FILE 1

Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 9. Number 1. March 2018 Pp. 406-418
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.28

The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Speaking Development of Saudi EFL

Learners Raja Muhammad Ishtiaq Khan

Deanship of Preparatory Year, Al-Majma’ah University, Zulfi, Saudi Arabia

Noor Raha Mohd Radzuan

Centre for Modern Language & Human Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan, Pahang,
Malaysia

Muhammad Shahbaz
Department of English, GC Women University Sialkot, Sialkot, Pakistan

Ainol Haryati Ibrahim

Centre for Modern Language & Human Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan, Pahang,
Malaysia

Ghulam Mustafa
Deanship of Preparatory Year, Al-Majma’ah University, Zulfi, Saudi Arabia.

Abstract
Speaking in a foreign language is considered to be a challenging aspect of language learning that
demands competence and mastery in learning any foreign language. Vocabulary learning verifies
to play an important role in oral communication. However, literature lacks the studies where both
English as a foreign language (EFL) students and teachers’ views are obtained to provide
analyses of the situations in which learners are not showing desired results in speaking. The
current study explores the problems of lack of vocabulary that Saudi EFL students face with
special focus on their speaking proficiency. It aims to seek EFL teachers’ opinions on the extent
to which lack of vocabulary has influence on EFL students’ performance in listening, and
conversation classes, and in expressing their ideas and feelings, and especially in speaking skill.
A questionnaire was used for the responses from the students and an interview for the teachers to
reveal their perceptions about the vocabulary hindrance in speaking skills. 20 EFL instructors
and teachers of Preparatory Year Program (PYP) section of a public university and 110 EFL
students participated in this study. The analysis of the data showed that both teachers and
learners indicated that lack of vocabulary is one of the major factors in students’ inability to
speaking English. In the current study, among many other suggestions it is proposed that the
inclusion of mobile assisted language learning could be useful way of developing vocabulary for
spoken proficiency of Saudi EFL learners.

Keywords: EFL, speaking vocabulary, spoken proficiency

Cite as: Khan, R. M.I., Radzuan, N. R. M., Shahbaz,M., Ibrahim, A.H.,& Ghulam Mustafa
(2018). The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Speaking Development of Saudi EFL Learners.
Arab World English Journal, 9 (1). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.28
 Introduction
Vocabulary learning is an imperative part of learning foreign language (Schmitt & Carter, 2000).
Many researchers indicate that real communication is a result of suitable and adequate
vocabulary learning as compared with learning grammar rules only (Cook, 2013). However,
most EFL students claim that they understand the new vocabulary items during the lecture but
they tend to forget newly learned words after a short period of time. Perhaps this is because of
the lack of the opportunity to use these words in their conversation. (Coady & Huckin, 1997;
McCarthy & O'dell, 2002) recommend the realization for the training of strategy in EFL classes
to boost the process of vocabulary learning for the development of oral communication in and
out of the language classrooms. August, Carlo, Dressler, and Snow (2005) express that foreign
language learners who have limited vocabulary take more time to learn new vocabulary items
and are less able to involve in comprehending text and lack involvement in oral communication
with their peers. As a result, such learners are more likely to get lower achievement in language
learning assessments and are at the edge of the risk of being indicated as disabled in learning.
More recently, (Chee, Yahaya, Ibrahim, & Hasan, 2017; Ishtiaq, Ali, & Salem, 2017; Shahbaz &
Khan, 2017; Taj, Ali, Sipra, & Ahmad, 2017) has revealed that EFL vocabulary instruction is
attracting the attention of many researchers nowadays.

Along with many other problems, Hamad (2013) agree that vocabulary is a key issue in
speaking performance of Saudi EFL learners. The importance of vocabulary in oral development
for EFL learners is the main focus of the current study at PYP section of a public university of
Saudi Arabia. It pursues to identify the main causes of EFL learners’ incompetence in spoken
aspects of the language learning. The in-depth focus of study reveals that insufficient vocabulary
is a main hindrance and affects greatly in lower performance in speaking skill which is one of the
most important parts of language proficiency and development.

The present study tries to find the answers of the following research questions:
1. What are the teachers’ perceptions about their students’ speaking performance?
2. What are the main causes behind Saudi EFL learners’ lower achievement in speaking
performance?
3. How can Saudi EFL learners develop their spoken performance through vocabulary
strategies?
The present research illustrates an exploratory investigation carried out at a public university
of Saudi Arabia in the year 2016 with similar level of Saudi undergraduate learners, who learn
English language skills for a period of one year before joining their majors and their teachers.
The major focus of the study is to identify and examine the main causes of the poor performance
in speaking skill. In the first part of the article, some findings of the previous related theories and
studies on oral or spoken skill development are presented. Then, vocabulary learning strategy
instruction model will be discussed to improve the current situation of spoken vocabulary
development.

Literature Review
Vocabulary Learning
Learning vocabulary is one of the major most important concerns of the foreign language

407
learning. Researching vocabulary was neglected by the researchers up to 1960s; however,
recently

408
it has gained the attention of a lot of researchers (Muliawati & Ismail, 2017). Vocabulary
learning demands the learners’ competence in both theory and practice. Schmitt (2008) has
explained that vocabulary learning is essential as it is a vital indication of language proficiency.
Similarly, learning any foreign language is fundamentally associated with vocabulary
knowledge, the shortage of vocabulary items obstructs the process of second language learning.
In EFL learning without having adequate vocabulary knowledge, learners may not show the
desired results in language learning process and its competence (Macis & Schmitt, 2017). In the
view of Adam (2016) lack of vocabulary knowledge hinders the real communication of EFL
learners to a great extent. Hence, it is predictable that undergraduate EFL learners should have
the appropriate vocabulary knowledge.

For the betterment of developing vocabulary learning, researchers have been making
enormous efforts to locate the different aspects of learning vocabulary to aid EFL learners.
Nunan (2017), a leading researcher in the field of L2 vocabulary, asserts that learners have to use
certain techniques and strategies for achieving certain proficiency of vocabulary knowledge. In
the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) vocabulary development has fascinated the
scholars to play their part where vocabulary growth is comparatively low (Hughes & Reed,
2016). Saudi Arabia is a country where English is taught as a Foreign Language and where
learners’ language competence is not at the desired standard of the language learning, therefore,
vocabulary development requires a particular attention in Saudi Arabian context. Cohen, (2014)
argues that learners, language instructors and teachers, curriculum developers and language
researchers all agree on the view that vocabulary learning is indispensable part of L2 learning.
However, learners and teachers are uncertain about the best practices of learning vocabulary
(Schmitt, 2008).
Speaking Skill
The intervening aspect and the illustration of speaking itself (perpetual and moderate flux
of production) makes the process of learning and teaching a complicated understanding of
speaking skills. In the view of psycholinguist Pawlak (2011), speaking involves the collaboration
of many different processing mechanisms, components and exertion to arrange the words in
motion to speak language fluently. In language pedagogy, the management of the handling
mutuality aspect (the role and relation among the speakers and the listeners in speaking element)
is another key factor that affects the quality of speech production with extra constraints of time
limit while trying to produce words (Hulstijn, 2000). Therefore, learners preferably need to be
involved in the production of lengthy and structured part of language without inclusion of
extended hesitation and excessive pauses. So, it is vital that learners need to get awareness of all
four components of speaking skill of which vocabulary learning has key role in this process
(Bailey, 2006; Cazden, 2001). Likewise, learners have to display a good command on; the
pragmatic awareness of the word (the capability of the usage of language in social background
keeping in view the cultural restraints), the competence of strategy, grammatical aspect and
competence of interconnecting the words to make a conversation meaningful. Learners feel
problems in creating balance in this regard that further creates complexity in lexicon and
cognition (Bulté, Housen, Pierrard, & Van Daele, 2008).

Saudi EFL learners like many other L2 learners face problems of fluency and undue

409
pauses in the course of speaking as stated by the EFL instructors during the interviews. This
assertion is

410
also confirmed by Hamad (2013) who has disclosed that Saudi female EFL learners are not
proficient in oral skill as compared to their performance in other skills of the language learning.
The purpose of his study has been to determine the hurdles of EFL university learners’ reluctance
in classroom participations and poor performance in speaking skill. Results of survey study
highlight that learners come across with difficulties to speak even in formal class and they regard
it a challenging skills.
Anthony et al. (2009) also carried out a study with a purpose to identify the prospective
involvements of early childhood learners’ vocabulary and its progression about creating
phonological understandings of Spanish 92 pre-school learners. The results of vocabulary test
and oral awareness test indicate a moderate correlation between vocabulary and oral skills
developments (rs = .42–.75, ps < .001). Similarly, Lee (2009) has carried out a research study to
highlight the influences that affect the spoken contribution of 6 Korean EFL learners enrolled at
graduate institution in America with their implication on developing speaking skills in classroom
participation over a period of four months. Data analysis from classroom observations and
informal interviews indicate that English language competency is influenced by vocabulary
insufficiency along with other factors of language learning. Saudi EFL learners also face such
problems in developing their spoken proficiency. Some central grounds have been cited in table
(3) in the section of methodology. Based on the exploration conducted to locate the main reasons
in developing speaking skill participants exhibit many factors however, both instructors and
learners indicated that inadequate vocabulary is one of the most repeated hurdles hindering to
learners’ spoken fluency. Consequently, it is required to establish an appeal to highlight
vocabulary learning strategies that may play a great role here. The following segment will
rationalize the importance of this issue.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS)
VLS is a loom which expedites and facilitates the vocabulary development and it has
fascinated a substantial attention of researchers. VLS comprises a subfield of language learning,
which as a result are underpinned in learning strategies (Nation, 2001; Takač, 2008). A learning
strategy is considered as the progression of activities a learner adapts to ease in accomplishing
the given task in learning. In the same way language learning strategies develop the self-directed
learning for EFL learners. In the light of the interpretation of Brewer (2016), self-directed
learners are self-regulating learners who have the ability to accept the responsibility of learning
outcomes on their selves and, hereafter develop the participation, motivation, proficiency and
above all the self-reliance. So, VLSs create the atmosphere of self-learning and practicing the
target words on their own, which in turn learners appear as “better learners”. Keeping this into
attention, foreign and second language learners have made numerous efforts to identify the
different kinds of VLS and most of them agree there is no best strategy that can be viewed as
model. Consequently, enormous vocabulary learning classifications and taxonomies have been
appeared comprising; (Ahmed, 1989; Catalan, 2003; Cohen, 2007; Gu, 2002; Gu & Johnson,
1996; Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1997) and more significantly (Nation,
2001). Even though many of the above mentioned taxonomies exhibit the somehow same
classifications and categories (Nassaji, 2003), the scheme of Oxford (1990) is mostly adopted by
many vocabulary learning/teaching researchers. Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) have checked
the validity and reliability in many different ways. In addition, they have also tested that these six
categories gauge
411
the identical paradigm and strategies by factor analysis from many different backgrounds
including; USA, Canada, Taiwan, Egypt and many others.

Instruction framework for vocabulary learning

The use and availability of operative function of vocabulary in different backgrounds and
situations, EFL instructors face challenges to identify the most relevant, effective and suitable
strategies that can be utilized to facilitate EFL learners for developing the numbers of their
vocabulary items. Literature is abundant with huge number of various methodologies, strategies,
approaches and techniques in the field of second language vocabulary acquisition or instruction
for both learners and instructors. So, following section depicts the most distinctive frameworks
of EFL vocabulary instruction that can be usefully employed at Majma’ah University PYP
section within EFL syllabus. Many researchers (Chamot, 2004; Macaro, 2006; Nunan, 1995;
Oxford, 1996, 2003; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006) in the arena of oral skills claim that
explicit strategy instruction exhibit better results as compared to presenting isolated learning
strategies. It is notable that teachers need to decide which strategies (keyword method,
highlighting, semantic mapping etc.) to put in focus and how much time required for training in
explicit learning strategy instruction. For knowing the best usage of implicit strategies, the
learners are required to find out which strategies they are currently employing and they are also
asked to make list for learning new words individually or in small groups. The instructors and
learners can further collectively develop a list of strategies to be used in the class or in informal
conversation. Instructors can decide which strategy can be useful for learners after brainstorming
session. Instructors are required to present a model for drill to their learners. The next step is to
practice. Learners, then, can be asked to discuss these words with their group members until the
involvement of each participant in the group. The next step is application and reporting of the
learned words. The role of instructors changes to monitor the activities and providing feedback
of the vocabulary learning session. Finally, for vocabulary retention, learners can be asked to use
these words to create new sentences. By and large all updated models of VLS instruction
ultimately focus on encouraging and the development of learners’ vocabulary knowledge by
stimulating strategic ways to adopt different techniques on the basis of context; that will result in
fostering their knowledge of vocabulary.

Methodology
Study Design
Design is required to facilitate the persuasive completion of many research processes,
thereby presenting research as proficient to its potential by the means of producing utmost results
with minimum effort (Kothari, 2004). For this study, mixed method approach is applied. It
includes both qualitative and quantitative data collection and interpretation for the present study.
The selection of mixed method setting is governed by the characteristic of the study itself which
is directly relying on the data gathered from the instructors and learners’ interviews and
questionnaires to pinpoint the major problems or obstructions to speak fluently in and out of the
formal classroom setting. Likert-scale, structured questionnaires for both instructors and learners
and interviews were administered to lead study to achieve the goals of current study. Hence,
several hypotheses are progressed to predict the reasons of learners’ fluency in spoken skills. In
addition to data gathered from interviews, researcher has included his own experience of

412
teaching language skills to Saudi EFL learners in the due course of time.
Participants of the study

413
 A total number of 100 EFL elementary level students of a public university of Saudi
Arabia from PYP section were selected to investigate and locate the problems in speaking skills.
All the participants were chosen from the same campus of the university having similar level of
English which is determined by the placement of university at the time of enrollment. All of
them were enrolled in second semester of the academic year 2016. In addition, 20 EFL
instructors from same campus were selected who have presented a comprehensive view of their
EFL teaching experience about the learners’ state of vocabulary. Moreover, 10 EFL instructors
were chosen randomly for interview to get more perceptive and insightful data concerning the
vocabulary learning and teaching at undergraduate level in Saudi Arabia.
Instruments
Three instruments were used to collect the data for the current study. A questionnaire was
adopted from previous studies for learners’ perceptions to indicate speaking hindrances in
learning English, and a questionnaire for teachers to locate the problems in spoken skills. Finally,
teachers’ interview questionnaire containing “Yes”/ “No” and open ended questions on the
problems of speaking insufficiency was also administered

Data Analysis
For statistical measures, SPSS 21 was used to analyze the data gathered from
questionnaires and interviews. As chi-square is a most frequently used statistical test to associate
the expected and observed data, chi-square tests have been employed here to check the manifold
hypotheses suggested by the questionnaire to the null hypothesis ( as of having no significant
differences). The chi-square will also present the likelihood ratio, the extent of freedom and the p
(probability) in addition to Chi-squared (q) values of the data. Moreover, cross-tabulation has
been complied and comprises of the frequencies ratios registered, to sort out the p and q values.
Following section will present the description of collected data.

Results
Tables below have been categorized to analyze the data gathered from EFL learners.
Table 1 and 2 chi-squared findings have been presented for the reason of their “high
significance” in this model. Conveying meaning and vocabulary insufficiency aspect of spoken
skills are highlighted. Additionally, crosstab of speaking hindrances were analyzed in table 3
which includes different hitches in speaking skills.
Table 1. Leaners’ Problem of conveying meaning.

a. 6 cells (27%) have expected countless than 4.5. The minimum expected count is 1,62.

414
 Table 2. Learners’ vocabulary insufficiency.

a. 9 cells (39%) have expected countless that 4.5. Minimum expected count is 1.33

Table 3 Crosstab: Speaking hinders indicated by leaners.

*p<.05(in all case); *q= 789; 587; 794; 783; 778 respectively.

From the table 3 an obvious high significant p value is identified. However, in all
recognized values the focus of attention and consideration should be on difficulty in finding
suitable words where p value is .000 and q value is 794, and (don’t know how to express words)
where p value is. 000 and q value is 783. It is vital form these corresponding values have
significant relationship as both of these entities are measuring and surrounding around the almost
same problem. Likewise, the ultimate corresponding q value has been recognized to have a direct
relation and link to vocabulary where q value is 794. The following section of the result will
explain the instructors’ perception to check whether above mentioned entities are persistent with
the responses of learners.

Teachers’ Perception
To know the current situation of learners’ speaking inability, the responses and
experiences of teachers are analyzed first with help of following chart. Table below summarizes
the responses of EFL teachers to the interview questions. It is obvious from the analysis that

415
most of teachers indicated that their EFL learners do not speak English fluently as 53% EFL
instructors feel that their learner are not proficient in speaking English, which is considerably
high proposition as

416
indicated in the table. This explicatory valuation of EFL instructors’ relating to speaking fluency
shows that more than half of EFL learners don’t speak as it is expected and their level demands.
Moreover, a good percentage of teachers have also stated that very are few (31%) which suggests
that 84 % of instructors agree that on the general inclination of not being capable of the
production of fluent conversation.
Table 4. Interview Chart on instructors’ perceptions of EFL Learners’ spoken proficiency.

Responses of teachers also highlighted the fact that vocabulary knowledge, fear of
classmates laughter, speech anxiety, role of environmental interference (mother tongue mainly)
and meaning conveying are main hurdles in speaking English fluently. Vocabulary is a key
element that hinders the proficiency of EFL learners, as reported by the instructors.

Table 5. Vocabulary problem indicated by the Instructors.

a.19 cells (91%) have expected countless than 5. The minimum expected count is.05.

Table 6. Speech Anxiety

a.12 cells (79%) have expected countless than 5. The minimum expected count is.03.

417
 Table 7. Crosstab: difficulties in speaking identified by EFL instructors.

*p<.05(in all case); *q= 113&116 respectively.

Vocabulary development is key indicator of the progression of all four skills of language
learning. The role of vocabulary as in current study develops a strong correlation between
speaking proficiency and vocabulary knowledge. It is viable from the table that EFL instructors
also highlighted the vocabulary problem and it is clear from their assertions mentioned in tables.
So, their responses develop an understanding of the persistent identification of vocabulary as a
great obstruction to EFL learners’ fluency in speaking skill in Saudi undergraduate classes. Both
learners and instructors acknowledge vocabulary insufficiency as main hurdle in speaking
inability. In both cases high p value is identified with correspondence value of q with vocabulary
problems in speaking inability.

Discussion
Vocabulary knowledge is reelected as an essential consideration in teaching and learning
any foreign language. The importance of vocabulary in learning foreign language has been
identified by many EFL teachers and researchers. The fundamental purpose of a majority of EFL
learners is to develop proficiency in communication in learning foreign language. Grasping
vocabulary knowledge is not merely essential but it’s a central area in learning and developing
foreign language. Nation (1990) explains the importance of vocabulary language as “Vocabulary
is not an end itself. A rich vocabulary makes the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing
easier to perform.” So, by mastering vocabulary learning one can concentrate fully on other
advanced levels and features of developing foreign language learning more efficiently. The
present study intended to examine the EFL instructors and learners perception about their
speaking proficiency. In connection with the result of the data gathered, it was identified that
most of EFL learners indicated speech anxiety, in particular, vocabulary insufficiency in
speaking English language.

In the line of above mentioned data analysis and discussion, the role of vocabulary in
speaking particularly attains the considerable attention of EFL learners and instructors. It is
viable from the results that deficiency of vocabulary knowledge and the problems in enunciating
or communicating what EFL learners already have learnt or in their mind are the main indicated
reason for speaking inability. The results establish a high significant value of p where P is less
than

418
.05 and q (794; 783) as in the view of EFL learners. Correspondingly, most of EFL instructors
also classified vocabulary insufficiency as a fundamental issue in speaking English as of their
current level. The statistical interpretation of data displays a high significant value of p(p<.05)
from their

419
responses. Likewise the state of having null hypotheses with significant differences in
comparison presents that besides vocabulary learning, speech anxiety is another factor which
creates delaying effect in speaking in the view of many EFL learners.

Moreover, the analyses of instructors’ interview data also indicate that a large number of
Saudi EFL learners are unable to speak English proficiently with their classmates as well as in
classroom interaction. However, some instructors also admitted that some EFL learners take part
in speaking activities but this proportion is marginal as compared to others who are influent in
speaking English language. The main causes of speaking hindrance as of EFL instructors have
categorized are vocabulary deficiency, speech anxiety; meaning conveying problem and
environmental interference. These listed problems are interconnected with the findings of
leaners’ identification of locating their speaking problems.

The findings of present study are with line of Anthony et al. (2009) who have examined
the role of vocabulary in early childhood oral skills with significant correlation between oral
skills and vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, current findings also match the result of the study
Hamad (2013) on female Saudi EFL learners by indicating lack of vocabulary knowledge
resulting in poor performance of speaking. These outcomes originate only to verify and
authenticate the crucial demand and need on concentrating on vocabulary learning strategy
instruction pedagogy and framework and importance of vocabulary instruction to improve
current state of Saudi EFL learners’ oral skills development.

Conclusion and Methodological Implications

In the light of available literature, even though vocabulary is marked significantly
important to understanding and learners fall back in speaking in the breadth and depth of
vocabulary knowledge, there has been little done with the vocabulary knowledge to develop oral
proficiencies of EFL learners. The current investigation came up with many suggestions for the
betterment of Saudi EFL learners’ spoken ability. On the onset, it is essential to integrate
vocabulary learning strategy instruction with current curriculum that is being taught in Saudi
EFL institutions. The impact of different strategies will lead learners to know the meaning by
themselves and its retention. In addition, there is also need for testing reliability of vocabulary
instructional methodology and its effectiveness in EFL classrooms to develop the vocabulary
learning process for language skills. Likewise, EFL instructors should realize their learners to be
more self-governing learners by identifying the learning strategies they have and those they need
to adopt. Additionally, the learners should motivate their learners to participate in classroom
activities by using extensive range of vocabulary to acquire mastery in spoken proficiency. More
essentially the involvement of available technology in teaching vocabulary may present better
result in Saudi Arabian context as most of EFL learners are addicted to use the smartphone
technologies. Speaking English fluently is always a difficult task for EFL learners but it can be
oppressed by learning variety of strategies in the course of developing vocabulary. We expect
that present attempt will benefit, guide and stimulate research on developing vocabulary
knowledge that can facilitate EFL oral skill development.

The present study has some constraints related to number of participants participated to
make the understanding of vocabulary knowledge for spoken proficiency. Extensive
420
investigations

421
with large scale of population from different campuses may indicate better outcomes and
implications of this important aspect language learning and teaching. Similarly, more
experimental studies are required to support, develop and affirm the vocabulary knowledge
development with spoken proficiency of EFL learners.

About Authors:
Raja Muhammad Ishtiaq Khan is an English language Lecturer at Al-Majma’ah University,
Saudi Arabia. He has a Cambridge CELTA certificate in teaching and has 10 years of experience
in ESL and EFL. He is a PhD scholar and his research interests include Applied Linguistics,
MALL, L2 Vocabulary learning and Teaching, Second Language Acquisition and EFL teaching.

Noor Raha Mohd Radzuan is a senior Lecturer at Univeristi Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia. She
earned her PhD in Applied Linguistics from Universiti Sains Malysia, Malysia. She has more
than 12 years working experience. Her research interest includes workplace communication,
second language learning strategies, L2 vocabulary learning and students’ motivation.

Muhammad Shahbaz is currently serving as an Assistant Professor at Department of English,

GC Women University Sialkot. He holds a PhD Applied Linguistics and more than 10 years
working experience as EFL educator. His research interests include SLA, L2 Motivation
Research, Individual Differences in SLA, L2 Vocabulary development, Language Testing and
Evaluation.

Ainol Haryati is an Associate Professor at the Center for Modern Languages and Human
Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Pahang. She holds PhD in English Language Studies (ELS) from
International Islamic University Malaysia. Her research interests include technology-enhanced
language learning, ESP, teaching and learning of English, and speaking

Ghulam Mustafa is an English language Lecturer at Al-Majma’ah University, Saudi Arabia. He

has a Cambridge CELTA certificate in teaching and has 15 years of experience in ESL and EFL.
He holds PGD in ELT degree from University of the Punjab. He is a PhD scholar and his
research interests include Applied Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and EFL teaching.

References:

Adam, M. A. A. (2016). Role of Vocabulary Learning Strategies in Promoting EFL Learners Performance. Sudan
University of Science and Technology.

Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. Beyond words, 3-14.

Anthony, J. L., Solari, E. J., Williams, J. M., Schoger, K. D., Zhang, Z., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2009).
Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The
422
roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading,
13(6), 535-564.

423
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language
learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50-57.

Bailey, K. M. (2006). Issues in teaching speaking skills to adult ESOL learners. Review of adult learning and
literacy, 6, 113-164.

Brewer, S. S. (2016). Developing Self-Directed Learning in the Language Classroom: The Work of Leni Dam.

International Journal of Self-Directed Learning®, 26.

Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency development over time–
the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French language studies, 18(3), 277-
298.

Catalan, R. M. J. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 13(1), 54-77.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). The language of teaching and learning. The language of teaching and learning, 348-369.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic journal of foreign
language teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Chee, K. N., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N. H., & Hasan, M. N. (2017). Review of mobile learning trends 2010-2015: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 113-126.

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy: Cambridge University
Press.

Cohen, A. D. M. (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice.
Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching: Routledge.

Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major, and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners. RELC journal,
33(1), 35-54.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language
learning, 46(4), 643-679.

Hamad, M. M. (2013). Factors negatively affect speaking skills at Saudi colleges for girls in the south. English
Language Teaching, 6(12), 87-97.

Hughes, R., & Reed, B. S. (2016). Teaching and researching speaking: Taylor & Francis.
Hulstijn, J. (2000). Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction: University of Twente.

Ishtiaq, M. I., Ali, Z., & Salem, M. S. (2017). An Experimental Study of the Effect of Student Teams Achievement
Divisions (STAD) on Vocabulary Learning of EFL Adult Learners.

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques: New Age International.

Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary‐learning strategies of foreign‐language students. Language
learning, 46(1), 101-135.

Lee, G. (2009). Speaking up: Six Korean students’ oral participation in class discussions in US graduate seminars.

English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 142-156.

424
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The
Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320-337.

Macis, M., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations.

Language teaching research, 21(3), 321-340.

McCarthy, M., & O'dell, F. (2002). English vocabulary in use: Advanced: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Muliawati, I., & Ismail, N. M. (2017). Intricacies in Vocabulary Intake For EFL Adult Learners. Paper presented at the
CONFERENCE PROCEEDING.

Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with
success in L2 lexical inferencing. Tesol Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670.

Nation , P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabualry. NY: Nebury House.

Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. UK: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158.
Nunan, D. (2017). Does learner strategy training make a difference? Lenguas Modernas(24), 123-142.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: na.

Oxford, R. L. (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives: Natl Foreign Lg
Resource Ctr.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Mouton de Gruyter.

Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the
ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.

425
Pawlak, M. (2011). Instructed acquisition of speaking: Reconciling theory and practice. Speaking and instructed foreign
language acquisition, 3-23.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 199227. Schmitt, N. (2008).
Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The
lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language learners. TESOL

Journal, 9(1), 4-9.

Shahbaz, M., & Khan, R. M. I. (2017). Use of Mobile Immersion in Foreign Language Teaching to Enhance Target Language Vocabulary
Learning. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices, 7(1).

Taj, I. H., Ali, F., Sipra, M. A., & Ahmad, W. (2017). Effect of technology enhanced language learning on vocabulary
acquisition of EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 262-272.

Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition (Vol. 27): Multilingual Matters.

Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self- regulation in
vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.

426
 FILE 2
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327790679

THE STUDENS' DIFFICULTIES IN PRESENTING THE ACADEMIC SPEAKING

PRESENTATION

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS
READS

8
15,214

1 author:

Ikhfi Imaniah

Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang

32 PUBLICATIONS 95 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ikhfi Imaniah on 21 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

427
 Globish (An English-Indonesian journal for English, Education and Culture
Vol. 6, No.1, January 2018.
P-ISSN: 2301-9913, E-ISSN: 2597-9132,

THE STUDENS’ DIFFICULTIES IN PRESENTING THE ACADEMIC SPEAKING

PRESENTATION

Ikhfi Imaniah
English Education Study ProgramTeachers Training and Education FacultyMuhammadiyah University of
TangerangJl.PerintisKemerdekaan I/ 33 Cikokol, Tangerang-IndonesiaTelp: 081311485305

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The aim of the research is to observe the activities of the students in academic speaking classroom, to
analyze the student’s problem in presenting the academic speaking presentation and to identify the
student’s special needs in academic speaking presentation.The method used in this research is field
research that is qualitative, while the analysis of the data used descriptive analysis. The focus of the
research is on the student’s difficulties in presenting academic speaking presentation.In sum up, most of
the students of English Education Study Program of Teachers Training and Education Faculty of
Muhammadiyah University are lack of: 1) Goal setting on their academic speaking presentation, 2)
Prioritization on what the essential point need to be presented, 3) Self-awareness on themselves, while
they present the presentation in front of the audience, 4) Self-motivation while presenting the materials, it
connects with self-awareness; if students have improved their self-awareness so they will have a great deal
of the information that they need to motivate themselves. In short, the students need to be able to
motivate themselves to take action; 5) Planning, most of students are not planning the materials well so
they are not able to manage their time to present the academic presentation; and 6) Communication skill,
strong communication skills will enable the students to build supportive relationships with the audience
while presenting the materials, in fact not all the students have good communication skill.In short, the
student’s preparation well made their presentation is good and it also established good communication
between the presenter and the audiences.

Keywords: Academic Speaking, Presentation, Communication

INTRODUCTION
Speaking is a constructing meaning interactive process which is comprised producing and
receiving information (Brown, 1994; Burns & Joyce, 1997). Speaking is viewed to be at
the heart of second language learning among the four language skills (Egan, 1999). A
common problem confronted among English language learners in Indonesian context is
that they can understand what they read and write despite the probability of making
mistakes in writing and understanding the text incorrectly; yet, they are not being capable
of transferring their feelings, and ideas through oral language.
Academic speaking is similar in many ways to academic writing. It is linier, explicit, it
has one central point and it is presented in standard language. Academic spoken style is
also similar in many ways in that it is formal, explicit, hedged, and responsible. However,
it is less complex and objective than written language. In general, this means that when
someone is doing academic presentation he should avoid colloquial words and
expressions. So, it is the responsibility of the speaker in English to make it clear to the
listener how various parts of the talk is related. 428
Speaking in academic context is becoming increasingly important as teaching methods
change to involve more group work, joint project or group mark. Students in higher
education are not seen to be pulling their weight in collaborative work. It is therefore
important to try to be more of what is involved in seminar or group activity and to learn
44

429
 Globish ISSN: 2301-9913

some of the interactional language that is used there. It is important to practice making
presentation, taking part in discussion on academic topics and so on.
When speaking in an academic context, facts and figure are given pricely. Thus, in any
kind of academic speaking, it is necessary to make decisions about the stance on a
particular subject, or the strength of the claims. Therefore, in academic speaking the
speaker are responsible for demonstrating an understanding of the source text by
providing the evidence and justification.
Due to those reasons, the students need to learn about the purpose of presenting the
academic speaking, making a power point presentation, controlling the discussion,
participating in the discussion, listening and note taking. In academic speaking
presentation, the same as with writing, the students must plan the talk. If the students are
going to get as many marks for speaking as writing, spend as much time on it as writing.
Writing language is different from spoken language, if the students just read the essays,
no one will understand them.
Wallace (1980) stated that, it can be very boring to listen to something read aloud.
Therefore, what students must do is follow the following point, 1) decide on a time limit for
your talk,2) write out your spoken presentation, 3) speak from the outline notes, 4)look at
your audience when you are speaking. 5) make a strong ending. In short, it is very important
when students doing presentation, they must tell to the audience what it is, and stick to the
time limit. Moreover, the students must do some of the works of writing the papers again, in
a sense. This means, the students concentrate only on the main points and try to make the
presentation lively and interesting. The students also need to write everything that they
have to say and when they know exactly what they are going to say, they must reduce it to
outline notes.
In fact, most of students in Muhammadiyah University of Tangerang of fourth semester
get lost when they are presenting the topics. Most of them are doing reading rather than
presenting something to the audience. Therefore, the students must remember that
listening is different with reading. Something that is going to be listened must be
prepared in a very different way from something that is intended to be read.
Therefore, the researcher is eager to conduct the research to observe the activities in the
academic speaking classroom, to analyze the student’sproblems in presenting the
academic speaking presentation, to identify the student’s special needs in academic
speaking presentation.

Academic Learning Difficulties

Academic learning difficulties are related to the basic subjects, i.e. the problems which
are shown by students such as reading, writing, speaking and spelling difficulties.
Academic learning difficulties are relevant to and result from developmental learning
difficulties. They may be of quality difficulties which appear when the student fails to
fulfill the skills of success in more than one subject. Learning difficulties refer to the
children who suffer from obvious difficulty in one of academic subjects, although they
enjoy ordinary mental abilities in other subjects. Thus, the researcher concludes that it is
necessary to pay attention to the developmental learning difficulties in order to discover
and solve the problems of academic difficulties.
Moreover, Clements (1993) states that learning difficulties originate from psychological
inability and weakness or sharp failure in using the verbal and communicative language.
The symptoms of learning difficulties are: 1) there is no harmony between learning and
behavior; 2) the student does not learn by methods, ways and materials in which most
students learn, but he needs special procedures.
430
Many studies dealt with learning difficulties. Most of these refer to the learning
45

431
 P-ISSN: 2301-9913 | E-ISSN: 2597-9132

difficulties in terms of the learner and his tendency for learning, education system and the
difficulty of the subject. Some difficulties refer to curricula and text books, or to the
psychological, social and emotional sides. Psychological disorder and lagging behind and
failure in education cause learning difficulty. So, it can be concluded that anxiety and
disquiet in the class, fear and alarm reflect directly on individual learning ability and
study progress of the students.
Learning Difficulties of University Students
Westberry (1994:45) clarifies that although technology provides easy access to
knowledge, it has some demerits. Today, culture imposed on individual specific lifestyle.
Such culture can be accepted in food and clothes field, but it is not acceptable in
education, training and skill acquisition. Consequently, the ready-made culture caused the
following issue: 1) weakness in the level of students’ preparation and qualification;
2) decreasing student acquisition in different kinds of basic education skills, thinking and
problem solving; 3) miss of credibility of scientific degrees obtained by all kinds of
students. And such degrees do not reflect true qualification; 4) spread of learning
difficulties in all different kinds of educational levels from preparatory school up to
university level, even in higher studies level; 5) providing adequate prequalification and
training.Due to some issues above, it assumes that the students should be aware on the
ready - made culture because it can be problems in their academic life particularly to their
education.

Nature of Learning Difficulties of University Students

Some individuals believe that learning difficulties refer to disorder in the function of the
central nervous system, but Zayat (2002) believes that learning difficulties refer to
weakness and bad learning inputs and cognition processes. Learning difficulties are not
limited to a certain culture. They occur in different ages and levels. Learning causes
many problems which result from frustration for those who suffer from learning
difficulties, because there are invisible, which leads the teachers to believe that the
students are disabled.In sum up, the learning difficulties are not student’s bad talent but it
is a process to accept some materials in teaching and learning process on to present
something in seminars which ask the students to understand them well, understand what
they want to do and say appropriately.

Academic Oral Presentation

In EFL context, academic oral presentation involves oral communication using English as
a foreign language. It has been noted that people who have difficulty in communicating
with people are likely to experience more anxiety in a foreign language class because
these people encounter many various difficulties that negatively affect their ability during
the oral presentation (Horwitz et al., 1986). It was found that native and nonnative
speakers reported experiencing linguistic and psychological difficulties with academic
oral presentations (Morita, 2000). Thus, it is not surprising that Muhammadiyah
University of Tangerang in English education study program students find oral activities
difficult because they encounter many difficulties using a foreign language to think;
express and communicate orally. Public speaking, in various contexts, was reported as
one of the most anxious experiences one could encounter (Jackson &Latane, 1981).
Therefore, EFL graduate students face a dual task, of learning English and using it to
present ideas. Both of these tasks can be anxiety-provoking, and it is likely that EFL
students experience considerable stress with academic speaking.
\Moreover, speaking activities have been identified as the most anxiety-provoking
activity in a foreign language classroom (Hilleson, 1996).
432
Globish, Vol. 6, No. 1,January2018, 1-8.

433
 Globish ISSN: 2301-9913

Academic oral presentations involve complex and constant decision-makings for the
students from the beginning – the preparation stage, to the final stage – the presenting
stage. The presenting stage is likely the most anxiety- provoking stage because much of
the decision-making is required immediately. Moreover, it was found that a discrepancy
existed between the instructor and the students about what constitutes an academic oral
presentation and its goal. This may also contribute to students’ anxiety about oral
presentations because students were likely uncertain about the quality of their preparation
and performance.
Oral presentation is a common task in graduate seminars in which presenters lead seminar
discussion. An oral presentation may seem to be a straightforward activity, involving
understanding the assigned material, summarizing it and presenting it to the instructor
and classmates. However, it has been shown that oral presentation requires constant
negotiation and decision making for it to be successful (Wu, 2008).
In short, academic oral presentation is an activity through which the presenters
communicate with the audience. It is called academic because these presentations deal
with college or university life. They also deal with courses that are taught in the
universities sections and academics.

