates studying IT, as noted
above, this particular class comprised a closed group of mature students. It was
therefore possible, with departmental assent, to consider varying the materials used for
this different and distinct group.
Although no changes were made during the year in which the data for this study were
collected, the following year, when no Thai-speaking TA was available, the materials
were reviewed not only for vocabulary load but for suitability of content. About half of
the materials had content that was more suitable for younger undergraduates, who
would typically be seeking to enter the job market upon graduation, than for these
mature students, who had long had secure jobs with TOT. Thus, materials with
60
unsuitable content (e.g. writing job application letters) were replaced with tasks that
contained a somewhat lighter vocabulary load and exams were reworked to reflect these
changes.
Nonetheless, it seemed that the issue of dealing with unknown vocabulary could be
addressed from at least two additional perspectives, not least as these students had to
study IT in English-language textbooks and read academic articles on the subject, both
of which contained a heavy vocabulary load. First, in order to help these students
become more autonomous as readers, it seemed that it might be beneficial to focus on
strategies for decoding vocabulary in context. In addition and related, I tried to raise the
students’ awareness of strategies like tolerating ambiguity and ignoring unimportant
words, though this was not immediately successful and requires further review. Often,
these undergraduate students seemed to lack the confidence or willingness to take the
risk of accepting only partial comprehension and, in any case, may not always have
been sure if an unknown word was a keyword or could safely be ignored.
Teacher-centredness
The following extracts illustrate instances of the use of the terms ‘teacher-centred’ or
‘teacher-centredness’, and they occur for the undergraduate class in the seventh, eighth,
ninth and twelfth entries. This seems to indicate that it was a continuing concern during
part of the semester (Weeks 4-6).
“… it got a bit stuck in a teacher-centred mode, presenting difficult
vocabulary. The materials contain a lot of vocabulary that is hard for the
majority of these students and it always seems to take ages checking that
everyone has understood …” (Extract 3, seventh entry of fourteen, LNG
334)
“The first hour went well enough if you like teacher-centredness. But it took
this amount of time just to go through the materials students were to
confront in the listening lab in the second hour. So, is the material too
hard?” (Extract 4, eighth entry of fourteen, LNG 334)
“The second hour was standard fare from the prescribed materials. Again,
it was more teacher-centred than I would like … vocabulary …” (Extract 5,
ninth entry of fourteen, LNG 334)
These extracts (along with further instances not included here due to space constraints)
indicate that there was a link between perceived excessive teacher-centredness and the
previous issue, discussed above, teaching vocabulary. However, underlying both these
issues was the teacher’s need to check on students’ learning (see extract 3 above).
Clearly, this is an important part of a teacher’s job, particularly if the teacher wants
higher proficiency students to translate words for lower proficiency students, a
potentially time-saving technique. Likewise, extract 4 shows that the language level of
the prescribed listening materials may have been too high for these students and/or the
associated tasks may have been too bottom-up. Extract 5 provides further evidence of
teacher-centredness associated with teaching vocabulary at this stage in the semester.
61
Interpreting lesson plans flexibly
As teachers gain experience, one of the things many of them can do with increasing
confidence is to deviate from their lesson plans. However, while it is widely recognized
that flexible interpretation of lessons plans can be highly beneficial to lesson outcomes
(e.g. Richards & Lockhart 1994), it is possible for teachers to develop the habit of
veering off lesson plans with excessive frequency. This is something that, if
unmonitored, could result in lesson objectives (or, worse, course objectives) remaining
unfulfilled. Here is an extract, taken from the speaking component of the graduate class,
on the issue of adherence to lesson plans involving the use of published materials.
“This was a very simple text about a Korean student who strongly objected
to having to learn English [Day & Yamanaka 1997]. I planned to have the
students speculate briefly on differences in attitudes to English among East
Asian nations. The discussion took off, sometimes tangentially, so I didn’t
distribute the text for nearly an hour. Given that this course is supposed to
develop students’ confidence in speaking, allowing them to talk happily
seems to be a reasonable aim. Having distributed the text, the students
didn’t have much to add about the topic.” (Extract 6, fourth of twelve
entries for Language Improvement, speaking component)
Here, the diary entry seems to serve as a reminder that, while lesson plans are an
essential part of teaching, teachers can still decide in ‘real time’ to move away from the
plan if this seems like a good idea. By deviating from my plan, the students had a rare
opportunity in this EFL context of uninterrupted time to talk creatively, thus fulfilling
one of the main objectives of the course. In this case, while I brought published
materials to class with the intention of utilizing them to initiate a discussion, in the
event, they served as a brief post-discussion supplement.
