Korea TESOL Journal Volume 12, Number 1 Korea Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korea TESOL Journal Volume 12, Number 1 The Official Journal of Korea Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (KOTESOL / Korea TESOL) Editor-in-Chief: Kara Mac Donald, Defense Language Institute, USA Associate Editor: David E. Shaffer, Chosun University Reviews Editor: James Kimball, Semyung University KOTESOL Publications Committee Chair: David E. Shaffer Board of Editors Yuko Butler, University of Pennsylvania, USA Richard Day, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA Michael Griffin, Chung-Ang University Yang Soo Kim, Middle Tennessee State University, USA Douglas Paul Margolis, University of Wisconsin–River Falls, USA Levi McNeil, Sookmyung Women’s University Scott Miles, Dixie State University, USA Marilyn Plumlee, The American University in Cairo, Egypt Eric Reynolds, Woosong University Bradley Serl, University of Birmingham, UK Nicoletta Serenata, Auburn University, USA William Snyder, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Stephen van Vlack, Sookmyung Women’s University Unsoon Won, Defense Language Institute, USA Kyungsook Yeum, Sookmyung Women’s University Editors Suzanne Bardasz, University of California, Davis, USA Lindsay Herron, Gwangju National University of Education Hyunsoo Hur, Defense Language Institute, Osan Air Base, Korea Jennifer Lee, Gangneung–Wonju National University Federico Pomarici, Defense Language Instituite, USA Adam Turner, Hanyang University Production Layout: Media Station, Seoul Printing: Myeongjinsa, Seoul Copyright © 2016 by Korea TESOL ISSN: 1598-0464 iii Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 About KOTESOL Korea TESOL, Korea Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (KOTESOL) is a professional organization of teachers of English whose main goal is to assist its members in their self-development and to contribute to the improvement of ELT in Korea. KOTESOL also serves as a network for teachers to connect with others in the ELT community and as a source of information for ELT resource materials and events in Korea and abroad. Korea TESOL is proud to be an Affiliate of TESOL (TESOL International Association), an international education association of almost 12,000 members with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, USA, as well as an Associate of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language), an international education association of over 4,000 members with headquarters in Canterbury, Kent, UK. Korea TESOL was established in October 1992, when the Association of English Teachers in Korea (AETK) joined with the Korea Association of Teachers of English (KATE). Korea TESOL is a not-for-profit organization established to promote scholarship, disseminate information, and facilitate cross-cultural understanding among persons associated with the teaching and learning of English in Korea. In pursuing these goals, Korea TESOL seeks to cooperate with other groups having similar concerns. Korea TESOL is an independent national affiliate of a growing international movement of teachers, closely associated with not only TESOL and IATEFL, but also with PAC (Pan-Asian Consortium of Language Teaching Societies), consisting of JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching), ThaiTESOL (Thailand TESOL), ETA-ROC (English Teachers Association of the Republic of China/Taiwan), FEELTA (Far Eastern English Language Teachers’ Association, Russia), and PALT (Philippine Association for Language Teaching, Inc.). Korea TESOL in also associated with MELTA (Malaysian English Language Teaching Association), CamTESOL (Cambodia), and ACTA (Australian Council of TESOL Associations). The membership of Korea TESOL includes elementary school, middle school, high school, and university-level English teachers as well as teachers-in-training, administrators, researchers, material writers, curriculum developers, and other interested individuals. Korea TESOL has ten active chapters throughout the nation: Busan–Gyeongnam, Daegu– Gyeongbuk, Daejeon–Chungcheong, Gangwon, Gwangju–Jeonnam, Jeju, Jeonju–North Jeolla, Seoul, Suwon–Gyeonggi, and Yongin–Gyeonggi, as well as numerous international members. Members of Korea TESOL are from all parts Korea and many parts of the world, thus providing Korea TESOL members the benefits of a multicultural membership. Approximately thirty percent of the members are Korean. Korea TESOL holds an annual international conference, a national conference, workshops, and other professional development events, while its chapters hold monthly workshops, annual conferences, symposia, and networking events. Also organized within Korea TESOL are numerous SIGs (Special Interest Groups) – Reflective Practice, Social Justice, Christian Teachers, Research, Professional Development, Young Learners, Multi-Media and CALL – which hold their own meetings and events. Visit https://koreatesol.org/join-kotesol for membership information. iv Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Table of Contents Research Papers Kenneth Parsons Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of 1 Pair and Small-Group Work Patrick Travers Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral 25 Corrective Feedback in a Korean University General Education English Conversation Classroom Christopher Miller The Effect of Videoed Teacher 45 Performance on Reflection in Reflective Practice Sessions Tory S. Thorkelson Language Teaching Organizations and 67 Professional Job Satisfaction Jong-hee Youn The Effect of Extensive Reading on 107 KSAT Scores Thuy Ngoc Dinh Culture Representation in Locally 133 Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam Parviz Ajideh Learning Styles as Predictors of 157 Valeh Gholami Students’ Test Performance John Clayton Whittle Understanding Perceptions and Perceived 177 Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom Mark Rebuck Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views 203 of the Use of “Contentious” Video Seyyed Ali Ostovar- The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard 229 Namaghi on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development Jamal Alinejad v Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Book Reviews Jocelyn Wright Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second 247 Yeon-seong Park Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals (By Thomas S. C. Farrell) David B. Kent Technology Enhanced Language 261 Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice (By Aisha Walker & Goodith White) Colin Walker Language Learning With Digital Video 267 (By Ben Goldstein & Paul Driver) vi Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korea TESOL National Council 2015-16 National Officers President: Lindsay Herron, Gwangju National University of Education First Vice-President: Dr. David E. Shaffer, Chosun University Second Vice-President: Ingrid Zwaal, Jeonju University Treasurer: Phil Owen, Kunsan National University Secretary: Daniel Cable, Pagoda Academy, Seoul Immediate Past President: Peadar Callaghan, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia Committee Chairs International Conference Committee Chair: Jamie Carson, Osan University International Conference Committee Co-chair: Sean O’Connor, Coaching Pros Nominations & Elections Committee Chair: Mike Peacock, Woosong Culinary College Publication Committee Chair: Dr. David E. Shaffer, Chosun University Membership Committee Chair: Lindsay Herron, Gwangju National University of Education International Outreach Committee Chair; Mike Peacock, Woosong Culinary College Technologies Committee Chair: John Phillips, Independent Computer and Network Specialist Publicity Committee Chair: Lisa Bellamy, Seokyeong University Research Committee: Christopher Miller, Daeil Foreign Language High School Domestic Relations Committee: Stafford Lumsden, Sookmyung Women’s University Chapter Presidents Busan-Gyeongnam Chapter: Kathleen Kelley, Busan Metropolitan Office of Education Daegu-Gyeongbuk Chapter: Jeroen Root, Kyungpook National University Daejeon-Chungcheong Chapter: Mike Peacock, Woosong Culinary College Gangwon Chapter: Michael Free, Gangneung-Wonju National University Gwangju-Jeonnam Chapter: Dr. David E. Shaffer, Chosun University Jeonju-North Jeolla Chapter: Suzanne Schneider, Jeonju University Jeju Chapter: Stephanie Nixon, Halla Young Jae Academy Seoul Chapter: Dr. Ian Done Ramos, The University of Suwon Suwon-Gyeonggi Chapter: Tyler Clark, Gyeongin National University of Education Yongin-Gyeonggi Chapter: Robert Kim, Kyonggi University - Suwon Campus vii Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korea TESOL Journal The Korea TESOL Journal is a peer-reviewed journal, welcoming previously unpublished practical and scholarly articles on topics of significance to individuals concerned with the teaching of English as a foreign language. The Journal particularly focuses on articles that are relevant and applicable to the Korean EFL context. The Journal is scheduled to release two issues annually. As the Journal is committed to publishing manuscripts that contribute to the application of theory to practice in our profession, submissions reporting relevant research and addressing implications and applications of this research to teaching in the Korean setting are particularly welcomed. The Journal is also committed to the fostering of scholarship among Korea TESOL members and throughout Korea. As such, classroom-based papers, i.e., articles arising from genuine issues of the English language teaching classroom, are welcomed. The Journal has also expanded its scope to include research that supports all scholars, from early-career researchers to senior academics. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Classroom-Centered Research Teacher Training Teaching Methodologies Cross-cultural Studies Curriculum and Course Design Assessment Technology in Language Learning Language Learner Needs For additional information on the Korea TESOL Journal and call-for-papers deadlines, visit our website: https://koreatesol.org/content/call-papers-korea-tesol-journal viii Research Papers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 2 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work Kenneth Parsons Seokyeong University, Seoul, Korea The purpose of this study was to learn about Korean university students’ perceptions of pair and small-group activities common to communicative language teaching (CLT), and how they compared to teacher-centered activities, such as grammar, reading, and translation (GRT) methods, which are more familiar to Korean students in EFL education. To date there has been little research done on Korean students’ perceptions of CLT, and there have been no previous studies dealing specifically with their perceptions of pair and group work. Participants in a survey given at the beginning of the semester and at the end were three sophomore classes of beginning-level students of a three-level program. The university’s English program requires freshmen to take a teacher-centered course that is co-taught by a native English speaker and a Korean English teacher. The required sophomore class is CLT-based and taught by a native English-speaking teacher. Pair or small-group work outscored teacher-based activities as a “good” way to learn English, and students preferred pair and group work by a considerable margin at the beginning of the semester, even though more than half reported that they had seldom or never worked in pairs or small groups. At the end of the semester, pair and small-group work again considerably outscored teacher-centered activity as (a) a “good” way to learn English, (b) as a teaching method that students preferred, and (c) as a “better” way to learn English than “working alone, following the teacher’s instructions.” A majority of “neutral” answers were given to statements that said students “preferred” working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, and that this was a “better” method of learning English. A large majority of students thought pair and small-group activities should begin earlier in their education, perhaps at the junior high or high school level. This shows that the majority of students in Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 3 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 the study were not restricted in their English learning by what may now be a cultural stereotype of Confucian-based teacher-to-student transmission of knowledge, but easily adapted to and preferred the pair and group methods of learning English. INTRODUCTION Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is in its fourth decade as the major method used in instruction for ESL learners in many native English-speaking countries, including the U.S., Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000, p. 129), one of the most important characteristics of CLT is that “activities are often carried out by students in small groups.” Lightbown and Spada (2009, p. 192) have said that “group and pair work is a valuable addition to the variety of activities that encourage and promote second language development. Used in combination with individual work and teacher-centered activities, it plays an important role in language teaching and learning.” Nunan (1999) has also stated that tasks and exercises performed by students working in cooperative small groups are particularly important in CLT. While CLT has been at the forefront of language teaching methodology in the fore-mentioned Western countries since its inception in the early 1980s, the same does not appear to be true of East Asia. Some scholars have pointed out that CLT is in conflict with cultural standards, traditional education methods, and student values in the Asian classroom (Liu & Littlewood 1997). Hwang (1993, p. 76) claims, “Asian learners may hesitate more often in group type activities as their learning background is more teacher-fronted than those of other cultures such as those... who had Spanish as their L1.” Others have noted that Confucianism has an influence on Asian students in their perception that the classroom is teacher-centered, and the duty of the teacher is to directly impart knowledge to students (Lim, 2003; McClintock, 2011). CLT is, after all, a product of Western education practices and methods. This short study was initially implemented as a type of action research to help uncover information on Korean university students’ English learning backgrounds, and more specifically, on their perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher-centered methods, and pair and small-group methods of learning EFL. The students consisted of three classes of the sophomore Communicative English 1 course at the beginner level of a three-level 4 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 program: (a) beginner, (b) intermediate, and (c) advanced. Their freshman English course was a teacher-centered, “lecture-style” class in which a native speaker taught listening skills and vocabulary development, and a Korean teacher taught grammar and reading comprehension, sometimes translating the L2 (English) into the L1 (Korean) (referred to henceforth in this paper as GRT: grammar, reading, and translation). Each teacher, native speaker and Korean, taught one 75-minute class per week. LITERATURE REVIEW Nunan (1999, p. 76) has noted group work as an effective teaching method: “Group work is essential to any classroom that is based on experimental learning. Through group work, learners develop their ability to communicate through tasks that require them, within the classroom, to approximate the kinds of things they will need to communicate