The Essential Ingredients of a Presentation

Siddons (2008:1-2) states that there are three essential ingredients of a presentation, they
are 1) the audience, 2) the presenter, and 3) the presentation itself. Each of these three
ingredients is important to enhance the goals of presentation to be successful. No matter
how well-constructed the presentation if it is badly delivered it will fail; no matter how
well-delivered the presentation if it doesn’t make sense then it will fail. Most essentially
of all, even if the presentation is perfect and the presenter inspired and charismatic, if the
audience is not interested or engaged, then the presentation will certainly fail (Wallwork,
2010). Thus, it is important to prepare the presentation in advance to get the best results
from it.
Moreover, Jacobi cited in Siddons (2008:1) wrote about the necessity for preparation, he
said that ninety percent or more of preparation is typically devoted to content and
countless hours go into creating and fine-tuning the presentation materials, and do not
reserved for practice how the presenter can literally make or break the presentation. Keep
in that, a lot of presentations die on the vine because they are not rehearsed properly, or
they are never rehearsed at all.
In short, the presenter not only should prepare the material well but also need to prepare
themselves in rehearsing the presentation properly which focus on three essential
ingredients of a presentation; they are the audience, the presenter and the presentation
itself.

RESEARCH METHOD
Research method that is used in this research is qualitative. As Fraenkel&Wallen (2007)
state that qualitative researchers go directly to the particular setting of interest to observe
and collect their data. Here, the researcher as lecturer who observes the students in
academic speaking class. So, this research has been conducted at Muhammadiyah
University of Tangerang which is located at Jl. PerintisKemerdekaan I/33 Cikokol Kota
Tangerang. The researcher selected this location because the students at Muhammadiyah
University of Tangerang still lack awareness of speaking English, particularly in
presenting academic speaking. In this research the data was focused on the student’s
difficulties in presenting academic speaking presentation.
434
Therefore, this method will be applied in investigating the analysis of student’s
47

435
 P-ISSN: 2301-9913 | E-ISSN: 2597-9132

difficulties in presenting the academic speaking presentation of fourth semester students

of Muhammadiyah University of Tangerang.
The participants in this research are the students of fourth semester of Muhammadiyah
University of Tangerang consist of 200 students.
The validity of data in qualitative method is based on credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability. The reliability of data in this research is based on
construct dependability and certainty criteria come from objectivity concept.
The data collecting instruments are document, observation, and interview. The data
included facts found in the document, the observation, and the analysis of student’s
academic presentation in the classroom. In doing the observation, the researcher observed
the classroom activities. In doing the interview, the students answered the questions
which prepared by the researcher.
The data analysis in this research was qualitative research, which had been conducted to
analyze the report from the data source from the materials, pictures, and interviews.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Student’s problems in Presenting Academic Speaking Presentation
In presenting academic presentation, time management is important to manage the
presentation time. As quoted from MTD training on “Successful Time Management”,
successful time management will help the presenter to become more effective in
completing the task that presenter need to complete to present to the audience, so there is
more time available for presenter to spend on the things that are important to presenter.In
fact, most of students have lack ability in managing the time of their presentation. They
cannot manage the time presentation to become effective. Moreover, the students do not
know how to spend their time to tell the most important point that they need to share to
the audience, yet they only tell all what they have written in their power point.
In line with the time management, the University of Georgia explains in detail about ten
strategies for better time management. One of the strategies is the presenter need to know
how to spend their time in presenting the academic presentation.
Based on the seventeen essential time management skills, however it is important to
understand each skill and the role it plays in student’s time management.
(http://www.coachingpositiveperformance.com). Here the researcher adapts those
seventeen essential times management into several points is needed to be analyzed on
student’s academic speaking presentation. In sum up, most of the students of English
Education Study Program of Teachers Training and Education Faculty of
Muhammadiyah University are lack of: 1) Goal setting on their academic speaking
presentation, 2) Prioritization on what the essential point need to be presented, 3) Self-
awareness on themselves, while they present the presentation in front of the audience,
4) Self-motivation while presenting the materials, it connects with self-awareness; if
students have improved their self-awareness so they will have a great deal of the
information that they need to motivate themselves. In short, the students need to be able
to motivate themselves to take action; 5) Planning, most of students are not planning the
materials well so they are not able to manage their time to present the academic
presentation; and 6) Communication skill, strong communication skills will enable the
students to build supportive relationships with the audience while presenting the
materials, in fact not all the students have good communication skill.

Student’s Special Needs in Presenting Academic Speaking Presentation

436
Globish, Vol. 6, No. 1,January2018, 1-8.
 Globish ISSN: 2301-9913

This study has reported on well-designed oral presentations which enable students to
function successfully in the future professional surrounding. It presents a challenge to
both students and the teacher.
The challenge for the teacher is to provide a relevant framework for students upon which
they construct knowledge and become active participants in the learning process. The
teacher involves preparing detailed guidelines, organizing groups, helping students to
select topics, guiding their research and helping them learn the use of various visual aids,
providing feedback on the sequencing of ideas, and evaluating their performance (King,
2002). Importantly, the teacher is no longer perceived as the knowledge dispenser and
decision maker. Instead, the teacher has become the facilitator of learning whose main
task is to set goals and organize the learning process accordingly. The teacher creates
social and intellectual climates, where collaborative and cooperative learning methods are
supported. The teacher creates opportunities for students to interact with other learners
and with the teacher as well. On the whole, the teacher is responsible for leading and
coordinating the work and make learning progress easier.
Besides, the teacher is the supporter, one who supports the learner by means of
suggestions that arise out of ordinary activities, by challenges that inspire creativity, and
with projects that allow for independent thinking and new ways of learning information.
In Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of constructivism, the teacher serves as the mediator who
coaches and encourages students to formulate their own level of understanding.
In the Bruner’s (1979) classroom, the teacher is the instructor, (direct and guide the
learning process) who should try and encourage students to discover principles by
themselves. The teacher and students should engage in an active dialog (Socratic
learning).
Moreover, there is a demand for the teacher in the classroom not to be only a guide,
organizer, instructor, mediator and supporter, but, as King (2002) comments, to hold
questions and answers sessions, provide feedback, and evaluation of students’
performance.
We have to agree with Crystal (2003) who claims that the actor and the teacher inhibit the
same stable. They both have to put on a show (the actor on a stage and the teacher in
the classroom).
On the other hand, students function as designers using the technology as tools for
analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal
knowledge, and representing what they know to others (Jonassen, 1994). Students must
be given opportunities to be active in ways that will promote self-direction, creativity and
critical analysis of problems requiring a solution (Jonassen, 1994). “Learning becomes a
continuous, life-long process which results from acting in situations” (Brown et al.,
1989).
It has been observed by Kim et al. (1999) that students have more positive attitude
towards learning as they share their experiences with their peers and the teacher, as well
as they experience increasing discussions in the classroom. Brown (1996) has proved that
oral presentations help students to work collaboratively and make it easier to focus on a
specific area useful for future work. Students are encouraged to search for solutions to
real-world problems, and thus, they are engaged in transformative learning, leading to
critical and analytical thinking which is essential for success in the 21st century.

CONCLUSION
Students need a lot of opportunity to develop and practice communication skills.
Communication skills are required by students (future specialists) whether they are 437
49
 P-ISSN: 2301-9913 | E-ISSN: 2597-9132

expected to give presentations at conferences, symposia or other meetings. Because of the

necessity for these skills, students need instructions and guidance in preparing, organizing
and delivering oral presentations. Oral presentations have become a useful and effective
way to increase students’ awareness of communication skills. Thus, students’
presentations become an important element in delivering positive learning experiences.
They are an integral part of almost every professional environment, as professionals need
to communicate with other professionals at meetings, seminars, conferences.
So, teaching students to design effective oral presentations implies training them
insightful and well-trained thinking strategies. Improving the quality of presentation
actually improves the quality of thought, and vice versa. This is the ultimate result of a
successful presentation. This innovative framework provides a holistic approach in
assessing a student’s performance based on the content and the delivery of their
presentation (Carroll, 2006).

REFERENCES
Alderson, C. J., Wall, D. & C. Claphaim. (1996). Language Test Construction and Evaluation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, Jerome. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1986.
Brown, D. L. (1996). Kids, computers and constructivism. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 23 (3), 189-196.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., &Duguid, P. (1989). “Situated cognition and the culture of
learning”. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41. Bippus, A. M. & Daly, J. A.
(1999). What do people think causes stage fright? Naïve attributions about the
reasons for public speaking. Communication Education, 48, 63-72.
Bruskin Associates. What are Americans afraid of? The Bruskin Report, 1973, 53.
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center for English
Language Teaching and Research.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. & J. Goodwin. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation: a Reference for
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carroll, C. (2005). "Assessing Project-Based Learning: A case study of an undergraduate
selling and sales management module at the University of Limerick" in
Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (Eds). Handbook of Enquiry and
Problem-based Learning
Clement, J. (1993) Using Bridges Analogies and Anchoring Institutions to Deal with Students
Preconceptions in Physics. Journal of research in science teaching, vol 30.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Daly, J. A., &McCroskey, J. C. (Eds). (1984). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and
communication apprehension. Newbury Park: Sage.
Dauwalder, D. P. (2000). Formulating sound conclusions and recommendations.The 438
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 42, 6-13.
Globish, Vol. 6, No. 1,January2018, 1-8.

439
Globish ISSN: 2301-9913

Egan, K. (1999). Speaking. A critical skill and a challenge. Calico Journal. 16 No: 3,
277- 293.
Gallo, C (2006). The 10 worst presentation habits.BusinessWeek.com. Retrieved October
20, 2006 from:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/02/mistakes/index_01.htm
Hoff, E. & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language.Journal
of communication Disorders, 38, 271-278.
Jonassen D. H., (1994). Thinking technology: Towards a Constructivist Design Model,
Educational Technology, April, 3437
Kim, H. B., Fisher, L. D., & Fraser, J. B. (1999). Assessment and investigation of
constructivist science learning environment in Korea.
King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations preparing. Journal of
Humanistic Studies, 4, 401-418.
Krannich, C. R. (2004). 101 Secrets of highly effective speakers: controlling fear, commanding
attention [Recorded by B. McDonald]. [CD]. New York: Listen &Live Audio, Inc.
Krizan, A. C., Merrier, P., & Jones, C. L. (2005). Business Communication, (6th ed.).
United States: South-Western.
McCannon, M. & Crews, T. B. (1999). Most common grammatical and punctuation
errors made by undergraduates as perceived by business communication
professors.The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 41, 179-186.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and
research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
McCroskey, J. C. Oral communication apprehension: Reconceptualization and a new look at
measurement. Paper presented at the Central Sate Speech Association, Chicago,
1981. Portions also presented at the SCA, Louisville, 1982.
Parvis, L. F. (2001). The importance of communication and public-speaking skills.
Journal of Environmental Health, 63, (pp. 44, 35).7
Phillips, G. M. (1968). Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 35,
39-49.
Reece, P. (1999). The number one fear: Public speaking and the university student. In K.
Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/
Learningin Context, 341-347. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching
Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth:
UWA. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/reece.html
Seligman, M. E. Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: W. H.
Scott, J. C. (2001). Using the process approach to improve scholarly writing. The DeltaPi
Epsilon Journal 43, 57-66. Sheets, B. H. (2004). Effects of English grammar, usage,
mechanics, and spelling instruction in college business communication classes.
Journal of Business andPublic Affairs, (Fall), 31, 48-54. Strunk, W. & White, E.B.
(1959). The Elements of Style (Macmillan paperback ed.). New York: The
Macmillan Company.
Underhill, N. (1987). Testing Spoken Language. A handbook of oral testing techniques.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
440
Winsor, J., Curtis, D., & Stephens, R. (1997). National preferences in business and
communication education; A survey update. Journal of the Association
forCommunication Administration, 3, 170-179.

51

441
 P-ISSN: 2301-9913 | E-ISSN: 2597-
9132

MTD Training. (2010). Successful Time Management. ISBN 978-

87-7681-662-9. MTD Training &Ventus Publishing ApS.
 Globish, Vol. 6, No. 1,January2018, 1-8.

FILE 3

DOI: 10.22144/ctu.jen.2018.022

Challenges to speaking skills encountered by English-majored students: A story of

one Vietnamese university in the Mekong Delta

Vo Phuong Quyen*, Pham Thi My Nga and Ho Thao Nguyen

School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Vietnam
*
Correspondence: Vo Phuong Quyen (email: [email protected])

Article info. ABSTRACT

Received 17 Oct 2017 Along with the demand of global integration, learning foreign languages
Revised 08 Dec 2017 for international communication has become more and more vital to
Viet- namese students. Therefore, English speaking skills is an
Accepted 20 Jul 2018 indispensable course in English language curriculum at tertiary level.
However, it is not easy for English learners in this context to achieve their
fluency and profi- ciency in English speaking skill due to certain internal
Keywords and external fac- tors. Therefore, this study is to investigate challenges of
speaking skills faced by English-majored freshmen in a Vietnamese
Challenges, speaking skills, university. The data obtained from the questionnaire with 131 students,
Vietnamese individual interviews with lecturers, and class observation. The findings
undergraduates show that English fresh- men faced both internal and external challenges,
especially the latter ones regarding the limitation of English speaking
environment and extracurric- ular activities. Possible measures are
proposed to tackle such challenges in helping students speak English
more effectively.

Cited as: Quyen, V.P., Nga, P.T.M. and Nguyen, H.T., 2018. Challenges to speaking skills
encountered by English-majored students: A story of one Vietnamese university
in the Mekong Delta. Can Tho University Journal of Science. 54(5): 38-44.
1 INTRODUCTION majored graduates thanks to its indispensable
In the context of Vietnam, the achievement role in international communication
of English speaking proficiency has been relationships arisen from the recent trend of
more and more concerned by most English- global integration. Such the impact has
brought about the fluency and proficiency of skills more effectively, the current research
English speaking skills as one main is aimed to explore the current situation of
objective in the tertiary curriculum of teaching and learning English speaking of
English language program at most English-majored freshmen at CTU in terms
Vietnamese universities. It is, however, still of difficulties encountered by these EFL
challenging for numerous English language freshmen and possible measures to tackle
undergraduates to fully achieve speaking such challenges. Explicitly, two following
skills, especially for first-year students in researched questions guided the study:
the tertiary context of Can Tho University
(CTU) in Vietnam. Additionally, there have 1. What difficulties do English-majored freshmen at
CTU encounter when they learn speaking English?
been few studies of this concern in this
context. Consequently, with regard to 2. What are feasible solutions to such difficulties?
helping English-majored freshmen learn 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
speaking
2.1 Speaking competence of English as a
foreign language
Different views of speaking competence in
English as a foreign language (EFL) have
been raised. As mentioned by Bachman and
Palmer (1990), one’s
speaking competence of a language is Several factors hindering EFL learners’
expressed by his linguistic competence, speaking performance have been discussed
knowledge of encountering linguistic with respect to both internal and external
communication difficulties, as well as factors. Concerning internal factors from
linguistically emotional reactions. Sharing language learners themselves, Littlewood
the same concern, Nunan (1999) also (1984) concerns this with lack of motivation
discusses language speaking competence as in speaking English. Sharing this view, Ur
one’s ability to have adequate vocabulary (1996) indicates other three possible
and syntax mastery to speak that language. challenges to learners’ speaking skills,
Nunan further emphasises the speaker’s namely learners’ worries of making mistakes,
communicative competence in relation to which lead to their fearful of criticism,
the combination of linguistic competence, learners’ low or uneven participation, or
sociolinguistic and conversational skills in learners’ fear of other good learners’
speaking process. Regarding speaking domination. These internal challenges have
competence from another aspect, Johnson been found in the studies by Rabab’ah
(1995) particularly indicates second (2005), Dil (2009), Le (2011), Ngo (2011),
language learners need to obtain Al-Jamal & Al-
communicative abilities to involve their Jamal (2014), and Izadi (2015) as the most
class activities and learn from these significant limitations of EFL learners’
activities. speaking performance. Additionally, Le
(2011), Ngo (2011) and Izadi (2015) further
2.2 Characteristi
emphasise other related
cs of English
speaking
competence
The competence of English speaking skills
has variously characterised. Canale and
Swain (1980) summarise it in three parts of
competence, namely grammatical,
sociolinguistic and strategic. As Jones
(1996), Burns (1998), and Richards (2006)
categorise, second language’s speaking
activities include talking as interaction,
talking as transaction, and talking as
performance. In particular, talking as
interaction is implied to meet social
functions, and talking as transaction is for
purposive situations while talking as
performance refers to transmitting
information to audiences with well-
structured language. However, the current
study is mainly focused on talking as
interaction in English classrooms.
2.3 Challenge
s to English
speaking
performance
internal factors which are limitations of researcher then proposes possible
vocabulary, grammatical structures, supplementary activities for English
sentence formation which cause their use speaking skills enhancement such as songs,
of mother tongue instead of speaking the poems, short stories, or conversation talks
target language. instead of focusing much on textbook
Besides the challenges related to internal activities.
factors, some difficulties for EFL learners’ In addition to the aforementioned external
speaking skills also arise from various challenges, the limitation of English
external factors. One of the factor that learning environment also contributes to
inhibits EFL speakers is their teachers’ use EFL learners’ speaking performance. As
of mother tongue in English speaking class justified by Harmer (1991) and Ur (1996),
(Littlewood, 2007) which partly influences those who learn English as a second
learners’ speaking motivation. language and have the same mother tongue
Additionally, Harmer (1991) states that tend to use their native language to
teachers’ mistake correction while their communicative even in their English
learners are speaking can be considered to classrooms since it seems easier to express
limit the learners’ confidence in speaking what they really want to exchange,
performance. As a result, it is necessary to especially when they are asked to discuss
have positive ways to correct learners’ unfamiliar speaking topics (Harmer, 1991).
speaking mistakes combined with Sharing the same concern, Kabir (2014)
appropriate stimulation to learners (Baker further indicates large classes as an
& Westrup, 2003). In the same vein, Folley inhibiting factor for EFL learners’ speaking
(2005) and Rabab’ah (2005) discover from
their studies that teaching methods can be
challenging to learners in terms of
teachers’ limitation of how to teach
speaking skills.
Another external hindering factor to
speaking skills of EFL learners is the
content of teaching syllabus and English
teaching curriculum. In other words, as
mentioned in Gan’s (2012) study, learners’
speaking performance can be limited if the
content of English teaching curriculum
does not focus on communicative skills. In
another study, Ambu and Saidi (1997) also
share this concern by indicating
inappropriate distribution of time for
teaching speaking skills and teaching
syllabus without satisfying English
learners’ communicative needs.
Furthermore, Al-Abri (2008) considers this
concern with regard to lack of speaking
activities in the content of teaching
curriculum as another challenging factor
for learners’ speaking performance. This
performance in relation to EFL learners who In the context of Vietnam, Le (2011) also
have limited time to show their speaking examined the same research concern in the
ability (Nguyen & Tran, 2015). context of Ba Ria - Vung Tau University
Furthermore, challenges to speaking where students faced challenges in English
performance of EFL learners partly emerge speaking skills. The findings emphasised the
from the limitation of extra-curriculum challenges with regard to (1) learners’ issues
activities. As explained by Kabir (2014), such as learning styles, worries and
extra-curriculum activities can help EFL language proficiency; (2) lecturers’ issues,
learners improve their speaking abilities. In namely teaching methodology; and (3)
the study by Gan (2012), this concern is also teaching facilities. Another study related to
significantly raised as one of inhibiting difficulties for students’ speaking skills was
factors for most student participants’ Ngo (2011) at Thai Nguyen University. The
speaking performance in Hong Kong study mainly focuses on three possible
University. Gan further reveals that it seems challenging aspects: psychology, linguistic,
strange and unpopular for these students and social-culture. From then, the same
who are all Chinese to speak English outside suggestions as Kabir (2014) and Izadi
their classes, so building an out-of-class (2015) were recommended for both
English speaking environment for these lecturers’ and administrators’ assistance to
students is necessary and should be improve students’ speaking performance.
enhanced to improve EFL learners’ Additionally, although Nguyen and Tran’s
speaking skills. (2015) study was slightly different from
previous studies with respect to high school
2.4 Previous studies students’ English speaking barriers, the
A number of empirical studies have findings similarly analysed challenges
examined the same research concern related stemmed from learners’ weaknesses in
to difficulties encountered by university speaking English and proposed the necessity
EFL students while participating in oral of teachers’ ready supports by diversifying
classroom activities. For example, Gan’s their teaching activities.
(2012) study explored obstacles to speaking 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
skills confronted by English-majored
students in Hong Kong University and 3.1 Participants
found that the students in this context The whole population of this study is 131
significantly encountered several problems EFL first- year student participants. Data
leading to their limitation of fluent speaking collected by the questionnaire to these
performance such as lacking vocabulary, student participants. Twelve of them were
focusing much on grammar structures, then asked to two focus group interview
having limited in-class speaking sessions. Additionally, three lecturers
opportunities, and out-of- class English currently teaching the four English speaking
speaking environment. The study then classes for these students were invited to
pointed to a need to incorporate sufficiently individual interviews. The details of the
intensive language improvement participants are summarised in Table 1 and
components in the current program. Another Table 2 as follows:
study by Al-Jamal & Al- Jamal (2014) Table 1: Characteristics of student
participants
investigated the difficulties that may
be encountered at six Jordanian public universities
by collecting the data from a survey Charact Number Percentages
questionnaire e
and semi-structured interviews and ristics
revealed that
most student participants faced challenges Gender 21 16.0%
limitation of oral skill, lack of speaking time, and Female 89 84.0%
with the
crowded classes as the most highlighted factors. Time of 03-06 years 28 21.4%
Izadi (2015) examined the views of lecturers and Male
English 07-10 years 92 70.2%
students of English speaking difficulties in the study Over 10 years 11 8.4%

context with Iranian as their native

Table 2: Characteristics of lecturer
participants
language. The
study particularly analysed the difficulties with
regard to linguistic problems, negative Characteristics Number
emotions, and opportunities to speak Gender Female 03
English. The main factor
emerged from the finding was linguistic Time of < 01 year 02
problems, over 10 years 01
teaching
and the study proposed several solutions to
English
tackle
them with the focus on lecturer’s and Nationalities American 02
students’ Vietnamese 01
efforts which were also justified and
reconfirmed as feasible measures in Kabir
(2014) in Bangladesh tertiary context along
with more supports from administrators for
the same vein.
 3.2 Data collection and analysis is to help the researchers save time and
Table 3: The reliability of the survey questionnaire money with a number of individuals
participating simultane- ously (Bryman,
Cronbach's 2004). Specifically, the reliability of the
Scale
Number
Alpha of items questionnaire was quite high with the
overall Cronbach’s alpha of .811 and the
specific
Difficulties related .702 6 Cronbach’s alpha items were from 0.70. The
to in- details
ternal factors are shown in Table 3.
Difficulties related to ex-
ternal factors 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Lecturers’ teaching .745 6 4.1 Difficulties related to internal factors
meth-
ods Difficulties
in speak- encountered by EFL freshmen
Teaching curriculum/ .701 5 ing skills inre-
the current study include
syl- difficulties
labus lated to internal factors and external factors.
For the
In-class English .794 7 first type of factor, the major difficulty
learning revealed by
environment their difficulties of speaking skills in reality
Extra-curriculum activities .740 3 because this research tool
A mixed method combining with both
qualitative and quantitative data had been
used to analyse the research data. To design
the quantitative data, the questionnaire was
specifically developed for the present study
comprised 26 items on a 3-point Likert
scale, ranging from agree (1), not sure (2),
disagree
(3) because questionnaires are considered as
useful tools for collecting data from a large
number of re- spondents (Hinds, 2000). To
collect qualitative data, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with the lecturer
participants to gain insights into the re-
search questions since interviews are the
best ways to find out what other people
think in mind (Mer- riam, 1998).
Additionally, class observations were
conducted to four classes to gain insights
and de- velop relationships with participants
that cannot be obtained in interviews or the
survey questionnaire (Merriam, 1998; Gay
and Airasian, 2000). Moreo- ver, focus
group interviews were also included to
obtain qualitative data with the purpose of
exploring the student participants’ views of
 the participants is lacking vocabulary to express pronunciation, vocabulary, confidence,
ideas in speaking English with over two third of and shyness when they practised speaking
agreed responses (79.4%). Another problem English. The class observations further
agreed by nearly 65% is the limitation of English revealed that using mother tongue in
speaking strategies. However, the difficult factor English speaking class still existed in the
related to limited chances to involve speaking current research context.
activities re- ceives fewer responses with only
43.5%. Signifi- cantly, most of them disagreed The findings are in line with those of the
with being shy in speaking English as the previous studies (Dil, 2009; Le, 2011;
significant hindering factor (71.8%) (Table 4). Ngo, 2011; Al-Jamal, 2014; Izadi, 2015)
regarding lack of confidence and
The interviewed lecturers and focused motivation as inhibiting factors for EFL
group stu- dents also pointed out that their students in speaking performance.
students faced ob- stacles of
Table 4: Difficulties related to internal factors (n= 131)
When speaking English, … Agree % Not sure % Disagree %
I lack vocabulary to express ideas 79.4 16.8 3.8
I do not know English speaking strategies 62.6 27.5 9.9
I have limited chances to involve speaking activities 43.5 27.5 29
I lack motivation in speaking English with classmates 35.9 26.7 37.4
I feel afraid of making mistakes and being criticised by classmates 34.4 43.5 22.1
I feel shy 3.1 25.2 71.8
Mean value 43.2 27.8 29

4.2 Difficulties related to external 4.2.1 Lecturers’ teaching methods

factors As indicated in Table 5, most student
Regarding the second type of factor, namely respondents disagreed with the difficulties
exter- nal issues affecting EFL speaking caused by their lec- turers’ teaching
learners in the current study; there were methods with the disagreed re- sponses
several external factors in- vestigated as which were much higher than the agreed
follows. ones. In particular, the same percentage of
student respondents highly disagreed with
their lecturers
 who did not create interesting speaking activities challenging issues related to lecturers’ mother
and correct mistakes of speaking (67.9%). Addition- tongue or teaching grammar and vocabulary is
ally, the results indicated that the participants fewer than to other issues, their unsure answers
denied challenging factors caused by their ac- count for higher percentages (between 32%
lecturers’ speak- ing activities with few responses and 40%). (Table 5).
(around 14%). Alt- hough the number of the
participants responding to

Table 5: Difficulties related to lecturers’ teaching methods (n=

131) Not sure Disagree
Agree
When learning English speaking skills, I find that…
% %
%
Lecturers did not create interesting activities in class. 6.9 25.2 67.9
Lecturers did not correct mistakes of speaking. 15.3 16.8 67.9
Lecturers did not give English speaking communicative 7.6 26 66.4
and interactive activities.
Lecturers did not give activities which require students to 13.7 24.4 61.8
practise or use new vocabulary
Lecturers use mother tongue in class. 16.8 32.1 51.1
Lecturers focus on teaching grammar and vocabulary. 16 39.7 44.3
The interviewed lecturers also confirmed who mention lecturers’ limitation of
their teaching methods which were not speaking com- petence which influences
appropriate for all students in speaking students’ speaking perfor- mance.
classes. Sharing this concern, the class
observations also indicated that lecturers 4.2.2 Teaching curriculum and syllabus
could not manage all students, and some Compared to the internal factors, challenges
students seemed to feel less interested in caused by this part saw higher disagreed
speaking activities by doing their own things responses than agreed ones. In other words,
such as using smart phones, or chatting with the agreed respondents accounted for
classmates in Vietnamese. The findings on between over 10% to just under 23% (Table
difficulties related to teaching methods in 6)
the current study reveal some different
results with those by Foley (2005) and
Miller (2010)
Table 6: Difficulties related to teaching curriculum/ syllabus (n= 131)
I find that… Agree %
Teaching curriculum limit learners’ English speaking practice 22.9
The assessment of speaking practice was not regularly applied 22.1
The content of teaching syllabus did not focus on communicative achievement. 18.3
The textbook lack English speaking activities 18.3
Speaking skills is separately taught from other language skills 11.5
Sharing the concerns related to teaching students in terms of the time for speaking
curriculum and syllabus, the findings from skills which was not logically distributed due
lecturers’ interviews and focus group to the combination of listening and speaking
interviews revealed that the curric- ulum of skills. The results are shared with those of
English language program generally and the Ambu and Saidi (1997) who also mention
syllabus of speaking skills particularly of the challeng- ing factors related to insufficient
current context inhibited EFL first-year time of teaching.
 4.2.3 In-class English learning environment classes of language skills in the current
The significant factor related to in-class context. Other issues with fewer agreed
English learning environment which was responses consisted of the domination of
agreed by nearly two thirds (68.7%) is the better students (35.1%), immovable tables
limitation of native lectur- ers teaching and chairs (22.9%) (Ta- ble 7).
Table 7: Difficulties related to in-class English learning environment (n= 131)
I find that… Agree %
The number of native teachers in language skill classes is limited 68.7
Some of better students dominate speaking English in class 35.1
Speaking classes are crowded 25.2
The arrangement of tables and chairs in class prevents students to join interactive activities. 22.9
 4.2.4 Extra-curriculum activities
The interviewed participants also mentioned
limited number of native teachers in The majority of student respondents agreed
language skill classes as the most with regular use of mother tongue in English
challenging external factor for students’ speaking class (73.3%) as the main factor
speaking performance. Additionally, the limiting their speak- ing proficiency since
class ob- servations indicated that the results all of them share the same na- tionality, and
of interviews with lecturers and students it seemed easier to express their own views
shared the same findings as those of the in Vietnamese when they dealt with
survey questionnaire with respect to unfamil- iar speaking topics. Despite the
crowded classes and immovable tables and lower rate of re- sponses, the result depicts a
chairs which prevented students’ speaking noticeable concern for limited chances to
performance. These findings are in line with involve in programs for English practice
the previous studies of Harmer (1991), Ur after class, constituting around 44% of re-
(1996), Kabir (2014), and Nguyen and Tran spondents (Table 8).
(2015) in terms of hindering fac- tors for
students’ speaking practice.
Table 8: Difficulties related to extra-curriculum activities (N= 131)

I find that… Agreed %

My classmates and I often use Vietnamese to communicate after class 73.3

because it is easy to understand and express ideas.
There are limited places for English speaking practice after class like 44.3
English clubs, Eng- lish communities
There are limited English use programs for students. 42
extra-curriculum activi- ties. However, the
The interviewed lecturers also confirmed the chal- results highlight several factors, namely
lenges related to limited English speaking clubs, students’ lack of vocabulary and English
English programs to encourage students’ speaking speaking strategies, limited number of native
performance. Particularly, one lecturer mentioned, teach- ers, limited English speaking
“Organising field trips for students to practice Eng- environment as the most inhibiting factors for
lish should be permitted by the administrators, but students’ speaking skills. From such
it was not easy to propose”. These findings are not
inhibiting factors for EFL freshmen’s
different from those of Gan (2012) and Kabir
speaking skills in the current study, various
(2014) in EFL contexts of Iran and Hong Kong
sugges- tions are proposed as follows.
regarding the supports for students’ speaking
performance out of their scheduled classes. With regard to external factors, the following
con- cerns are recommended. First of all, it is
5 CONCLUSIONS AND recom- mended that should flexibly apply
IMPLICATIONS different teaching strategies that may reduce
The current study with English-majored their use of mother tongue in their classes
freshmen of Can Tho University shows that such as integrating various
the difficulties for these students’ speaking
skills arise from both inter- nal factors
which are related to learners and external
factors regarding lecturers’ teaching
methods, teaching curriculum and syllabus,
in-class English learning environment, and
speaking activities for students of different
levels of speaking performance, updating
information related to English programs,
cooperating with other lectur- ers of
language skills to organise more English
pro- grams and share teaching experiences.
Secondly, the university and the school
administrators should re- consider the
improvement of curriculum and sylla- bus
regarding teaching textbook to provide
students with frequent opportunities of
speaking. Mean- while, there should be
more consideration into sup- plying more
well-equipped facilities, and organising
weekly or monthly English practice
programs to en- courage students’
involvement. Furthermore, more
international cooperation should be
considered to increase the number of
English speaking teachers in the current
context as another effective strategy to
encourage both lecturers to upgrade new
teaching methods of English speaking and
students to prac- tice speaking English with
native speakers in real contexts.
Regarding internal factors, the researchers
recom- mend these following issues for
English-majored freshmen. First of all, they
are recommended to raise their awareness
of independent learning style. Sec- ondly, it
is also required that EFL first-year students
need to learn how to think and speak
English in class or after class by joining
English speaking clubs in campus and off
campus.
Further research also needs to be conducted
with English-majored sophomores or
juniors to have deeper insights into
challenges related to external factors. In
addition, there should be studies to inves-
tigate possible teaching English speaking
strategies
for first-year students to improve confidence and ac- tive in communication.
Furthermore, follow-up re- search should be undertaken to propose
appropriate models to enhance students’ speaking performance such as a
model of English community in campus, a model of extra-curriculum English
use activities, comprising English speaking clubs, field trips to English
speaking countries, and English speaking contests.

REFERENCES
Al-Abri, K., 2008. Teachers’ evaluation of EFL text- books used in the Omani basic education Schools
(Unpublished master’s thesis). ELT Curriculum and Methodology- College Education of Sultan
Qaboos University.

Al-Jamal, D. A. & Al-Jamal, A. A., 2014. An investiga- tion of the difficulties faced by EFL
undergraduates in speaking skills. English Language Teaching. 7(1): 19-27.

Ambu, B. & Saidi, B., 1997. Issues in teaching English speaking in foreign language classroom: A
question- naire study in Oman-Unpublished master’s thesis. ELT Curriculum and Methodology:
College of Edu- cation of Sultan Qaboos University.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. S., 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 371
pages.

Baker, J., & Westrup, H., 2003. Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English language teachers.
London: Continuum, 167 pages.

Burns, A., 1998. Teaching speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 18: 102-123.

Canale, M., & Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language
Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics. 1(1): 1-47.

Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods, Second Edi- tion. Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press, 748 pages.

Dil, Y., 2009. EFL Learners’ communication obstacles. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences. 8(29): 84-
100.

Foley, J. A., 2005. English in Thailand. RELC Journal.

36(2): 223-234.

Gan, Z., 2012. Understanding L2 Speaking Problems: Implications for ESL Curriculum Development
in Teacher Training Institution in Hong Kong. Austral- ian Journal of Teacher Education. 37(1): 43-
59.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W., 2006. Educational re- search: competencies for analysis and
 application. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Mer- rill, 614 pages.

Harmer, J., 1991. The practice of English language teaching, Third Edition. Longman: London and
New York, 448 pages.
Hinds, D., 2000. Research instruments. In: D. Wilkinson & e. Inc. (Eds.). The researcher's toolkit: The
com- plete guide to practitioner research, London: Routledge, pp. 41-54.

Izadi, M., 2015. Understanding teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of English speaking difficulties:
An in- vestigation of gender effect. Modern Research Stud- ies: An International Journal of
Humanities and So- cial Sciences. 2(2): 227-247.

Johnson, K. E., 1995. Understanding communication in second language classroom. Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press, 185 pages.

Jones, P., 1996. Planning an oral language classroom. In:

P. Jones, (Eds.). Talking to learn. Melbourne: PETA 1996, pp. 12-26.

Kabir, U. S., 2014. Challenges of speaking in Bangla- deshi classrooms. Unpublished Master of
Arts in TESOL.

Le, T. M., 2011. An investigation into factors that hinder the participation of university students in
English speaking lessons. University of Languages and Inter- national Studies: Vietnam

Littlewood, W., 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 113 pages.

Littlewood, W., 2007. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
108 pages.

Merriam, S. B., 1988. Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 226 pages.

Miller, B., 2010. The communicative approach in China. Accessed on 18 September 2017. Available
from Elt- linkup.org.

Ngo, P. T., 2011. A study on the difficulties in learning speaking English of the first year students at
the Fac- ulty of Information Technology, Thai Nguyen Uni- versity. MA Thesis.

Nguyen, T. & Tran, M., 2015. Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at Le Thanh Hien high
school. Asian Journal of Educational Research. 3(2): 8-23.

Nunan, D., 1999. Second language teaching & learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers: Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, 330 pages.

Rabab’ah, G., 2005. Communication problems facing Arab learners of English. Journal of Language
and Learning 3(1): 180-197.

Richards, J. C., 2006. Developing classroom speaking activities: From theory to practice.
Guidelines.

RELC-Singapore 28(2): 3-9.

Ur, P., 1996. A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 375 pages.

