Ehsan Ataei MP101459 Feb, 2011

Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative approach

Evdokia Karavas-Doukas

INTRODUCTION

This research paper looks at teachers’ attitudes toward communication language teaching

approach.

Teachers’ attitude and behavior has the main role to implement any approach.

Article introduction discussed over teachers that they are following traditional approach in

practice but they admitted communicative approach. Based on so many studies communicative

classrooms are rarely found.

Then, research comes to communicative approach and teachers' attitudes discrepancies

In order to apply a new approach as (Kennedy 1988:329) it is not enough for people to act

differently, which is a surface phenomenon, they may also be required to change the way they

think about certain issues, which is a deeper and more complex change.

It is very hard for teachers to be innovative without any misunderstanding about any approach so

according to Breen (1991) in-service teacher development is very important and can solve this

problem. Sometimes it might happen unconsciously due to teachers’ education or

misinterpretations.

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The background to the study based on studies as Karavas (1993) commented focused on the

degree of

implementation of a communicative learner-centered approach in Greek public secondary school

EFL classrooms. The investigation of Greek English language teachers' attitudes towards the

communicative approach would help identify the teachers’ readiness to accept and implement

this new approach in their classrooms. Observing classes would reveal classrooms practices,

nature of activities and teachers roles

The researcher decided to choose Likert -type scale because it is easy, relevant and there is no

need for judgment.

The statements in this method covered the main aspects of the communicative learner centered

Approach such as group work, error correction, grammar students’ needs, and the teachers` and

learners ‘role

FINDINGS

Teachers hold favorable attitudes toward the communication approach based on scores But in

their observations they diverged from the principles of communicative approach and followed an

eclectic approach. According to in-depth analysis those teachers were weak in CLT

understanding and got average score.

It became clear in interviews that they did not understand and they could not apply any practical

implications of CLT principles.

Smart selection in questions minimize the problems occur in likert type scale evaluation and

scores.

In general, misinterpreting and misunderstanding about CLT approach made teachers to act

different or opposite of the approach principles.

Regarding to Lamp (1995:79) the focus of teacher training courses should be the teacher beliefs:

'These need first to be articulated, and then analyzed for potential contradictions with each other,

the teaching circumstances, and the beliefs of the learners.' Attitude scales can play a significant

role in revealing teacher beliefs Teachers should perfectly train at the time of facing new

approach.

And attitude evaluation can be a good guide to uncover teachers’ ideas.

ARTICLE’S POSITION

There are some many papers about learning and teaching strategies, so many critics or

articles about different approaches all of them forget to zoom on the main target which is teachers

and learners and their ideas. This article looks at teachers and learners at the center of research. In

recent years the importance of teacher cognitions has been increasingly recognized (Borg, 2003;

Freeman, 2002).

There are some studies about teachers’ beliefs and implementation of CLT in Vietnam,

Australia, Oman, Armenia, South Korea, china and Iran. As Pham Hoa Hiep (2005) found, although

the theory of communicative competence on which CLT is based is uniform, it is broad. As a result,

what CLT looks like in classroom practices may not be uniform.

On one hand, it is a good point in CLT to have a wide range of activities and teachers have

limited restrictions but on the other hand it made teachers go beyond CLT or made them confuse.

This broad theory has generated many different ways of understandings, descriptions, and uses of

CLT, challenging what it actually means to classroom teachers (Pham Hoa Hiep, 2005)

Freeman and Richards (1993) mentioned ‘tensions’ between stated intentions and Actions because of

‘divergences’ between different elements in a teacher’s understanding.

Several surveys have revealed that teachers’ claims to be using communicative approaches

had not any support by their practices (Kumaravadivelu, 1993; Nunan, 1987). Mangubhai et al.

(2005) recommend that teachers might have two conceptualizations: a theoretical one based on study,

and a practical one based on classroom experience. In contrast of these studies there are some other

surveys as Savignon (2005) says Communicative syllabus in curricular reform in Japan shows that

CLT is successful or there is no other alternative.