in the world beyond the classroom.” Long, Adams, and Castanos (1976) compared language created in group work tasks with more teacher-centered activities (like GRT) and found that students produced a larger quantity and variety of language in small groups. While some claimed that group work could cause students to learn each other’s mistakes, Porter (1983) found that learners produce more talk in group work, and they do not learn each other’s language errors. Other studies by Long (1983) and Pica (1994) have noted that small-group activities create learner situations in which negotiation of meaning is implemented in order for communication to take place among learners. More recent pedagogy continues to support the use of small-group activities in CLT. Richards (2003) commented on the value of group work, stating that it (a) increases the quantity of output, (b) aids in students’ stress reduction, (c) promotes learner autonomy, (d) develops learning strategies, (e) develops fluency, (f) helps create comprehensible input, (g) promotes group bonding and positive relationships, and (h) increases the variety of language. A well-known textbook in language teaching, which has anecdotally been called “the Bible of English language teaching,” (i.e., Brown, 2007) in one university program, states the following advantages of group work: (a) Group work generates interactive language. (b) Group work offers an embracing affective Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 5 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 climate. (c) Group work promotes learner responsibility and autonomy. And (d) group work is a step towards individualizing instruction. On the other hand, Brown notes teachers’ excuses for avoiding group work: (a) The teacher is no longer in control of the class. (b) Students will use their native language. (c) Students’ errors will be reinforced in small groups. (d) Teachers cannot monitor all groups at once. And (e) some learners prefer to work alone (pp. 225-229). CLT was the official English teaching methodology recommended by the South Korean Ministry of Education in 1992 (Life et al., 2008). In 1997, the Ministry of Education mandated English as a compulsory subject for all Korean schools, with instruction to begin in elementary schools (Nam, 2005). One study reported that communication-oriented teaching methods emphasizing oral communication abilities had replaced traditional translation and written English-oriented teaching (like GRT) in both the United States and South Korea (Kwon, 2000). This may be true from the official ministerial/administrative level mandated by the South Korean public educational institutions, but research at the classroom level during the first decade of the 21st Century appears to “tell a different story.” According to one South Korean researcher, who reported on Korean college students’ and teachers’ perceptions of communicative-based English instruction, “Most English instruction [in South Korea] is exam-oriented, especially in secondary education, focusing on grammar and reading comprehension more than communicative abilities in English” (Nam, 2005, p. 18). A CLT methodology was used most frequently by native-speaking English teachers, and translation-grammar- reading comprehension methods were most frequently used in the Korean English teachers’ classes (Nam, 2005). The researcher said that perhaps the more traditional grammar-translation methods were still being used by Korean English teachers because “that’s the way they were taught” (Nam, 2005, p. 94). Another study on Korean students’ perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching noted, “The pressure to perform well on exams likely outweighs the pressure to implement CLT” (McClintock, 2011, p. 150). Studies have noted the differences in Western and Asian students’ learning strategies as well. Table 1 concisely explains differences in students’ learning strategies. 6 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 2. Differences in Students’ Learning Strategies Traditional Western LLS Traditional Asian LLS (Rubin & Thompson, 1982) (Liu & Littlewood, 1997) Students take charge of / Students often rely on teachers to responsibility for their own deliver detailed guidelines in very language learning. structured lessons; autonomy is generally not supported. Students creatively develop a feel Students use the grammar- for L2 by experimenting with translation method and are likely words and grammar. to use memorization strategies. Students tend to focus on Students use contextual clues to individual word meanings and aid in comprehension. grammar points removed from context. Students tend to avoid risk-taking Students learn to make intelligent and a possible loss of face caused guesses. by mistakes. Students rarely have authentic Students create opportunities for opportunities for L2 use; some L2 practice outside of the classroom. may be reluctant to engage a native speaker. Students do not get flustered and Students have very limited continue to talk or listen without experience engaging in extended discourse; students dislike understanding every word. uncertainty and a lack of structure. Others have commented on Korean students’ common behaviors in the