FILE 4
 WHAT ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW
VOLUME I, 2ND EDITION

Designed for pre-service teachers and teachers new to the field of ELT, What
English Teachers Need to Know Volumes I, II, and III are companion textbooks
organized around the key question, What do teachers need to know and be able to do
in order for their students to learn English?
In the Second Edition of Volume I, Murray and Christison return to this essen- tial question and
call attention to emerging trends and challenges affecting the contemporary classroom. Addressing
new skills and strategies that EFL teachers require to meet the needs of their shifting student
populations who are impacted by changing demographics, digital environments, and
globalization, this book, which is grounded in current research, offers a strong emphasis on
practical applications for classroom teaching.
This updated and expanded Second Edition features:

 a new chapter on technology in TESOL

 new and updated classroom examples throughout
 discussions of how teachers can prepare for contemporary challenges,
such as population mobility and globalization.

The comprehensive texts work for teachers across different contexts—where

English is the dominant language, an official language, or a foreign language; for
different levels—elementary/primary, secondary, university, or adult educa-
tion; and for different learning purposes—general English, workplace English,
English for academic purposes, or English for specific purposes.

Denise E. Murray is Professor Emeritus at Macquarie University, Australia, and

Professor Emeritus at San José State University, USA.

MaryAnn Christison is Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the

University of Utah, USA.
 ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series
Eli Hinkel, Series Editor

The Politics of English Second Language Writing Assessment in Global

Contexts
Edited by Todd Ruecker and Deborah Crusan

Transnational Writing Education

Theory, History, and Practice
Edited by Xiaoye You

Understanding and Teaching English Spelling

A Strategic Guide
Adam Brown

Teaching Essential Units of Language

Beyond Single-word Vocabulary
Edited by Eli Hinkel

What English Language Teachers Need to Know Volume I

Understanding Learning, 2nd Edition
Denise E. Murray and MaryAnn Christison

Pedagogies and Policies for Publishing Research in English

Local Initiatives Supporting International Scholars
James N. Corcoran, Karen Englander, and Laura-Mihaela Muresan
Teaching Chinese as a Second Language
The Way of the Learner
Jane Orton and Andrew Scrimgeour

For more information about this series, please visit:

www.routledge.com/ESL--
Applied-Linguistics-Professional-Series/book-series/LEAESLALP
WHAT ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW
VOLUME I

Understanding Learning
2nd edition

Denise E. Murray and

MaryAnn Christison
Second edition published 2019
by Routledge

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, NewYork, NY 10017

and by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

 2019 Taylor & Francis

The right of Denise E. Murray and MaryAnn Christison to be identified as

authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

First edition published by Routledge 2011

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Murray, Denise E., author. | Christison, MaryAnn, author.

Title:What English language teachers need to know / by Denise E. Murray

and MaryAnn Christison.

Description: 2nd edition. | NewYork : Routledge, 2019. | Series: ESL

& applied linguistics professional series | Includes bibliographical
references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018041671 (print) | LCCN 2018052290 (ebook) |

ISBN 9781351139847 (ebook) | ISBN 9780815351962 |

ISBN 9780815351962q(vol. 1 : hardback) | ISBN 9780815351979q

(vol. 1 : paperback) | ISBN 9781351139847q(vol. 1 : ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition—Study and teaching. |

Language and languages—Study and teaching. | English language—

Study and teaching—Foreign speakers.

Classification: LCC P118.2 (ebook) | LCC P118.2 .M89 2019 (print) |

DDC 428/.0071—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018041671

ISBN: 978-0-8153-5196-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-8153-5197-9 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-351-13984-7 (ebk)

Typeset in Perpetua

by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK

CONTENTS

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii
Preface ix
Acknowledgements xiii

PART I
Identity and Context 1

1 Learner Identities 3
2 The World of English 21
3 English Language Learning Around the World 40
4 The Cultural Context 59
5 Learning About Identity and Setting 73

PART II
Language Awareness 93

6 The Sound System 95

7 The System of Words 119
8 The Sentence System 138
9 Beyond the Sentence: Spoken and Written
Language 157

v
 C ONTENTS

PART III
Learning 177

10 Theories of Learning 179

11 An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition 196
12 Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Pedagogy 216
13 Learning Theories in the Classroom 233

PART IV
Professionalism 249

14 Sustaining Professionalism 251

15 Teaching and Learning Language in a Digital World 273

Index 290

vi
 FIGURES

6.1 The Vocal Apparatus 101

6.2 The Vocal Cords 102
7.1 The Proto Indo-European Language Family 123

vii
TAB LES

viii
 5.1 Exploring language in the community 84
6.1 Phonetic symbols and key word associations 99
6.2 English consonants 103
6.3 A traditional representation of English vowels in Standard
American English 108
6.4 Syllable structure 111
6.5 Onset and rime in English syllables 112
6.6 Syllable patterns in English 113
6.7 Common phonograms in English 113
7.1 Some word comparisons among selected Indo-European
languages 124
7.2 Most frequent derivational morphemes 129
7.3 English inflectional morphemes 130
8.1 Pronouns in English 147
8.2 Reflexive pronouns 148
8.3 Forms of verbs 149
8.4 Examples of tense and aspect interaction in English 150
8.5 Types of phrases 154
9.1 Structure of reports 163
9.2 Structure of recounts 164
9.3 Characteristics of spoken and written language 165
10.1 Average primetimes and downtimes in learning episodes of
varying lengths 191
13.1 Learning styles taxonomy 237
14.1Personal competence checklist 267
14.2Social competence checklist 268
15.1 Percentage of online users worldwide over two decades 278

ix
P R E FA C E

English language teaching worldwide has become a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, one that
the majority of nations in the world are embarking on to lesser or greater extents. For
many countries, English is seen as a commodity through which they will become more
competitive in the global marketplace. While English may have national and personal
advancement potential, it is also pervasive in the global media. Youth culture in particular is
influenced by English-dominant media and marketing. As a result, English is being
consumed and transformed transnationally.
The settings where English is taught vary from countries where English is
the official and dominant language, such as the United States or Australia, to
those where it is an official language, usually as a result of past colonialism, such
as in India or the Philippines, to those where it is taught in schools as a subject
of study, such as in Japan or the Czech Republic. In the first set of countries,
when English is taught to immigrants or to international students, the language
is often called English as a second language (ESL), and its teaching TESL. In the
second set of countries, where it is taught to citizens and increasingly to interna-
tional students, it is usually referred to also as ESL. In the third set of
countries, the language is often referred to as English as a foreign language (EFL),
and its teaching as TEFL. Because ESL and EFL carry ideological baggage, there
is much discussion in the field about the use of more appropriate terminology.
Some English language teaching professionals prefer to use (T)ESOL—(teaching)
English to speakers of other languages—because it acknowledges that the learners may
have more than one previous language, and the term can be used to include
both ESL and EFL contexts. Others prefer (T)EAL—(teaching) English as an
additional language for the same reason, whereas ESL implies there is only
English, plus one other. Other terms in use include English as an international
language (EIL) and English language teaching (ELT). Whatever the terminology
used, distinc- tions across the different contexts of English language teaching are
increasingly becoming blurred as people move around the globe and acquire
their English in

x
 P REF A CE

a variety of different settings, being taught by teachers from a variety of different

linguistic backgrounds.
In the volumes in this series, we will use the terms ESL and EFL because
they are still the most widely used terms, while recognizing the inherent reifi-
cation of English in their use. When referring to teaching, we will use ELT to
avoid confusion between the field TESOL and the professional association called
TESOL International.
Similarly, the terminology used to define the users of English has been con-
tested. The most commonly used terms have been native speaker (NS), in contrast
to nonnative speaker (NNS). Both terms assume ideological positions, especially
because the NS has been traditionally valued as the norm and the model for
language learning, not only in those countries where English is the dominant
language, but also in many EFL settings. Yet, the majority of English language
users and teachers do not have English as their mother tongue or dominant
language. In some ESL contexts, such as the United States, immigrant learn-
ers are referred to as English language learners (ELLs), even though all
English speakers, no matter their immigration status, are English language
learners— we both are still learning English! Leung, Harris, and Rampton
(1997) have, therefore, proposed refining what it means to know and use a
language with three terms: (1) language expertise (linguistic and cultural
knowledge), (2) lan- guage affiliation (identification and attachment), and (3)
language inheritance (connectedness and continuity). What is important,
then, about a learner’s (or teacher’s) language is their linguistic repertoire in
relation to each of these criteria, not whether they are NSs. Because there is no
general acceptance of alternate terms, we shall continue to use NS and NNS,
while noting that they establish a dichotomy that is neither valid nor
descriptive.
Much of the literature also refers to people learning English in formal settings
as students and sometimes as learners. We have chosen to use the term learner,
except when it leads to infelicitous expressions, such as learners learning. For us, the
term student implies some passivity, while learner implies agency. For us, learners
are vital collaborators in the educational enterprise.

Who Is This Book For?

We are writing this book for pre-service teachers and teachers new to the field
of ELT. Whether you are teaching in an English dominant country, a country
where English is one of the official languages, or a country where English is taught
as a foreign language, the information in this book is relevant to your context.
We have also designed it for whatever level you may be teaching—elementary

xi
 P REF A CE

(primary) school, secondary school, college or university, or adult education. The series also
includes the information teachers need to teach general English, workplace English, English for
academic purposes (EAP), or English for specific purposes (ESP). We realize that creating a
book that works for many differ- ent contexts is a big ask, but we have used examples from the
diversity of ELT settings. Of course, we cannot include examples from every country or grade
level, but we have tried to be inclusive and ensure that, whatever your current or future teaching
situation, you will find the material relevant to your learners and situation. At the same time, we
have been as specific as possible, rather than relying on generic characteristics of the field.
Our own experiences have covered a vast array of different age groups, con-
texts, and content areas—between us, we have taught in English-dominant
countries, EFL contexts in every continent, young people, adults, university
students, general English, English for business, English for the workplace,
English for science and technology, and EAP.

What Is This Book About?

In order to teach in these different contexts, teachers need understandings about
the nature of language and language learning. With those understandings, they
need to be able to facilitate student learning. Because student learning is the
goal, we have oriented the volumes in this series to the notion of learning, by
asking the question What do teachers need to know and be able to do in order for their
students to learn English?
Therefore, the first book provides the background information teachers need to know
and develop to be able to use it in their classrooms. Teachers need to know about (or
know how to find out) the characteristics of the context in which they work. These
characteristics include the nature of their learners, the fea- tures of their institutions, the
policies and expectations of their state/province/ region/nation, and the broader world in
which their learners will engage. They need to know how English works and how it is
learned. To become proficient in English, learners need to be able not only to create
correct sentences in the classroom and read and write texts for different purposes, but they
also need to engage in conversations with other English speakers. To accomplish these
tasks, teachers need to know how learning takes place both within the learner and
through social interaction. Teachers need to understand their role in the larger
professional sphere of English language education so that they can continue to grow
as teachers and expand the profession through their own participation in its various
enterprises. Finally, teachers also need to engage in their local

xii
 P REF A CE

communities to be informed of their needs and to inform their communities

about the nature of English language learning.
While we have provided separate sections on each of these important themes,
the challenge of successful teaching is to know how to blend an understanding of
learners, language, and language learning with knowledge of their content goals
and how to achieve those goals, which is the subject of Volume II.
The material in this volume is based on current research in the field and in
other disciplines that we believe can inform English language teaching. These
fields of interest include psychology, neuroscience, pedagogy, sociology,
anthropology, cultural studies, and linguistics. The focus throughout the entire
volume is on outcomes—that is, student learning. The material in Volume I is can
be presented to teachers in different configurations, depending on the length of the
course and the topics on which the course might focus. You may decide to use
all of the chapters for your course—for example, if you are using this book in a
semester-long course (16 weeks). For shorter courses, you might decide to use
different parts of the book or a subset of the chapters. We have found the
volume useful for both long and short courses.
Each chapter in this volume includes a variety of activities for the reader, such
as activities that provide you with a chance to reflect on the information
based on your own experiences, to read further on a topic, or to conduct
small scale investigations into teaching and learning. We hope that you will
have as much enjoyment engaging with the materials as we have had writing
them.

Reference
Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native speaker, reified
ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543–560.

xiii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to our many students and colleagues over our careers, whose
wisdom and experiences have enhanced our own understandings of the field.
We are especially grateful to Karen Adler for her enthusiastic support for the
volumes in the series and for encouraging us to move forward with second
edi- tions. A very generous thank you also goes to Eli Hinkel for her willingness
to read and respond to, yet again, another manuscript from us. And we are, as
always, tremendously grateful to our families, especially Bill Murray, Adrian
Palmer, and Cameron Christison, who have supported our work, even when
it has meant less time together and sometimes distracted dinnertime conversa-
tions! You continue to inspire us to be creative and professional.

xiv
 Part I

I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T

In Part I, we offer five chapters that explore the contexts for language learn- ing and teaching.
In order to develop the most appropriate language programs to facilitate learning, educators
need to know about the characteristics of their learners and the aspects of their environments that
affect student learning. We therefore begin with a chapter that examines what the research tells about
learner identity and its impact on learning. The next two chapters explore broadly the three
major contexts for English language teaching: (1) countries where English is the dominant
language (e.g., New Zealand), (2) countries where English is one of several functional
languages (e.g., Singapore), and (3) countries where English is taught in schools as a foreign
language (e.g., Spain). The fourth chap- ter discusses the relationships between language, culture,
language learning, and the roles that teachers and learners adopt in the language classroom. The
final chapter in this section provides research methods and classroom activities that teachers can
use to investigate their own contexts of teaching.
We begin with an exploration of the context because the learner and the
learning environment are essential starting points for understanding language
teaching and learning. Learning is more than the accumulation of knowledge
and skills. Learning is a sociocultural engagement that transforms the learner.
Further, language learning, whether it is a first or second language, is a
process of socialization through which individuals in a society construct and
reproduce dominant beliefs, values, behaviors, and role assignments. This
socialization is also a site of struggle among competing beliefs, values,
behaviors, and role assignments. In the classroom, therefore, the socialization
in the home lan- guage and culture can come up against those of the new
language being learned (English).
 1
LEARNER IDENTITIES

VIGNETTE

In an interview about the settlement of young refugees from Africa in

Australia, a Sudanese leader (Paul) talked about why he wanted to
become a youth leader in his community. This young man was one
of the “Lost Boys of Sudan”:

There is a lot of culture shock. The children go into a middle

culture; they are not Australian, and they are not African. You know
what they are? They are in the middle. They are confused. I have
seen them. They need a coach to tell them how life is. Most young
people want to adapt to American culture, and first we are not in
America; and second youth are the bright future of our community.
We need them to have a better understanding of how life should be.
If I become a youth worker, I’ll know more about how I should deal
with teenagers. Teenagers have problems—some of them are drug-
addicted, some are into guns, and they need good care. Some
young people came with a single parent. If a youth worker has been
trained fully, and he has an organization that can work with them,
you need to engage them so that they can have a good life. I have
seen the needs of young African people here and thought, “Why
should I not do this?” They have a lot of culture shock. They have a
lot of new systems to understand. They want to get into new things
that they do not belong to, like if you talk about the way they react in
the school, the way they behave, it is different to the way white
children behave. Before people came here, they have a high
expecta- tion: “I go there, I am free, free to do everything.” But

3
freedom is differ- ent. Some people took it the wrong way rather than
the right way.1

4
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T

Task: Reflect
1 How does Paul position himself in relation to the Sudanese commu-
nity in Australia and the wider Australian community?
2 Why do you think some of these Sudanese young people want to
be “American”?
3 Why do you think some of these Sudanese young people have the
“wrong idea” about freedom in Australia?
4 What types of educational programs would help these young
people who are in a “middle culture”?

Introduction
The young Sudanese man in the vignette above talks about his own identity—
that of someone who identifies with his own Sudanese community in
Australia. He also talks about the identity conflict experienced by other young
people who want to assimilate and become Australian but who misinterpret some of
the cul- tural values they see among their Australian-born peers. In fact, their
identifying with these peers and copying some of their behaviors leads to conflicts
with their parents, with school officials, and sometimes with the police. In this
chapter, you will read about the various experiences that affect how language
learners shape their identities.
While the development of identity among language users and learners has
long been studied, earlier approaches saw the effects of context on language and
language learning as essentially static and residing in the individual. For example,
early work on dialect speakers by Ryan and Giles (1982) found that the patterns
of language of the dominant group in a society are the model for social advance-
ment, whereas varieties used by minority groups are considered less prestigious
and result in their users being less successful. In a similar vein, work on attitudes
and motivation by Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified two dichotomous
types of motivation: integrative and instrumental. The former refers to learn-
ing a language in order to become a member of that community, that is, to
identify with that language and its community. Instrumental motivation, on the
other hand, refers to the need to learn a language for another purpose, such
as study, with no desire to identify with the community. Schumann’s (1978)
acculturation model of language acquisition also took this position. However,
his model hypothesized that the distance in values between two cultures affected

5
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

language acquisition, such that learners coming from a culture close to that of
the language they were trying to learn would be more successful in acquiring
that language. What all these approaches have in common is the belief that the
choice is either/or: people either choose to assimilate to a group or nation, or
they choose to keep their variety or language in order to identify with their
native group. However, such views ignore the multiple group memberships that
individuals have, such as gender, race, language, language variety, social institu-
tions. Furthermore, research on language and learning that focuses on the social
and interactive nature of both has shown that identity is dynamic, formed,
and transformed through language and learning (Cadman & O’Regan, 2006;
Mohan, Leung, & Davison, 2001; Norton, 2013).

Task: Reflect
Think of your own identity. List all the communities to which you
belong. How do you position yourself differently in each of these
communities? What different language do you use to express your
identity? Do you express solidarity with the values of all these
communities? Which values, beliefs, and behaviors do you ascribe to and
which do you resist? Why?

What Is Identity?
What, then, do we mean by identity? It is generally agreed that identity is the view
that individuals have of themselves and of their place(s) in the world in the past, now,
and in the future. Teachers as well as learners hold views of themselves. However, in
this chapter we will only discuss learner identities; teacher identities will be discussed
in Chapter 2. We have called this chapter learner identities because learners’ places in
the world are multiple, changing, sometimes conflicting, and influenced by the power
relations in individual interactions and in society more widely. This influence may
result in the desire to assimilate, adapt, or reject. As individuals construct their
identities, they position themselves through their language (and non-verbal behavior);
that is, they use language to let others know who they are and what their sociocultural
allegiances are. At the same time, identities, both welcome and unwelcome, are
imposed on individuals. Changing identities has been posited to explain why some
learners may communicate effectively in some language situations,

6
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
yet apparently fail in others. Both the power relations between the people
interacting and the wider structural inequalities can lead to such differences
(see, for example, Norton, 2000, 2013). Norton developed the notion of
investment in the target language to explain the dynamic relationship between
the learner and the social worlds in which they interact. When learners invest
in acquiring a new language, they expect some return on their investment,
whether it be education, jobs, friendship, or other advantages. How and what
variety of English they invest in depends on what future identities they imagine
for themselves. So, for example, learners may stay silent or appear less profi-
cient, not because they are not motivated, but because they are resisting the
identity being imposed on them. Learner investment, therefore, affects which
of the “imagined communities” (Norton, 1995) they choose to participate in.
One such community is the language classroom, where learners may not invest
in the language practices of the classroom because they perceive them as ineq-
uitable, of not acknowledging their own lived experiences. Inherent in discus-
sions of identity, then, is the concept of agency, that is, that people shape their
identities as a result of what is important to them; they are not merely victims
on whom identities are imposed. Furthermore, these identities are shaped
through interactions.
One of the difficulties for language learners and those who teach them and
interact with them is how to interpret learners’ language in any specific instance.
We may not know whether they make their linguistic choices deliberately, or
because they do not have the linguistic tools to express the position they wish to
take. For example, a learner in class may choose not to use a modal to
mitigate a request, using Open the window in preference to Could you open the
window? in order to express displeasure with a classmate who has been
deliberately baiting her by opening the window near her desk on very cold days.
However, the cause may be an imperfect acquisition of modal questions.
Learners’ past and present experiences can influence how they understand
their relationship to the society and culture of the language they are learning
and, therefore, how they utilize, resist, or even create opportunities to use the
language. In TESOL, then, it is crucial to investigate and analyze the experi-
ences and social structures that influence learner identity, their acquisition of
English, and so the enterprise of English language education. These past and
present experiences include nationality, race, and ethnicity; gender; family role, and
bi- or multilingualism. These experiences are inevitably intertwined; how-
ever, for clarity of discussion, we will discuss each of these facets of learners’
lives separately.

7
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

Nationality, Race, and Ethnicity

Often, nationality is the silent identifier in much of the literature, especially in ESL situations,
where race and ethnicity are more often cited as sites of struggle. Race and ethnicity are both
sociological constructs, with little objective, physi- cal evidence for their assignment.
Nationality, also a sociological construct, is as well a political construct with
the physical evidence of assignment of citizenship by birth or naturalization.
All three terms are highly contested. Rarely are nationality, race, and ethnicity
singular in one setting. A particular ethnic group may include people of differ-
ent races and vice versa. We have, therefore, discussed the three concepts as
separate sections within a larger whole.

Nationality. Defining oneself within one’s larger social context is funda- mental to human life
and one such social context is one’s national identification. However, nationality is often not
examined in the work on learner identity because it is assumed that race and ethnicity subsume
nationality. A further rea- son why nationality is often ignored is because it is considered to have
little role in the construction of identity in an era of intense globalization. For English language
learners around the world, different national identifications are avail- able, depending on whether
learners are learning within their own country, are immigrants or refugees to a new country, or are
sojourning in a second country for study or work purposes.
People who move to another nation must (re)define themselves in terms
of their new national context. However, research shows that cultural identity
is essential for self-identity (Fantino & Colak, 2001; McKay & Wong, 1996).
A move from one’s country of origin results in abandonment of previous relation-
ships, along with loss of daily contact with interactions that are characterized by
the cultural values, beliefs, and behaviors that define one’s identity.
Therefore, loss of one’s country can be a dehumanizing experience. However,
many immi- grants experience a conflict between the cultural identity of their
home country and that of their new country of residence. This conflict can
result in trying to deny their heritage and assimilate, or in rejecting
identification with their new country. Thus, many immigrants refer to
themselves by the nationality of their country of origin (Nieto, 1992).
In addition, for most immigrants and refugees their identity as immigrant or refugee is
externally imposed. Further, the attributes of these identifiers are imposed by the dominant
group. Even their identification based on nationality

8
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
may be an external construct. For example, refugees from Sudan may be identi-
fied in an English-speaking receiving country as Sudanese, when they themselves
identify by ethnicity, such as Dinka, Nuer, Nuba, or Achole. Often, refugees
reject identification with the nation-state where they were born, because in fact
their identity as a minority in that country and the resulting persecution is what
led to their becoming refugees. Such is the case for many Assyrians from Iran or
Hazaras from Afghanistan.
For those learning English in their country of origin, nationality is important
for their self-identity and their perceptions (or the perceptions of their nation)
as to what they may be losing (or not) in acquiring English. We recall a telling
incident from the early 1970s. One of us (Denise) was teaching in Australia at
the time when China was just opening to the West and was looking to develop
English language programs. Several Chinese officials, in the gray Mao suits,
vis- ited our program to get ideas and stated emphatically, “We want English; we
do not want culture.” In countries that were former British colonies, English
has played different roles. It has been used as the national language in order to
pre- vent the dominance of any one indigenous linguistic group. In other countries
a local language has become the national language to reinforce a singular nation-
ality, such as in Bangladesh, which adopted Bangla as the national language,
maintaining English as a language of the privileged (Imam, 2005). Thus, many
poor, rural children in Bangladesh may have no investment in learning English
because they do not perceive that it will provide them with any advantages.
In other settings, national boundaries may be the result of war or imposed by
former colonial powers. Thus, within the boundaries are people who identify
with their ethnicity, rather than their nation. For example, on a visit to China,
one of us (Denise) met a student from a university near the Korean border. The
medium of instruction at her university was Korean. She herself identified as
Korean, not Chinese. In Spain, many Basques and Catalans do not identify them-
selves as Spaniards. For our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that nationality
and the extent to which learners’ identity is tied to their national beliefs, values,
and even myths, is as relevant in EFL as in ESL situations.
However, with English being consumed transnationally, the sociolinguistic
environment is liquid (Schneider, 2014), with people from all linguistic tradi-
tions interacting via English. These interactions have been identified as English as
a lingua franca, or ELF. Young people (and other adults) may choose to
identify with the consumerism promoted by global media through choices of
clothing, music, and even behaviors. Or they may choose to identify through
English as part of the informal virtual global world created through social
media (Murray, 2018). In fact, many virtual communities are forming,
evolving, and dissolving

9
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

through online interaction. People have agency, and, therefore, some appro- priate or resist
identification with any one vision, especially because they have access to a variety of
alternative views.

Race. While race is a highly contested concept, with no scientific basis,

the attributes assigned to race are often socially salient. Immigrants are often
assigned particular identities based on their perceived race. So, for example,
McKay and Wong (1996) found that immigrant Chinese young adolescents
were being ascribed values of the “model minority,” that is, as being consci-
entious, academically inclined, and uncomplaining. In contrast, their Latin
American peers were being ascribed values of “illegals,” that is, as being
academic failures and lazy.
Some learners resist the assigned racial identity while others deliberately choose one they
identify with. For example, Ibrahim (1999), in his study of French-speaking refugee African
youths in Canada, found that these young peo- ple were invested in becoming “black”
linguistically and culturally during ESL learning so as to identify themselves with black
Americans. In Australia, many refugee youths from Africa reject identification with blackness,
not wanting to identify with Australia’s indigenous Aboriginals. “Black” is in fact an uncertain
and unstable racial identifier. While African refugees, other immigrants, such as Haitians in the
United States, Australian Aboriginals, and African Americans may share skin color, they have
unique ethnic identities.

Ethnicity. As mentioned above, in many countries such as the United

States, ethnicity and race are often used interchangeably. Still others conflate
nationality with ethnicity, even when carefully differentiating race and
ethnicity (Gollnick & Chinn, 2006). However, this conflation leads to inaccurate
descriptions of individuals, especially in immigrant countries where governments
seek to define groups. As we saw above, nation-states are not built around one
ethnic group. Ethnicity results from opposition and a perceived difference,
because people in homogeneous societies do not identify by ethnicity or even
consider they have any ethnicity. The oppositional nature of ethnicity results
from power differ- entials in society, differences that are enacted in social
interactions. Therefore, ethnicity only becomes salient in people’s lives when
they and others seek to dif- ferentiate them from “the other.” For example, in the
United States, the Federal Census defines a pan-ethnic group as Hispanic. This
category consists of people from a range of different countries, many of
whom do identify by their herit- age country. It also includes different racial
groups. The pan-ethnic category of

10
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
Asian and Pacific Islander (also used by the U.S. Census) is problematic
because it includes a variety of countries whose citizens would differentiate among
them- selves, such as Japanese, Lao, Hmong, or Samoan.

Task: Reflect
Now that you have read about the inaccuracies in trying to identify people
in terms of nationality, race, or ethnicity, think again about your own
identity. In the earlier reflection, did you identify with any nationality,
race, or ethnicity? To what extent is that identification one you have cho-
sen for yourself or one that has been imposed? What values, beliefs,
and behaviors do you share with others in this category?

Our views of racial and ethnic groups, other than the one(s) we identify with,
are often created through the media and through the way our community is per-
ceived by other groups. As language teachers, we need to understand the wider
communities’ stereotyping and attitudes towards race and ethnicity, as well as
the positioning our students adopt, in order to develop inclusive classrooms that
give all learners the opportunity to succeed.

Gender
Early work on the relationship between gender and language found differences
in speech patterns between men and women, such as women using more hedges
(Lakoff, 1975), men interrupting more in mixed-gender conservations (Thorne
& Henley, 1975), and men and women being socialized differently, with women
focusing on maintaining social relationships (Tannen, 1990). In more recent
work on second language learning and gender, Pavlenko, Blackledge, Piller,
and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) criticize the earlier research because it sees gender
as a characteristic of individuals, rather than being socially constructed. Further,
they demonstrate that gender in and of itself does not necessarily enable (or not)
second language learning. However, they note that, as a result of social norms,
access to language skills may vary across gender, whether in immigrant coun-
tries or where English is being learned as a school subject. However, women
are not without agency and can (and do) learn English to improve their condi-
tions and to reject patriarchy in many different settings where English is taught.

11
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

They and others have found that English language teaching textbooks often por- tray
stereotypical roles. Similarly, we have seen classrooms where stereotypical roles have been
assigned even by teachers who would not consider themselves sexist. For example, they
may call on boys more than girls or may accept a hus- band responding for a wife in
an adult education setting.
The concern, then, for English language teachers is to examine their contexts
to determine whether males are privileged in ways that deny females opportuni-
ties for learning the full range of English, the role portrayals mirror those of
the wider society, and the women and girls in their classrooms want to accept
or reject those roles.

Family Roles
For many immigrants, moving to a new country can entail a change in family roles. Parent and
child roles are often reversed, as young children act as inter- preters for their less linguistically
proficient parents. Children are often asked to interpret at the doctor’s or in service encounters or
parent-teacher meetings because their English is more proficient than that of their parents. Such
situa- tions, however, place children in an awkward position because they have to take on the role
of expert and caretaker.
Adolescent refugees and immigrants, as well as those facing the identification
as refugee or immigrant, have to pass through the developmental process from
child to adult, a process that is often deemed a crisis or a difficult identity change
in English receiving countries, such as Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
and the United States. Yet, these young people may have come from societies
where there is no such transitional phase and where young people move from
childhood immediately to adulthood. Additionally, their experiences as refugees
or immigrants may have forced adult responsibilities onto them while they were
still the age of childhood. Some, for example, may have been child soldiers,
been raped, or had to support their younger siblings.
Peer pressure on immigrant and refugee students is even greater than on the native-born.
Immigrant and refugee adolescents quickly adopt many of the behaviors of their peers, often
rejecting the norms of their home community, as we saw in the vignette at the beginning of this
chapter. They may reject the language of the home, refusing to use anything but the language of
their new country. This extreme acculturation often leads to conflict within families and
communities: parents often want their children to retain the values and behav- iors of their
community. Further, parents may be at a loss as to how to discipline their children if the methods
used in their home country are not considered acceptable in their new country.

12
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
In countries where English is being learned as a school subject, family roles
are usually determined by local sociocultural norms. However, a number of
factors can impact language learners in these settings. There may be tensions
between ascribed roles and those that children and young people want to adopt
because of exposure to different social rules they encounter, especially through
international media. There may also be tensions between the expectations of
an English teacher from another country with different norms. For example,
in some cultures, parents leave education to the schools but claim complete
control over moral education. A teacher coming from Australia, for example,
may see that her role is to introduce her students to social issues that are salient
in Australia. Textbooks, similarly, often choose topics aligned to middle-class
Western ideas because they are mostly written by middle-class Westerners.
Topics such as women’s roles in the home or at work may cause conflicts or, at
best, discomfort or confusion. For example, in immigrant and refugee families,
children may have an important role in the workforce after school so that the
family has sufficient income. Such workforce participation may fall especially
heavily on teenagers in a family with a single mother parent and many
younger siblings. Yet, teachers expect those young people to do extensive
homework and engage in after-school activities, the roles that a typical teenager
takes in the local culture. Language teachers need to understand what roles
learners take outside the classroom because these impact on their motivation
and investment in learning English.

Bi- or multilingualism
The majority of countries in the world are multilingual and the majority of
peo- ple use more than one language. Many countries encourage the learning of
one or more foreign languages—sometimes with utilitarian goals, as we saw
ear- lier. Yet, the use of different languages in multilingual societies usually
carries societal values and, therefore, positions users according to their
language use. For example, while English may be the language for global
interaction, learners from countries that were former colonies of English-
speaking nations may be ambivalent about, or even hostile to, learning the
language of their oppressors (Canagarajah, 2001; Chick, 2001). In many of
these former colonies, a local, indigenized variety of English has developed as
a lingua franca. (See Chapter 3 for more on this subject.) However, this variety
may not be considered pres- tigious by other speakers of English or even by
the government of the country. Singapore, for example, has conducted a series
of English language campaigns to encourage Singaporeans to use a “standard”
variety, rather than Singapore

13
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

English. Liberians, who are immigrating to Australia and the United States, con- sider
themselves to be native speakers of English; yet the wider community in those countries has
difficulty understanding them, and they are placed in ESL classes, which they resent and
resist.
Having store names and signs in English is perceived as a sign of moderni-
zation in many countries, but having Spanish store names and signs in the
United States is viewed by many as a sign of rejecting English and, therefore,
the United States. Interestingly, the Council of Europe’s goal of plurilingualism
for all European citizens is that they should learn two languages in addition to
their mother tongue—a goal designed to promote a European identity, through
greater movement across countries for work, study, and tourism. While multi-
lingualism and plurilingualism are often used interchangeably, recent scholarship
has differentiated between the two terms. Some scholars use “plurilingual(ism)
to refer to the unique aspects of individual repertoires and agency and
multilingual(ism) to refer to broader social language context/contact(s) and the
coexistence of several languages in a particular situation” (Marshall & Moore,
2013, p. 474). One aspect of bi- and multilingualism that expresses identity is
the phenomenon of multiple language use in a single context, which is known as
code-switching (and more recently as translanguaging).

Code-switching. Code-switching refers to bilinguals in a contact language situation shifting

from one language to the other. It has been widely studied and researchers have identified two
types of code-switching: situational and metaphorical. Situational code-switching is when the
speaker changes language or variety because of changes in the setting or speakers. For example,
multi- linguals will rarely code-switch during an interaction where a monolingual is present.
Metaphorical code-switching is used by speakers to change the tone of the interaction (Blom &
Gumperz, 1972). Building and expanding on this work, Myers-Scotton (1993) shows that speakers
in multilingual situations know which particular language is expected in which particular
situations. So, for example, in multilingual Singapore, in an informal situation, Hokkien
speakers would normally use Hokkien. However, they might choose English “to increase social
distance, to avoid an overt display of ethnicity, or for aesthetic effect” (McKay, 2005, p. 290).
Additionally, they may code-switch to demonstrate their iden- tity as both English and speakers
of local languages, Hokkien, Malay, or Tamil. Therefore, teachers can expect their learners to
code-switch for a number of different reasons and code-switching should not be considered a
sign of a lack of fluency, but rather a way of responding to a situation or a way for learners to

14
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
mark identities. Furthermore, teachers and learners can decide how to use their
multiple languages in the classroom, an issue we discuss in detail in Chapter 3.

Translanguaging. In translanguaging contexts, multilinguals are encour-

aged to make use of their entire linguistic repertoires. Translanguaging means
not just moving backwards and forwards across two languages, but going beyond
the boundaries of all the semiotic (meaning-making) systems at one’s
disposal. These systems may be linguistic or non-linguistic, such as gestures
and body language or moving across modalities from a textbook to a
whiteboard to an oral discussion. Translanguaging was identified in Welsh
schools, where teach- ers found they were using Welsh, but their students
were often responding in English (García & Li Wei, 2014). Translanguaging,
then, is the negotiation of meaning across languages and language varieties
(Canagarajah, 2013), and it is this negotiation that is the core practice of
language teaching because it maxi- mizes all the available resources of both
learners and teacher.

The Classroom and Identity Formation

If experiences help shape identity, then the classroom is a place where identi-
ties are defined and shaped. Canagarajah (2001), reporting on an ethnographic
study of a university-level general English class for Tamil students, found that
the learners resisted the content and pedagogy of their U.S. textbook, despite
their strong motivation to learn English. They wanted to learn grammar as a
product, and pass their examinations, while maintaining their cultural integrity
by not internalizing the discourse of the course. Such a rejection of culture asso-
ciated with language, of course, raises the important question of the relationship
between language and culture and the extent to which learning a second lan-
guage means learning a second culture (a discussion we shall have in Chapters 2
and 3). As we shall also see in Chapter 2, the identity expressed by the teacher
impacts on the classroom and how learners position themselves.
However, teachers also position learners through classroom discourse,
through the textbooks they use, the activities they choose, and the roles they
ask learners to take in the classroom. We briefly discuss each of these influences
below. Each topic will be covered in more detail in Volume II.

Classroom Discourse
Here, we are referring only to the talk that takes place in classrooms, even
though postmodern and critical approaches to discourse would consider the
15
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

activities and roles discussed below as part of discourse. Student-teacher inter- actions
mostly reflect the dominant societal values, such as those related to gen- der, class,
ethnicity, or race.
Classroom discourse, then, can either perpetuate the power imbalances of
society or challenge those power relations. In classes with language minority
learners in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, minority learners are
more successful when their own cultural and linguistic experiences are legiti-
mized (Toohey, Day, & Manyak, 2007; Wong & Grant, 2007). When teachers
position learners as capable and motivated, they are more successful learners.
Included here is what talk, behaviors, and interactions teachers permit in the
classroom. By talk, we embrace both the type of language permitted (such as
terms of respect or derogatory expressions) and which language (English or the
home language of learners, or translanguaging). In many classroom settings,
the home language is highly valued; in others, learners are forbidden to use it,
based on the belief that it will prevent the acquisition of English. To deny learn-
ers the use of their own language in the classroom is to deny them an
essential marker of their own identity and to reduce them (especially if they
are adult beginners) to cognitively deficient persons who cannot convey their
wants and needs. Not only can the home (and other) language(s) be bridges to
learning English (see Chapter 12), but can also actually facilitate the learning
of English (Wei, 2018). Teachers need to ensure that the discourse of the
classroom is respectful of difference and that no single group of learners
dominates interac- tions or is privileged.