Another case of flexible interpretation of my lesson plan occurred in the academic
writing component of the graduate class. My plan was that the students should work in
pairs, read and give feedback on their partners’ latest drafts of a literature review. In the
event, for a variety of unanticipated reasons, none of the students had brought a new
draft to class. I was therefore constrained radically to change my plan, adjusting to the
varying points that individual students had reached in the assignment. This change of
plan involved the following: allowing two students to print out their drafts in class time
and then give each other feedback in pairs; allowing two students to work on their new
drafts; and discussing resources with one student.
Such spontaneous and fundamental deviation from lesson plans may well be easier in
small classes and at higher proficiency levels. Indeed, while reiterating the need for
cautious interpretation of data using content analysis, the data seem to show that
deviations for my lesson plans were more substantial and, arguably, more successful in
the graduate class than in the undergraduate class. As already suggested above in
relation to dealing with unknown vocabulary and teacher-centredness, deviation from
my lesson plans for the undergraduate class often merely amounted to extensions to
planned phases, leading to such unintended outcomes as protracted teacher talking time
(TTT) devoted to teaching vocabulary and, consequently, reduced time for student
talking time (STT).
62
Coping with inadequate technology
The final theme identified from the content analysis of the diary data figured
prominently in the undergraduate class; this concerned difficulties utilizing an outdated
and poorly functioning listening laboratory, as shown in this extract.
“Oh dear, this was one of the worst lessons I’ve ‘taught’ for ages! …First, I
assumed that the students would know that they were supposed to insert the
blank cassettes I gave them into their tape machines before I played the
tape. I should have been explicit about this. Second, I expected the tape I
played to be recorded onto the Ss’ cassettes; it didn’t. Apparently, for this to
happen, Ss have to press their ‘record’ buttons. Third, when all this was
sorted out (with the help of Ss, the TA … the technician), I pressed ‘play’,
but nothing happened; it turned out that the tape had been mangled. I gave
the Ss a ten-minute break in the middle of this technological kerfuffle and
then went through a couple of the listening exercises that did not need the
tape. But what a pathetic mess!” (Extract 7, third entry of fourteen, LNG
334)
There were two obvious problems. First, I was insufficiently trained in how to use the
laboratory. This is something where I could have sought assistance beyond a brief
introduction from a technician. Second, there were so many booths that had
malfunctioning cassette decks that I was constrained to operate the equipment centrally.
This had the knock-on effect of precluding a key reason for using the lab: students’
independent use of their own cassettes, allowing them to work at their own pace. For
technology to be used to its full potential in the classroom, not only must teachers be
able to master its use but it should be well maintained so that every student in the class
can make full use of it. While one of two weekly two-hour classes was timetabled to
take place in the listening lab (i.e. 50% of total class time), the following year, I ensured
the availability of a normal classroom, where I reverted to using a traditional cassette
recorder for listening practice. (In any case, the listening laboratory was dismantled and
replaced by traditional classrooms some time after this study was conducted.)
Additional themes and issues
An additional issue that figured in the content analysis was that, for the graduate class, I
frequently referred to handouts, which made me wonder if I had somehow adopted the
assumption that I should take at least one handout to each class. Frequent use of
handouts can be labour-intensive for teachers and may, in some cases, tend towards
deductive rather than inductive learning. As a consequence of reading my diary entries
during the data-gathering period, I reviewed the purpose and function of my handouts
for this course. Given that its main objective was advanced-level language
improvement, I subsequently deliberately sought students’ input during lessons more
often. The following extract illustrates how I did this while adding notes to my lesson
plan in case students were unable to supply the necessary input for a task that lay the
foundations for job interviews.
“I broke with a habit here. Instead of writing a tasksheet for the students, I
merely listed in my lesson plan a series of issues I thought students would
need to consider in order to [prepare their] job interviews.” (Extract 8,
seventh of twelve entries for Language Improvement, speaking component)
63
Another minor issue from the content analysis in the data was giving instructions. On
some occasions, it was clear that I had not anticipated how best to give instructions for
particular pair or group activities, necessitating the interruption of students once they
had started working on them in order to clarify the instructions. One way to focus on
giving clear instructions is to put them on an OHT.