classroom and suggest that teachers should be more sensitive to students’ native culture, as this helps explain why they have traditionally been slower to interact with each other in pairs and groups when learning ESL/EFL. “Commonly, Korean students tend not to speak much in class, appear reserved, rarely ask questions, and do not express opinions. Other behaviors include talking in Korean when there are other Koreans present and whispering things to themselves and others. These behaviors can be taken by teachers as signs of disinterest or lack of Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 7 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 motivation” (Lim & Griffiths, 2003, p. 1). Another researcher (Nam, 2005) looking at teachers’ and students’ perceptions of communication-based English instruction claims that “according to the Korean culture and convention, students are not expected to talk in class, unless asked. They are supposed to listen carefully and take notes thoroughly to get a good score on an exam” (p. 33). Nam noted that the communicative-based curriculum adopted by a Korean school system did not appear to be working well, and he claimed that “the current communication-based EFL curriculum may not be aligned well with students’ desires, due to several weaknesses of the curriculum itself and constraints inherent in the institutional system behind the curriculum” (p. iii). The study also noted that EFL students who had higher-level proficiency tended to lose interest in the classroom and to seek out other methods, for example, private language institutions’ instruction, to raise their proficiency. Nam stated, “No matter how attractive or communicative the curriculum looks on paper, its day-to-day existence in pedagogical reality tells another story” (pp. 162-163). Some more recent research shows that students’ perceptions and attitudes toward CLT is positive, and Korean students favor communicative-based English teaching methods. A study of Korean English majors at a Korean university revealed that students wanted to learn communicative skills most in their program as English majors, and 93% checked four points (strongly agree) on a four-point Likert scale on the statement “communicative skills were vital.” Furthermore, the English majors stated that learning communicative skills was more important than learning skills in reading, writing, and grammar (Nam, 2009, p. 109). Another survey of 88 Korean university students showed favorable attitudes toward CLT activities in the classroom (McClintock, 2011). Although this study surveyed students’ perceptions of CLT in general, four of the eight statements dealing specifically with pair and group work were included in the survey, and examples follow. Statement 1 said that an EFL class should “base at least part of the students’ grades on completing the assigned group tasks,” and 74 students (87%) agreed (McClintock, 2011, p. 152). Statement 5 said that a class should “not use predominately small groups or pair work to complete activities in class,” and 26 (29.55%) agreed (p. 152). Statement 7 said a class should “base at least part of a students’ grade on their ability to interact with 8 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 classmates using the foreign language,” and 67 (76%) agreed (p. 153). Statement 8 said a class should “use activities where students have to find out information from classmates using the foreign language,” and 73 (82.95%) agreed (p. 153). Thus, over 70% of students in this survey had a favorable opinion of small-group or pair work (p. 153), which indicates that perhaps Korean students’ attitudes toward CLT, including a major method (pair and group work) may be changing in the 2010s, at least in published research. Polley (2007) has stated that “the perceptions of the learners do affect their participation and facilitate conditions for SLA to a substantial degree” (p. 85). While there have been studies on teachers’ and students’ perceptions of CLT, Walker (2001) noted at the beginning of the 2000s that there have been very few published studies of students’ perceptions of group work. As to the subject of this paper, Korean students’ perceptions of pair and group work, a literature review showed there had been no previous studies that dealt specifically with this topic. METHODS Testing Instruments At the beginning of the semester, an eight-item questionnaire (see Appendix A) was used to ask students (a) about the number of years they had studied EFL, (b) if they thought EFL study would be beneficial to their future, and (c) about their experience and opinions of teacher-fronted activities, and pair and group work. The questionnaire stated at the beginning that marking their answers would not affect students’ grades, but the information would be helpful to their teachers and to their university’s EFL program. Six of the items on the beginning-of-semester questionnaire asked that they respond to the statements about teacher-fronted activities and pair and group activities on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The end-of-semester questionnaire (see Appendix B) differed slightly from the one administered at the beginning of the semester. Of course, no questions were