Textbooks and Activities

Textbooks and classroom activities also impact learner identities and, therefore, their
investment in learning English. Textbooks often reflect stereotypical views of race,
gender, ethnicity, or nationality. In addition to the way people are por- trayed in
textbooks, we need to consider the way language is portrayed. How is English
portrayed? At the 1996 Annual IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of
English as a Foreign Language) Conference in Keele, Ron Carter said that:

The language course book represents a “can do” society in which inter-
action is generally smooth and trouble free, the speakers cooperate
with each other politely, the conversation is neat, tidy and predictable,
utterances are always as complete as sentences and no-one else can
interrupt anyone else or speak at the same time as anyone else.

16
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T
Not only does such textbook English provide unrealistic models for learners,
but it also implies that English as a language operates differently from what
learners are used to in their own language. They may view their language
as untidy and interaction in their language as troublesome, compared with
the idealized model of English presented to them. A further consideration
is the variety of English provided (a point we will return to in Chapters 2
and 3). One of us (Denise) recalls teaching in the 1970s in Australia, where
the only textbooks available were U.S. or British models that were not going
to help immigrants to Australia in their encounters with Australian English
or aid international students to understand their Australian professors. In
addition, using such models gave Australian English a second-class status
and, therefore, its users second-class status compared to British or American
speakers. Similarly, to what extent do textbooks reflect multilingual/pluri-
lingual practices?

Task: Explore
Select an ESL/EFL textbook that you are using or that is readily available
to you. Choose one chapter from the textbook and answer the following
questions:

1 How is gender portrayed? What are the roles assigned to males and
females? How do these roles reflect the cultural values where you are
using the textbook?
2 How is ethnicity portrayed? Is it stereotypical? In what way?
3 How is English portrayed? To what extent is it a language of power
and advancement? Is it shown as a “can do” society as described by
Carter (1996)? How are other languages portrayed (or not)?

The activities teachers choose also position learners in relation to race,

gender, ethnicity, home languages, and in relation to academic success, as
well. Are the activities ones in which women always play traditional female
roles? Are learners expected to reject their own identity and take on that of a
dominant race or ethnicity? Are the activities ones that learners view as trivial
or not requiring them to explore or use their own knowledge base, including
linguistic ones?

17
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

Roles of Teachers and Learners

A currently popular dichotomy concerning the role of the teacher is often
expressed as “sage on the stage,” compared with “guide on the side.” This catchy
phrase is meant to capture the difference between teacher-centered instruction
and learner-centered instruction or teacher-fronted instruction and peer inter-
action. While we explore this topic in detail throughout the volumes in this
series, it is important to note here that teachers’ decisions about their own roles
and those of their learners position students to both the teacher and their peers
and, therefore, have an impact on their identities. Are learners to be passive
recipients of teacher knowledge or active participants in their own learning?
Does the teacher acknowledge that learners bring their own understandings
to the classroom and value these understandings? Roles are not static. Teachers
and learners may adopt different roles for different purposes. It is incumbent on
the teacher to ensure that the roles facilitate learning by all students.

Conclusion
Learners bring their identities into the classroom, identities that have been shaped and
re-shaped by their experiences, by how they have been evaluated and perceived by
others. The classroom and wider school community continue to shape learners’
identity. Learners add English to their repertoire of language use, which positions
them differently than before they could use English. The values associated with this
addition to their linguistic repertoire depend on the context in which they learn and use
English. Additionally, the experiences learn- ers encounter in the learning environment
itself shape their identity—either reinforcing already held values and beliefs or re-
shaping them. Education in gen- eral and language learning in particular are not neutral
enterprises. Language teachers therefore have responsibility for creating language
learning experiences that result in student learning, while valuing learners’ self-
identification choices.

Task: Expand
Cadman, K., & O’Regan, K. (Eds.). (2006). Tales out of school: Identity and
English language teaching. Series “S”: Special edition of TESOL in Context.

This special edition of the Australian professional journal is devoted to the

issue of identity and mostly includes studies from Australia. It presents
a variety of theoretical perspectives and settings, including indigenous,
(continued)
18
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T

(continued)
international students, and refugees. Most chapters focus on what class-
room teachers can do.
Norton, B. (Ed.). (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English.

Special topic issue of TESOL Quarterly, 31(3).

This special issue of the international professional journal is devoted to the

issue of identity and includes a range of different studies and perspectives.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation, 2nd ed.

Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

This is a revised edition of Norton’s seminal ethnographic study of five

woman immigrants in Canada. As well as providing rich empirical data

Questions for Discussion

1 What are the various factors that affect identity formation that are men- tioned in this
chapter? Discuss other possible factors that are not mentioned in this chapter.
2 How does identity formation of English language learners affect their acqui-
sition of English?
3 Explain the differences between ethnicity, race, and nationality.
4 Explain how the classroom affects identity formation of English language
learners.
5 Explain how the assignment of gender roles both in and outside the class-
room can affect language learning.

Note
1 Language has been changed only for purposes of clarification.

References
Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-
switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics
(pp. 407–434). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cadman, K., & O’Regan, K. (Eds.). (2006). Tales out of school: Identity and English
language teaching. Series “S”: Special edition of TESOL in Context.

19
 L EARNER I DENTITIES

Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities

in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer
(Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 208–226). London, England:
Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Carter, R. 1996. Speaking Englishes, speaking cultures. Plenary presented at the 30th
IATEFL Conference, April 1996, Keele, England. [A version of the paper was
published as Carter, R. (2003) Text 13: Orders of reality: CANCODE, communica-
tion, & culture in B. Seidlhofer (Ed.) Controversies in applied linguistics (pp. 90–104).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.]

Chick, J. K. (2001). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In C. N. Candlin

& N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 227–240).
London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Fantino, A. M., & Colak, A. (2001). Refugee children in Canada: Searching for identity.
Child Welfare, 53(5), 587–597.

García, O. & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, education, and bilingualism.

Basingtoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2006). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society,

7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ibrahim, A. E. K. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and Hip-Hop, race, gender, and
iden- tity and the politics of ESL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 349–369.
Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building
education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41, 471–486.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2013). 2B or not 2B plurilingual: Navigating languages, lit-
eracies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education in Canada. TESOL
Quarterly, 47(3), 472–499.

McKay, S. L. (2005). Sociolinguistics and language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 281–299). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McKay, S. L., & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immi-
grant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–608.
Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (2001). English as a second language in the main-
stream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow, England: Pearson.
20
Murray, D. E. (2018). The world of English language teaching: Creating equity or ineq-
uity? Language Teaching Research, 1–11. doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777529
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivation for codeswitching. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education.

New York, NY: Longman.

21
 I D E N T I T Y AND C O N T E X T

Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL

Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change.

Essex, England: Longman.

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation, 2nd ed.
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (Eds.). (2001).
Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1982). Attitudes towards language variation. London,
England: Edward Arnold.

Schneider, E. W. (2014). New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world

Englishes. World Englishes, 33(1), 9–32. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/
weng.12069

Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand me. New York, NY: Morrow.
Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversa-
tions. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Toohey, K., Day, E., & Manyak, P. (2007). ESL learners in the early school years. In
J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching

(Vol. 2, pp. 626–638). New York, NY: Springer.

Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging and the goal of TESOL. Retrieved from
www.tesol.org/ docs/default-source/ppt/li-wei.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Wong, S.-L. C., & Grant, R. (2007). Academic achievement and social identity among
bilingual students in the US. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International hand-
book of English language teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 681–691). New York, NY: Springer.

22
Learner Identities
Blom, J. P. , & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures:
Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions
in sociolinguistics (pp. 407–434). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cadman, K. , & O’Regan, K. (Eds.). (2006). Tales out of school: Identity
and English language teaching. Series “S”: Special edition of TESOL in
Context.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:
Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 208–226). London, England: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013).
Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Carter, R. 1996. Speaking Englishes, speaking cultures. Plenary presented at
the 30th IATEFL Conference, April 1996, Keele, England. [A version of the
paper was published as Carter, R. (2003) Text 13: Orders of reality:
CANCODE, communication, & culture in B. Seidlhofer (Ed.) Controversies
in applied linguistics (pp. 90–104). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.]
Chick, J. K. (2001). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 227–240). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Fantino, A. M. , & Colak, A. (2001). Refugee children in Canada: Searching
for identity. Child Welfare, 53(5), 587–597.
García, O. & Li Wei . (2014). Translanguaging: Language, education, and
bilingualism. Basingtoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gardner, R. C. , & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in
second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gollnick, D. M. , & Chinn, P. C. (2006). Multicultural education in a
pluralistic society, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ibrahim, A. E. K. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and Hip-Hop, race, gender,
and identity and the politics of ESL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 349–
369.
Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of
nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41,
471–486.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2013). 2B or not 2B plurilingual: Navigating
languages, literacies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education
in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 472–499.
McKay, S. L. (2005). Sociolinguistics and language learning. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.
281–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McKay, S. L. , & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple
identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among
Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3),
577–608.
Mohan, B. , Leung, C. , & Davison, C. (2001). English as a second
language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow,
England: Pearson.
Murray, D. E. (2018). The world of English language teaching: Creating equity
or inequity? Language Teaching Research, 1–11.
doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777529
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivation for codeswitching. Oxford,
England: Clarendon. Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical
context of multicultural education. New York, NY: Longman.
Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and
educational change. Essex, England: Longman.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the
conversation, 2nd ed. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. , Blackledge, A. , Piller, I. , & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (Eds.). (2001).
Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ryan, E. B. , & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1982). Attitudes towards language
variation. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Schneider, E. W. (2014). New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of
world Englishes. World Englishes, 33(1), 9–32. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12069 Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization
process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand me. New York, NY:
Morrow. Thorne, B. , & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1975). Sex roles,
interruptions, and silences in conversations. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Toohey, K. , Day, E. , & Manyak, P. (2007). ESL learners in the early school
years. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English
language teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 626–638). New York, NY: Springer.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging and the goal of TESOL.
Retrieved from www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/ppt/li-
wei.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Wong, S.-L. C. , & Grant, R. (2007). Academic achievement and social
identity among bilingual students in the US. In J. Cummins & C. Davison
(Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 681–
691). New York, NY: Springer.

The World of English

Agence France-Presse . (1999). Singapore to launch speak-good-English
campaign [Electronic version]. Retrieved from www.singapore-
window.org/sw99/90830afp.htm Amin, N. (2001). Nativism, the native
speaker construct, and minority immigrant women teachers of English as
a second language. The CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 89–107.
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research,
pedagogy, and professional growth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, J. , & Miller, J. (2006). Dilemmas of identity in teacher education:
Reflections on one pre-service ESL teacher cohort. TESOL in Context,
Series “S,” 118–146.
Brutt-Griffler, J. , & Samimy, K. K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the
postcolonial: Critical praxis for non-native-English-speaking teachers in a
TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413–431.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “Native Speaker Fallacy”:
Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:
Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 208–226). London, England: Routledge. Chick, J. K. (2001). Safe-talk:
Collusion in apartheid education. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.),
English language teaching in its social context (pp. 227–240). London,
England: Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Cook, V. J. (2012). Multicompetence. In C. Chappelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia
of applied linguistics (pp. 3768–3774), Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Davies, A. (1996). Proficiency or the native speaker: What are we trying to
achieve in ELT? In
G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics
(pp. 145–157). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. (1996). Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL
Quarterly, 30(1), 9–30.
Ellis, L. (2002). Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-
native teacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1),
71–107.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London, England:
British Council. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London,
England: British Council.
Gumperz, J. J. (1986). Introduction. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.),
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 1–25).
Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives in teaching World Englishes and
English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and
models of non- native Englishes. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Kachru, B. B. (2004). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Kachru, B. B. , Kachru, Y. , & Nelson, C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of
World Englishes. London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kachru, B. B. , & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay
(Ed.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71–102). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kelch, K. , & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students’ attitudes
toward native- and nonnative-speaking instructors’ accents. The
CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 57–72.
Kim, Y. M. (2002). Naneun: yeongeo sadaejuui: ttwieoneomgi. Seoul:
Hankyurae. Kubota, M. (2004). Native speaker: A unitary fantasy of a
diverse reality. The Language Teacher, 28(1), 3–30.
Lee, J. J. (2005). The native speaker: An achievable model? [Electronic
version]. Asian EFL Journal, 7. Retrieved from
www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_jl.pdf
Leung, C. , Harris, R. , & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native
speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 543–560.
Liu, D. (1999a). From their own perspectives: The impact of non-native
professionals on their students. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in
English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, D. (1999b). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for
TESOL teacher education in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyons, D. (July 26, 2017). How many people speak English, and where is it
spoken? Retrieved from www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-
speak-english-and-where- is-it-spoken/
Matsuda, A. , & Matsuda, P. (2001). Autonomy and collaboration in teacher
education: Journal sharing among native and nonnative English-speaking
teachers. The CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 109–121.
McKay, S. (2000). An investigation of five Japanese English teachers’
reflections on their
U.S. MA TESOL practicum experience. JALT Journal, 22(1), 46–68.
Modiano, M. (1999a). International English in the global village. English
Today, 15(2), 3–15. Modiano, M. (1999b). Standard English(es) and
educational practices for the world’s lingua franca. English Today, 15(4), 3–
13.
Modiano, M. (2003). Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. English Today,
19(2), 35–41. Murray, D. E. (2010). Changing stripes—chameleon or tiger?
In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.), Language and culture: Reflective narratives
and the emergence of identity (pp. 164–169). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murray, D. E. , & Garvey, E. (2004). The multilingual teacher: Issues for
teacher education. Prospect, 19(2), 3–24.
Nayar, P. B. (1994, April). Whose English is it?
Retrieved from www-
writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej01/f.1/html
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the
conversation, 2nd ed. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead. Toronto: Paikeday
Publishing Inc. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an
international language. London, England: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Richardson, S. (2016). Plenary speech. The “native factor,” the haves and
the have-nots . . . and why we still need to talk about this in 2016. IATEFL
Online. Retrieved from https://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2016/session/plenary-
silvana-richardson
Schneider, E. W. (2016). Grassroot Englishes in tourism interactions. English
Today, 32(3), 2–10.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Selvi, A. F. (2014). Myths and misconceptions about nonnative English
speakers in the TESOL (NNST) movement. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 573–
611.
Tatar, S. , & Yıldız, S. (2010). Empowering nonnative-English speaking
teachers in the classroom. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Nonnative
English speakers in TESOL (pp. 114–128). Newcastle upon Tyne, England:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Uzum, B. (2018). Attitudes of students toward NESTs and NNESTs. The
TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7), John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0008
Vittachi, N. (2010). A short course in Globalese. In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.),
Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp.
215–222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wong, L. , & Thomas, J. (1993). Nativization and the making of meaning. In
M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific
Rim (pp. 15–27). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Yano, Y. (2001). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes,
20(2), 119–131.

English Language Learning Around the World

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages . (1996). National
standards for foreign language education. Retrieved from
www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3392 Ball, J. (2011). Mother
tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years.
Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000212270
Batalova, J. , Fix, M. , & Creticos, P. A. (2008). Uneven progress: The
employment pathways of skilled immigrants in the United States. Retrieved
from www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/BrainWasteOct08.pdf
Boyle, J. (1997). Native-speaker teachers of English in Hong Kong. Language
and Education, 11(3), 163–181.
Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture . (2018). Retrieved from
CCVT.org Carrington, K. , McIntosh, A. , & Walmsley, J. (2007). The
social costs and benefits of
migration into Australia. Retrieved from
www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/social-
costs-benefits/
Chiswick, B. R. , Cohen, Y. , & Zach, T. (1997). The labour market status of
immigrants: Effects of the unemployment rate at arrival and duration of
residence. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 50(2), 289–303.
Chiswick, B. R. , Lee, Y. , & Miller, P. W. (2003). Schooling, literacy,
numeracy and labour market success. The Economic Record, 79(245), 165–
181.
Council of Europe . (n.d.). The Common European Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from
www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp
De Mejía, A.-M. (2002). Power, prestige, and bilingualism: International
perspectives on elite bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Fazel, M. , & Stein, A. (2003). Mental health of refugee children: Comparative
study. British Medical Journal, 327(7407), 134.
Feinberg, R. C. (2000). Newcomer schools: Salvation or segregated oblivion
for immigrant students? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 220–227.
Fortune, T. W. , & Tedick, D. J. (2008). One-way, Two-way, and Indigenous
Immersion: A call for cross-fertilization: Evolving perspectives on immersion
education. In T. W. Fortune & D. J.
Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism (pp. 3–21). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Galloway, N. , Kriukow, J. , & Numajiri, T. (2017). Internationalisation,
higher education and the growing demand for English: A investigation into
the English medium of instruction (EMI) movement in China and Japan.
London, England: British Council. Retrieved from
https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/research-publications/research-
papers/internationalisation-higher-education-and-growing-demand-english-
investigation- english-medium
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.
London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Goen, S. , Porter, P. , Swanson, D. , & Vandommelen, D. (2002). Generation
1.5. The CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 103–105.
Goldstein, L. M. (1987). Standard English: The only target for nonnative
speakers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 417–438.
Ibrahim, A. E. K. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and hip-hop, race, gender,
and identity and the politics of ESL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),
349–369.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and
models of non- native Englishes. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Klippel, F. (2008). New prospects or imminent danger? The impact of English
medium of instruction on education in Germany. In D. E. Murray (Ed.),
Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second language teaching (pp.
26–42). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Krause, L.-S. (2018). It’s time to rethink what is meant by “mother
tongue” education. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/its-time-
to-rethink-whats-meant-by-mother- tongue-education-96475
Lessow-Hurley, J. (2018). The foundations of dual language instruction, 6th
ed. New York, NY: Pearson.
Leung, C. , Harris, R. , & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native
speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 543–560.
Luk, J. , & Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). Classroom interactions as cross-cultural
encounters: Native speakers in EFL lessons. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mondejar, M. , Valdivia, L. , Laurier, J. , & Mboutsiadis, B. (2012). Effective
implementation of foreign language education reform in Japan: What more can
be done? In A. Stewart & N. Sonda (Eds.), JALT2011 Conference
Proceedings: Teaching, learning, growing (pp.
171–191). Tokyo: JALT.
Murray, D. E. , & Lloyd, R. (2007). Uptake of AMEP provision by youth from
Africa: Opportunities and barriers. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Murray, D. E. , & Wigglesworth, G. (Eds.). (2005). First language support in
adult ESL in Australia. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
NCES . (2018). English language learners. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
Obondo, M. A. (2007). Tensions between English and mother tongue
teaching in post- colonial Africa. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.),
International handbook of English language teaching part I (pp. 37–50).
New York, NY: Springer.
Park, K. (1999). “I really do feel I’m 1.5”: The construction of self and
community by young Korean Americans. Amerasia Journal, 25(1), 139–163.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. Phillipson, R. , & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1999).
Englishisation: One dimension of globalisation. AILA Review, 13, 19–
36.
Preuss, C. L. (2008). SOS! I’m having an identity crisis. Essential Teacher,
5(3), 22–24. Rumbaut, R. G. , & Ima, K. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast
Asian refugee youth: A comparative study (Final Report to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). San
Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
Seargeant, P. , Erling, E. J. , Solly, M. , & Hasan Chowdhury, Q. (2017). The
communicative needs of Bangladeshi economic migrants: The functional
values of host country languages versus English as a lingua franca. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 6(1), 141–166, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2017-0008
TESOL International Association . (2018). Action agenda for the future of
the TESOL profession. Retrieved from www.tesol.org/summit-2017/action-
agenda-for-the-future-of-the- tesol-profession
The Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma .
(2018). Retrieved from http://fasstt.org.au/
Thomas, W. P. , & Collier, V. P. (2003). What we know about effective
instructional approaches for language minority learners. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service. Victoria Foundation for Survivors of
Torture . (1998). Rebuilding shattered lives. Parkville, Australia: Victoria
Foundation for Survivors of Torture.
Wigglesworth, G. (Ed.). (2003). The kaleidoscope of adult second
language learning: Learner, teacher and researcher. Sydney, Australia:
NCELTR.
Yang, K. T. H. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of an
“ideal” language school manager: Comparing the views of local and
expatriate ELT staff in Taiwanese schools. Unpublished MA thesis,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

The Cultural Context

Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:
Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 208–226). London, England: Routledge. Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956).
Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carter, R. (1996). Speaking Englishes, speaking cultures. Opening plenary
presented at the 30th IATEFL Conference, April, 1996, Keele, England. [A
version of the paper was published as Carter, R. (2003) Text 13: Orders of
reality: CANCODE, communication, & culture in B. Seidlhofer (Ed.)
Controversies in applied linguistics (pp. 90–104). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.]
Chen, S. (1995). Cultural components in the teaching of Asian languages.
ARAL Series S, 12, 153–168.
Chick, J. K. (2001). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 227–240). London, England: Routledge.
Christison, M. A. , & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English
language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing
times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Corbel, C. (2007). Teachers’ roles in the global hypermedia environment. In J.
Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 1113–1124). New York, NY: Springer.
Erling, E. (2009). The many names of English. English Today, 21(1), 40–44.
Frazier, S. (2002). The trouble with cross-cultural oversensitivity. The
CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 283–291.
Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of
research. Educational Leadership, 38(5), 415–422.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede
model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1).
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307- 0919.1014
Holliday, A. , Hyde, M. , & Kullman, J. (2017). Intercultural communication:
An advanced resource book for students, 2nd ed. Abingdon, England:
Routledge.
House, R. J. , Hanges, P. J. , Javidan, M. , Dorfman, P. W. , & Gupta, V.
(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies, Vol 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E. (2007). Introduction to brain-compatible learning (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jussim, L. , & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and
reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63(6), 947–961.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language education. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new
technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Language Learning &
Technology, 11(2), 104–127.
Liddicoat, A. J. , & Crozet, C. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching languages, teaching
cultures. Melbourne, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia
and Language Australia. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools:
Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction of critical pedagogy in
the foundations of education. New York, NY: Longman.
Peace Corps . (n.d.). Peace Corps. Retrieved from
www.peacecorps.gov/about/ Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/the
world in English. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language
education (pp. 34–58). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. , & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language
classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, R. , & Scollon, S. (2001). Intercultural communication: A
discourse approach. Oxford, United Kindgom: Blackwell.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 765–774.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Learning About Identity and Setting

Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:
Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N.
Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context
(pp. 208–226). London, England: Routledge. Chick, J. K. (2001). Safe-talk:
Collusion in apartheid education. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.),
English language teaching in its social context (pp. 227–240). London,
England: Routledge.
Christison, M. A. , & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English
language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing
times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language
teaching. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language
classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dixon, C. N. , & Nessel, D. (1983). Language experience approach to reading
(and writing). Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Freeman, D. , & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.
Handy, C. B. (1985). Understanding organisations, 3rd ed.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social
contact. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holliday, A. (1996). Developing a sociological imagination: Expanding
ethnography in international English language education. Applied Linguistics,
2(1), 234–255.
Muñoz, V. (1995). Where “something catches”: Work, love, and identity in
your youth. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Murray, D. E. (2005). Use of L1 in adult ESL settings. In D. E. Murray & G.
Wigglesworth (Eds.), First language support in adult ESL in Australia (pp.
12–23). Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Murray, D. E. , & Lloyd, R. (2008). Uptake of the Special Preparatory Program
by African communities: Attitudes and expectations. Sydney: AMEP Research
Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/research_reports/
Uptake_report.pdf Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender,
ethnicity, and educational change. Essex, England: Longman.
Nunan, D. , & Choi, J. (Eds.). (2010). Language and culture: Reflective
narratives and the emergence of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Peyton, J. K. (1995). Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop
language and literacy. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for ESL Literacy Education.
Peyton, J. K. (2000). Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop
language and literacy. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for ESL Literacy Education.
Roberts, C. , Byram, M. , Barro, A. , Jordan, S. , & Street, B. (Eds.).
(2001). Language learners as ethnographers. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Spradley, J. P. , & McCurdy, D. W. (1972). The cultural experience:
Ethnography in a complex society. Chicago, IL: Science Research
Associates.
Ullman, C. (1997). Social identity and the adult ESL classroom. ERIC
Digest. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy
Education.

The Sound System

Bassano, S. (2017). Sounds easy: Phonics, spelling, and pronunciation. Palm
Springs, CA: Alta English Publishers.
Curzan, A. , & Adams, M. (2006). How English works. White Plains, NY:
Pearson Education. Honig, B. , Diamond, L. , & Gutlohn, L. (2000). Teaching
reading sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena
Press.
McMahon, A. (2002). An introduction to English phonology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J. (2017). Teaching the pronunciation of English: Focus on whole
courses. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Rowe, B. M. , & Levine, D. P. (2006). A concise introduction to linguistics.
White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
The System of Words
Beck, I. L. &, McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary
acquisition. In R. Barr , M. L. Kamil , P. B., Mosenthal , & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789–814). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Clark, M. M. (2003). The structure of English for readers, writers, and
teachers. Glen Allen, VA: College Publishing.
Comrie, B. , Matthews, S. , & Polinsky, M. (2003). The atlas of languages, rev.
ed. New York, NY: Face on File.
Curzan, A. , & Adams, M. (2006). How English works: A linguistic
introduction. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Crystal, D. (2003a). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English
language, 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University of Press.
Crystal, D. (2003b). English as a global language, 2nd ed. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
D’Anna, C. A. , Zechmeister, E. B. , & Hall, J. W. (1991). Toward a
meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23,
109–122.
Fielding, L. G. , Wilson, P. T. , & Anderson, R. C. (1986). The new focus on
free reading: The role of trade books in reading instruction. In T. Raphael &
R. E. Reynolds (Eds.), The contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 149–160).
New York, NY: Random House.
Gordan, T. (2012). The educator’s guide to linguistics. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Graves, M. E. , Juel, C. , & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the
twenty-first century. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hirsh, D. , & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read
unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
Lorge, I. , & Chall, J. S. (1963). Estimating the size of vocabularies of children
and adults: An analysis of methodological issues. Journal of Experimental
Education, 32(2), 147–157.
Nagy, W. E. , & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in
printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–350.
Noack, R. & Gamlo, L. (2015). The world’s languages in 7 maps and charts.
Retrieved from
www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-
languages-in-7-maps- and-charts/?utm_term=.a7909508448b
Rowe, B. M. , & Levine, D. P. (2006). A concise introduction to linguistics.
New York, NY: Pearson Education
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Bookline
Books.

The Sentence System

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of
syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, M. (2003). The structure of English for readers, writers, and teachers.
Glen Allen, VA: College Publishing.
Curzan, A. , & Adams, M. (2006). How English works: A linguistic
introduction. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Rowe, B. M. , & Levine, D. P. (2006). A concise introduction to linguistics.
New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Beyond the Sentence
Anstey, M. , & Bull, G. (2011). Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts.
Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 8(16). Retrieved from
www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_teachers_to_explore_multimodal_texts,
31522.html?is sueID=12141
Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.
Cicourel, A. V. (1975). Discourse and text: Cognitive and linguistic
processes in studies of social structure. Versus, 12, 33–84.
Cope, B. , & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.,) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and the design of social futures. London, England: Routledge.
Ferguson, C. A. (1986). The study of religious discourse. In D. Tannen & J. E.
Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics
1985 (pp. 205–213).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Freebody, P. , & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands
in cultural context. Prospect, 5(7), 7–16.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston,
MA: Beacon. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London,
England: Edward Arnold. Hammond, J. (1986). The effect of modelling reports
and narratives on the writing of year two children from a non-English speaking
background. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 75–93.
Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural
consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in
communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F.
Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21–30). Geelong, Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Morgan, B. , & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language
education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169.
Phillips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture. New York, NY: Longman.
Rajendram, S. (2015). Potentials of the multiliteracies pedagogy for teaching
English language learners (ELLs): A review of the literature. Critical
Intersections in Educational, 3, 1–18. Retrieved from
www.researchgate.net/publication/315857819_Potentials_of_the_Multiliteraci
es_Pedagogy_f
or_Teaching_English_Language_Learners_ELLs_A_Review_of_the_Literat
ure
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place.
In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp. 95–135).
Hammondsworth, England: Penguin.
Scribner, S. , & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring
orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and
pragmatics of discourse. London, England: Longman.
UNESCO Education Sector (2004). The plurality of literacy and its
implications for policies and programmes. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf
Theories of Learning
Alexander, P. A. , & Judy, J. A. (1988). The interaction of domain-
specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of
Educational Research, 58, 375–404. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive
development. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1). Retrieved from
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/bergen.html Bode, B. H. (1929). Conflicting
psychologies of learning. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Company.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 51, 26.
Brown, A. L. , Campione, J. C. , & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On
training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 1421.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior.
Language, 35, 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York, NY: Random
House Publishers. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and
school achievement: An integrative view. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,
171–200.
Daniels, H. A. (2008). Nine ideas about language. In V. P. Clark , P. A.
Eschholz , A. F. Rosa
, & B. L. Simon (Eds.), Language, 6th ed. (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: St
Martin’s Press. Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and
spaced presentation on vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 22, 1–21.
Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply
the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (
H. A. Rogers &
C. E. Bussenius , Trans.). New York, NY: Teachers College. (Original
work published in 1895.)
Fender, G. (2004). Learning to learn: Strengthening study skills and brain
power. Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications.
Gass, S. M. , & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gobet, F. , Lane, P. C. R. , Croker, S. , Cheng, P. C. H. , Jones, G. , Oliver, I.
.............................................................................................................J. M.
(2001) Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 5, 236–243. Gobet, F. , Voogt, A. J. , & Retschitzki, J. (2004).
Moves in mind: The psychology of board games. Hove, England: Psychology
Press.
Guthrie, J. (2008) (Ed.). Engaging adolescents in reading. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Harlow, H. F. , McGaugh, J. L. , & Thompson, R. F. (1971). Psychology. San
Francisco, CA: Albion.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. White Plains,
NY: Longman. Illeris, K. (2000). Learning theory and adult education. Paper
presented at the AERC Conference in Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from
http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2260&context=aerc
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, Inc.
Lee, H. S. , & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction
go to do with it? The Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 445–469.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-112011-143833 Miller, G. A. (1956). The
magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for
processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Novak, J. (1980). Handbook for learning how to learn program. Ithaca, NY:
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Olivier, C. , & Bowler, R. E. (1996). Learning to learn. New York, NY:
Fireside/Simon & Schuster.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London, England: Oxford
University Press. Peregoy, S. F. , & Boyle, O. F. (2008). Reading, writing,
and learning in ESL: A resource book for K12 teachers, 5th ed. New York,
NY: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Perry, M. , Woolley, J. , & Ifcher, J. (1995). Adult abilities to detect
children’s readiness to learn. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 18(2), 365–381.
Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s construction of reality. London, England:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Richards, J. C. , & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in
language teaching. 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Sessa, V. I. , & London, M. (2008). Intervention to stimulate group learning in
organizations. Journal of Management, 27(6), 554–573.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
2(1). Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Skinner, B. F. (1978). Why don’t we use the behavioral sciences? Human
Nature, 1(1), 32. Skinner, B. F. (1988). What ever happened to psychology as
the science of behavior?
Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 1, 111–122.
Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press/Sage Publications.
Sprinthall, N. A. , Sprinthall, R. C. , & Oja, S. N. (1994). Educational
psychology: A developmental approach, 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Inc.
Stevick, E. J. (1976). Memory, meaning, and method: Some psychological
perspectives on language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Concept-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum
planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 261–283.
Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction. New York, NY:
Guilford Press. Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press. Tuovinen, J. E. , & Sweller, J. (1999). A
comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked
examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334–341.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological
Review, 20, 158–177.
Wertheimer, M. (1982). Productive thinking. Enlarged edition, Phoenix
edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wertheimer, M. (1985). A gestalt perspective on computer simulations
of cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 19–33.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Bailey, N. , Madden, C. , & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence”
in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on
language. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Foris.
Cook, V. (1997). Inside language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis in interlanguage. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax?
Language Learning, 23, 245–258.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1974). You can’t learn without goofing. In J.
Richards (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language
acquisition (pp. 95–123). London, England: Longman.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language
learning and teaching. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New
directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp.
21–32). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages.
Eckman, F. , Moravcsik, E. , & Wirth, J. (1989). Implicational universals and
interrogative structures in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Language
Learning, 39, 173–205.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. London,
England: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S. , Flynn, S. , & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language
acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary
research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 677–714.
Epstein, S. , Flynn, S. , & Martohardjono, G. , (1998). The strong
continuity hypothesis in adult L2 acquisition of functional categories. In S.
Flynn , G. Martohardjono , & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The generative study of
second language acquisition (pp. 61–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In T.
Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative
grammar (pp. 369–388).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Foster-Cohen, S. (1999). An introduction to child language development.
London, England: Longman.
Gass, S. M. , Behney, J. , & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition:
An introductory course, 4th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. M. , & Selinker, L. (2008) Second language acquisition. An
introductory course, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. H. , (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.),
Universals of language (pp. 73–113).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ingram, D. (1986). Phonological development: Production. In P. Fletcher & P.
Garman (Eds.). Language acquisition, 2nd ed. (pp. 223–239). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kellerman, E. , & Sharwood-Smith, M. , (Eds.). (1986). Cross-linguistic
influence in second language acquisition. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. , (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and
Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–69.
Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93–107.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
London, England: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. , Butler, J. , Birnbaum, R. , & Robertson, J. (1978). Two studies in
language acquisition and language learning. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 39(1), 73–92. Krashen, S. , Houck, N. , Giunchi, P. , Bode, S. ,
Birnbaum, R. , & Strei, G. , (1977). Difficulty order for grammatical
morphemes for adult second language performers using free speech. TESOL
Quarterly, 11, 338–341.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press. Lakshmanan, U. (1986). The role of parametric variation in
adult second language acquisition: A study of the “pro-drop” parameter.
Papers in Applied Linguistics—Michigan (PALM), 2, 97–118.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes
by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409–430.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition
order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125–134.
Porter, J. (1977). A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first
language learners. Language Learning, 27, 47–62.
Postman, L. (1971). Transfer, interference and forgetting. In J. W. Kling & L.
A. Riggs (Eds.), Woodworth and Schlosberg’s experimental psychology (pp.
1019–1132). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24,
205–214. Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of
Spanish: A review of the literature. In R. Andersen (Ed.), The acquisition and
use of Spanish and English as first and second languages (pp. 3–32).
Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Schwartz, B. (1998). On two hypotheses of “transfer” in L2A: Minimal
trees and absolute influence. In S. Flynn , G. Martohardjono , & W. O’Neil
(Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 35–59).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in
nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German
interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition
studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the
1991 GLOW Workshops (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 10, 209–231.
Smith, N. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Trahey, M. , & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the
second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–
204.
Vainikka, M. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). The early stages of adult L2
syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language
Research, 12, 140–176.
Vihman, M. (1996). Phonological development: The origins of language in the
child. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Wagner-Gough, K. , & Hatch, E. , (1975). The importance of input in second
language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some
effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language
Research, 7, 133–161.
White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: From initial to final state. In J.
Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 219–
234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, noticing, and reformulation: Implications for IL
development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376.
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with
each other? In
A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition.
(pp. 29–51). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Allen, P. , Swain, M. , Harley, B. , & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of
classroom treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language
education. In B. Harley , P. Allen , J. Cummins , & M. Swain (Eds.) (1990),
The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete
teacher’s guidebook, 5th ed. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Publishing.
Asher, J. , Kusudo, J. , & de la Torre, R. (1974). Learning a second language
through commands: The second field test. Modern Language Journal, 58, 24–
32.
Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Carpenter, H. , Jeon, K. , MacGregor, D. , & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’
interpretation of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–
236.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Clark, J. (1969). The Pennsylvania project and the “audio-lingual vs.
traditional” question. Modern Language Journal, 53, 388–396.
Crookes, G. , & Schmidt, R. (1989). Motivation: Reopening the research
agenda. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8, 217–256.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The psychology of optimal experience. New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. L.
Long (Eds.), A handbook in second language acquisition (pp. 313–348).
Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Conditions, compensation and
enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. L. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Doughty, C. (2004). Effects of instruction on learning a second language: A
critique of instructed SLA research. In B. VanPatten , J. Wiliams , S. Rott , &
M. Oerstreet (Eds.), Form- meaning connections in second language
acquisition (pp. 181–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language
Learning, 23, 245–258.
Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks:
Pedagogically-targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 119–145. Eckerth, J. (2009).
Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(1),
109–130.
Ellis, R. (2004). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. , & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second
language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gaies, S. (1983). The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, 205–218.
Gardner, R. (1980). On the validity of affective variables in second
language acquisition: Conceptual, contextual, and statistical considerations.
Language Learning, 30, 255–270. Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology
and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London,
England: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. , & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second
language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. L. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishers.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview.
AILA Review 19, 3–17.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second
language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories of
second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2013). The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. , & Madden, C. (Eds.) (1985). Input in second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M. , & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. , & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech
modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
7, 37–57.
Gass, S. M. , Behney, J. , & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language introduction,
4th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. , Mackey, A. , & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task based interactions
in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.
Gattegno, C. (1972). Teaching foreign languages in schools: The Silent Way,
2nd ed. New York, NY: Educational Solutions.
Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New
York, NY: Educational Solutions.
Gliksman, L. (1976). Second language acquisition: The effects of student
attitudes on classroom behavior. Unpublished MA thesis, University of
Western Ontario.
Hatch, E. , & Wagner-Gough, J. (1976). Explaining sequence and
variation in second language acquisition. Language Learning, Special
Issue, 4, 39–47.
Holliday, L. (1995). NS syntactic modifications in NS/NNS negotiations
as input data for second language acquisition of syntax. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Knell, E. , & Chi, Y. (2012). The roles of motivation, affective attitudes, and
willingness to communicate among Chinese students in early English
immersion programs. International Education, 41(2), 66.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
London, England: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning:
Introduction to special issue. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 418–420.
Lantolf, J. , & Appel, G. (Eds). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second
language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lightbown, P. (1990). Process-product research on second language learning
in classrooms. In B. Harley , P. Allen , J. Cummins , & M. Swain (Eds.), The
development of second language proficiency (pp. 82–109). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way
immersion programs: Language proficiency, academic achievement and
student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick , D. Christian , & T. W. Fortune (Eds.),
Immersion education: Practices, politics, possibilities (pp. 81–103). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2016). Students’ perceptions of bilingualism in Spanish
and Mandarin dual language program. International Multilingual Research
Journal, 10(1), 59–70.
Long, M. (1980). Inside the black box: Methodological issues in classroom
research on language learning. Language Learning, 30, 1–42.
Long, M. (1983a). Does second language instruction make a difference? A
review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. , & Sato, C. J. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage
studies: An interactionist perspective. In A. Davies , C. Criper , & A. Howatt
(Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 253–279). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Mackey, A. (1995). Stepping up the pace: Input, interaction, and
interlanguage development. An empirical study of questions in ESL.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in a second language (pp. 85–110). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Muchnick, A. , & Wolfe, D. (1982). Attitudes and motivations of
American students of Spanish. Canadian Modern Language Review, 38,
262–281.
Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Oller, J. , Baca, L. , & Vigil, A. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in
ESL: A sociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the southwest. TESOL
Quarterly, 11, 173–183. Ortega, L. (2008). Understanding second language
acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about
second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?
Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple
perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1–22.
Ray, B. , & Seely, C. (1998). Fluency through TPR storytelling, 2nd ed.
Berkeley, CA: Command Performance Language Institute.
Richards, J. , & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language
teaching, 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking
the connection. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second
language acquisition (pp. 5–22). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Scherer, A. , & Wertheimer, M. (1964). A psycholinguistic experiment in
foreign language teaching. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. , & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a
second language: A case-study of an adult learner. In R. R. Day (Ed.),
Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–322).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Seely, C. , & Romijn, E. (1995). TPR is more than commands at all levels.
Berkeley, CA: Command Performance Language Institute.
Sinclair, J. , & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of classroom
discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London,
England: Edward Arnold.
Smith, P. (1970). A comparison of the audiolingual and cognitive approaches
to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvania foreign language project.
Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
Spada, N. (1986). The interaction between type of contact and type of
instruction: Some effects of the L2 proficiency of adult learners. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 8, 181–199.
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and
learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language
teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8, 187–155. Swain, M. (1985).
Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),
Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–255). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House Publishers.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition
and learning. Modern Language Journal, 61, 325–336.
Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An
update. Modern Language Journal, 66, 121–132.
Vroom V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[Published originally in Russian in 1930.]
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. M.
Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17–50).
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Woods, D. (2003). The social construction of beliefs in the language
classroom. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
research approaches (pp. 201–230). New York, NY: Springer.