As Nunan (1987) says while a great deal has been written on the theory and practice of

CLT, there have been comparatively few studies of actual Communicative language practice.

Some studies in EFL countries prove this fact so we need more investigations on CLT

practicality (especially in EFL countries) also on teachers’ attitude toward CLT.

Jack C Richard (2006) categorized CLT in traditional CLT(before 1970s) Classic CLT(1970s-1990s) and CLT today so it might happen for teachers due to the history of changes in CLT to apply it based on past principles. After 1990s (classic CLT ) so many changes happened in CLT and it needs to make some changes in implementation as jack C Richard (2006)says In applying CLT principles in the classroom, new classroom techniques and activities were needed, new roles for teachers and learners in the classroom were required. Teachers should be up dated to find the real CLT.

Almarza (1996) found that institutional pressures can cause teachers to use practices that differ from cognitions. Institutional pressures include matters as diverse as examinations, the socialization of students, and accountability demands (Crookes, 1997).

Breen et al. (2001) noticed that different teachers make different associations between principles and practices. Differences may be developmental as well: new knowledge can offer new terminology and new understandings of cognitions and practices (Freeman, 1991).

These are related to teaching situations, and it has been recognized that Western methods

(such as CLT) may not readily transfer to non-Western state school settings (Holliday, 1994b). Shamim (1996) And Canagarajah (1999) discuss how differing student expectations can impact teacher and Classroom practices.so we have a wide range of factors based on these studies that affect teachers CLT implementation and I could not find any comprehensive research for my critical review.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY – critically discuss the methodological framework adopted. Are they appropriate? What are the strengths and limitations? What other available options?

in all researches, Teachers attitudes evaluation can be done by interviews, Kelly`s grid

technique, recall method and questionnaires (open and closed ended) and also in-depth

interviews. Using in-depth interview in this article is very good because there are some problems

and limitations in teachers attitudes evaluations that resolved by it. Also observations are the best

ways but the number of observation should be more that one time to have a better and an

accurate results. In general, two major useful methods in teachers attitudes evaluation are semi-

structured, in-depth interviews; and stimulated recall interviews involving the use of videotapes

of lessons taught by the teacher to prompt teacher recall of aspects of her practical theories.

(Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Elbaz, 1983).

About factors which affect teachers attitudes researches could use a wide range of

elements but just teachers role teachers error correction and class activities and learners role and

grammar were questioned. According to Pham Hoa Hiep (2005) factors range from systemic

constraints such as traditional examinations, large class sizes, to cultural constraints

characterized by beliefs Students’ responsibility, teaching Time is also important. About teacher

and student role, and classroom relationships, to personal constraints such as students’ low

motivation and unequal ability to take part in independent active learning practices, and even to

teachers’ limited expertise in creating communicative activities like group work. So I think the

range of questions was limited and not comprehensive.

The difficulties reported by the Korean teachers fall into four categories: those caused (a)

by the teacher, (b) by the students, (c) by the educational system, and (d) by CLT itself. Among

them, difficulties falling into the first category were mentioned most often, almost twice or three

times as much as those in the other three categories DEFENG LI (1998) It would be better for

researcher to give a framework and mentioned important CLT factors and based on that start the

evaluation because CLT concepts are divers.

According to Ellis (1 994), teaching in a foreign language setting gives rise to

conflicts. Clashes of expectations and clashes of assumptions about the acceptable

behavior of individuals from two different cultures are examples of the difficulties in the

way of integrating one teaching methodology into another.

Ellis (1 994) investigated the appropriateness of the communicative approach in

Vietnam. It was found that one of the basic problems in implementing a communicative

approach in Vietnam was the teachers' holding on to the deep-rooted tradition. This

problem, according to Ellis, was compounded by two traditional practices: the cultural

reluctance of the Vietnamese to challenge written words, and the focus on grammar translation

in the examination system.

FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS – an evaluative critique of the findings and implications in terms of its contributions, whether it is worth publishing and aspects it fails to address.