asked about the number of years the students had studied EFL or if their EFL studies would benefit them in the future; Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 9 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 instead the seven-item questionnaire asked about their opinions and preferences between teacher-fronted activities and group and pair work activities. Four of the statements were identical to those on the beginning-of-semester questionnaire and the end-of-semester questionnaire for the purpose of comparing students’ perceptions and attitudes to see to what extent they had or had not changed in one semester. Participants At the beginning of the semester, three beginner-level classes (N = 48) responded to the questionnaires, and several students dropped out of the course, so at the end of the semester, the number of students decreased (N = 44). As mentioned earlier, the students were sophomores in a three-level (beginning, intermediate, advanced) first-semester course titled “Communication 1” in the General Education Program. Students were placed in their respective levels according to their scores on the TOEIC exam. At the end of the semester, there were 13 students in Group A (7 business administration majors, 2 law majors, 2 culture contents majors, 1 public administration major, and 1 child education major). The class met twice a week for 75 minutes. Group B consisted of 13 students (6 business management majors, 2 military science majors, 1 child studies major, 1 journalism major, 2 international business language majors, 1 public administration major). The class met twice a week for 75 minutes. Group C consisted of 18 arts students (7 film, 4 acting, 2 design, 2 stage costume, 2 Korea traditional dance, 1 modeling). The class met once a week for two and a half hours. Their instructor had an MATESL degree from an American university and 25 years English teaching/tutoring experience, of which 18 years was in ESL/EFL. All Communication 1 classes were 15 weeks for one semester. The Communications 1 sophomore program had 69 total classes during the semester that this short study was undertaken. All of the students had successfully completed a one-year freshman course titled “World Wide English” (WWE) in which a native-speaker taught listening and vocabulary development for 75 minutes once a week, and a Korean English teacher taught reading comprehension and grammar (GRT) for 75 minutes once a week. The number of students in a WWE course was approximately 40 per class. Instruction for the class was mainly a teacher-centered, lecture-style method with little or 10 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 no pair or group work. RESULTS Beginning-of-Semester Responses Students (N = 48) were asked how many years they had studied English, and their responses ranged from 1 year to 16 years, with a mean of 9.1 years. The results of the eight-item statement survey given to students at the beginning of the semester are described below. These results are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. Forty-two out of 48 respondents (87.4%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “I think learning English will help my life in the future” (Table 2, Statement 1). This obviously shows that the students thought studying English was worthwhile and would be helpful to them in the future. Only three (6.25%) disagreed and three (6.25%) were neutral. TABLE 2. Student Survey Responses to Agreement Statements SA A N D SD Statement N N N N N (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1. I think learning English will help my 23 19 3 3 0 life in the future. (47.9) (39.5) (6.25) (6.25) (0) 4. Working in pairs or small groups is a 9 25 12 2 0 good way to learn English (beginning (18.7) (52) (25) (4.1) (0) of semester). 5. Working in pairs or small groups is a 17 24 2 1 0 good way to learn English (end of (38.6) (54.4) (4.4) (2.2) (0) semester). 6. Working alone, following the teacher’s 2 15 17 14 0 instructions, is a good way to learn (4.1) (31.2) (35.4) (29.1) (0) English (beginning of semester). 7. Working alone, following the teacher’s 11 18 13 1 1 instructions, is a good way to learn (25) (40.9) (29.5) (2.7) (2.7) English (end of semester). 8. I prefer to work in a pair or small group 2 19 24 3 0 Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 11 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 to learn English (beginning of semester). (4.1) (39.5) (50) (6.2) (0) 9. I prefer working in pairs or small 13 18 11 3 0 groups in learning English (end of (29.5) (40.9) (25) (6.8) (0) semester). 10. I prefer working alone, following the 7 10 20 8 3 teacher’s instructions, to learn English (14.5) (20.8) (41.6) (16.6) (6.2) (beginning of semester). 11. I prefer working alone, following the 2 11 24 6 1 teacher’s instructions, in learning (4.5) (25) (54.5) (13.6) (2.2) English (end of the semester). 12. Working in pairs or small groups is a better way to learn English than 7 25 10 2 0 working alone following the teacher’s (15.9) (56.9) (22.7) (4.5) (0) instructions. 13. Working alone, following the teacher’s instruction, is a better way to learn 2 8 24 9 1 English than working in pairs or small (4.5) (18.1) (54.5) (20) (2) groups. 