Learning Theories in the Classroom

Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
on research in second language leaching and learning (pp. 757–771).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bassano, S. K. , & Christison, M. A.
(2010). Collaborative language teaching. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center
Publishers.
Chamot, A. U. , & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook:
Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers.
Christison, M. A. (2003). Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan (Ed.),
Practical English language teaching (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: McGraw
Hill International.
Christison, M. A. (2005). Multiple intelligences and second language
learning. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers.
Christison, M. A. , & Bassano, S. , K. (1995). Look who’s talking.
Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers.
Cohen, A. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and
researchers. New York, NY: Newbury House/Harper Row.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New
York, NY: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual
differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dunn, R. , & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual
learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing
Company.
Dunn, R. , & Dunn, K. (1984). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS:
Price Systems. Dunn, R. , & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students
through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7–
12. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and
messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200–209.
Johnson, D. , Maruyama, G. , Johnson, R. , Nelson, D. , & Skon, L. (1981).
Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on
achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
Kagan, S. (1980). Cooperation-competition, culture, and structural bias in
classrooms. In S. Sharon , P. Hare , C. Webb , & R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.),
Cooperation in education (pp.197–211). Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press.
Kagan, S. (1988). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. Laguna Nigel,
CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kail, R. , & Pellegrino, J. W. (1985). Human intelligence: Perspectives and
prospects. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Long, M. , & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second
language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.
McCarthy, B. (2000). About teaching: 4 MAT in the classroom.
Wauconda, IL: About Learning, Inc.
McGroarty, M. (1992). Cooperative learning: Benefits for content-area
teaching. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural
classroom (pp. 58–69). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Myers, I. B. , & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the
development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 2nd ed. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B. , & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding
personality type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
O’Malley, J. M. , & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. , & Leaver, B. L. (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruction for
language learners. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around
the world: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 227–246). National Foreign
Language Resource Center. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Reid, J. (1997) (Ed.). Learning styles in the second language classrooms.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Sprenger, M. (2008). Differentiation through learning styles and memory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of
intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in
interlanguage. Language Learning 30: 417–431.
Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 75–104).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchen
Publishing Corporation.
Wenden, A. , & Rubin, J. (1987) (Eds.). Learner strategies in language
learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sustaining Professionalism
Adoniou, M. (2017). Professionalism and the profession as change agent.
Retrieved from www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/misty-
adoniou.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner
research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–
141.
Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs.
In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp.
202–214). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M. , & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voices from the classroom:
Qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Barduhn, S. (2002). Why develop? It’s easier not to. In J. Edge (Ed.),
Continuing professional development: Some of our perspectives (pp. 10–13).
Whitstable, England: IATEFL.
Bartels, N. (2005). Applied linguistics and language teacher education: What
we know. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher
education (pp. 405–424). New York, NY: Springer.
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C.
Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202–
214). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and
practice. London, England: Continuum.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Burton, J. (1998). Professionalism in language teaching. Prospect, 13(3),
24–34. Casanave, C. P. , & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (1997). On becoming
a language educator: Personal essays on professional development.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Christison, M. A. , & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English
language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing
times. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clarke, D. , & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher
professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
Crandall, J. (1993). Professionalism and professionalization of adult ESL
literacy. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 497–515.
Crandall, J. , & Christison M. A. (2016). An overview of research in English
language teacher education and professional development. In J. Crandall & M.
A. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in
TESOL (pp. 4–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Davison, C. (2005). The standards solution: The role of standards in
developing IT professional competencies and communities of practice in
English language teaching. In C. Davison (Ed.), Information teachnology and
innovation in language education (pp. 255–283). Hong Kong, China:
University of Hong Kong Press.
Edge, J. (1992). Co-operative development. ELT Journal, 46(1), 62–70.
Edge, J. (1996). Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL
Quarterly, 30(1), 9–30.
Edge, J. (2002a). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework
for individuals as colleagues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2002b). Continuing professional development: Some of our
perspectives. Whitstable, England: IATEFL.
European Commission . (2009). European strategy and co-operation in
education and training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-
learning-policy/doc28_en.htm Frase, L. , & Sorenson, L. (1992). Teacher
motivation and satisfaction: Impact on participatory management. NASSP
Bulletin (January), 37–43.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change, 2nd ed.
London, England: Cassell.
Ginsburg, M. , & Tidwell, M. (1990). Political socialization of prospective
educators in Mexico. New Education, 12(2), 70–82.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London, England:
Bloomsbury. Grossman, J. B. , & Furano, K. (2002). Making the most of
volunteers [Electronic version]. P/PV Briefs. Retrieved from
www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/152_publication.pdf Johnson, S.
(1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Kemmis, S. , & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1986). The action research
planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1987). Innovating for a change: Teacher development and
innovation. ELT Journal, 41(3), 163–170.
Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate and peripheral
participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. , & Berger, C. M. (2015). TESOL: A guide. London, England:
Bloomsbury.
Murk, P. J. , & Stephan, J. F. (1991). Volunteers: How to get them, train them
and keep them. Economic Development Review, 9(3), 73–76.
Myers, M. , & Clark, S. (2002). CPD, lifelong learning and going meta. In J.
Edge (Ed.), Continuing professional development: Some of our perspectives
(pp. 50–62). Whitstable, England: IATEFL.
New Teacher Center . (2011). State policy review: Teacher induction.
Retrieved from
https://newteachercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/California.pdf
TESOL International Association (2018). Action agenda for the future of
the TESOL profession. Retrieved from www.tesol.org/summit-2017/action-
agenda-for-the-future-of-the- tesol-profession
TESOL Research Agenda Task Force . (2014). TESOL International
Association research agenda 2014. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International.
Retrieved from www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/pdf/2014_tesol-research-
agenda.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Thompson, C. , & Zeuli, J. (1999). The frame and the
tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L.
Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Wallace, M. (1994). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Yates, L. , & Brindley, G. (2000). Editorial. Prospect, 15(3), 1–4.
Zeichner, K. M. (1981–2). Reflective teaching and field-based
experience in teacher education. Interchange, 12, 1–22.
Teaching and Learning Language in a Digital World
Anstey, M. , & Bull, G. (2011). Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts.
Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 8(16). Retrieved from
www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_teachers_to_explore_multimodal_texts,
31522.html?is sueID=12141
Avalos, G. (2015). Survey: Digital gap persists. San José Mercury News,
June 16, B5–B6. Chun, M. M. , Golomb, J. D. , & Turk-Browne, N. B.
(2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 73–101.
Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. dailyedventures (2015). Teachers will not be replaced by
technology, but teachers who do not use technology will be replaced by
those who do. Retrieved from
http://dailyedventures.com/index.php/2015/03/12/hari-krishna-arya/
Davies, G. , Otto, S. E. K. , & Rüschoff, B. (2013). Historical perspectives on
CALL. In M. Thomas , H. Reinders , & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary
computer-assisted language
learning (pp. 19–38). London, England: Bloomsbury.
Dixon, D. , & Christison, M. A. (2018). The usefulness of massive multi-player online role- playing
games (MMORPGs) as tools for promoting second language acquisition. In J. Perren
, K. Kelch , J.-S. Byun , S. Cervantes , & S. Safavi (Eds.), Applications of CALL theory in ESL and
EFL environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.
Ferriss, T. (2007). The 4-hour work week: Escape the 9–5, live anywhere and join the new rich. New
York, NY: Crown.
Foltz, P. , Hilfer, E. , McClure, K. , & Stavinsky, D. (2018). The agency of Artificial Intelligence.
Language Magazine (June), 28–32.
Gee, J. P. & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gonzalez, D. , & St. Louis, R. (2013). CALL I low-tech contexts. In M. Thomas , H. Reinders , & M.
Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 217–241). London,
England: Bloomsbury.
Gorlick, A. (2009). Media multitaskers pay mental price, Stanford study shows. Retrieved from
https://news.stanford.edu/2009/08/24/multitask-research-study-082409/
Hamdan, W. (2017). Tips for teaching in a low-tech classroom. Retrieved from
www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/tips-teaching-low-tech-classroom Internet
World Stats . (2018). Internet users in the world 2017. Retrieved from
www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(6), 2236–2243. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031 Kim, D. , Rueckert, D.
, Kim, D.-J. , & Seo, S. (2013). Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 17(3), 52–73.
Murray, D. E. (2013). Technology for literacies. In C. A. Chappelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics (pp. 186–199). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Murray, D. E. , & Christison, M. A. (2017a). Going online: Affordances and limitations for teachers
and teacher educators. In L. L. C. Wong & K. Hyland (Eds.), Faces of English education: Students,
teachers, and pedagogy (pp. 215–230). London, England: Routledge. Murray, D. E. , & Christison, M.
A. (2017b). Online language teacher education: Participants’ perceptions and experiences. Retrieved
from www.tirfonline.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/TIRF_OLTE_2017_Report_Final.pdf
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London, England: Methuen.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Sadler, R. & Dooly, M. (2013). Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and practice. In
M. Thomas , H. Reinders , & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language
learning (pp. 159–182). London, England: Bloomsbury.
Schneider, E. W. (2016). Grassroot Englishes in tourism interactions. English Today, 32(3), 2–10.
Schulze, M. & Heift, T. (2013). Intelligent CALL. In M. Thomas , H. Reinders , & M.
Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 249–265). London,
England: Bloomsbury.
TESOL (2018). Action agenda for the future of the TESOL profession. Retrieved from
www.tesol.org/summit-2017/action-agenda-for-the-future-of-the-tesol-profession
Vittachi, N. (2010). A short course in Globalese. In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.), Language and culture:
Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp. 215–222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Washington Post . (2018). For digital nomads, work is where the laptop is. Retrieved from
www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-digital-nomads-work-is-where-the-laptop-
is/2018/07/06/3e146a4c-7e34-11e8-bb6b- c1cb691f1402_story.html?
noredirect=on&utm_term=.ba58e543bd12
Watson, C. E. , & Plymale, W. O. (2011). The pedagogy of things: Ubiquitous learning, student
culture, and constructivist pedagogical practice. In T. T. Kidd & I. Chen (Eds.), Ubiquitous learning:
Strategies for pedagogy, course design, and technology (pp. 3–16). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
FILE 5
FILE 6
FILE 7
 Journal of Management and Training for Industries Vol.8, No.1 DOI:
10.12792/JMTI.8.1.1

Research Note
Relationships Between Foreign Language Anxiety and Willingness to Communicate Among Japanese
EFL Learners

SATOMI Fujii
Hokkaido
University
Hokkaido, Japan
Corresponding author: [email protected]

*This paper is based on the presentation given at the JACET 58th International
Convention held in August, 2019.

About the author

Satomi Fujii received her Ph. D. From Graduate School of International Media,
Communication, and Tourism Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan. She has years of
experience in teaching English at high school, voca- tional school and university. She is
currently a researcher at Hokkaido University. Her research interests include language
anxiety, willingness to communicate (WTC), individual factors, and EFL teaching.
Abstract

Language learning can be stressful for learners when they are required to communicate with
classmates using the target language. In such situations, high-anxious learners often feel
frustrated compared to low-anxious learners. Feelings of language anxiety may obstruct
learner’s willingness to communicate (WTC). However, not many studies have
elaborated on the straight-forward relationships between these two variables. Thus, this
study seeks to ascertain: 1) the correlations between language anxiety and WTC, 2)
the differences of WTC between high-anxious and low-anxious learners, and 3) learner
willingness to use the four skills in English. A total of 145 university students
participated in this study. The results indicate a significant negative correlation between
language anxiety and WTC. The result of the t-test indicates significant dif- ferences in
WTC scores between high-anxious and low-anxious learners. Thus, the negative
relationships between language anxiety and WTC as well as a clear contrast in high- and
low-anxious learners’ WTC are established.
Keywords: Foreign language anxiety, Willingness to Communicate (WTC),
Individual factors, Japanese EFL learners

Introduction

Language anxiety is recognized as one of the important individual factors in Second

Language Acquisition (SLA) studies. A large number of studies on language anxiety
have discovered its negative influence on foreign language learning (e.g., Fujii, 2018;
Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, Woodrow, 2006). Willingness to Communicate (WTC)
is also one of the individual factors which have been of interest to foreign language
teachers, as the ultimate goal of language classes is to enable learners to communicate in
the target language. Language anxiety has long been viewed as a negative factor in
language learning, while, on the other hand, WTC has been recognized as a positive
factor (e.g., Matsuoka, 2008; Rastegar & Karami, 2015). Therefore, these two individual
factors can be considered as occupying opposite positions in foreign language learning.
WTC has recently been examined in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context
in Japan. As Shimamura (2010) states, English education in Japan has been
gradually shifting to a more practical communication-oriented focus. As with the
 recent changes in the guideline of Course of Study by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2017), more emphasis has been
placed on developing learners’ communicative competence. Communication-oriented
classes are offered even
in junior high or high schools as well as universities.
However, communicating in a foreign language can arouse anxiety. As Liu (2009) states,
anxiety is closely related to learners’ reticence. It is reported that the level of
communication apprehension among Japanese is the highest compared with that of other
Asian countries (Matsuoka & Evans, 2005). Thus, how to alleviate learners’ anxiety when
communicating in English is a crucial issue for EFL teachers in Japan.
Matsuoka (2008) further mentions that apprehension has been identified as the strongest
factor in reduc-
ing Japanese college students’ willingness to communicate in English. According to
Woodrow (2006), anxiety in English communication is debilitating because it can negatively
influence the learners’ adaptation to the target language and the ultimate achievement of
educational goals. To enhance Japanese learners’ WTC, it is especially essential to
reduce the level of learners’ language anxiety in the English classroom. Rastegar and
Karami (2015) explain that language anxiety and willingness to communicate are two
decisive factors in learners’ second language (L2) learning success. Teachers need to
recognize language anxiety as a negative variable and WTC as a positive variable when
setting up a communicative EFL classroom. Accordingly, these two variables can be
interpreted as ‘two sides of the same coin’.

Literature Review

Language anxiety is defined as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically

associated with second or foreign language contexts, including speaking, listening, and
learning” (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p.284). Previous studies have shown that anxious
language learners identify communicating in a foreign language as one of the most
frightening moments in language classrooms. In addition, as Woodrow (2006) states,
giving oral presentations in front of large audiences using a foreign language can be an
extremely anxious experience for such learners.
“Why are some learners willing to communicate in English, whilst others are
reluctant to do so?” (Mat- suoka & Evans, 2005, p.3). This is the question EFL teachers
are extremely curious about when teaching English. EFL teachers have chances to
encounter students with different personalities. It is therefore es- sential for them to take
students’ language anxiety, WTC, motivation and beliefs into consideration when
teaching. WTC is defined as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with
specific person or persons, using a second language” (MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei &
Noels, 1998, p.547). It is an important concept related to learners’ individual
differences. Many researchers consider it a positive variable for lan- guage learners and
agree that it must be facilitated as much as possible. However, Liu and Jackson (2008)
argue that as a result of anxiety, English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a
second language (ESL) learners often choose to remain silent and are unwilling to
communicate; then, because of their silence and unwillingness to speak the target
language in class, they become more anxious. Language anxiety can be a debilitative
factor in promoting learners’ WTC.
There are several studies that examined the relationships between WTC and language
anxiety. Alemi, Daftarifard and Pashmforoosh (2011) explore WTC and its interaction with
language anxiety and language proficiency among Iranian EFL students. The interaction
between WTC and anxiety is not found to be significant, but a negative correlation between
anxiety and language proficiency is discovered. Rastegar and Karami (2015) investigated
the relations among foreign language classroom anxiety, WTC, and scholastic success
among Iranian EFL learners. They found a significant negative relationship between
anxiety and WTC together with a significant positive relationship between WTC and
scholastic success. Wu and Lin (2014) studied the relationship among foreign language
anxiety, motivation, and WTC of Taiwanese students. Results showed that motivation is
negatively related to anxiety. Anxiety is seen to be negatively related to
WTC, and partially mediated relationship between motivation and WTC. As we can see
from the above, the relationship between language anxiety and WTC has been tested
together with other variables. To date, a limited number of studies have examined the
straightforward relationship between WTC and language anxiety. Moreover, results
from previous studies still contain controversy over the relationship between WTC and
language anxiety. Thus, this study attempts to fill this gap by investigating the direct
relationship between these two variables in the Japanese context. As a hypothesis, it can be
assumed that learner language anxiety and learner WTC are negatively correlated, the
higher the language anxiety, the lower the WTC among learners. Accordingly, to
ascertain the actual relationship between these two variables, this study addresses the
following research questions:

1) Is there a correlation between language anxiety and WTC?

2) What is the difference in WTC between high-anxious and low-anxious learners?
3) Is there any difference in motivation between the high-anxious and low-anxious learners to make
practical use of the four skills (speaking, writing, reading, and listening) when learning a target
language?

Methodology

Participants

Participants in this study were 145 undergraduate students from two different
universities in Japan, with ages ranging from 18 to 22. Two teachers, including the
author, offered instructions to these students in two independent EFL classes in two
universities. Students were required to conduct a large number of communicative tasks
in both classes, and English was the only language used all the time in class. All the
students speak Japanese as their native language and their English proficiency levels
were between 500 and 785 points in TOEIC approximately.

Instruments

In this study, three different scales are chosen as instruments, e.g. Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) from Horwitz et al. (1986), Willingness to
Communicate (WTC) Scale from Peng and Woodrow (2010), and the scales which
evaluate the learners’ willingness to make practical use of the four skills in English:
speaking, writing, reading, and listening. The third scale is the original scale proposed
by the author, and is labeled as the Willingness to Use the Four Skill (WUFS) Scale,
including questions such as “I like practicing speaking with my classmates and my
teacher, as well as making presentations or discussing in English”. The FLCAS consists
of 33 items on a 5-point Likert scale. WTC scale consists of 10 items, and WUFS
consists of 4 items, respectively. Both scales are established on a 6-point Likert scale.
All the questionnaires were translated from English to Japanese, with the help of a
native speaker of English who has lived in Japan for over 10 years. The whole survey
was carried out during the academic year of 2018.
 The data from University A were gathered in July 2018, and the Data from University B
were gathered in October 2018. These data from the two universities were combined in
order to conduct the analysis and draw a more general conclusion.

Data Analysis
All the data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Data obtained from this study
were computed anonymously and were analyzed statistically. As explained above, all
the questionnaire items in FLCAS were answered based on a five-point Likert scale and
all the items in WTC and WUFS were answered on a six-point Likert scale. Firstly,
Pearson’s Correlation Analysis is carried out to see the correlations between learners’
language anxiety and WTC, since the whole data followed a normal distribution. To
figure out the differences between high-anxious and low-anxious learners, the total
scores of the FLCAS were used. Statistical analysis is conducted for the data of FLCAS
to calculate the mean, standard deviation, and median. Due to the median score,
participants were divided into two groups: high-anxious and low-anxious groups. Based
on the data in these two groups of learners, independent t-tests are performed to assess
learners’ WTC and willingness to make practical use of the four skills in English.

Results

Reliability of the Scale Items

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is computed to see the reliability of all the scale items.
There are three subcategories in the language anxiety scale (FLCAS; Horwitz et al., 1986),
and two subcategories in the WTC scale (Peng & Woodrow, 2010). As for the language
anxiety scale (FLCAS; Horwitz et al., 1986), the overall result shows a reliability of
0.92. Among the three subscales of language anxiety, the reliability is discovered as
follows: communication apprehension:α ＝ 0.82; test anxiety:α ＝ 0.85; fear of negative
evaluation:α＝ 0.59. The second questionnaire, the WTC scale (Peng and Woodrow, 2010)
indicates a good reliability estimate of 0.89. The results of the subscales are the follows:
WTC in Meaning-focused activities: α＝ 0.81; WTC in Form-focused activities:α ＝ 0.93.
The third questionnaire, WUFS, i.e., the items related to learners’ willingness to use the four
skills of English, is found to have good reliability of 0.85. As a whole, the overall
questionnaire items are proved to be most reliable.
Correlations Between Language Anxiety and WTC

Table 1 shows the overall results of the correlations between language anxiety and
WTC. Pearson’s Corre- lation Analysis is carried out based on the learners’ answers of
these two scales. The three subcategories of language anxiety, communication
apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluations, are found to have strong
positive correlations between each other. As for the two subcategories of WTC,
WTC in meaning-focused activities and WTC in form-focused activities, moderate
positive correlations are dis-
covered. As shown in Table 1, the result suggests moderate negative correlations
between willingness to communicate in meaning-focused activities and three subcategories
of language anxiety. Besides, willingness to communicate in form-focused activities and
the three sources of language anxiety are perceived to have weak but negative
correlations. Although there are differences in the strength of correlations for each item,
language anxiety and WTC are proven to be negatively correlated with each other.
Thus, a conclusion is drawn that a negative relationship between language anxiety and
WTC is observed from the correlational analysis.

Statistical Analysis of the Language Anxiety Scale

Table 2 shows the statistical analysis of the FLCAS, the language anxiety scale. This is
a 5-point Likert scale which consists of 33 items, so the total scores range from a
minimum of 33 to a maximum of 165. In this study, the mean score is 101.68, with the
minimum score of 47 and the maximum score of 154. Since the median score is 102, this
score is used as a cut-off point. According to the anxiety levels, the participants were
divided into two groups, low-anxious and high-anxious groups. Among the total of 145
learners, 84 of them are low-anxious and 61 are high-anxious (see Table 3). These two
groups of learners, low-anxious and high-anxious learners, are compared individually
according to the answers of the WTC scale and scales about their willingness to use the
four skills of English.

Table 1 Correlations Between Language Anxiety Factors and WTC Factors

WTC1 WTC2
Fear of
Communication Meaning- Form-
Test Anxiety Negative
Apprehension focused focused
Evaluation
activities activities
Communication
- .784** .758** -.352** -.177*
Apprehension
Test Anxiety - .739** -.424** -.205*
Fear of Negative
- -.323** -.183*
Evaluation
WTC1 Meaning-
- .538**
focused activities
WTC2 Form-
-
focused activities
* p < .05, ** p < .01
 Table 2 Statistical Analysis of the FLCAS (Language Anxiety)

M SD Minimum Median Maximum

101.68 21.32 47 102 154

Table 3 Groups According to the Anxiety Levels

Low-anxious High-anxious Total

84 61 145

Table 4 Willingness to Communicate Among High-anxious and Low-anxious Learners

Low-anxious High-anxious
t-value
M SD M SD
WTC1 3.04 0.98 2.36 0.80 4.41***
WTC2 3.99 1.30 3.73 1.40 1.18
WTC (Overall) 3.42 0.97 2.91 0.91 3.20**
** p < .01, *** p <.001

(WTC1= Meaning-focused activities, WTC2= Form-focused activities)

Comparison of High-anxious and Low-anxious Learners’ Willingness to Communicate

Table 4 shows the results of the independent t-tests which explain the high-anxious and low-
anxious learners’ willingness to communicate. As in this table, the mean score of WTC
in meaning-focused activities is 3.04 (SD= 0.98) among low-anxious learners, but the
mean score among high-anxious learners is 2.36 (SD= 0.80). Thus, conclusions can be
made that there is a significant difference between these two groups of learners (t= 4.41,
p < .001). On the other hand, the mean score of WTC in form-focused activities is 3.99
(SD= 1.30) among low-anxious learners and, the mean score among high-anxious
learners is 3.73 (SD= 1.40). Though there is a slight difference between the two groups
of learners, the t-value isn’t significant. When we take a look at the results of overall
WTC, the mean score is 3.42 (SD= 0.97) among low-anxious learners, but the mean
score of the high-anxious learners is 2.91 (SD= 0.91). Accordingly, the low-anxious
learners’ overall WTC scores are significantly higher than those of the high-anxious
 learners (t= 3.20, p <.01). This result indicates that the low-anxious learners tend to have
higher willingness in communicative activities compared to the high-anxious learners.

High-anxious and Low-anxious Learners’ Willingness to Use the Four Skills

Table 5 demonstrates the results of the independent t-tests which clarified the difference
in the willingness of the learners in the high-anxious and low-anxious groups to use the
four skills. According to Table 5,
 Table 5 Willingness to Use the Four Skills Among High-anxious and Low-anxious Learners

Low-anxious High-anxious
t-value
M SD M SD
Speaking 3.18 1.42 2.44 1.26 3.24**
Writing 3.24 1.43 2.67 1.22 2.50*
Reading 3.35 1.48 2.93 1.45 1.67
Listening 3.50 1.43 2.97 1.33 2.31*
Four Skills (Overall) 3.32 1.21 2.75 1.04 2.93**
* p <.05 , ** p < .01

the mean scores of the low-anxious learners are significantly higher than those of the
high-anxious learners in their willingness to engage in speaking (t= 3.24, p <.01),
writing (t= 2.50, p <.05), and listening (t= 2.31, p <.05) activities. Significant
differences are perceived in all these three skills except reading between the two groups
of learners. As a whole, there are significant differences between the low-anxious and
the high-anxious learners in their willingness to use the overall four skills (t= 2.93, p
<.01). Due to this result, low-anxious learners are found to be more willing to get
involved in activities to enhance their four skills in English than the high-anxious
learners. As a reason for this, it can be assumed that low-anxious learners are more
accustomed to the practical use of the English language compared to high-anxious
learners. Anyhow, language anxiety may disrupt learners’ willingness to communicate
in English.

Discussion

The current study attempts to elaborate on the direct relationship between Japanese EFL
learners’ language anxiety and their willingness to communicate (WTC). A clear
tendency is observed by looking at the results of correlational analysis and independent
t-tests.
RQ1 of the hypothesis asks: “Is there a correlation between language anxiety and
WTC?” According to the results of Pearson’s Correlation Analysis, there are significant
moderate or weak negative correlations between language anxiety and WTC. Especially,
WTC in meaning-focused activities shows a moderate negative correlation with
language anxiety. WTC had a weak but negative correlation with language anxiety in
form-focused activities. Meaning-focused activities are, for example, role-plays and
spontaneous speaking activities, where the focus is on getting someone else to
understand what we mean. What can be seen in these results is the lower the learner
anxiety, the higher the learner WTC. This inclination is especially true with WTC in
meaning-focused activities. On the other hand, form-focused activities are effective in
training of speaking and understanding the new language forms by using grammatical
structures to make correct sentences. Among these two types of activities, the former
suggests more possibility of free communication in class and therefore might evoke
more anxiety in learners. In other words, meaning-focused activities may induce more
anxiety compared to form-focused activities in the English classroom. This might be the
reason for the stronger negative correlation of WTC with language anxiety in meaning-
focused activities than form-focused activities.
RQ2 of the hypothesis is, “What is the differences in WTC between high-anxious and
low-anxious learn- ers?” The independent t-test shows that low-anxious learners had
significantly higher WTC than high- anxious learners in this study, which suggests that
low-anxious learners are more motivated to communicate than high-anxious learners.
This major finding is consistent with Algahali’s (2016) study that confirms the negative
relationship between learners’ anxiety in a foreign language classroom and their WTC.
In addi- tion, there are significant differences in meaning-focused activities between the
two groups of learners in WTC, but no significant differences in form-focused activities.
According to these findings, a conclusion can be drawn that high anxious learners are not
willing to engage in meaning-focused activities compared to low-anxious learners. There
is a notable difference between high-anxious and low-anxious learners’ desire to
communicate.
RQ3 of the hypothesis asks, “Is there any difference in motivation between the high-
anxious and low- anxious learners to make practical use of the four-skills (speaking, writing,
reading, and listening) when learning a target language?” According to the result of the
independent t-test, there are significant differences in the degree of anxiety and willingness
to use the four skills in English between the two groups. That is, low-anxious learners score
significantly higher in their willingness to use the overall English skills than high- anxious
learners, especially in the items of speaking, writing and listening. However, the item of
reading skill does not show a significant difference. This implies that reading seems to be
less-stressful to learners compared to the other three skills. As Saito, Horwitz and Garza
(1999) contend, foreign language reading anxiety is a construct that is distinct from general
foreign language anxiety. Pae (2013) addresses that teachers should give balanced
attention to each of the four skill-based anxieties (speaking, writing, listening and reading
anxieties) since his research findings evidence an independent relationship among the four-
skill- based anxieties. Accordingly, learners’ anxious feelings can have a steady influence on
their willingness to make practical use of the English language, thus teachers should keep
this in mind when making plans of communicative activities in class.

Conclusion
This exploratory study examines the straight-forward relationship between language
anxiety and willingness to communicate (WTC) among Japanese EFL learners and leads
to interesting and profound results. Find- ings reveal that negative correlation exists
between language anxiety and WTC. Since low-anxious learners are more willing to
communicate, we can see the importance of alleviating learners’ language anxiety in order
to raise their desire to communicate. Moreover, low-anxious learners are more willing to
speak, write and listen in English learning compared to high-anxious learners. This
result suggests the fact that communicat- ing in English would be a lot easier if it were
not for anxious feelings. As Matsuoka (2008) mentions, it may be possible to reduce
learner anxiety and enhance the level of WTC if learners could use the language in a
manner appropriate to their attitudes and aptitudes. That is, language anxiety should be
lessened as much
as possible in order to promote learner WTC in the English classroom. Strategies for
increasing WTC and reducing anxiety are essential in language learning and
communication, and teachers should help learners become more active and confident in the
classroom (Liu and Jackson, 2008). As communicative English teaching is called for in
Japan in recent years, it is of cruel significance to think about ways to raise learners’ WTC
in a less-stressful classroom atmosphere.

References

Alemi, M., Dartarifard, P. and Pashmforoosh, R., 2011. “The Impact of Language
Anxiety and Language Proficiency on WTC in EFL Context”, Cross-Cultural
Communication, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 150-166.
Algahali, N., 2016. “Foreign Language Anxiety and Learner’s Willingness to Communicate
in the L2 Class- room”, The IAFOR International Conference on Language Learning-
Dubai 2016, Official Conference Proceedings. Accessed on Dec. 10, 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330385186_
Foreign_Language_Anxiety_and_Learner’s_Willingness_to_Communicate_in_the_L
2_Classroom
Fujii, S., 2018. “Towards the Alleviation of Language Anxiety: A Qualitative Study”, The Proceedings of
2018 International Conference on Applied Linguistics, pp. 48-62.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. and Cope, J. A., 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom
Anxiety”, The Mod- ern Language Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 125-132.
Liu, M., 2009. Reticence and Anxiety in Oral English Lessons. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Liu, M. and Jackson, J., 2008. “An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learners’ Unwillingness
to Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol.
92, No. 1, pp. 71- 86.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dörnyei, Z. and Noels, K. A., 1998. “Conceptualizing
Willingness to Com- municate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and
Affiliation”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D. and Gardner, R. C., 1994. “The Subtle Effects of Language Anxiety on
Cognitive Process- ing in the Second Language”, Language Learning, Vol. 44, No. 2,
pp. 283-305.
Matsuoka, R., 2008. “Communication Apprehension among Japanese College Students”, Pan-Pacific Asso-
ciation of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 37-48.
Matsuoka, R. and Evans, D. R., 2005. “Willingness to Communicate in the Second Language”, The Journal
of Nursing Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-12.

MEXT, 2017. Course of Study (Junior high school). Tokyo: MEXT.

Pae, T-I., 2013. “Skill-based L2 Anxieties Revisited: Their Intra-relations and the Inter-
relations with Gen- eral Foreign Language Anxiety”, Applied Linguistics 2013, Vol.
34, No. 2, pp. 232-252.
Peng, J. E. and Woodrow, L., 2010. “Willingness to Communicate in English: A Model
in the Chinese EFL Classroom Context”, Language Learning, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.
834-876.
Rastegar, M. and Karami, M., 2015. “On the Relationship between Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety, Willingness to Communicate and Scholastic Success among
Iranian EFL Learners”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp.
2387-2394.
Saito, Y., E., Horwitz, E. K. and Garza, T., 1999. “Foreign Language Reading Anxiety”,
Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83, pp. 202-218.
Shimamura, K., 2010. “Eigo de Hanashitai Toiu Kimochi ni Kannsuru Kenkyuu. [Studies on Willingness to
Communicate in English.]”, Bulletin of Fukuoka International University, Vol. 24, pp. 1-10.

Woodrow, L., 2006. “Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language”, RELC
Journal, Vol. 37, pp.
308-328.
Wu, C. P. and Lin, H. J., 2014. “Anxiety about Speaking a Foreign Language as a
Mediator of the Relation between Motivation and Willingness to Communicate”,
Perceptual & Motor Skills: Learning & Memory, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 785-798.
Appendix A- Questionnaire Items of the WTC Scale (Peng & Woodrow, 2010)
I am willing to do a role-play in English at my desk with my peer (e.g.,
1
ordering food in a restaurant).
I am willing to ask the teacher in English to repeat what he/she just said in
2
English because I didn’t understand.
I am willing to give a short speech in English to the class about my
3
hometown with notes.
I am willing to do a role-play standing in front of the class in English (e.g.,
4
ordering food in a restaurant).
I am willing to ask my group mates in English how to pronounce a word in
5
English.
I am willing to ask my peer sitting next to me in English how to say an
6
English phrase to express the thoughts in my mind.
I am willing to ask my group mates in English the meaning of word I do not
7
know.
I am willing to ask my peer sitting next to me in English the meaning of an
8
English word.
I am willing to give a short self-introduction without notes in English to the
9
class.
I am willing to translate a spoken utterance from Japanese into English in
10
my group.