Findings from the word-frequency analysis
As mentioned earlier, the content analysis was supplemented by a word-frequency
analysis. The table (see data analysis above) shows the content words that occurred
twenty or more times in the diaries of the two classes being studied. As in
(Pechsuttitanasan’s (2005) study, the words in the frequency list appear to reveal very
little beyond the findings already presented. Since the objective of the diaries that
yielded the data for this study was to reflect on my classroom teaching, it is not
particularly surprising that by far the most frequent word was ‘student(s)’. The
frequency of ‘writing’ (21 occurrences) can, in part, be explained by the inclusion of the
subtitles of the Language Improvement graduate classes (‘writing component’ and
‘speaking component’), which appeared at the beginning of each entry and thus were
included in the analysis. The word ‘lab’ (20 occurrences) often collocated with
‘listening’ (which occurred 17 times) to form the term ‘listening lab’, which is
discussed above under the category ‘Coping with inadequate technology’.
Discussion
A central point that seems to come from this study is that, leaving aside the issue of
whether it contains a direct message for others, it certainly raised my own awareness, as
the diarist, of issues that I was already conscious of as well as those of which I was not
conscious.
A clear example of the former is the issue of motivating students, particularly at
relatively low proficiencies, to use English during pair or group work; however, before
writing the diary, I had quite simply become inured to it over the years. What the
process of writing and then reading the diary did was to galvanize me into trying to do
something about it. Although the solution I came up with, having students role-play
non-speakers of Thai, appeared to work well, additional ideas are clearly needed for
courses that run for several weeks or entire semesters.
Instances of the latter (raising awareness of issues I was not conscious of) included the
excessive time routinely devoted in the teacher-centred mode to teaching vocabulary
and the consequent inadequate time devoted to student-student interaction. Another
example was my assumption, perhaps because it is a widespread belief among teachers,
that personalization tasks are meaningful to students and, thus, tend to motivate them to
speak. In the case of my undergraduate class, such tasks merely seemed to motivate
them to speak in their L1.
Such awareness-raising of ingrained patterns seems particularly likely to be tracked in
an ongoing diary. Alternatives such as having colleagues observe one-off classes are
clearly useful in identifying issues that occur in one particular class or those that have
been anticipated prior to the observation; however, it is unrealistic to expect a colleague
to observe a series of classes.
64
While it is hard to sustain continuous diary-writing, one possibility is to have a break
and then begin a follow-up study, perhaps using ‘guide questions’ (e.g. Richards &
Lockhart 1994: 16-17) focusing on issues that surfaced in the original diary. From the
data yielded in this study, such guide questions for me could be:
• Did my students use English consistently during pair and group work? If not, how
could I motivate them to do so?
• How much time did I spend teaching vocabulary? How could I teach it more
efficiently?
• How much teacher talking time was there? How much student talking time? Do I
need to change the balance?
• Were any handouts really necessary? Could the students have generated the
necessary information themselves?
• Was I able to use any technology included in my plan? Was it in good working
order?
• Were all my instructions clear? If not, how could I improve them?
Limitations
The main point to make here is that, like most diary studies, this one suffers from triple
subjectivity; in other words, the researcher not only wrote the diary but then went on to
analyze and interpret the data (particularly a problem with the content analysis).
Schumann (1980) and Matsumoto (1987), among others, have pointed out that, if
multiple diarists are used and their diary data are quantified in some way, the results
may be more generalizable to other teachers than if just one self-observational study is
done. Although this study sought to mitigate the high level of subjectivity by
conducting a keyword analysis using a corpus, as recommended by Watson Todd
(personal communication, 2006), it would be preferable to utilize more than one rater to
analyze and interpret word frequencies of key content words.
Conclusion
While acknowledging the subjective element in diary studies and the possibility that
their findings may directly benefit only the diarist, teachers undergoing the same
process are likely to benefit as I believe I did. I found the process of keeping a diary
developed its own momentum as I developed a routine where I wanted to find time to
write about my impressions of how my classes had gone. It was often actually an
enjoyable process. I began to feel less frustrated and less helpless about negative
patterns in my teaching as I started to focus on ways to address these issues. This
process seems to have the potential to enhance lifelong learning for all teachers, whether
they are experienced or inexperienced. As Porter et al. (1990: 240) conclude in their
journal writing study, reflective writing allows teachers “to work to integrate new ideas
with what [they] already know”.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my thanks to He Murray for conducting the keyword frequency
analysis.
References
Adamson, J. (2003) Challenging beliefs in teacher development: potential influences of
Theravada Buddhism upon Thais learning English. Asian EFLJournal.