It seems that this article is one of the rare articles discussed over teachers attitude and

after that the number of articles with similar subject decrease so it proves using attitude scales in

approach practicality is necessary. But finding teachers attitude with different backgrounds is

very hard so although there are some discrepancies between teacher’s attitude and teacher’s

implementation

But this article did not mentioned about the reasons.

Evaluating attitudes is very hard and it needs some verification to have the reliability In

Evdokia`s article split half method used to do so which is a positive point. About teachers

attitude toward CLT there are so many factors as in Kumaravadivelu’s work (2001) attempts a

shift in viewpoint by identifying limitations associated with CLT methodology and arguing for a

focus on particularity, practicality and possibility within a post method paradigm. However, the

proposed post method condition, despite its significant contribution to the study of methodology,

has also been seen as adapting but ultimately maintaining the dominant paradigm.

I suppose in CLT implementation there are some other factors like CLT practicality

We come to this question that is CLT suitable for all countries and is it a kind of practical theory

for all learners (native and ESL and EFL learners) this is another subject can be probe later.

Likert scale type can find the discrepancy and it is not suitable to find the reasons and real

feelings of teachers. Also I think it is better to evaluate teachers’ learners’ attitude toward CLT

and CLT practicality to have a general conclusion and find the solutions.

Brown(1994) notes that CLT is based on a broad theoretical position about the nature of

language and of language learning and teaching. Teachers deal with this position in theory and

try to apply it in practice on the other side students and their participation in applying CLT is

very important so low participation among students , misunderstanding in CLT theories among

teachers cause So-called communication language teaching .

COMPARATIVE STUDY - replicate the study and compare your findings with Doukas’s. Indicate the details of your respondents in the reference section. Get at least FIVE respondents for your survey Observe one class

The score for 5 respondents are: T1=78 T2= 86 T3=92 T=70 T5=69

It seems that most of the teachers know about CLT but they cannot put it in practice

They used to teach elective or they prefer to adapt their methods with their students’ needs so

expecting them to do the real CLT is not based on reality.

Based on my own experience in my classes students are not used to do group or pair works due

to following factors

1. They do not know what should they do ( it is better to show them a movie with similar

group work or role play )

2. They know what should they do but they use first language some of them write their

conversations and memorize it

3. They do not want to communicate in English even they want to do the job or task or role

play maybe because they are not in a real situation and they cannot imagine themselves

to be in an imaginary position

4. Role-plays should be relevant to the point in harmony with students level and background

and attractive enough to be used by learners

5. I have created English workshop in and English institute I changed the position of role

paly and group work from the class to another place (we had built some places like

restaurant hotel travel agency shop etc. similar to real places with authentic materials. so

students feel relaxed and talk better faster with self-confidence they were not in the class

and they were not learning English so that was very successful. Also about evaluation it

had 10 extra marks so students were not worried about losing any mark.

Also base on my observation in MCI (English institute in Iran which use CLT method in

teaching English) teachers are forced to match themselves with CLT methods

Most of the teachers have studied English in GTM and ALM so they cannot reject or deny their

history so unconsciously they use other methods rather than CLT they are not updated or they do

not observe any real authentic CLT class so they make their own ideal class by their ideas and

experiences. Borg (1998) believes that teachers’ pedagogic system is shaped by their educational

and professional experience in their life.

When we discussed over learners and their cultures and first language it is difficult to

apply a specific method in different places so giving a comprehensive definition for CLT

approach and applying it in different regions is difficult. Based on history of CLT this approach

was in progress and not limited or restricted. Local teachers that has no contact with the real

English world or CLT teachers that they are just imitators or had studied in GTM or ALM

environment can not apply it very well

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

– discuss the ways in which this particular line of study or analysis should be developed in future.