Notes:

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 are WTC in meaning-focused activities (WTC-1), and items 5, 6,

7, 8, are WTC in form-focused activities (WTC-2). The original statement in item 10,
“utterance from Chinese into English” is changed to “utterance from Japanese into
English” in order to fit the context of the current study.

Questionnaire Items of Willingness to Use the Four Skill (WUFS) Scale

I like practicing speaking with my classmates and my teacher, as well as having
1
presentations or discussions using English. (Speaking).
2 I like writing sentences or short paragraphs in English. (Writing)
3 I like reading English columns or English books. (Reading)
I like listening to English speeches, dialogues or doing any other listening activities.
4
(Listening)

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
 FILE 8

ISSN 1798-4769

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 112-117, January 2012

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.

doi:10.4304/jltr.3.1.112-117

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

The Research on Willingness to Communicate in Chinese Students’ EFL Study

Li Fu
School of Foreign Languages, Harbin Institute of Technology,
China

Xuesong Wang
School of Foreign Languages, Harbin Institute of
Technology, China Email: [email protected]

Yang Wang
School of Foreign Languages, Harbin Institute of Technology,
China

Abstract—Willingness to communicate (WTC) has been a hot topic and focus all through these recent years in
linguistics and EFL education in China. This paper makes a research on various factors that influence Chinese
students’ willingness to communicate in their EFL study. It also carries on an investigation on how WTC factors
affect learners’ class participation. The characteristics of Chinese students’ WTC are also discussed. Lastly, the
authors point out that EFL teachers should provide more opportunities for their students to experience success,
create a good and safe learning environment and help learners to improve their WTC ability.

Index Terms—willingness to communicate, class participation, communication task, communication object,

communication form

I. INTRODUCTION
Since 1950s, foreign language educators have gradually come to realize that the process of
foreign language learning is not a simple learning process of language skills. Many WTC factors
such as learning motivation, learning attitude, social support, and language environment affect this
process. These views are held by many scholars like Wen & Clement (2003), Yashima T. (2002)
and Young, (1991). WTC, the new member in the family of the emotional factors, has gained a
widespread attention in EFL field. Many people believe students’ communicative ability is closely
related to their willingness to communicate, and factors like conversational objects, communication
tasks and communication forms also influence the intensity of willingness to communicate. The
study of how WTC affect EFL learning has become a popular research in modern language teaching
practices.
II. WTC AND COMMUNICATION
A. Communicative Object
Familiar communication object can enhance the students’ WTC. Teachers should try to create a
relaxing learning atmosphere for students. In EFL classes, students’ self-introduction, or a wide
range of questions may get students acquainted with each other and help demonstrate their language
standard. As Hinkel found out that the WTC will be significantly higher when talking with friends
and acquaintances than talking with teachers or strangers (1989). Conversational objects and the
degree of familiarity, as McCroskey & Richmond pointed out, also have a very profound impact on
students’ WTC (1990). Tomoko Yashima showed in his research that in terms of the number of
people in a conversation, WTC is significantly higher when two persons are talking than that when
several persons are talking (2002).Therefore, students should be allowed to select fixed
communication objects in their classroom activities. In this way, students have higher initiative for
classroom activities. Being familiar with the communicative objects, students may find they are
willing to communicate with their fellow students in English, thus their practice opportunities
increases. Meanwhile, Jiang Xin emphasized the support from teachers and other students also
contribute to students’ familiarity with their communication objects and help create a safe learning
© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
environment (2007).
B. Communicative Task
The authenticity and practicality of communication tasks are the successful keys to WTC. In other
words, the selection of reading materials should be related to students’ life. As Clement & Mac
Intyre point out, without the willingness to speak out, communication loses its foundation (2003).
The appropriate selection of communicative topics is a prerequisite and guarantee for an effective
communication. If students understand and have some relevant knowledge on a communicative
task, their desire to express themselves will be inspired. Designs of some useful and

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 113

interesting topics for students will stimulate students’ talks. For students who have an intention to
go abroad, the communicative tasks like exoticism, cultural conventions and application for
admission are more welcome and more likely to motivate the students’ class participation.
Therefore, we get a conclusion that the familiarity with the discussion topics will promote the
smooth progress in communication activities and increase students’ WTC abilities.
C. Communicative Form
Foreign language learning should be carried out in authentic situations. MacIntyre & Clement
claim that students should learn in the real communication, make use of class activities, such as
scenario simulations, games, role plays, to help them express creatively and freely (1999). In EFL
teaching practices, teachers should design a variety activities centered on students’ life and create a
relaxing learning atmosphere to help students to express themselves. By pointing out the students’
language mistakes, teachers can make students to express themselves in a comparatively coherent
language.
Teaching software and a variety of audio and video equipments provide extra means in foreign
language teaching. Vivid courseware can stimulate students’ learning interest and enable teachers to
grasp students’ attention and get the timely feedback from them. McCroskey & Baer suggested that
the variety of communication forms and teaching modes can enable students’ initiative and exploit
their enthusiasm, increase their sense of class participation and enhance their willingness to
communicate. As a consequence, the effect of learning will be improved (1985).

III. WTC AND CLASS PARTICIPATION

Class participation constitutes the most important part in EFL study. Many researchers and
teachers have noticed that the most direct manifestation of students WTC lies in the students’ active
participation in classroom. There are many factors that affect the degree of students’ classroom
participation. In this paper, the authors also make their empirical investigation on how WTC affects
students’ class participation in their EFL classes.
A. Problem Settings
This research is to answer:1) the relationship between WTC and communication 2) How WTC
factors affect class participation.
B. Research Methodology and Procedure
1. Subjects
The subjects participated in this study are students of non-English major in Harbin Institute of
Technology, a total of
100. Among them, 80 boys, 20 girls, all aged between 20 to 22. Until now, they have learnt College
English for one year in different majors, and all have 6 to 8 years of experience in English
language study before entering university.
2. Survey tools
This research adopted 0xford Language Learning Strategies Inventory (1990) as a research tool.
Due to the specific situation of Chinese students, some changes are made in this survey. This
inventory is composed of 30 items. All responses to the items were made on a five-point Likert scale
(1= totally inconsistent, 2=partly inconsistent; 3=totally consistent, 4=partly consistent and 5=
always consistent). The authors conducted a questionnaire survey among 100 students in Harbin
Institute of Technology, and the investigation covers five main factors in WTC: motivation,
character, confidence, interest and culture. The results have been analyzed and studied through
SPSS statistical analysis software.
3. Data Collection
Data collection was undertaken by questionnaire. A questionnaire survey was conducted among
the subjects with the permission. Several steps were taken to ensure that the data collected from the
questionnaire are valid and reliable. First, the participants were informed that any information they
gave would be recorded anonymously and be kept confidential. Second, the students were told that
© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 113
they could ask any questions if they had troubles in understanding the questionnaire items. The
number of valid questionnaires collected is 100.
4. Data and Empirical Analysis
After the questionnaires had been withdrawn, the received data have been analyzed to conduct a
reliable testing. We have figured out an average of all items. All the variables covered to conduct
descriptive statistics, Mean and Std. Deviation and variables have been calculated and analyzed.
The results are shown in Table 1:

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

114 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

TABLE 1
Number MEAN Std. Deviation Variables
1 3.3 1.252 1.568
2 2.3 1.252 1.568
3 3 0 0
4 3.5 0.707 0.5
5 2.9 0.994 0.988
6 3 1.764 3.112
7 2.3 1.252 1.568
8 1.8 1.317 1.734
9 3.6 1.35 1.823
10 2.7 1.494 2.232
11 2.5 0.972 0.945
12 4.5 0.527 0.278
13 4.3 1.059 1.121
14 2.9 1.37 1.877
15 3.5 1.269 1.61
16 2.7 1.059 1.121
17 2.5 1.509 2.277
18 3.6 1.506 2.268
19 3.9 1.101 1.212
20 2.4 1.506 2.268
21 4 1.054 1.111
22 2.4 1.35 1.823
23 2.5 1.179 1.39
24 2.3 1.494 2.232
25 3.7 1.16 1.346
26 2.8 1.135 1.288
27 3.5 1.581 2.5
28 2.6 1.43 2.045
29 2.8 1.687 2.846
30 1.6 0.843 0.711

TABLE 2

TABLE 2 GIVES A VISUAL IMPRESSION OF WTC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CLASS PARTICIPATION.

Series 1: MEAN Series 2: Std. Deviation Series 3: Variable

C. Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations and variables for the scales of motivation, personality factors,
self-confidence, interest and traditional culture are presented in Table1.
It is clear from the table that intensity in motivation (M=3.3, 3.5 and 3) affects the students’
participation level in classroom. The students with strong internal motivation have stronger sense of
participation and more positive attitude. They are more eager to use the opportunities to
communicate in class and can take the initiative to communicate. have better cooperation with their
teachers and their English is better. Not much difference was found in Std. Deviations and
variables.
Personality factors (M=3, 2.3, 1.8, 3.6). As is displayed, the participants with extroverted
character hold positive attitude in their study. They demonstrate strong self-confidence, and their
performance in class is active and sociable;

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 115

while introverts indicate lack confidence in their study, they take less initiative in class participation.
Confidence (M= 4.5, 4.3, 2.9, 3.5). We can see from Table 1 that the students with strong self-
confidence perform actively in class discussions. They have good control over their learning.
Interest (M=3.6, 3, 9 and 4) indicates that when the students’ needs are satisfied, their desire to
participate in class activities are more intense.
Last, traditional culture (M=2.7, 2.4, 2.3). Statistics suggests that the traditional Chinese
culture has inhibited unconsciously the Chinese students’ WTC in class participation.
D. Analysis and Discussion
1. Motivation
Motivation consists of two factors: need and stimulation. Some motivation is caused by the
body's own needs. The other motivation is the stimulation by external things. Based on our survey,
we divide our subjects into three categories: The first type is students with external motivation; the
second is students with mixed motives, that is, students not only have internal motivation, but
also have external motivation. The third type is students with no motivation. The investigation
find out that students with internal motivation have stronger sense of participation than those
without. Their attitude is more positive and they are more eager for the communicative
opportunities in class. Students with strong internal motivation are more willing to take the initiative
to communicate and their English is better. A well-organized class setting is likely to help
promote students’ motivation. Students with mixed motives have more enthusiasm in class
participation than those with external motivation, and they focus their attention on class
participation better. When coming to cooperate with teachers, students with mixed motives have a
better performance than those only with external motivation. Therefore, teachers should try to
create an favorable learning environment to
help and promote motivations of various learners’ and increase learners’ class participation.
The study also found that female students have stronger motivation to speak English than their
male peers in class. Female learners have higher self-evaluation and hold more positive attitudes
towards speaking English both in and after class. We also find out that freshmen have better
motivation to speak English in class compared with the sophomores. Freshman’ anxiety is lower.
They hold an positive attitude towards speaking English.
2. Character
Different cultures pass different judgments on introversion and extroversion. In western countries,
extroverted personality is more popular. While in the eastern countries, especially in China, less talk
and more thought is considered a good character. In class participation, the extroverted students
have stronger sense of participation, and are willing to talk, so they get more opportunities to
practice what they learn. During the learning process, students with extroverted character will hold
positive attitude, strong self-confidence. They get more language input and communication
opportunities in class owing to their characteristic traits. They perform positively in class, like they
love to ask questions, speak out without too much concern about “losing their faces” in public. They
can absorb what they’ve learned through extensive try and practice. Extroverted learners are good at
communication. The more they feel relaxed, the better they learn. Introverted learners, on the other
hand, are quiet and shy and lack of confidence in their study and class participation. In class
participation, introverted students are more often silent and stiff, and sometimes are nervous with
blush. They are easier to get anxious when coming to answering questions. They will concern more
about the impact they make on others in class participation. They are rarely speak even if they have
some questions. They are not willing to raise their questions for fear of kidding. The fear of making
mistakes and feeling awkward in class participation lead to their anxieties. As a result they have less
chances to try and practise what they learn in classes and their language skills are relatively weak.
“Silence is golden” and “Least said” and “the fear of losing face”,--these traditional Chinese mode
of thinking which are deeply rooted in many Chinese people hinder students’ class participation,
especially students with introverted characteristics.

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 115
As EFL teachers, we should understand the difference in students’ character traits and adjust our
teaching to satisfy different learners. We should motivate our students to their extremes.
3. Self-confidence
As we know, people with strong sense of self-confidence can face difficulties and have the
courage and determination to overcome difficulties. In EFL classes, students with self-confidence
are willing to pick up challenging objectives and believe that through their unremitting efforts they
can successfully get these tasks done. While students with weak self-confidence tend to
underestimate their abilities, take to tasks impersistently, and even think of giving up if these tasks
are complicated.
As we find out in our research, students with strong self-confidence often grasp the nettle, and
show initiative in class discussions; and students with less self-confidence tend to perform a fear of
hardship and hold a passive attitude. Confident students also have good control in their own studies,
have a sense of competence and easily achieve accomplishment in class; students with less self-
confidence fear to speak English in front of the whole class. As they explain, facing so many
classmates, they fear they can not find the appropriate words to express their ideas and worry about
other students’ ridicule. Rather than to face the “possible” embarrassment, these students would
choose to keep silent during most of class time. These students’ self-confidence to a large extent has
influenced the degree of their class participation. Therefore, in EFL classes, teachers should strive
to create a harmonious environment of “psychological security” and “psychological freedom”, so
as to reduce the anxieties among students and help to enhance their

© 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

confidence to integrate into communicative activities in classes.
4. Interests:
Interest constitutes another important factor that affects class participation. When people are
interested in something, the chances to get this thing done is comparatively greater. Abilities and
interest will have mutual influence, and people with great interest in one area will often show strong
ability in that field. This is also demonstrated in students’ learning process. Students are interested
in a particular subject, in all likelihood they will achieve better performance there. Due to their
strong interest, students might take the initiative to read books on this subject and participate
actively in class activities to get more information. When their needs are satisfied, their desire to
participate in other class activities will become more intense and thus form a good cycling. In the
end they make their success.
5. Traditional culture:
Chinese culture emphasizes collectivism and groups, underrates individualistic heroism. Chinese
culture forms a set of philosophy of life as modesty, moderation, being worldly-wise and playing
safe. Chinese collective view plays a vital role in inter-relations with the outside world. In EFL
classes, collectivism is mainly reflected in “saving face” or maintain the dignity”. Students are very
concerned about others’ assessment, so in order to avoid making mistakes in public, they often
choose to remain silent. As EFL teachers find out an interesting phenomenon in their researches: in
spite of the passive class participation among Chinese EFL learners, 80% of EFL students expressed
their unwillingness to take the initiative to speak in class, and 85% of the students expressed their
hope that everyone should has equal opportunity to speak. In the authors’ opinion, this phenomenon
can be explained as follows: Due to collectiveness is highly valued in Chinese culture, students do
not want to “talk endlessly” in class activities. In Chinese cultures, "talk fluently and endlessly" and
"speak volubly" will give people the image of ill-mannered. "Silence is golden" and "Least says,"
are the code of good conduct deeply rooted in the Chinese people. Therefore, some students
advocate that in class they should not speak often, especially when the others are silent; If they talk
a lot in classes, others classmates will consider them as showing offs. Most often Chinese students
do not want to be special. As a result of fearing out of their group, they always choose to "follow
the general trend"---remain silent in classes. At the same time, their strong motivation to learn
among all things requires they have a good command of practical language skills. Therefore, EFL
learners require their teachers to give them equal opportunities to speak out in classes.
When other factors for passive class participation are studied, traditional Chinese cultures
influences such as being implicit, reserved, polite can not be neglected. Obviously, the cultural
thought patterns hidden in Chinese students’ subconsciousness have a recessive but decisive impact
on their EFL class participation. We believe in the level of students’ WTC in class will directly
affect the cultivation of their communicative ability. Therefore, how to motivate Chinese students’
WTC and enhance their communicative capability have naturally become our research project in our
EFL teaching practices.

IV. OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO WTC

Another factor that leads to weak WTC in class participation is the eagerness for quick success
and instant benefits. Currently most EFL learners are very practical .Many university students are
tired out by struggling to cope with a variety of English language exams. Many EFL classes
naturally become places for mechanical drills (to meet the demand for exams) instead of language
skills. EFL learners primarily focus their attentions on the analysis of grammar, recite new words,
doing test papers, etc. Learners’ purposes are to get high scores and certificates. There is no doubt
that this certificate-oriented foreign language learning have a direct impact on students’ class
participation activities. Students are not interested in the real situational practices and believe these
practices are sort of wasting their precious time in classes. Students would prefer EFL teachers
teach them "useful strategies" such as how to guess in exams to help them achieve high scores. It
can be seen that Chinese students’ lack of WTC in EFL classes, to a certain degree, reflects the
impact of current EFL education in China.
Shi Yunzhang found many students believe the lack of linguistic knowledge may hinder their
WTC. Very often, they need to translate Chinese into English in their mind before speaking out
(2008). This study confirms the anxieties many students have when they speak English or when they
are asked to express off the cuff. In addition, many students’ risk-taking in EFL classes is relatively
low. When students are not quite sure about some words, grammar or expressions, they will first
consult the dictionary, or resort to textbooks. If they assume that they might make mistakes, they
would rather remain silent in classes. Finally, the learners’ attitudes towards EFL study, classroom
teaching and class participation all have influences on their WTC. Wang Chuming”s research shows
some students believe they learn less knowledge in class activities. They still prefer the traditional
teacher-oriented style (1990). However, all students agree that the boring classroom atmosphere has
suppressed their WTC.
Rod pointed out that group cohesiveness is another important factor that affects the
communicative competence. (1985). In a friendly and cohesive group, students are more willing to
participate. Teachers’ support also plays an important role. As MacIntyre & Clement put it,
teachers’ linguistic and non-linguistic support has been proved to help promote the students’
enthusiasm in class participation (1998). The forms of classroom organization, including teaching
styles, the use of the teaching materials and the design of learning tasks, etc, will all influence the
students’ WTC. Since the traditional lecture modes (teacher-oriented) has been deeply rooted in
Chinese learners’ minds, students are not accustomed to carrying out their discussions
independently or participating in interactive communication in EFL class.
 V. CONCLUSION
The research shows that EFL learners’ WTC is closely related to the conversational objects,
communicative tasks and communication form. It also relates closely to the factors like personal
motivation, confidence, personality, interests and culture.
Therefore, in teaching practices, EFL teachers should try their best to enable their students to
experience success, help them to enhance self-confidence, reduce anxiety and improve their WTC in
foreign language study; it is also strongly advised that more authenticity in EFL classrooms be created
and the students’ autonomy be highlighted. In this way, the students could be in their best state of mood
and study, which, just as Yu Weihua and Lin Minghong said, will definitely contribute to their learning
outcomes (2004).
In a word, this empirical study intend to get EFL teachers to know more about their students’ WTC in
EFL learning process. We do hope that our analyses and the effective measures we put forward to
improve EFL learners’ communicative competence will work in their EFL study. We also hope that this
research will contribute a little bit to the foreign language curriculum design, EFL textbook writing and
College English teaching reform.

REFERENCES
[1] Clement, R., Baker, S. C., & Mac Intyre, P.D. (2003).Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context,
norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 22 (2) : 190 - 209.
[2] Eli Hinkel. (l989). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] McCroskey J. C. & Baer J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the
APACLSP.
[4] McCroskey J. C & Richmond V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern
Communication Journal. 56, 72-77.
[5] MacIntyre P. D., Clement. R. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. The Modern Language Journal. 82.545-562.
[6] MacIntyre P. D., Babin P. A. & Clement, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences.
Communication Quarterly. 47. 215-229.

[7] Rod Eillis. (1985).Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8] Tomoko Yashima. (2002).Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Japanese EFL Context. The Modern
Language Journal. Vol. 86. No. 1, 45.
[9] Wen W. P. & ClementR. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and
Curriculum. 16. 18-38.
[10] Yashima T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language
Journal.86. 54-66.
[11] Young, Dolly J. (1991). Creating a Low Anxiety Classroom Environment: What Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest?.
The Modern Language Journal . Vol. 76. 426- 437

[12] Jiang Xin. (2007). Psychological Exploration on foreign language teaching. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.
[13] Shi Yunzhang. (2008). Gender Differences in EFL reading anxiety and their relationship with Scores in Band 4 examination.
Foreign Languages in China, (2), 96-97.
[14] Wang Chuming. (1990). Applied Psycholinguistics. Changsha, Hunan Education Publishing House.
[15] Yu Weihua, Lin Minghong. (2004).A Comparative Study on Willingness to Communicate between Guangzhou and Hong Kong
University Students. Foreign Language Teaching and Research.(3),85.

Li Fu is a professor in Harbin Institute of Technology, China. Her main interest of research is applied linguistics and EFL teaching.

She has been engaged in teaching English for more than twenty years.
 Xuesong Wang is currently an associate professor in Harbin Institute of Technology, China. Her main interest of research is applied
linguistics and EFL teaching. She has been engaged in teaching English for more than twenty years.

Yang Wang is a lecturer in Harbin Institute of Technology, China. Her main interest of research is applied linguistics and EFL teaching.
She has been engaged in teaching English for ten years.
FILE 9
ARTIC L E

Effects of self-generated graphic organizers on learning depend on in-task guidance

Tiphaine Colliot | Éric Jamet

Psychology of Cognition, Behaviour and

Communication Laboratory (LP3C), University of Abstract
Rennes 2, Rennes, France
We investigated the effects of readymade versus self-generated graphic orga- nizers (GOs)
on learning, comparing the performances of undergraduates (N = 81) tasked with
Correspondence
learning a multimedia document. This document was either presented on its own (control
Tiphaine Colliot, Laboratoire de Psychologie:
group), with a readymade GO, or with a blank GO that students had to fill in either before
Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C),
Université Rennes 2, 1 place du recteur Henri Le or during the learning of the document. In line with previous research, adding a
Moal, 35043 Rennes Cedex, France.
readymade GO increased students' memorization and transfer scores, compared with
Email: [email protected] controls. By displaying the main ideas in the text and their hierarchical relations, GOs act
as visual aids to learning. Results showed that self-generating a GO was no more beneficial
Peer Review
than viewing a readymade GO when students were placed in a dual-task situation
The peer review history for this article is available at
(generation + learning). However, when the students' information processing was guided
https://publons.com/publon/10. 1111/jcal.12434.
by sequencing these tasks (generation then learning), they out- performed the control and
readymade groups on memorization and comprehension.

KE Y W O R DS

generative processes, graphic organizer, guiding, learning strategies,

multimedia learning

1| INTRODUCTION there are many ways of presenting information in

this kind of pedagogical material. Many different
Learning from multimedia documents has become
choices can be made by instructors when creating
common practice for undergraduate students, and
these learning environments, but these choices
need
Received: to
4 Julybe
2019based on 27sound
Revised: research
January 2020 as to
Accepted: how2020
8 February 1.1 | Benefits of GOs for learning
students' comprehension can be improved. For
instance, adding a visual aid such as a graphic GOs are defined as ‘spatial arrangements of words
organizer (GO) to a multimedia document has been (or groups of words) intended to represent the
shown to enhance students' learning (e.g., Fiorella conceptual organization of a text’ (Stull & Mayer,
& Mayer, 2015). Moreover, it is often 2007, p. 810). They can be regarded as
recommended that students should be turned into organizational signals or spatial adjuncts, in that they
active learners in order to increase their learning emphasize the main ideas of a text and their
performances (e.g., Fiorella & Mayer, 2016). The interrelations (e.g., Eitel & Scheiter, 2015; Vekiri,
present study therefore investigated the impact of 2002). GOs can be displayed in several ways,
self- generating a GO on learning and the effect of including sequences, matrices and tree diagrams
guiding this active generative task. (Luo, Peteranetz, Flanigan, & Kiewra, 2017;
Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). Robinson and Kiewra
(1995) showed that students learning a text
accompanied with GOs or out- lines remembered
more represented facts than those studying the text
alone. Moreover, students who read the text with
a GO also learned more coordinate relations than
those in the text plus out- lines and text-only
groups. The benefits of GOs were also highlighted
in a study conducted by McCrudden, Schraw,
Lehman,

J Comput Assist Learn. 2020;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
and Poliquin (2007), who showed that studying a in order to construct a coherent mental model
text accompanied with a readymade GO (Mayer, 1989; see also Fiorella & Mayer, 2015).
significantly improved learners' comprehen- sion, These three cognitive processes are more precisely
compared with studying a text on its own. By described in Fiorella and Mayer's select-organize-
acting as visual aids, GOs have therefore proved integrate model of generative learning (2016), which
to benefit not only students' learn- ing, but by emphasizes that learners need to actively engage in
highlighting the main ideas contained in the text information processing if they are to achieve
(macro- structure information) and the hierarchical meaningful learning. One way of promoting this
relations between them (e.g., Guri-Rozenblit, 1989; active engagement in information processing is to
Kiewra, Kauffman, Robinson, Dubois, & Staley, promote learning strate- gies that elicit these three
1999; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995), but also their critical cognitive processes. For instance, instead of
comprehen- sion outcomes, as evaluated by providing learners with a readymade GO that
transfer problems (Colliot & Jamet, 2018a, 2019). contains all the key items of information of a
pedagogical document (macro- structure
1.2 | Selection, organization and integration: information) and showing their interrelations, they
Three critical cognitive processes for deep can be instructed to create the GO themselves.
understanding Creating a GO can be reg- arded as an

Extracting and organizing macrostructure organizational strategy, as it requires learners to turn

information from a text is essential for achieving the learning material into a more meaningful form, by

an in-depth understanding of a pedagogical selecting critical information from the document

document (e.g., Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). These and organizing it into a coherent mental model in

two processes cor- respond to the selection and working memory (Weinstein, Acee, & Jung, 2011;

organization processes described in Mayer's Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Wittrock, 1989, 1991).

cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML; However, Mayer's CTML model (2014) stresses

Mayer, 2005, 2009, 2014). The CTML model that humans possess limited cognitive capacity

relies on three assumptions: when it comes to allocating cognitive resources to

(a) learners process information through two informa- tion processing. Therefore, although the

separate channels (auditory/verbal and creation of a GO can pro- mote generative learning

pictorial/visual); (b) they possess limited cogni- tive and enhance learners' performances, it can also

resources for processing information; and (c) they overwhelm the latter's limited cognitive capacity

have to engage in generative processes during by requiring too much mental effort, thereby

learning. According to this model, if learners are decreasing their overall learning performances.

to achieve a deep understanding of the infor-

mation that is presented, they must select the
relevant items, orga- nize these items into a
coherent mental representation, and integrate this
mental representation with their prior knowledge,
 1.3 | Self-generating a GO: Effects on task's difficulty by providing students in the self-
learning generated group with the empty boxes of each GO

According to Fiorella and Mayer (2015, p. 38), to fill in and reducing the total number of GOs

‘learning by mapping occurs when learners are they had to self-generate (from 18 in Study 2 to

asked to convert a text lesson into a spatial 10 in Study 3). These two studies showed that stu-

arrangement of words such as concept map, dents provided with readymade GOs performed

knowledge map, or matrix graphic organizer’. better on transfer problems than those provided

Although adding a readymade GO to a mul- with blank GOs to fill in. Once again, students

timedia document has been found to improve who had to engage in a generative activity (self-

learning, there are mixed reports in the literature generated group) spent more time learning the

on learning when it comes to GO self- generation. document than those in the readymade group did.

For example, an interesting set of experiments These results therefore support the cognitive load

conducted by Stull and Mayer (2007) compared hypothesis whereby involving students in a

the effects on students' learning performances of generative activity decreases the amount of

either providing them with readymade GOs or cognitive resources they can allocate to deep

asking them to self-generate GOs while learning processing of the information in the document,

from an expository text. The authors tested two thus decreasing their overall learning.

different hypotheses. The generative hypothe- sis In another study, conducted by Ponce and

predicted that students in the self-generated Mayer (2014), under- graduates learned from an

group would be encouraged to engage in expository text about steamboats in one out of five

generative processes, whereas the cognitive load conditions: text-only (control group), highlighted

hypothesis predicted that this generative activity text (criti- cal information shown in red), interactive

would take up students' cognitive resources and text (students had an editor to highlight the text),

thus hinder their generative processing (Stull & readymade GO, or interactive GO (students had an

Mayer, 2007). In the first of three studies, under- editing tool to self-generate the GO). The results

graduates had to learn from an expository text in of this study showed that, compared with the

biology. They were divided into a control group control condition, all the aids improved students'

(text-only), a readymade group (text plus 27 GOs memorization, as measured with a cloze test.

located in the margin of the text), and a self- Moreover, students who were provided with a

generated group (text plus blank spaces in the readymade GO or asked to self-generate one

margin where students had to generate the GOs). achieved higher memorization and com-

No difference emerged between the readymade prehension scores than those in the control group.

group and the self-generated group in the Furthermore, in contrast to the results reported by

learning test, even though the self- generated Stull and Mayer, students in the interactive GO

group spent more time on the document than the group significantly outperformed those who received

ready- made group did. In the second and third a readymade GO on the memorization test.

studies, Stull and Mayer decreased the generative

 More recently, Colliot and Jamet (2018a) mapping generation effects. As stated below, self-
conducted a study where students learned from an generative tasks can overwhelm learners' limited
expository text about human memory systems, either cognitive resources and create a substantial cognitive
in a text-only condition, a static readymade GO load that impairs learners' understanding of the
condi- tion, a sequential readymade GO condition, information they are endeavouring to learn. In the
or a self-generated GO condition. Results showed related area of generative drawing research, several
that self-generating a GO, rather than being authors have therefore recommended providing
provided with a readymade one, hindered learners with guidance during self- generative
students' learning performances on a retention test drawing tasks (e.g., Fiorella & Mayer, 2016;
probing macrostructure information (main ideas) and Fiorella & Zhang, 2018; Leutner & Schmeck,
hierarchical relations (interrelations). In addition to 2014). With regard to mapping generation, when
spending more time on the learning document, some guidance was provided by Colliot and Jamet
students who self- generated a GO scored (2019) in the form of a blank GO to fill in, the
significantly lower on comprehension in a transfer expected positive gen- eration effects did not occur.
problem test. Moreover, it should be noted that the Presumably therefore, more guidance should be
GOs they created were nearly 100% correct. provided and the learning task should be made even
In another study, the same authors (Colliot & easier, in order to foster positive generation effects.
Jamet, 2019) exam- ined the effects of supporting a In most of the studies involving the self-generation
generative mapping task by providing the empty of GOs, the generative task was per- formed at the
boxes of a GO to fill in. Analysis failed to reveal same time as the learning task (e.g., Colliot &
the nega- tive effects of self-generation observed Jamet, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Ponce & Mayer, 2014;
in their previous study. Even so, students in this Stull & Mayer, 2007). This dual-task situation may
supported group did not actually outperform those in thus account for the absence of positive generation
the readymade group, and it took them even longer effects reported in the literature. Learners may focus
to perform the learning task. As highlighted by too much on this generative task, explaining their
Fiorella and Mayer (2015), and in the light of the high performance on GO creation observed in
most recent studies described above, it appears several studies (e.g., Colliot & Jamet, 2018a, 2019), at
that fur- ther research is needed to establish the the cost of learning. When learners are simultaneously
exact amount of guidance that needs to be given to gen- erating and learning, they need to tackle the self-
learners in order to bring about positive mapping generative task and select, organize and integrate
generation effects. information from the pedagogical docu- ment at the
same time (Mayer's CTML model, 2014). If
1.4 | Present experiment: generating and
Overview and hypotheses

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the

effects of guidance provided to learners to enhance
learning activities are separated, students would (Hypothesis 1c). Furthermore, as students in the
only select relevant information during the readymade group would have more information to
generation phase—in order to fill in the empty process, owing to the addition of the GO to the
boxes of the skeleton of a GO—and during the multimedia document, we predicted that they
learning phase learners would be able to organize would spend more time on the document
and integrate information in order to make sense of (Hypothesis 1d).
the material. Furthermore, they may not know The second aim was to assess the effects of
how and when to allocate their cognitive self-generating a GO on students' learning and the
resources to the two different tasks. influence that guiding this activity had on learning.
Consequently, sequencing these two tasks We therefore compared a nonguided active learning
(generative and learning tasks) could be a relevant situ- ation, where students were asked to complete a
method of providing students with minimal GO during the learn- ing phase, with a seemingly
guidance and reducing the overall cognitive load. passive one, where students simply viewed a
Learners could start by self-generating the GO, readymade GO next to the multimedia document
then learn from the document accompa- nied by (ready- made group), on different learning measures.
their newly created GO. For instance, when Lin Given the mixed results reported in the literature,
et al. (2016) asked students either to read a text we did not expect students in the non- guided
about the human cardiovascular system three learning group to outperform students in the
times (repeated reading condition), or to read, readymade group. Nevertheless, as shown by
produce (or imagine) a drawing and reread the text, Colliot and Jamet's study (2019), students who
they observed beneficial effects of the generation complete a GO can achieve the same level of
task on learning outcomes. Although the aim of learning as those who view a readymade GO.
their study was not to analyze the effects of Following previous studies' results, as learners in a
sequencing generation and learning tasks, it self-generated group spent a higher amount of time
highlighted the positive effects of generation that on the document compared to a readymade group
can be observed under sequenced conditions. (e.g., Colliot & Jamet, 2018a; Stull & Mayer,
The first aim of the present study was to 2007), we also expected here that the nonguided
replicate the positive effects of emphasizing a active learning group would spend more time on the
text's structure with a readymade GO on stu- dents' docu- ment compared to the readymade group
learning performances. As GOs have proved to (Hypothesis 2).
be effective in showing students the main items In the guided active learning group, the
of information and their interrela- tions, we instructions were intended to guide students'
predicted that students in the readymade group information processing. After filling in the empty
would score higher on the retention of boxes of the GO, students were instructed to learn
macrostructure information (Hypothesis 1a) and from the multimedia document accompanied with
hierarchical relations (Hypothesis 1b), than those the GO they had just com- pleted. These
in the con- trol group. We also expected them to instructions were expected to improve students'
outperform the control group on a transfer test learn- ing performances, by separating the
generative phase from the
learning phase. We therefore predicted that the Buchner, & Lang, 2009; Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &
guided active learning group would score higher on Buchner, 2007). We expected an effect size ranging
the retention of macrostructure informa- tion between η2 = .10 and η2 = .15 based on previous
(Hypothesis 3a) and hierarchical relations studies with similar factors and measures. The
(Hypothesis 3b) than the readymade group. We necessary sample size to detect an effect size of η2
also predicted that these students would achieve a = .13 (f2 = 0.113), using an alpha of .05, a beta of .10,
higher level of understanding, as measured by a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
transfer prob- lem scores (Hypothesis 3c). without interaction, and five response variables with
Furthermore, we expected this group to spend 0.90 power was estimated to be N = 76.
more time on the document than the readymade A total of 81 French psychology
group, owing to the separation of the generative undergraduates (65 women, 16 men; age: M =
task from the learning task (Hypothesis 3d). 18.79 years, SD = 1.67) took part in the study on a
We also expected guided self-generation (i.e., voluntary basis. The experiment was conducted in
generating then learning) to improve learning accordance with the principles of the Declaration
more than a nonguided situation (i.e., of Helsinki. An informed consent form was given
simultaneously generating and learning). We to each of the participants. All of them agreed to
therefore predicted that the guided active learning the study conditions described in this form and
group would outperform the non- guided active signed it. Each student was randomly assigned to
learning group on macrostructure information one of the four conditions of the study (see Figure 1).
(Hypothesis 4a), hierarchical relations The first group saw an illustrated text displayed on
(Hypothesis 4b) and transfer problems its own on a computer screen (control group; n =
(Hypothesis 4c). 20). The second group saw the same multimedia
In a more exploratory way, we also assessed document, but this time it was accompanied by a
complementary mea- sures to see if generative readymade GO displayed on the right-hand side of
effects extended to the retention of the ele- ments the screen (readymade group; n = 22). In the two
that were not represented in the GO. Thus, students' remaining groups, students were asked to fill in a
retention of microstructure information (the details blank GO shown alongside the multimedia doc-
in the text) and pictorial information was ument they were reading. Some students did not
measured in the present study even though no receive any guid- ance, and were simply asked to
hypothesis was formed concerning these complete the GO during their learning (nonguided
variables. active learning group; n = 20), while others were
asked first to complete the GO, then to learn the
2| METHOD multimedia document

2.1 | Participants

The required sample size was estimated with a

power analysis using G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder,
accompanied by the GO they had just completed were critical, as they had to show them how to
(guided active learn- ing group; n = 19). technically complete the GO using the editing tool
A pretest scored out of 8 ensured that none of pro- vided for this generative activity. Students in
the participants were already familiar with the the nonguided active learning group were informed
topic of the multimedia document used in the that they would have to complete a GO while
study. Indeed, 99% of students (80 out of 81) left learning from the multimedia document, with the
all questions blank in this questionnaire due to their aim of retaining and understanding all the
lack of prior knowledge about the studied subject. information contained in the docu- ment. The
Therefore, students of the present experiment had tutorial showed them how to complete the GO as
no prior knowledge about human memory they read the document (3 min 56 s). Finally,
systems. students in the guided active learning group were
simply informed that they would have to com-
2.2 | Computer-based learning environment plete a GO. This tutorial was therefore similar to
the one created for the nonguided active learning
2.2.1 | Video tutorials and instructions
group, except that it excluded the learn- ing
To explain the instructions, we created video instructions (2 min 47 s), which were given
tutorials using a multi- media document similar in separately once the students had completed the
form to the one the students would have to study, GO.
but different in content (phases of mitosis). We
created four video tutorials, all using the same 2.2.2 | Multimedia document
pedagogical content, but each specific to one
The multimedia document consisted of 12 slides.
condition. The video tutorial for the control
The first slide intro- duced students to the topic of
group simply showed a multimedia document
the document (i.e., human memory sys- tems). The
about the phases of mitosis (3 min 27 s) and
second slide reiterated the instructions given in
instructed students to read the multimedia docu-
the tutorial. Students in the control and readymade
ment in order to retain and understand all the
groups were told that they would have to learn
information it con- tained. The tutorial for the
from the multimedia document and retain and
readymade group featured the same document
understand the information that was presented,
alongside a readymade GO (3 min 32 s). Students
in order to
were informed that they would have a readymade
GO showing the main information contained in the
document on the right-hand side of the screen,
while the multimedia document itself would be
on the left- hand side of the screen. Instructions
were the same as those given to the control
group.
The two tutorials created for the students who
were asked to complete the empty boxes of a GO
FIG U R E 1Example of the display seen by the control group (top left), readymade group (top right),
nonguided active learning group (bottom left) and guided active learning group (bottom right)

answer a learning test. Those in the nonguided or a but- ton to go to the previous page and review
active learning group were told that they would also the information it con- tained. It also informed
have to fill in the empty boxes of a GO while students that they would not be able to review the
learning. However, those in the guided active document when answering the learning test.
learning group were simply instructed to complete The multimedia document was displayed in the
the GO. They were only informed that they would centre of the screen for the control group, and on
have to learn the document in order to answer a the left-hand side, with the readymade GO on the
learning test once they had completed the GO. right-hand side, for the readymade group. The
The nine subsequent slides featured the pedagogical multimedia document was also on the left-hand side
content that had to be learned (human memory of the screen for the nonguided and guided active
systems). This was the same for all four groups. learning groups, with an editing tool on the right-
Each slide comprised an explanatory text (150– hand side for the students to use when filling in the
200 words) and a schematic pic- ture illustrating GO's empty boxes (see Figure 1). For all the
the location of the different memory systems in groups, the learning material was learner-paced,
the brain. The overall content came to 1,500 with each slide featuring a Previous and a Next
words and nine schematic pictures. The 12th and button.
final slide offered students a choice of two buttons
to click on: either a button to go to the learning test
 The GO represented the three-level
hierarchical structure of the multimedia
document. It was composed of 21 labels for the
macro- structure information (three labels at Level
1, nine at Level 2, and nine at Level 3) and 21
links (hierarchical relations). Students in the
non- guided and guided active learning groups
were provided with a blank GO showing the
hierarchical structure. Students simply had to
click on the empty boxes and type in the
macrostructural information. Based on the 12
content-slides, students self-generated a single
GO gathering the overall information of the
document.