Available online at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_03_sub2_JA.html.
Arends, R. (1989) Learning to Teach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
65
Baddeley, A. (1990) Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bailey, K. (1990) The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. Richards,
& D. Nunan (eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, pp. 215-226. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. & Ochsner, R. (1981) A methodological review of the diary studies:
Windmill tilting or social science? In K. Bailey, M. Long & S. Peck (eds.),
Second Language Acquisition Studies, pp. 188-198. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Bartlett, L. (1990) Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. Richards &
D. Nunan (eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, pp. 202-214. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. M., Holten, C. A. & Goodwin, J. M. (1993) Responding to dialogue
journals in teacher preparation: What’s effective? TESOL Journal 2 (4) 1519.
Brock, M. N., Yu, B. & Wong, M. (1992) ‘Journaling’ together: Collaborative diarykeeping and teacher development. In J. Flowerdew, M. N. Brock & S. Hsia
(eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Education, pp. 295-307.
Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Day, R. & Yamanaka, J. (1997) Impact Issues. London: Longman.
Fanselow, J. F. (1987) Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in
Language Teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Freeman, D (1991) ‘To make the tacit explicit’: Teacher education, emerging discourse,
and conceptions of teaching. In D. Li, D. Mahoney & J. Richards (eds.),
Exploring Second Language Teacher Development, pp. 1-20. Hong Kong: City
Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Gebhard, J. (1999) Reflecting through a teaching journal. In J. Gebhard & R. Oprandy
(eds.), Language Teaching Awareness: A Guide to Exploring Beliefs and
Practices, pp. 78-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hull, J., Oonkaew, S. & Pakpoom, T. (2004). Using journals in teacher training.
Reflections 6: 28-39.
Lortie, D. C. (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Matsumoto, K. (1987) Diary studies of second language acquisition: A critical
overview. JALT Journal 9: 17-34.
Numrich, C. (1996) On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies.
TESOL Quarterly 30 (1) 131-152.
O’Sullivan, K. & Tajaroensuk, S. (1997) Thailand: A Handbook in Intercultural
Communication. Macquarie University: National Centre for English Language
Teaching and Research.
Pechsuttitanasan, N. (2005) Affective factors in foreign language learning.
Unpublished masters thesis, King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi.
Porter, P., Goldstein, L., Leatherman, J. & Conrad, S. (1990) An ongoing dialogue:
Learning logs for teacher preparation. In J. Richards & D. Nunan (eds.), Second
Language Teacher Education, pp. 227-240. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992) Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied
Linguistics. Harlow: Longman/Pearson.
66
Schumann, F. (1980) Diary of a language learner: A further analysis. In Scarcella, R. &
Krashen, S. (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers
of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, pp. 51-57. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Simon, H. (1979) Models of Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tait, S. (2004) Exploring teaching through journal writing. ThaiTESOL Focus 17 (1)
31-34.
Watson Todd, R. (1997) Classroom Teaching Strategies. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall.
Appendix: Sample activity to encourage the use of English during pair work
This activity relates to diary extract 1.
Role play between two employees at TOT (Telephone Operations Thailand)
a) Imagine you have a new colleague in your office at TOT. He/She comes from
another country. He/She speaks English and Chinese but doesn’t speak Thai. You want
to make him/her feel comfortable so you talk to him/her.
• What topics can you discuss with your new colleague?
• Think of some questions you can ask him.
b) Work with a partner and practice both roles. Use English, not Thai (or Chinese!) and
keep each conversation going for five minutes. (When you have played both roles, find
another partner and do the role play again.)
Jonathan Hull is a teacher and teacher trainer at King Mongkut’s University of
Technology Thonburi. His professional interests include course and material design as
well as the four skills in second language learning.
67
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION
(One issue per year)
Inside Thailand:
Outside Thailand:
50 baht
US$10 (including postage and registration)
Please send me one issue of rEFLections annually, beginning with
Volume No………………Year…………..
Name & title:………………………………………………………………………
Position:…………………………………………………………………………....
Institute:…………………………………………………………………………...
Mailing address:…………….…………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………..
Payment enclosed (please tick):
Bank cheque……….
Money order……….
Postal order……….
Please make cheques/orders payable to:
Khun Wacharin Sukvirat
Mail this subscription form and your payment to:
The Editors, rEFLections,
Department of Language Studies
KMUTT
Bangmod
Tung Khru
Bangkok 10140
Thailand
68