As I mentioned before there should be more researches on CLT practicality in EFL countries

EFL countries should establish their own contingent of language researchers in order to develop

English teaching theories more suitable for their EFL contexts. Change agents must study

teachers' perceptions of an innovation to ensure its success DEFENG LI (1998)

Despite the widespread adoption of communicative language teaching (CLT) in ESL countries,

research suggests that curricular innovations prompted by the adoption of CLT in EFL countries

have generally been difficult According to Larsen-Freeman (1986) Communicative activities and

authentic materials are two important basis of CLT so working on CLT is very important to fill

the gap between theory and practice

The other subject can be learners and teachers attitudes and also some practical methods and

techniques .Also the role of TTC classes ( teacher training courses ) In changing or applying a

new approach can be another subject.

Ellis (1996) questioned the universal relevance of communicative approach to

language teaching in view of the cultural conflicts of different educational theories

he asserted that to make communicative approach suitable for Asian situation "it needs to be both

culturally attuned and culturally accepted so cultural aspects of any approach implication are also

important. In order to have a universal approach we need to think universally and get feed backs

from different parts of the world.

Having a probe on categorized attitudes can be useful as Sato & Kleinsasser (1999) says

teachers’ understandings and beliefs about some key characteristics of CLT differed from those

appearing in the literature on CLT. teachers’ conceptions of CLT were of four types: (a) CLT is

about learning to communicate in the second language; (b) CLT uses mainly speaking and

listening; (c) CLT involves little grammar instruction; and (d) CLT uses activities that are time

consuming. Most of studies seem to be small-scale and have been scattered across a number of

different contexts.so it is not possible to have a general conclusion and further studies is

necessary.

According to savingnon(2002) there are five components of a communicative curriculum

1. Language arts (related to teachers)

2. Language for a purpose (related to materials)

3. Personal English language use

4. Theatre arts 5 Beyond the classroom ( related to learners)

So in applying CLT teachers are as important as students both sides should have a good

understanding about CLT and teaching skills and study skills should work together. In some

cases pair and group work are difficult to use because of students Pham Hoa Hiep(2005) so

students are also involved in this subject.

I have studied so many articles in accordance with the article from science direct and ELT journal to EFL journal so I prefer to discuss about this subject rather than writing a critical review This is my first experience in writing a critical review so maybe so many points did not mention in this paper.

Dealing with misconceptions about CLT is also important and needs more analysisthe four misconceptions about CLT reported by Thompson (1 996): CLT means not teaching grammar; CLT means teaching only speaking; CLT means pair work which means role play; and CLT means expecting too much from the teacher. More over CLT is not an EFL methodology CLT requires a proficient teacher and it is time consuming are also more misconceptions which should be clear for teachers and learners.

REFERENCES

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching: Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall Regents.

Pham Hoa Hiep (2005) Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity: eltj. oxford

Journals

Bahram Mowlaie, Ali Rahimi (2010). The effect of teachers’ attitude about communicative

Language teaching on their practice: Do they practice what they preach? : Procedia

Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 1524–1528

Savignon, S. J.(2002). Communicative curriculum design for the 21st century’. English

Teaching Forum 40: 2–7.

Kramsch C. and P. Sullivan. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy: ELT Journal 50/3: 199–212.

Li Defeng (1998). It's Always More Difficult Than You Plan and Imagine:

Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South

Korea: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 677-703

Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China?Pros

and cons.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching: English

Language Teaching Journal, 57(3), 278-287.

Kazuyoshi Sato, Robert C and Kleinsasser (1999).Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT): Practical Understandings: The Modern Language Journal, 83, iv, (1999)

Evdokia karavas-doukas (1995). Understanding the gap between teachers` theories and their

Classroom practices: an investigation of teachers` attitudes towards error correction and

their classroom error correcting behavior

Mark Wyatt (2009). Practical Knowledge Growth in Communicative Language Teaching: The

Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language

Sandra J. Savignon (2005). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead?

Anne Feryok (2007). An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of

Communicative language teaching

Francis Mangubhai, Perce Marland, Ann Dashwood and Jeong-Bae Son (2004). Teaching a

foreign language: one teacher’s practical theory

Chris Kennedy and Judith Kennedy (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation

Lingjie Jin,Michael Singh and Liqun Li (2005). Communicative Language Teaching in China:

Misconceptions, Applications and Perceptions