2.3 | Measures

2.3.1 | Pretest: Prior knowledge

and demographic data

Before they viewed the document, participants

were asked to com- plete a questionnaire
designed to probe their prior knowledge about
the topic of the study and collect some
demographic data (sex and age). There were five
open-ended prior-knowledge questions for a total
score of eight points (e.g., ‘What is the memory
span in short- term memory?’). The scoring of
each question depended on the expected number
of answers. For each participant, we summed the
points earned for each question (range 0–8). We
then calculated the mean total score for each
group.
 2.3.2 | Learning outcomes moment they started reading to the moment when
they clicked on the ‘I am ready to answer the
Students were asked to complete a learning
learning test’ button in the final slide.
test composed of 45 questions. We calculated the
total number of points scored on each test and the
2.4 | Procedure
mean score for each group. Each question in the
learning test was scored 1 point for a correct answer. Participants underwent individual 1-hr sessions.
These questions were divided into two parts: They were first greeted and told about the different

• A retention test consisting of 31 open-ended questions: 12 ques- tions

steps of the study. After they had signed the
about the macrostructure (e.g., ‘Which kind of memory stores our informed consent form, students completed the
procedural knowledge and motor skills?’, Maximum score = 12), and 7
questions about hierarchical relations (e.g., ‘How many parts is declarative
pre- questionnaire (prior-knowledge test,
memory composed of?’, Maximum score = 7). These last questions demographic data). They were
assessed students' retention of the general organiza- tion of the content.
Twelve questions about the microstructure (e.g., How long is
information stored on average in the short-term memory? Maximum
score = 12), and eight multiple-choice ques- tions about pictorial
information (e.g., in the picture above, which number refers to the
amygdala? 1, 2, 3, 4 or I do not know, Maxi- mum score = 8).
• A transfer test made up of six transfer problems where students had to
apply what they had just learnt from the multimedia docu- ment to new
situations (e.g., ‘Owing to brain injuries, patient HM cannot retrieve old
memories and acquire new knowledge. How- ever, his cognitive
performances and general knowledge about the world are intact. Which
declarative long-term memory system is affected in this case? Which
brain structure is affected in this case?’ Maximum score = 6).

A second researcher coded 33% of

participants' answers in order to check interrater
reliability. The two raters agreed on 317 of 324
answers regarding macrostructure information
(98.9% interrater agreement), on 188 of 189
answers regarding hierarchical relations (99.3%
interrater agreement), on 322 of 324 answers
regarding micro- structure information (99.2%
interrater agreement), and on 159 of
162 answers regarding transfer problems (98.7%
interrater agreement).

2.3.3 | Time on task

We calculated the amount of time the students

each spent on the multimedia document, from the
then randomly assigned to one of the four study
3 | RESULTS
groups. Students in the control and readymade
groups were clearly told by the experi- menter 3.1 | Data analysis
that they would be given a learning test after
We began by running a MANOVA to test the
viewing of the document and would therefore
effects of the conditions on the different measures
have to retain and understand the information
of the learning test (dependent variables:
presented in the document, spending as much
macrostructure, hierarchical relations, pictorial
time as they needed. Students in the nonguided
information, microstruc- ture, and transfer scores).
active learning group were also told that they
The MANOVA revealed significant differ- ences
would have to fill in the empty boxes of a GO
between the four groups, Wilks's lambda =
dur- ing their learning. As for those in the guided
2.720, p = .001, η2 = .156. We then ran ANOVAs
active learning group, they were initially only
to test the effects of the conditions on the different
told that they would have to fill in the empty
learning variables measured in this study:
boxes of a GO. Only after they had completed the
macrostruc- ture, hierarchical relations, pictorial
GO were they informed that they would have to
information, microstructure, and transfer problems.
learn the document and undergo a learning test.
We found significant differences for both the reten-
Thus, participants in the guided active learning
tion test (macrostructure information and hierarchical
group first went through all the 12 content-slides
relations) and the transfer test. As all our
of the document to pro- gressively fill in the
hypotheses relied on specific differences, the
empty boxes of the GO and then went through
results described below were yielded by planned
the slides again to learn the pedagogical document
comparisons.
accompanied with the GO they had just self-
The means and SDs of each group for the
generated.
different components of the learning test are
The participants each viewed the video tutorial
displayed in Table 1.
that corresponded to their group. Once participants
were ready to view the learning docu- ment, we
launched software to record the time they spent 3.2 | GO quality
studying the document (and filling in the empty
We assessed the quality of GO completion
boxes of the GO, in the case of both the nonguided
according to whether the boxes were correctly
and guided active learning groups). Students were
filled in (correct macrostructure information) in the
told that no note-taking would be allowed during
guided and nonguided active learning groups.
the learning phase, and no documents would be
allowed while answering the questions in the
learning test. When students clicked on the ‘I am
ready to answer the learning test’ button in the last
slide, the learning test appeared. There were no time
limits for any of the tests.
 Qualitative analyses showed that students in both H1b, but there was no difference between the
the guided and nonguided active learning groups readymade and non- guided active learning groups,
successfully completed the GO. t(77) = .211, p = .834. Moreover, in line with H3b, the
guided active learning group scored significantly
3.3 | Learning outcomes higher on the retention of hierarchical relations than
the readymade group, t
3.3.1 | Macrostructure information
(77) = 2.435, p = .017, Cohen's d = .81. Furthermore,
The ANOVA showed a main effect of condition planned compari- sons between the two active
on the retention of macrostructure information, F(3, learning groups showed that guidance improved
77) = 8.568, p < .001, η2 = .250. In accordance with students' learning performances, t(77) = 2.178, p
H1a, planned comparisons indicated that students in = .033, Cohen's d = .71, thus confirming H4b.
the readymade group outperformed those in the
control group on the retention of macrostructure
information, t(77) = 3.112, p = .003, Cohen's d
= .84. Planned comparisons between the
readymade and nonguided active learning groups
showed that students did not differ on the retention
of macrostructure information, t(77) = .204, p
= .839. In accordance with H3a, the guided active
learning group scored sig- nificantly higher on the
retention of macrostructure information, t
(77) = 2.067, p = .042, Cohen's d = .68, than the
readymade group. They also scored significantly
higher on the retention of macrostruc- ture
information, t(77) = 2.217, p = .030, Cohen's d
= .86, than the nonguided active learning group
(H4a).

3.3.2 | Hierarchical relations

The ANOVA revealed a main effect of condition

on the retention of hierarchical relations, F(3, 77)
= 6.189, p = .001, η2 = .194. Planned comparisons
between the readymade and control groups
indicated that the former outperformed the latter on
the retention of hierarchi- cal relations, t(77) =
1.992, p = .050, Cohen's d = .61, thus confirming
 3.3.3 | Transfer problems
3.3.4 | Complementary analyses
The ANOVA showed a main effect of condition
on the transfer test, F (3, 77) = 6.328, p < .001, An ANOVA was conducted on retention
η = .198. Planned comparisons showed that
2
questions regarding elements that were not
students who were provided with a readymade GO represented in the GO. The ANOVA showed no
alongside the mul- timedia document main effect of condition for pictorial
outperformed those who only had the multimedia information questions, F (3, 77) = 2.000, p =
document (control group) on the transfer test, t(77) .121. Moreover, the ANOVA conducted on
= 2.266, p = .030, Cohen's d = .69, indicating that micro- structure information did not reveal a main
they achieved a better understanding of the overall effect of condition on the retention scores for these
document, in line with H1c. No significant questions, F(3, 77) = 1.080, p = .363.
difference was found between the readymade
and nonguided active learning groups, t(77) =
3.4 | Time on task
.053, p = .958. As predicted (H3c), the guided
active learning group also outperformed the The ANOVA revealed a main effect of condition
readymade group on the trans- fer test, t(77) = on the amount of time spent on the document, F(3,
2.268, p = .029, Cohen's d = .71, revealing a 77) = 10.031, p < .001, η2 = .281. In line with
better understanding of the information H1d, students who were provided with a
presented in the multimedia docu- ment. readymade GO spent marginally more time than
Moreover, planned comparisons revealed higher those who saw the multimedia docu- ment on its
transfer scores for the guided active learning own (control group), t(77) = 1.976, p = .052,
group, compared with the nonguided active Cohen's d = .62. As predicted (H2), having to fill
learning group, t(77) = 2.162, p = .037, Cohen's in the empty boxes of a GO (nonguided active
d = .69, in line with H4c. learning group) increased the amount of time spent

TA BL E 1 Mean scores (SDs) on the learning test and time spent on task for each of the four groups
Control group Readymade group Nonguided active learning group Guided active learning group
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Retention test
Macrostructure/12 4.13 (3.49) 6.92 (3.13) 6.74 (2.49) 8.80 (2.31)
Hierarchical relations /7 4.55 (1.32) 5.41 (1.50) 5.50 (1.61) 6.47 (1.07)
Microstructure/12 5.68 (2.54) 6.86 (2.05) 6.08 (1.84) 6.68 (3.04)
Pictorial information /8 4.60 (2.30) 5.09 (1.74) 3.95 (2.09) 3.63 (2.24)

Transfer problems /6 0.80 (1.06) 1.77 (1.68) 1.80 (1.67) 2.89 (1.49)
Time on task (min) 15.49 (7.19) 20.74 (9.50) 26.66 (8.99) 29.18 (8.45)
on the multimedia document, compared with four conditions. Moreover, they shed an interesting
viewing the readymade condition, t(77) = 2.202, p light on the effects of self-generation and guidance
= .031, Cohen's d = .64. Furthermore, like the on undergraduates' learning performances.
nonguided active learning group, the guided active
learning group spent more time on the multimedia 4.1 | Does adding a GO to a multimedia
document than the readymade group did, t(77) = document benefit learning?
3.139, p = .002, Cohen's d = .94, thus con-
Consistent with the results of previous studies
firming H3d.
showing the benefits of displaying GOs alongside
Separating the generative and learning tasks for
texts instead of showing the texts on their own
the guided active learning group did not
(e.g., Colliot & Jamet, 2018a, 2019; Dee-Lucas &
significantly increase the amount of time stu-
Larkin, 1995; Kiewra et al., 1999; McCrudden,
dents spent on the multimedia document,
Schraw, & Lehman, 2009; Robinson & Kiewra,
compared with the group where these tasks were
1995; Robinson & Schraw, 1994), the present
simultaneous (nonguided active learning group),
study demonstrated that adding a readymade GO
t(77) = .944, p = .348.
to a multimedia document significantly enhances
Also, the time student spent on the generation
students' learning performances. Students in the
phase and on the learning phase was calculated in
readymade group significantly outperformed students
the guided active learning group. On average,
in the control group on the retention of both
students spent 11.28 min on the generation
macrostructure informa- tion and hierarchical
phase (SD = 2.64 min) and 17.90 min on the
relations. They also scored higher on the transfer test
learning phase (SD = 8.90). In other terms,
measuring their ability to apply what they had just
students spent approximately 43% of their time on
learned from the multimedia document to novel
the generation phase.
situations, indicating that they achieved a deeper
understanding of the information in the document.
4 | DISCUSSION
These results therefore confirm that GOs have
The present investigation was intended to answer positive effects on learning. By acting as a visual
two research ques- tions concerning the effects aid to structuring the text according to its main
of GOs on students' learning in a computer- ideas and their interrelations, GOs can scaffold
based learning environment. We aimed to students'
precisely assess students' learning with two learning
measures: a retention test featur- ing questions
about the macrostructure information and
hierarchical relations, and transfer problems.
Combined with the amount of time spent on the
document, these outcomes allowed us to assess
both the efficacy and efficiency of each of the
elaboration of a high-quality mental model and, in one group of stu- dents in the active learning
turn, improve their overall learning (e.g., Hegarty, condition with guidance, asking them first to fill in
2011; Luo et al., 2017). the blank GO, then learn from the multimedia
document. Con- sistent with our hypotheses, when
4.2 | How do self-generation and the generative task was separated from the
guidance of students' information learning task, students achieved the highest scores
processing influence learning? on both the retention test (macrostructure

In the present study, students in the nonguided information and hierarchical rela- tions) and the

active learning group achieved the same level of transfer test. Moreover, their performances were

performance as those in the readymade group. signif- icantly better than those of the other three

This result replicated Colliot and Jamet (2019)'s groups (i.e., readymade, nonguided active learning

finding that facilitating the generative task simply and control). Our study therefore demon- strated

by providing a blank GO to fill in did not allow the positive effects of self-generating a GO when

students to outperform those who viewed the guidance is provided. More specifically, guiding

ready- made GO. It is important to note that students' information processing improved both

students in this nonguided active learning group aspects of their learning (i.e., memorization and

correctly filled in all the empty boxes of the blank com- prehension). These results support Fiorella and

GO. Thus, although the task may not have been Zhang's recommenda- tion that guidance should be

difficult for the students, it was quite time- provided when generative activities are performed

consuming, as indicated by the time spent on the (Fiorella & Zhang, 2018). Although these students

multimedia document. Therefore, students exhibited spent more time learning from the document than

the same efficacy as those in the readymade group, those in the readymade group, this improved their

in terms of learning perfor- mances, but were less learning performances.

efficient in terms of time spent on the docu- One possible explanation for higher

ment. We can hypothesize that students in the performances for the guided active learning group

nonguided active learning group failed to over the nonguided active learning group is that the

outperform those in the readymade group because essential processes elicited by the generative and

they were placed in a dual-task situation. These learning tasks were better distributed. When these

students had to simultaneously fill in the GO's tasks were performed simulta- neously, they

empty boxes and learn the informa- tion appeared to decrease the amount of generative

displayed in the multimedia document. The resources that could be allocated to selecting,

absence of positive effects in the present study, organizing and integrat- ing the information in the

as well as in previous studies, may stem from the text. When the learning task was separated from the

dual-task situation induced by the instructions, generative one, the cognitive load was presumably

which prevented students from benefitting from the spread

generative activity.
To avoid this dual-task situation, we provided
across time thereby leaving students with more to analyze reading behaviours in these different
cognitive resources to make sense of the material learning situations and to see if learners are ignoring
they encountered. some information sources (such as pictorial
These findings also raise the question of how information). This would allow to study how learner's
the students in the nonguided active learning group attention is parceled out between the text, the
represented the task. In other words, did they pictures and the GO. More studies focusing on
perceive it more as a generative task than as a self-generation effects are needed in order to better
learning task? If this was the case, they may have understand the processes involved in these learning
focused their processing on the generative activity, situations.
leaving fewer resources for learning the informa-
tion. Future research should deal with how 4.3 | Limitations
cognitive resources are distributed across the
In the present study, students' learning was only
different tasks and aim to redirect essential pro-
assessed with an immediate learning test.
cesses toward the text and the selection-
Administering a delayed learning test could yield
organization-integration pro- cesses. Eye-tracking
useful results that help us to have a better
studies could shed light on how students study in
understanding of the effects of each condition.
nonguided and guided active learning conditions.
Moreover, delayed testing would allow researchers
They could show whether students spend more
to see how students' performances change over
time on the text or on the generative activity, or
time. It would be interesting to know whether the
whether they spend equal amounts of time on
benefits observed in the guided active learning group
both, and whether they start by studying the text
persist over time, and if some effects are not
or by generating the GO. Moreover, the obtained
immediately observable and only appear in a
results could stem from the fact that stu- dents in
delayed test. Although we failed to find a difference
the guided active learning group read the text
between the nonguided active learning and
twice while those in the other groups did not.
readymade groups on the immediate learning test,
However, this hypothesis cannot be tested in this
it might be possible to observe one on a delayed
study. Eye-tracking recordings could be used in
learning test. In accor- dance with Craik and Lockart
future studies to analyze how learners study a text
(Craik & Lockhart, 1972)'s levels of processing
whether they are guided or not, and if they read it
theory, we could hypothesize that being engaged in a
again in the same way. Finally, guided active
gen- erative task, whether or not it is guided,
learning seems to be a more ecological condition,
induces deeper information processing, and make
insofar as students first create a visual aid, then use
the knowledge students learn less likely to be
it to learn the pedagogical document. Moreover,
eye-tracking methodology could be used in future
studies in order to see how students process the
GOs on-screen when they are provided with one
or self-generating one. It would also be interesting
forgotten and affected by time. By the same increases nor decreases learning when students are
token, although the readymade group performed placed in a dual-task situation (generation plus
well on the immediate test, their learning may only learning), but enhances students' learning when
have been superficial, and may have decreased guidance is provided (generation then learning).
over time. Therefore, future studies should Finally, more research is needed to study the
endeavour to measure students' learning with effects of generative activities in natural settings via
both an immediate test and a delayed test, in immediate and delayed learning tests. Recent
order to gain a more precise understanding of self- studies on GOs have once again confirmed their
generative effects. beneficial impact on students' learning (e.g.,
Moreover, no measure of cognitive load was Ponce, Mayer, Loyola, López, & Méndez, 2018).
realized in this study. It could be very relevant to However, to our knowledge, no research has yet
measure and compare the different kinds of been conducted in natural settings to test the effects
perceived cognitive load in the guided and on learning of asking students to self-generate a
nonguided active learning group. Indeed, one GO during a lesson. This is nonetheless critical, in
could hypothesize that germane cognitive load – order to see whether the results obtained in
indicating how deeply students process the laboratory set- tings can be reproduced in
document – would be higher in the guided active ecological conditions.
learning group compared to the non- guided
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
active learning group (Sweller, 1994, 2010; see
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
also Mutlu- Bayraktar, Cosgun, & Altan, 2019 for
a review). Moreover, extraneous cognitive load, DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
caused by a poor instructional design could also The data that support the findings of this study are
be measured (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, available from the corresponding author upon
1998). One could expect the extraneous cognitive reasonable request.
load to be higher in the nonguided active learning
group compared to the guided active learning
ORCID
group. Conse- quently, future research should Tiphaine Colliot https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-0014

measure germane cognitive load and extraneous

cognitive load (see Leppink, Paas, van Gog, van
der Vleuten, & van Merriënboer, 2014).

5 | CONCLUSIONS

The present study confirmed the beneficial

impact of providing a readymade GO on students'
memorization and comprehension. It also helped to
map self-generation effects on learning
performances, showing that self-generation neither
FILE 10
R 9264-4 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation
and regression ana-
E
F lyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

E Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flex- ible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
R
E Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding.

N Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

C Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learn- ing. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741.
E Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–
S 1137. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8
Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018a). Does
Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students' compre- hension of main ideas in an expository text with
self-generating a graphic organizer
multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/
while reading improve students'
learning? Computers & Education, 747866
126, 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Impli- cations for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–
du.2018.06.028 474. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x

Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018b). How Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D., DuBois, N., & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct
does adding versus self-generating displays. Journal of Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.
a hierarchical outline while
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehen- sion and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–
learning from a multimedia
394. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
document influ- ence students'
performances? Computers in Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and
Human Behavior, 80, 354–361. examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.20
17.11.037 Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 433–448). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2019). Asking
students to be active learners: The Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2016). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in
effects of totally or partially self- com- prehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142–154.
generating a graphic organizer on
stu- dents' learning performances. Luo, L., Peteranetz, M. S., Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2017). Using eye-tracking technology to understand how graphic
Instructional Science, 47, 1–18. organizers aid stu- dent learning. In C. A. Was, F. J. Sansosti, & B. J. Morris (Eds.), Eye- tracking technology applications in
https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11251- educational research (pp. 220–238). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
019-09488-z

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972).

Levels of processing: A framework
for memory research. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-
5371(72)80001-x

Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1995).

Learning from electronic texts:
Effects of interactive overviews for
information access. Cognition and
Instruc- tion, 13(3), 431–468.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690
xci1303_4

Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Picture

or text first? Explaining sequence
effects when learning with pictures
and text. Educational Psychology
Review, 27(1), 153–180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

1 January 2020 | Volume 10 | Article 3087
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for E. E. (2018). When two computer-supported learning strategies are better than one: An eye-tracking study. Computers
understanding. Review of & Education, 125, 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.024
Educational Research, 59(1),
43–64. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic orga- nizers are superior to outlines in improving learning
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346 from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.
543059001043
Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 399–415.
of multimedia learning. In R. E. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1029
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-
handbook of multimedia
generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.
learning (pp. 3–48). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instruc- tional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.
Press.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and ger- mane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review,
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia 22, 123–138.
learning (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Cam- bridge University Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,
Press. 10(3), 251–296. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educa-

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory tional Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.

of multimedia learning. In R. E.
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
2011(126), 45–53. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
handbook of multimedia
of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71).
New York, NY: Cambridge pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
University Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educa- tional Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., &
Lehman, S. (2009). The use of Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Ele- mentary School Journal, 92(2), 169–184.
adjunct displays to facilitate
comprehension of causal
relationships in exposi- tory How to cite this article: Colliot T, Jamet É.Effects of self-
text. Instructional Science, 37(1),
65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/
generated graphic organizerson learning depend on in-task
s11251-007-9036-3 guidance. J Comput Assist Learn. 2020;1–10. https://doi.org/
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., 10.1111/jcal.12434
Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A.
(2007). The effect of causal
diagrams on text learning.
Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32(3), 367–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsy
ch.2005.

11.002

Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., &

Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in
mul- timedia learning
environments: A systematic
review. Computers & Edu-
cation, 141, 103618.

Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014).

An eye movement analysis of
highlighting and graphic
organizer study aids for learning
from exposi- tory text.
Computers in Human Behavior,
41, 21–32.

Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Loyola,

M. S., López, M. J., & Méndez,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

2 January 2020 | Volume 10 | Article 3087
 Edited by:

Sung-il Kim, Korea University, South Korea

Reviewed by:

Frans Prins, Utrecht University, Netherlands

Lu Wang, Ball State University, United States

Roger C. Ho, National University of Singapore,

Singapore

*Correspondence: Benedikt Wisniewski benedikt.wisniewski@ phil.uni-augsburg.de

John Hattie [email protected]

Specialty section: This article was submitted to Educational Psychology,

a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 06 August 2019

Accepted: 31 December 2019

Published: 22 January 2020

Citation: Wisniewski B, Zierer K and Hattie J (2020) The Power of Feedback Revisited:

A Meta-Analysis of Educational

Feedback Research. Front. Psychol. 10:3087.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

3 January 2020 | Volume 10 | Article 3087
 REVIEW A meta-analysis (435 studies, k = 994, N > 61,000) of empirical
research on the effects of feedback on student learning was conducted
with the purpose of replicating and expanding the Visible Learning

The Power of research (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Hattie, 2009; Hattie and Zierer,
Feedback 2019) from meta-synthesis. Overall results based on a random-effects
Revisited: A Meta- model indicate a medium effect (d = 0.48) of feedback on student
Analysis of
Educational learning, but the significant heterogeneity in the data shows that
Feedback feedback cannot be understood as a single consistent form of treatment.
Research A moderator analysis revealed that the impact is substantially
Benedikt Wisniewski1*, influenced by the information content conveyed. Furthermore,
Klaus Zierer1 and John
Hattie2*
feedback has higher impact on cognitive and motor skills outcomes
1
than on motivational and behavioral outcomes. We discuss these
Department of School Pedagogy,
University of Augsburg, Augsburg, findings in the light of the assumptions made in The power of
Germany, 2 Melbourne Graduate
School of Education, University of feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). In general, the results suggest that
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
feedback has rightly become a focus of teaching research and practice.
However, they also point toward the necessity of interpreting different
forms of feedback as independent measures.
Keywords: feedback, student learning, student achievement, meta-analysis, teaching

INTRODUCTION
Feedback is information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s
performance or understanding (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). There is an
extensive body of research on this subject: Kluger and de Nisi (1996)
conducted among the most comprehensive review, based on 131 studies,
over 12,000 participants, with an average effect of 0.38, noting that about
a third of the effects were negative. More specifically, in the classroom
domain, Hattie and Timperley (2007), Hattie (2009), and Hattie and Zierer
(2019) conducted meta-syntheses relating to the effects of feedback on
student achievement (which we refer to as Visible Learning research). These
indicated a high effect (between 0.70 and 0.79) of feedback on student
achievement in general. However, the authors noted the considerable variance
of effects, identifying those forms of feedback as powerful that aid students
in building cues and checking erroneous hypotheses and ideas, resulting in
the development of more effective information processing strategies and
understanding (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
Given the impact of the Visible Learning research (over 25,000 citations on
Google Scholar), it is important to ask whether the results presented on the
effectiveness of feedback and the variables which moderate this effectiveness
will stand up to scrutiny. A comprehensive meta-analysis on educational
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
4 January 2020 | Volume 10 | Article 3087
feedback which
integrates the existing
primary studies is still
a desiderate.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org

5 January 2020 | Volume 10 | Article 3087
Key Proposals of the Visible Learning or confidence to engage further on a task (What can
be done to manage, guide and monitor your way of
Research action?). The self-level focuses on the personal
Sadler (1989) claimed that the main purpose of
characteristics of the feedback recipient (often
feedback is to reduce discrepancies between
praise about the person). One of the arguments
current understandings and performance and a
about the variability is that feedback needs to
goal. From this, Hattie and Timperley (2007)
focus on the appropriate question and level of
argued that feedback can have different
cognitive complexity, if not the message can easily
perspectives: "feed-up" (comparison of the actual
be ignored, misunderstood and of low value to the
status with a target status, providing information to
recipient. Generally, it has been shown that the
students and teachers about the learning goals to be
majority of feedback in classes is task feedback, the
accomplished), "feed-back" (comparison of the
most received and interpreted is about “where to
actual status with a previous status, providing
next,” and the least effective is self or praise
information to students and teachers about what
feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
they have accomplished relative to some expected
standard or prior performance), and "feed-forward"
Effectiveness of Feedback
(explanation of the target status based on the actual
Hattie and Timperley (2007) made basic
status, providing information to students and
assumptions with respect to variables that moderate
teachers that leads to an adaption of learning in
the effectiveness of feedback on student
the form of enhanced challenges, more self-
achievement. The type of feedback was found to
regulation over the learning process, greater
be decisive, with praise, punishment, rewards, and
fluency and automaticity, more strategies and
corrective feedback all having low or low to
processes to work on the tasks, deeper
medium effects on average, but corrective
understanding, and more information about what
feedback being highly effective for enhancing the
is and what is not understood). Additionally,
learning of new skills and tasks. With regard to
feedback can be differentiated according to its
the feedback channel, video/audio and computer-
level of cognitive complexity: It can refer to a task,
assisted
a process, one’s self-regulation, or one’s self. Task
level feedback means that someone receives
feedback about the content, facts, or surface
information (How well have the tasks been
completed and understood? Is the result of a task
correct or incorrect?). Feedback at the level of
process means that a person receives feedback on
the strategies of his or her performance. Feedback
at this level is aimed at the processing of
information that is necessary to understand or
complete a certain task (What needs to be done
to understand and master the tasks?). Feedback at
the level of self-regulation means that someone
receives feedback about the individual’s regulation
of the strategies they are using to their
performance. In contrast to process level feedback,
feedback on this level does not provide
information on choosing or developing strategies
but to monitor the use of strategies in the learning
process. It aims at a greater skill in self-evaluation
feedback were compared. For both forms, the confidence intervals.
synthesis showed medium high to high effects. It Secondly, a source of distortion when using a
was also noted that specific written comments are synthesis approach results from overlapping
more effective than providing grades. Hattie and samples of studies. By integrating a number of
Timperley (2007) also investigated the timing of meta-analyses dealing with effects of feedback
feedback (immediate/delayed) and the valence interventions without checking every single
(positive/negative feedback), reporting primary study, there is a high probability that the
inconsistent results. It was proposed that forms of samples of primary studies integrated in these
feedback with a lack of information value have meta-analyses are not independent of each other,
low effects on student achievement. but at least some primary studies were integrated
in more than one meta-analysis. Therefore, these
Methodological Considerations would have to be considered as duplets–primary
As noted, the major research method in the
studies that are included in the result of the
Visible Learning research is synthesizing meta-
synthesis more than once–and consequently cause
analyses. The unit of analysis was the individual
a distortion. In contrast to meta-synthesis, a meta-
meta-analysis and each meta-analysis was given
analytical approach allows to remove duplets and
the same weight, regardless of the number of
therefore prevent a distortion of results.
studies or sample size, using a fixed-effect model
The question arises, whether synthesizing
for the integration. This approach allows to make
research on feedback on different levels, from
general assumptions about the effectiveness of
different perspectives and in different directions
feedback without the need to look at every single
and compressing this research in a single effect
primary study but brings with it some restrictions
size value leads to interpretable results. In contrast
addressed in the following:
to a synthesis approach, the meta-analysis of
Firstly, the use of a fixed-effect model may not
primary studies allows to weigh study effects,
be appropriate. A meaningful interpretation of the
consider the issues of systematic variation of effect
mean of integrated effects with this model is only
sizes, remove duplets, and search for moderator
possible if these effects are homogenous (Hedges
variables
and Olkin, 1985). Because previous research on
feedback includes studies that differ in variants of
treatment, age of participants, school type, etc., it
is highly likely that the effect size varies from
study to study, which is not taken into account by
a fixed-effect model. By contrast, under the
random-effects model, we do not assume one true
effect but try to estimate the mean of a
distribution of effects. The effect sizes of the
studies are assumed to represent a random sample
from a particular distribution of these effect sizes
(Borenstein et al., 2010). The random-effects
model incorporates the systematic variation of
effect sizes into the weighting scheme assuming
the variation to depend on factors that are
unknown or that cannot be taken into account.
Using the random-effects model, the variance for
each primary study is in most cases larger than
under the fixed-effect model because it consists of
the fixed-effect variance plus a variance
component τ2. This results also in larger
based on study characteristics. Therefore, a meta- case of heterogeneity between studies to identify
analysis is likely to produce more precise results. study characteristics (i.e., moderators) that may
account for a part of or all of that heterogeneity. In
Research Questions detail, and as suggested by Moher et al. (2009), we
One of the most consistent findings about the
• of feedback is the remarkable variability of
power specified the study and reported characteristics
effects. The existing research has identified several making the criteria for eligibility transparent,
•
relevant moderators like timing and specificity of described all information sources and the
the goals and task complexity (Kluger and DeNisi, process for selecting studies,
•
1996) and sought to understand how recipients described methods of data extraction from the
• studies, described methods used for assessing
(e.g., students, teachers) receive and understand
feedback, how to frame feedback to maximize this risk of bias of individual studies,
•
reception, and the more critical aspects of feedback
stated the principal summary measures,
• described the methods of handling data and
that optimize its reception and use (Hattie and
combining results of studies, and
Clarke, 2018; Brooks et al., 2019).
• described methods of additional analyses
The purpose of the present study was to
(sensitivity and moderator analyses).
integrate the primary studies that provide
information on feedback effects on student
learning (achievement, motivation, behavior), with
a meta- analytic approach that takes into account
the methodological problems described in the
previous part and to compare the results to the
results of the Visible Learning research. Therefore,
the study also investigates the differences between
meta-synthesis and meta-analysis.
In particular, our study addressed the following
research questions:
RQ1: What is the overall effect of feedback on
student learning based on an integration of
each of the primary studies within each of the
all meta-analyses used in the Visible Learning
research?
RQ2: To what extent is the effect of feedback
moderated by specific feedback
characteristics?

METHOD
General Procedure
This meta-analysis is a quantitative integration of
empirical research comparing the effects of
feedback on student learning outcomes. The
typical strategy is (1) to compute a summary
effects for all primary studies, (2) to calculate the
heterogeneity of the summary effect, and (3) in
 The following procedure was employed in this criteria that were used to include meta-analyses in
review (see Figure 1): First, we identified the Visible Learning research syntheses but allow
primary studies from existing meta-analyses and to exclude studies from meta-analyses that
decided whether to include these based on four encompass both an educational and a non-
inclusion criteria. Then we developed a coding educational context (Wiersma, 1992; Kluger and
scheme to compare the effects of different DeNisi, 1996; Standley, 1996).
feedback interventions. In the next step, we We included studies with controlled designs as
defined an effect size for each primary study or well as pre- post-test designs, and this became a
study part, either by extracting it from an existing moderator to investigate any differences related to
meta-analysis or (when this was not possible) design (Slavin, 2008). Whenever existing meta-
calculating it from information provided in the analyses reported the relevant statistical data from
respective primary study. the primary studies, we used this data. When no
We used the random-effects model for relevant statistical data from primary studies were
integration of the effect sizes that met our reported, we contacted the authors of the meta-
inclusion criteria to calculate an average effect analyses via e-mail and asked to provide the
size for all studies, and, in a next step, for missing information. Four authors responded and
subgroups defined by our coding scheme. We three of them provided the effect sizes and sample
checked for heterogeneity across the studies and sizes of the primary studies which they used in
conducted outlier analysis and moderator analysis their meta-analysis. When no relevant data were
to assist in reducing the heterogeneity of effect reported in a meta-analysis and authors didn’t
sizes. provide them, we reconstructed the effect sizes
directly from the primary studies whenever
Identification of Studies and Inclusion possible. Some studies were excluded, either
Criteria because we could not reconstruct their effect size,
To identify the primary studies for our meta- or because of other reasons as specified in Table 1.
analysis, we searched 32 existing meta-analyses
that were used in the context of the Visible
Learning research for information on primary
studies that included relevant data for integration
(effect sizes, sample sizes). To be included, each
study had to meet the following inclusion criteria:
It had to
contain an empirical comparison of a form of •
feedback intervention between an
experimental and a control group, or a pre-
post comparison;
report constitutive elements to calculate an •
effect size (e.g., include means, standard
•
deviations, and sample sizes) report at least
one dependent variable related to student
learning (achievement, motivation, or
behavioral change) and
have an identifiable educational context (data •
obtained with samples of students or teachers
in a kindergarten, primary school, secondary
school, college or university)
The inclusion criteria are comparable to the
FIGURE 1 | Flow diagram of study identification and selection.
TABLE 1 | Existing meta-analyses investigating the factor feedback.

Authors Year Status Access to effect sizes and sample sizes

Azevedo and Bernard 1995 Included From meta-analysis

Bangert-Drowns et al. 1991 Included From meta-analysis
Biber et al. 2011 Included From meta-analysis
Brown 2014 Excluded Data not available
Getsie et al. 1985 Excluded No effect sizes indicated; no individual references provided
Graham et al. 2015 Partially included From meta-analysis
Kang and Han 2015 Included From meta-analysis
Kluger and DeNisi 1996 Partially included Original data received from authors; studies that do not deal with educational context excluded
Kulik and Kulik 1988 Partially included 33 sample size values missing; reconstruction from the primary studies not possible
L’Hommedieu et al. 1990 Included From meta-analysis
Li 2010 Included From meta-analysis
Lysakowski and Walberg 1980 Excluded No effect sizes indicated, effect sizes and sample sizes not reconstructable from original studies
Lysakowski and Walberg 1981 Partially included 44 of 54 primary studies excluded because they do not deal with feedback on the relevant
outcomes effect sizes reconstructed from primary studies
Lyster and Saito 2010 Partially included Effect sizes reconstructed from original studies
Menges and Brinko 1986 Partially included Missing values reconstructed from primary studies
Miller 2003 Included Updated set of studies was used (Miller and Pan, 2012), instead of the eleven effects from eight studies used
by Miller (2003), 31 effects from 13 studies were integrated
Neubert 1998 Partially included Effect sizes/sample sizes reconstructed from primary studies
Rummel and Feinberg 1988 Partially included 38 of 45 studies excluded because they do not deal with the relevant outcomes
Russel and Spada 2006 included From meta-analysis
Schimmel 1983 Excluded Data not available
Skiba, Casey, and Center 1985 Excluded Data no longer available (even directly from authors)
Standley 1996 Partially included 82 of 98 studies excluded because they do not deal with a school context
Swanson and Lussier 2001 Partially included Effect sizes/sample sizes reconstructed from primary studies
Tenenbaum and Goldring 1989 Included Statistical data from meta-analysis, but no references of integrated studies provided
Travlos and Pratt 1995 Partially included From meta-analysis
Truscott 2007 Included From meta-analysis
van der Kleij et al. 2015 Included From meta-analysis
Walberg 1982 Excluded No effect sizes and sample sizes indicated; reconstruction of data no longer possible
Wiersma 1992 Partially included 10 of 20 studies excluded because they do not deal with an educational context
Wilkinson 1981 Excluded Data not available
Witt et al. 2006 Excluded No data on feedback effects
Yeany and Miller 1983 Partially included 45 of 49 studies excluded because data was not reconstructable

Coding of Study Features article abstracts. Generally, the study features for
To be able to identify characteristics that our coding scheme are orientated toward Hattie’s
influence the impact of feedback, a coding and Timperley’s (2007) coding features.
scheme was developed. It includes the We analyzed inter-coder consistency to ensure
following categories of study features: publication reliability among coders by randomly selecting
type (i.e., journal article, dissertation), outcome 10% of the studies and
measure (i.e., cognitive, motivational, physical,
behavioral), type of feedback (i.e.,
reinforcement/punishment, corrective, high-
information), feedback channel (i.e., written, oral,
video-, audio- or computer- assisted), and direction
(i.e., teacher > learner, learner > teacher). Some
of the study features of interest had to be dropped
(i.e., perspective of feedback, way of measuring
the outcome) because there were insufficient data,
or the feature could not be defined based on the
assessed intercoder reliability of each coding studies.
variable. For the 6 moderator variables,
Krippendorff’s alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.99,
Calculation of Effect Sizes
and therefore above the acceptable level For the computation of effect sizes, tests for
(Krippendorff, 2004). The two coders then heterogeneity, and in the analysis of moderator
discussed and resolved remaining disagreements variables, we used the Meta and Metafor packages
and established an operational rule that provided for R (R Core Team, 2017). To compare study
precise criteria for the coding of studies according results, Cohen’s (1988) d effect size measure was
to each moderator variable. The lead author then applied. This is calculated as
used these operational rules to code the rest of the
X¯ 1 −
X¯ 2
=
having them coded separately by two coders. d (1)
Based on this, we σpool
 ∫
with the pooled standard deviation of sampling errors and/or true effects are
(n1 − 1)σ2 + (n2 − 1)σ2 correlated. This can be the case when studies
s = (2
) report more than one effect and these effects
σ pool 1 2
stem from comparisons with a common control
group (multiple treatment studies, Gleser and
Olkin, 2009). To
n1 + n2 − 2 adequately integrate statistically dependent effect
sizes, there are
Hedges and Olkin (1985) demonstrated that the different approaches, for example selecting one
unsystematic error variance of a primary study is effect size per study, averaging all effects reported
determined by the variance of the effect size. The in one study, or conducting multivariate meta-
higher the variance, the less precise the study analysis (which requires knowledge of the
effect. Because study effects that have higher underlying covariance structure among effect
precision are to be weighted more strongly than sizes). If a study reported more than one effect size
effects that have lower precision, the inverse of the and the multiple outcomes could not be treated as
variance of the study effect in relation to the independent from each other (because they used
inverse of the sum of the variance inverse values one common sample), we accounted for this non-
of all k primary studies serves as a correction independence by robust variance estimation (RVE,
factor (Rustenbach, 2003). The inverse variance Sidik and Jonkman, 2006; Hedges et al., 2010).
weight is calculated as This method allows the integration of
1 statistically dependent effect sizes within a
wi = σ 2
meta-analysis without knowledge of the
di (3)
P
k 1
underlying covariance structure among effect
i=1 sizes.
σdi 2

The average weighted effect size d is the sum of all Bias and Heterogeneity
weighted effect sizes of the k primary studies. In Possible selection bias was tested by the means of
the fixed-effect
•i model, the variance σd 2 equals ν2, a funnel plot, a scatter diagram that plots the
which is derived h from the individual study treatment effect on the x-axis against the study size
e on the y-axis, and the means of a normal- quantile-
variances
•i (5). In t random-effects model, the
variance σd 2 consists of a first component ν2 (5) plot, in which the observed effect sizes are
and a second component, τ2 (6), which is the compared with the expected values of the effect
variance of the effect size distribution. sizes drawn from a normal distribution.
σ 2
= ν2 + τ2 (4) Additionally, Egger’s et al. (1997) regression test was
used to detect funnel plot asymmetry.
i
d•
A Q-test (Shadish and Haddock, 1994) was
performed to test the homogeneity of the observed
P
1 (5) effect sizes.
νi2 = k 1
kX (di − 2
d•)

σdi 2 σ
i=1 Q= 2 (7)
i=1 di

Q − (k − 1)
τ =P
2
w2 (6) The test variable Q is χ2-distributed with degrees
w − P
of freedom of the number k-1. Q can be used to
i check whether effect sizes of
i
wi Integration Model
The model of random effects (Hedges and Vevea, a group are homogeneous or whether at least one
1998) was used to integrate the study effects. With of the effect sizes differs significantly from the
a random-effects model we attempted to generalize others. In order to be able to provide information
findings beyond the included studies by assuming about the degree of heterogeneity, I2was computed
that the selected studies are random samples from (Deeks et al., 2008). I2 is a measure of the degree
a larger population (Cheung et al., 2012). of heterogeneity among a set of studies along a 0%
Consequently, study effects may vary within a – 100% scale and can be interpreted as moderate
single study and between individual studies, hence for values between 30 and 60%, substantial for
no common population value is assumed. values over 50%, and considerable for values over
The random-effects model takes two variance 75% (Deeks et al., 2008).
components into account. These are the sum of the Outlier Analysis
individual standard errors of the study effects By definition, no outliers exist in the random-
resulting from the sample basis of the individual effects model because the individual study effects
studies, and the variation in the random selection are not based on a constant population mean.
of the effect sizes for the meta-analysis. A Extreme values are attributed to natural variation.
meaningful interpretation of average effect sizes An outlier analysis, however, can serve to identify
from several primary studies does not necessarily unusual primary studies. We used the method of
require homogeneity (i.e., that the variation of the adjusted standardized residuals to determine
study effects is solely random, Rustenbach. 2003). whether effect sizes have inflated variance. An
The basic assumption here is that differences in adjusted residual is the deviation of an individual
effect sizes within the sample are due to sample study effect from the adjusted mean effect, i.e., the
errors as well as systematic variation. mean effect of all other study effects. Adjusted
The integration of multiple effect sizes does not standardized residuals follow the normal
only require independence of the primary studies distribution and are therefore significantly
included in the meta- analyses, but also different from 0 when they are >1.96. They are
independence of the observed effects reported in conventionally classified as extreme values when
the primary studies. The second assumption is > 2 (Hedges and Olkin, 1985).
violated when
Moderator Analysis DeShon, 2002).
For heterogeneous data sets, suitable moderator
variables must be used for a more meaningful Publication Type
interpretation. In extreme cases, this can lead to a
The type of publication (journal article or
division into k factor levels if none of the
dissertation) was used as a moderator. Published
primary studies can be integrated into a
studies may be prone to having larger effect sizes
homogeneous group. QB reflects the amount of
than unpublished studies because they are less
heterogeneity that can be attributed to the
likely to be rejected when they present significant
moderator variable, whereas QW provides
results (Light and Pillemer, 1986).
information on the amount of heterogeneity that
remains within the moderator category. The
actual suitability of a moderator variable within a Outcome Measure
fixed-effect model is demonstrated by the fact that The Visible Learning research investigated the
homogeneous effect sizes are present within the impact of the factor feedback on student
primary study group defined by it (QW empirical < achievement. However, not all primary studies that
QW critical) and at the same time the average effect were integrated in the meta-analyses contain an
sizes of the individual groups differ significantly achievement outcome measure. Consequently, for
from each other (QB empirical > QB critical). If both our meta- analysis, we differentiated between four
conditions are fulfilled, homogeneous factor types of outcome measure: cognitive (including
levels are present, which are defined by student achievement, retention, cognitive test
moderator variables, leading to a meaningful performance), motivational (including intrinsic
separation of the primary studies. However, by motivation, locus of control, self-efficacy and
this definition, homogeneity of effect sizes persistence), physical (development of motor skills)
within hypothesized moderator groups will and behavioral (student behavior in classrooms,
occur rarely in real data, which means that discipline).
fixed-effect models are rarely appropriate for
real data in meta-analyses and random- effects
models should be preferred (Hunter and Schmidt,
2000). In random-effects models, it can be tested
if moderators are suitable for reducing
heterogeneity (the random-effects model then
becoming a mixed-effects model), but without
assuming homogeneity (Viechtbauer, 2007).
Therefore, we used the article abstracts of the
primary studies to define meaningful moderator
variables and set the moderator values for each
primary study according to our coding scheme.
The following moderators were used:

Research Design
Studies with control groups were separated from
studies with a pre-post-test design. Effect sizes
from pre-post designs are generally less reliable
and less informative about the effects of the
intervention because they are likely to be
influenced by confounding variables (Morris and
Type of Feedback (see Figure 1). After the selection process, in the
A further distinction was made between final data set, 994 effect sizes from 435 studies
different types of feedback, namely (listed in the Supplementary Appendix),
reinforcement/punishment, corrective feedback, including about 61,000 subjects, were used for our
and high-information feedback. Forms of meta-analysis. Figure 2 shows the distribution of
reinforcement and punishment apply pleasant or the included effect sizes related to the years of
aversive consequences to increase or decrease the publication. The median of publication year is
frequency of a desired response or behavior. 1985. Fifteen percent of the integrated effect sizes
These forms of feedback provide a minimum are taken
amount of information on task level and no from studies published in the last 15 years.
information on the levels of process or self-
regulation. Corrective forms of feedback typically General Impact of Feedback
contain information about the task level in the The integration of all study effects with the
form of “right or wrong” and the provision of the random-effects model leads to a weighted
correct answer to the task. Feedback not only average effect size of d = 0.55. 17% of the
refers to how successfully a skill was performed effects were negative. The confidence interval
(knowledge on result), but also to how a skill is ranges from
performed (knowledge of performance). For some 0.48 to 0.62. Cohen’s U3, the percentage of those
scores in the experimental groups that exceed the
forms of feedback, i.e., modeling, additional
average score in the control groups is 70%. The
information is provided on how the skill could be
probability of homogenous effects is <0.001 with
performed more successfully. Feedback was Q = 7,339 (df = 993) and I2 = 86.47%.
classified as high-information feedback when it was
constituted by information as described for
corrective feedback and additionally contained
information on self-regulation from monitoring
attention, emotions, or motivation during the
learning process.

Feedback Channel
Some studies investigated the effects of feedback
according to the channel by which it is provided.
Hence, the distinction between three forms: oral,
written, and video-, audio- or computer- assisted
feedback.

Feedback Direction
This moderator refers to who gives and who
receives feedback. We differentiated between
feedback that is given by teachers to students,
feedback that is given by students to teachers, and
feedback that is given by students to students.

RESULTS
Identification of Studies
Our search strategy yielded 732 primary studies
Bias and Heterogeneity in which
In the funnel plot (Figure 3) all feedback
effects are plotted on the x-axis against the study
sizes on the y-axis. The funnel plot is a visual aid
to identify conspicuous data characteristics,
producing a symmetric inverted funnel for data
bias and systematic heterogeneity are unlikely.
The normal- quantile-plot (Figure 4) compares
the effect sizes from the primary studies with
hypothetical values predicted for a standard
normal distribution. It indicates that the existing
data shows
unexpected distribution characteristics. The funnel
plot displays
an asymmetric distribution of effect sizes for the The most extreme values were found in the meta-
whole sample and there is an unusually large analysis by Standley (1996). This meta-analysis
range of effect sizes and an unusually large deals with a special form of feedback, namely
number of extreme effect size values. This is music as reinforcement for education/therapy
confirmed by Egger’s et al. (1997) test for funnel objectives. The author reports five effect sizes
plot asymmetry (z = 9.52, p < 0.001). However, larger than 5, two of them larger than 10 for the
the asymmetry is only produced by the effect sizes educational context (the effect sizes for the
from studies published in journals (z = 9.75, p < therapeutical context were not considered in our
0.0001), while there is no asymmetry for effect meta-analysis). These effect sizes must be classified
sizes from dissertation articles (z = 1.03, p = 0.30). as gigantic. In an educational context, effect sizes
The normal-quantile- plot hints at more extreme that large are uncommon and much higher than
values than would be expected from a normal usually expected from any treatment.
distribution of effect sizes. The plot is markedly
non-linear (i.e., the points do not approximately lie
on the regression line), making it implausible that
the data come from a normal distribution.

Outlier Analysis
Thirty-five (3.5%) of all effect sizes were
identified as extreme values (standardized
residuals > 2) and excluded. An exclusion of these
extreme values leads to a reduction of the average
weighted effect size to 0.48 (CL: 0.44–0.51, Q =
5,771.43, df = 958,
I2 = 83.40%).
Following Brand and Bradley (2012) they can be
called “voodoo” effects. For example. for one
primary study with gigantic effects (Madsen et al.,
1976), Standley calculated four effect sizes of 1.74,
3.88, 5.60, and 11.98. Madsen et al. (1976)
report a pre-post- test ANOVA with four groups
(F = 7.54, df = 3.76, p < 0.1), a Newman–Keuls
multiple range comparison of mean pre-posttest
differences scores (5.2; 3.5; 0.95; 0.90) and the
means of two experimental and two control
groups (n = 20 in all groups) regarding their
results in a math test. Because Madsen et al.
(1976) do not report standard deviations, it is
unclear how the respective effect sizes were
calculated by Standley (1996) and a re-
calculation was impossible. Most importantly,
though, it remains unclear why four effect sizes
are reported, given the fact that the primary study
uses two control and two experimental groups.
Another study for which Standley’s meta-analysis
finds gigantic effect sizes is Madsen et al. (1975),
which reports a pre-pos-test ANOVA (F = 3.18,
df = 2, p > 0.05) and a pre- post group ANOVA
(F = 8.11, df = 2.72, p < 0.1) for two dependent
variables (behavior and math test score). Again,
no standard deviations are reported in the primary ×
study and it is unclear how the effect sizes of
10.34, 3.71, 5.17, and 3.13 were calculated by
Standley (1996). The author was contacted but
did not respond.

Comparison With
Existing Meta-Analyses
The average effect sizes of the subsets of
primary studies as used in the existing meta-
analyses are shown in Figure 5. For three meta-
analyses (Rummel and Feinberg, 1988; Standley,
1996;
 FIGURE 5 | Random-effects model calculation for the subsets of previous meta-analyses.

moderator analysis. Five of six moderators

Miller, 2003), the average effect size used in the Visible Learning
(research design, publication type, outcome
research is outside the confidence interval of our measure, type of feedback, and feedback direction)
meta-analysis. proved to be

Moderator Analysis
Table 2 shows the results of the tests for
heterogeneity between and within the subgroups
defined by our six moderator variables. Table 3
shows the outputs from the mixed-effects
statistically significant, the feedback channel
proved to be a non-significant moderator.

DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to investigate
the effectiveness of feedback in the educational
context with a meta-analytic approach. With d =
0.48 (cleared of extreme values), the overall effect
of different forms of feedback on student learning
is
TABLE 2 | Tests of heterogeneity between and within the moderator subgroups.

Moderator QB (df) p QW (df) p I2

Research design 29.06 (1) < 0.0001 5639.74 (955) < 0.0001 83.4%
Publication type 6.15 (1) < 0.05 5699.39 (957) < 0.0001 83.4%
Outcome measure 14.12 (3) < 0.001 4380.69 (750) < 0.0001 83.0%
Feedback type 41.52 (2) < 0.0001 1541.06 (316) < 0.0001 80.9%
Feedback channel 5.12 (2) > 0.05 2218.20 (337) < 0.0001 85.2%
Feedback direction 9.35 (2) < 0.001 4695.60 (852) < 0.0001 81.9%

QB, heterogeneity between groups; QW, heterogeneity within groups; I2, total amount of heterogeneity.

TABLE 3 | Effect sizes and heterogeneity for different moderator subgroups.

Moderator k d C.I. Q I2

Research design

Controlled study 713 0.42 [0.37 – 0.46] 3321.86 78.6%

Pre-post study 244 0.63 [0.56 – 0.69] 2317.88 89.5%

Publication type

Journal article 843 0.49 [0.45 – 0.53] 5176.67 83.7%

Dissertation 116 0.36 [0.25 – 0.46] 522.72 78.0%

Outcome measure

Cognitive 597 0.51 [0.46 – 0.55] 3689.88 83.8%

Motivational 109 0.33 [0.23 – 0.42] 600.96 82.0%

Physical 19 0.63 [0.34– 0.92] 36.65 50.9%

Behavioral 30 0.48 [−0.09 – 1.06] 0.28 50.0%

Type of feedback

Reinforcement or punishment 39 0.24 [0.06 – 0.43] 123.54 69.2%

Corrective feedback 238 0.46 [0.39 – 0.55] 1260.41 81.2%

High-information feedback 42 0.99 [0.82 – 1.15] 157.12 73.9%

Feedback direction

Teacher > student 812 0.47 [0.43 – 0.51] 4510.40 82.0%

Student > teacher 27 0.35 [0.13 – 0.56] 52.92 50.9%

Student > student 16 0.85 [0.59 – 1.11] 132.28 88.7%

2
k, number of study effects; d, average effect size; C.I., 95% confidence interval; Q, heterogeneity within subgroup; I , total amount of heterogeneity within subgroup.

medium-high (RQ1), although the variability of effect sizes by precision which was not applied in
the effects is most notable. the Visible Learning research. We used a random-
The average weighted effect size differs effects model and gave every single effect size a
considerably from the results of meta-synthesis (d weight based on its variance, while the meta-
= 0.79, Hattie and Timperley, 2007). This is likely synthesis approach is based on a fixed-effect
due to several factors which have been pointed out model and sums up average effect sizes.
by Wecker et al. (2017): One reason for this Comparing the average effect sizes that were
difference could be that we excluded duplets and synthesized with the calculation conducted in this
therefore avoided studies being double-counted. A meta- analysis for the subsets of meta-analyses
second reason for the difference between synthesis (Figure 5), there is basic agreement between the
and meta-analysis could be our weighting of the synthesis approach and the meta- analysis with 21
of 24 confidence intervals overlapping. but it influence (Borenstein et al., 2009). Consequently,
also becomes apparent that the synthesized if there is a large number of studies with large
average mean effect contains three overestimated samples and high effects, the average effect size
values. In the random- effects model, large studies will be higher under the fixed-effect model than
lose influence and small studies gain under the random-effects model and vice versa.
As our data includes a relatively large number of
small studies with high effects, the use of the
random-effects model leads to a higher average
effect size than the fixed-effect model (the mean
would be 0.41 with a confidence interval of 0.40 –
0.43). Consequently, the difference in effect size
between synthesis and meta-analysis cannot be
explained by the use of a random-effects model.
We assume that the different results mainly stem
from the fact that a number of studies used in the
synthesis were excluded from our meta-analysis,
either due to a lack of detailed information on the
statistical data or due to content-related
considerations (studies that did not explicitly deal
with an educational context or did not report
information on learning outcomes). The average
effect size from this meta-analysis is based on a
smaller sample of studies than the synthesis, but at
the same time, the selection of studies produces
more accurate results because it could be checked
for each single study if it actually fulfills the
inclusion criteria.
 Care is needed, however, with focusing too cognitive variables (Kulik and Kulik, 1988;
much on the average effect size as the integrated Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Azevedo and Bernard,
studies show high heterogeneity, suggesting that, 1995; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Lyster and Saito,
conform to expectations, not all feedback is the 2010) and significant heterogeneity remains within
same and one (average) effect size does not fit the sub-group defined by this moderator in our
all. The funnel- and normal-quantile-plots illustrate analysis. From a motivational perspective, feedback
that the observed data does not capture the is mainly considered to influence dependent
construct of feedback in an unbiased way and that variables like intrinsic motivation, locus of control,
there is an distribution of effect sizes which is not self-efficacy, or persistence. For these outcomes,
conform to a symmetric inverted funnel the average effect is low. A possible explanation
theoretically expected for data in which bias and from motivation theory is that feedback can have
systematic heterogeneity are unlikely. These issues negative effects on motivation by reducing the
and the results of the tests for homogeneity speak experience of autonomy and self-efficacy when it is
largely to the variability in effects and the need to controlling, negative and uninformative (Ryan and
search for meaningful moderators. Deci, 2000). Twenty one percent of the effect sizes
related to motivational outcomes in our data were
Effects of Different Forms of Feedback negative, with 86% of the feedback interventions
Heterogeneity likely results from different forms
leading to these negative effects being
of feedback, ranging from the simplest forms of
uninformative (rewards or punishments). Hattie
operant conditioning to elaborate forms of error
and Timperley (2007) have stated that rewards
modeling, from feedback to kindergarten children
significantly undermine intrinsic motivation and
to feedback to university professors, from
feedback administered in a controlling way caused
feedback that people get while learning a
negative effects, taking away responsibility from
handstand to feedback that people get while
learners for motivating or regulating themselves.
learning a foreign language.
The results do not indicate that
This study investigated six moderators (RQ2) –
research design, publication type, outcome
measure, type of feedback, feedback channel, and
feedback direction. Generally, and conform to
expectations (Light and Pillemer, 1986; Morris and
DeShon, 2002), the average effect of feedback as
reported in pre-post design studies is higher than in
controlled studies and higher reported in published
journal articles than in dissertations. Feedback
effects seem to be less likely to be published when
they are low or even negative.
Feedback is more effective for cognitive and
physical outcome measures than for motivational
and behavioral criteria. These claims must be
partly interpreted with some caution because there
are few studies available related to physical and
behavioral outcomes, substantially reducing the
precision of the average effect size. From a
cognitive perspective, feedback is often considered
a source of information that is necessary to
improve on a task. Previous meta-analyses have
produced inconsistent results of feedback on
feedback effects on motivation per se are low non-significant moderator.
but that effects of uninformative forms of Only a very small percentage of the primary
feedback on motivation are low or even studies investigated feedback from students to
negative. teachers and out of these,
Feedback is more effective the more 26 effect sizes could be used to compute an
information it contains. Simple forms of average effect size. These effects were located
reinforcement and punishment have low effects, mainly in studies dealing with higher education,
while high-information feedback is most i.e., with feedback from university or college
effective. Hattie and Timperley (2007) have noted students to their professors. Consequently, the data
the importance of not just the information in the does not allow conclusions on the effectiveness of
feedback, but the appropriateness of the timing of student > teacher feedback in the K-12 context. In
the feedback relating to where the students are general, feedback from teachers to students is
in the instructional cycle, moving from focusing more effective than from students to teachers,
on the task, the strategies underlying the task, but the average effect of student > teacher
and the self-regulation of the processes. Claims feedback has a high variance and there is a rich
by Lysakowski and Walberg (1981) that the literature related to this variance (Marsh, 1987;
effects of rewards or positive reinforcement on Uttl et al., 2017). With respect to the direction of
classroom learning are strong with an average feedback, student-student-feedback is the most
effect size of 1.17 have to be placed in the effective form, although, again care is needed as
context, therefore, of being effective more at the these estimates are based on a very small sample of
task level (which rightly and more likely wrongly only eight studies.
is the focus of most teacher feedback; Hattie, General Limitations
2009). Miller (2003), Russel and Spada (2006), We tried to shed more light on the role and
Truscott (2007), Li (2010), Kang and Han (2015) variability of feedback in the educational context
and Brown (2016) have all similarly noted that the with the help of meta-analysis in comparison to
effectiveness of corrective feedback is influenced meta-synthesis. Both approaches are often
by additional moderating variables, such as confronted with the accusation of comparing
learners’ proficiency, the setting, and the genre of apples and oranges.
the task (Kang and Han, 2015). These variables
were not taken into account in our meta-analysis.
High-information feedback contains information
on task, process and (sometimes) self- regulation
level. Its effect is very large, which suggests
that students highly benefit from feedback when it
helps them not only to understand what mistakes
they made, but also why they made these
mistakes and what they can do to avoid them
the next time. These results are in line with claims
of Hattie and Timperley (2007) who assume
forms of feedback “most useful when they assist
students in rejecting erroneous hypotheses and
provide direction for searching and strategizing”
(pp. 91–92).
Findings by Biber et al. (2011) that written
feedback is more effective than oral feedback
could not be confirmed. Although there is a
tendency of our results pointing in a similar
direction, the feedback channel proved to be a
Still, it is legitimate to aggregate heterogenous data is more effective, the more information it contains
in order to make general statements, but it has and research on estimating this information would
to be kept in mind that these statements are be a valuable addition to the area. Developing
often the first step to later understanding the models, such as the Hattie and Timperley (2007)
critical moderators. The Visible Learning model, would also advance the research, as such
research aimed to develop, present and defend a models provide a more nuanced view of feedback,
set of propositions and a story about not only aims to include the moderators, and can be refuted.
the mean effects of many influences on student Estimates of the effects of feedback range
achievement but the variability of these means. between 0.48 (this meta-analysis), 0.70 (Hattie,
As Hattie and Clarke (2018) have recently stated, 2009), and 0.79 (Hattie and Timperley, 2007) but
a danger lies in over-simplifications, simply using the pursuit of seeking the optimal moderators is the
average effect sizes, and ignoring the variability core business of future research. Feedback, on
across many studies, influences, contexts, and average, is powerful, but some feedback is more
moderators. powerful.
In this study, we used a random-effects/mixed-
effects model to deal with heterogeneity of effect
sizes and accounted for non- independence of AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
study effects by RVE. Raudenbush and Bryk
(1985) have recommended that the use of BW developed the idea for this manuscript and the
hierarchical linear modeling may be more optimal methodological framework and performed the
to account for the nesting of studies within a meta- analytic calculations. KZ and JH verified the
analysis and this would improve the fidelity of the analytical methods and supervised the findings of
estimation. this work. All authors discussed the results and
contributed to the final manuscript.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding, there has been a long search for SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
the optimal measures of central tendency – and we
have added another approach to better understand The Supplementary Material for this article can
the power of feedback. be found online at:
Feedback must be recognized as a complex and https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
differentiated construct that includes many 2019.03087/full#supplementary-material
different forms with, at times, quite different
effects on student learning. Most importantly,
feedback

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2009).

REFERENCES
Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, doi:
Azevedo, R., and Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of 10.1002/9780470743386
feedback in computer-based instruction. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 13, 111–127. doi:
10.2190/ 9LMD-3U28-3A0G-FTQT Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic
introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., and Morgan, M. (1991). The Synth. Methods 1, 97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev. Educ. Res. 61, 213–
238. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002213 Brand, A., and Bradley, M. T. (2012). More voodoo correlations: when average-
based measures inflate correlations. J. Gen. Psychol. 139, 260–272. doi: 10.1080/
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., and Horn, B. (2011). The Effectiveness of feedback for L1- 00221309.2012.703711
English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2011,
Brooks, C., Carroll, A., and Gillies, R. (2019). A matrix of feedback. Aust. J. Teach.
1–99. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x
Educ. 44, 14–32. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.2
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2
classroom: a meta-analysis. Lang. Teach. Res. 20, 436–458. doi: 10.1177/ Interventions, eds J. P. Higgins, and S. Green, (London, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd),
1362168814563200 243–296. doi: 10.1002/9780470712184

Cheung, M. W. L., Ho, R. C., Lim, Y., and Mak, A. (2012). Conducting a meta- Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., and Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-
analysis: basics and good practices. Int. J. Rheum. Dis. 15, 129–135. doi: 10.1111/ analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634. doi:
j.1756-185X.2012.01712.x 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, Getsie, R. L., Langer, P., and Glass, G. V. (1985). Meta-analysis of the effects of type
NJ: Erlbaum. and combination of feedback on children’s discrimination learning. Rev. Educ.
Res. 55, 9–22. doi: 10.3102/00346543055001009
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., and Altman, D. G. (2008). “Analysing data and
undertaking meta-analyses,” in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Gleser, L. J., and Olkin, I. (2009). “Stochastically dependent effect sizes,” in The
handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges,
and J. C. Valentine, (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 357–376.

Graham, S., Hebert, M., and Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and
writing. Elem. Sch. J. 115, 523–547.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on

Achievement. London: Routledge.

Hattie, J., and Clarke, S. (2018). Visible Learning: Feedback. London: Routledge,
doi: 10.4324/9780429485480

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77,
81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J., and Zierer, K. (2019). Visible Learning Insights. London: Routledge, doi:
10.4324/9781351002226

Hedges, L. V., and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., and Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in
meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res. Synth. Methods 1,
39–65. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.5

Hedges, L. V., and Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in

meta-analysis. Psychol. Methods 3, 486–504. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.3. 4.486

Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-
analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int. J. Sel.
Assess. 8, 275–292. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00156
Kang, E., and Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: a meta-analysis. Modern Lang. J. 99, 1–
18. doi: 10.1111/modl.12189

Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119, 254–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.

254

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum. Commun. Res. 30, 411–433.
doi: 10.1093/hcr/30.3.411

Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.

Rev. Educ. Res. 58, 79–97. doi: 10.3102/00346543058001079

L’Hommedieu, R., Menges, R. J., and Brinko, K. T. (1990). Methodological explanations for the modest effects of feedback from student ratings. J.
Educ. Psychol. 82, 232–241. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.232

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Lang.

Learn. 60, 309–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x

Light, R. J., and Pillemer, D. B. (1986). Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lysakowski, R. S., and Walberg, H. J. (1980). Classroom reinforcement. Eval. Educ.

4, 115–116. doi: 10.1016/0191-765x(80)90038-5

Lysakowski, R. S., and Walberg, H. J. (1981). Classroom reinforcement and learning: a quantitative synthesis. J. Educ. Res. 75, 69–77. doi: 10.1080/
00220671.1981.10885359

Lyster, R., and Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: a meta-analysis.

Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 32, 265–302. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990520

Madsen, C. K., Dorow, L. G., Moore, R. S., and Womble, J. U. (1976). Effect of music via television as reinforcement for correct mathematics. J. Res.
Music Educ. 24, 51–59. doi: 10.2307/3344936

Madsen, C. K., Moore, R. S., Wagner, M. J., and Yarbrough, C. (1975). A comparison of music as reinforcement for correct mathematical
responses versus music as reinforcement for attentiveness. J. Music Ther. 12, 84–95. doi: 10.1093/jmt/12.2.84

Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. Int.
J. Educ. Res. 11, 253–388. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2

Menges, R. J., and Brinko, K. T. (1986). “Effects of student evaluation feedback: a meta-analysis of higher education research,” in Paper Presented
at 70th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA,

Miller, P. C. (2003). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: A Meta-Analysis.

Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.

Miller, P. C., and Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: a meta-analytic review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 56, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.002

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA
statement. Ann. Int. Med. 151, 264–269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

Morris, S. B., and DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta- analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups
designs. Psychol. Methods 7, 105–125. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105

Neubert, M. J. (1998). The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting alone and potential moderators of this effect: a meta-analysis.
Hum. Perform. 11, 321–335. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1104_2

R Core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.

Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk, A. S. (1985). Empirical bayes meta-analysis. J. Educ.

Stat. 10, 75–98. doi: 10.3102/10769986010002075

Rummel, A., and Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Soc. Behav. Person. 16, 147–164. doi:
10.2224/sbp.1988. 16.2.147

Russel, J. R., and Spada, N. (2006). 4. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Lang. Learn. Lang. Teach. 13,
133–164. doi: 10.1075/lllt.13.09val
Rustenbach, S. J. (2003). “Metaanalyse - Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Metaanalysis - An application-oriented introduction],” in
Methoden der Psychologie [Methods of Psychology], Vol. 16, ed. K. Pawlik, (Bern: Huber).

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi:
10.1006/ ceps.1999.1020
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.

Instr. Sci. 18, 119–144. doi: 10.1007/bf00117714

Schimmel, B. J. (1983). “A meta-analysis of feedback to learners in computerized and programmed instruction,” in Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Montreal, Canada.

Shadish, W. R., and Haddock, C. K. (1994). “Combining estimates of effect size,” in The Handbook of Research Synthesis, eds H. Cooper, and L. V.
Hedges, (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 261–281.

Sidik, K., and Jonkman, J. N. (2006). Robust variance estimation for random effects meta-analysis. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 50, 3681–3701. doi:
10.1016/j.csda. 2005.07.019

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education—what works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations.
Educ. Res. 37, 5–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189x08314117

Standley, J. M. (1996). A meta-analysis on the effects of music as reinforcement for education/therapy objectives. J. Res. Music Educ. 44, 105–133.
doi: 10.2307/ 3345665

Swanson, H. L., and Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Rev. Educ. Res. 71, 321–363.
doi: 10.3102/ 00346543071002321

Tenenbaum, G., and Goldring, E. (1989). A meta-analysis of the effect of enhanced instruction: cues, participation, reinforcement and feedback
and correctives on motor skill learning. J. Res. Dev. Educ. 22, 53–64.

Travlos, A. K., and Pratt, J. (1995). Temporal locus of knowledge of results: a meta-analytic review. Percept. Mot. Skills 80, 3–14. doi:
10.2466/pms.1995. 80.1.3

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. J. Sec. Lang. Writ. 16, 255–272. doi:
10.1016/j.jslw.2007. 06.003

Uttl, B., White, C. A., and Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and
student learning are not related. Stud. Educ. Eval. 54, 22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc. 2016.08.007

van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., and Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’
learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 475–511. doi: 10.3102/00346543145 64881

Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Accounting for heterogeneity via random-effects models and moderator analyses in meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie/J. Psychol. 215, 104–121. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.104

Walberg, H. J. (1982). What makes schooling effective? Contemp. Educ. Rev. 1, 1–34.

Wecker, C., Vogel, F., and Hetmanek, A. (2017). Visionär und imposant–aber auch belastbar?. [Visionary and impressive – but also reliable?].
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 20, 21–40. doi: 10.1007/s11618-016-0696-0

Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 65, 101–114. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8325. 1992.tb00488.x

Wilkinson, S. S. (1981). The relationship of teacher praise and student achievement: a meta-analysis of selected research. Diss. Abstr. Int.
41:3998A.

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., and Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and
student learning. Commun. Monogr. 71, 184–207. doi: 10.1080/036452042000 228054

Yeany, R. H., and Miller, P. (1983). Effects of diagnostic/remedial instruction on science learning: a meta analysis. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 20, 19–26. doi:
10.1002/tea. 3660200103

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2020 Wisniewski, Zierer and Hattie. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these terms.