14. Students should begin working in pairs or small groups earlier in their 18 19 6 1 0 education, perhaps in junior high or (40.9) (43.1) (13.6) (2.2) (0) high school. Note: SA = strongly agree, A = agree, N = neutral, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree. Students’ responses show a majority answering “seldom” or “never” (27) for 56% to the statement “I have worked in pairs and small groups in learning English” (Table 3, Statement 2). A minority answered “frequently” or “sometimes” (21) for 43.7%. Understandably, no one responded “always,” and only 5 (10.4%) responded “frequently.” “Frequently” would be the expected answer for a class in which CLT was the primary teaching method as Nunan (1999), Brown (2007), Larson-Freeman (2000), and Lightbown and Spada (2009) have noted that CLT activities are often carried out in small groups. Students’ first-semester English class had been a lecture-centered class, so of course they were more accustomed to this method of teaching. With less than half, 43.7%, answering “frequently” or “sometimes,” we can assume that GTR methods had been the methods in which the majority of students had learned English going back to 12 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 elementary school as the mean number of years students had studied English was 9.1 years. “Frequently” and “sometimes” were the answers most chosen by respondents (31) for 64.5% of the total responses to the statement “I have worked alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English (Table 3, Statement 3). “Seldom” or “never” responses (14) accounted for less than half of the answers at 29.1%. This is a clear indication that the students had considerably less experience with small or group work than they did with teacher-centered activities (such as GTR). The answers “seldom” and “never” accounted for 56.2% of the responses for pair and small-group experience (Statement 2) compared to 29.1% for teacher-centered activities. “Frequently” or “sometimes” doing teacher-centered activities rated 64.7% compared to pair or group activities at 43.7% (Statement 2). TABLE 3. Student Survey Responses to Frequency Statements Always Freq Some Seldom Never Statement N N N N N (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 2. I have worked in pairs and small 0 5 16 15 12 groups in learning English. (0) (10.4) (33.3) (31.2) (25) 3. I have worked alone, following the 3 12 19 8 6 teacher’s instructions, in learning English. (6.2) (25) (39.5) (16.6) (12.5) Note: Freq = frequently, Some = sometimes. Comparing Beginning-of-Semester Responses with End-of-Semester Responses At the beginning of the semester, 70.7% of the students selected “strongly agree” or “agree” as their answers to the statement “Working in pairs or small groups is a good way to learn English” (Table 2, Statement 4). Only 2 (4%) chose “disagree.” Considering that 56.2% of the students had marked “seldom” or “never” for the statement “I have worked in pairs and groups in learning English” (Table 3, Statement 2), this indicates that students had a highly favorable opinion of pair and small-group work as a good way of learning English at the beginning of the semester, even though the majority claimed to have little or no Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 13 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 experience working in pairs or small groups. Twelve students (25%) responded with “neutral” as their answer, the same number that indicated in an earlier statement that they had never worked in pairs or small groups. At the end of the semester, 41 out of 44 (93.0%) chose “strongly agree” (17) or “agree” (24) to the statement “Working in pairs or small groups is a good way to learn English” (Table 2, Statement 5). This is a 22.3% increase compared to 70.7% who responded “strongly agree” or “agree” at the beginning of the semester (Statement 4). Another response is also significant: While 12 (25%) had answered “neutral” in the beginning of the semester, only 2 (4.4%) did so at the end of the semester. Furthermore, only 1 student disagreed with the statement. While 56.2% of students said they had seldom or never worked in pairs at the beginning of the semester, after a semester’s instruction using such methods (along with activities in which students worked alone), a very high percentage of students, 93% (Statement 5), responded positively towards small-group and pair teaching, compared to 65.9% who responded positively to methods in which students worked alone following the teachers’ instructions (Statement 7). Seventeen students responded “strongly agree” (2) or “agree” (15) to this statement: “Working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, is a good way to learn English” (Statement 6). This accounted for a total of 35.3%, which was the same total for those who responded “neutral.” Fourteen students (29.1%) disagreed with this statement. Thus about 50% fewer students said working alone was a good way to learn English compared to the number who said working in pairs or small groups was a good way to learn English. Five more students were neutral (total 17) on this item compared to working alone (total 12). At the end of the semester, twenty-nine out of 44 (65.9%) answered “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “Working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, is a good way to learn English” (Statement 7). This compares to 17 of 48 (35.4%) who answered “strongly agree” or “agree” at the beginning of the semester. The same percentage of students (35.4%) answered “neutral” at the beginning of the semester, while 13 (29.5%) answered “neutral” at the end of the semester. Only 1 marked “disagree” and 1 marked “strongly disagree” at the end of the semester, while 14 (29.1%) marked “disagree” at the beginning of the semester. Curiously, the number of those who perceived working alone as a good way to learn English had increased by nearly 30%. This 14 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 could suggest that they had come to recognize the value of working alone when this method is used along with working in pairs or small groups? Or perhaps, the teacher’s activities for working alone were different than what they had done in the past? At the beginning of the semester, half of the respondents were neutral on the statement “I prefer to work in a pair or group in learning English” (Statement 8). Perhaps this is because 56.2% had said earlier that they had seldom or never worked in pairs and small groups. Thus they were unable to say that they “preferred” pair and small group activities to teacher-centered activities because they had little or no experience in the classroom with pair and small-group activities. Twenty-one respondents (43.6%) either chose “strongly agree” (2) or “agree” (19). Only 3 (6.2%) chose the answer “disagree.” At the end of the semester, 31 (70.4%) answered “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “I prefer working in pairs or small groups” (Statement 9). Thus, at the end of the semester, students showed a very strong preference for working in pairs or groups with 30.9% more preferring these activities over teacher-centered activities at the end of the semester. Eleven (25%) answered “neutral,” which is high, but considerably less than the 24 (50%) who answered “neutral” at the beginning of the semester. Only 3 (6.8%) answered “disagree,” and no one answered “strongly disagree.” Again, students showed a high preference for working in pairs or small groups after one semester’s instruction using these methods (30.9 % more than those who preferred using teacher-centered methods), but there was a high number of “neutral” answers. Perhaps some students were reluctant to give a strong opinion on this statement because the word “prefer” requires that one give a stronger opinion than statements which state a method is a “good” way to learn English. Once again there was a high number of “neutral” answers (20, 41.6%) to the statement “I prefer working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English” (Statement 10). Reconsidering that only 29.1% had answered “seldom” or “never” to having worked alone, following the teacher’s instructions (Statement 2), perhaps there’s another reason for a high number of “neutral” answers. Lim and Griffiths (2003) noted that Korean students are reluctant to express an opinion. The word “prefer” in items asks them to make a choice, to give an opinion that is stronger than the previous. For those who gave an answer to Statement 8, 21 (43.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred pair and Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 15 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 small-group work compared to 17 (35.3%), for a difference of only 8.3%. Thus, at the beginning of the semester, 70.8% said that working in pairs or small groups was a good way to learn English compared to 35.4% who said that working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, was a good way to learn English. The former was double the number of the latter, even though 56.2% said they had seldom or never worked in pairs and small groups in the classroom. Curiously, 6 (12.5%) students marked “never” to the statement “I have worked alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English” (Statement 3). Also, a high number of students appeared reluctant to answer that they preferred to work in pairs or small groups with 50% choosing “neutral” (Statement 8), and 41.6% choosing “neutral” for the statement stating that they preferred to work alone following the teacher’s instructions. A high number, 24, (54.5%) also selected the answer “neutral” to Statement 11 (“I prefer working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English”), indicating a reluctance to express a strong opinion on “working alone, following the teacher’s instructions...” Thirteen (29.5%) chose “strongly agree” or “agree,” and 7 (15.8%) selected “disagree” (6) or “strongly disagree” (1). End-of-Semester Responses A majority, 32 (72.8%), responded with “strongly agree” or “agree” (Statement 12), “Working in pairs or small groups is a better way to learn English than working alone following the teacher’s instructions,” compared to 22.6% who responded to the opposite statement in Statement 13. Thus, 32 of 44 students saw pair and group work as a better way to learn English, and 10 saw working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, as a better way of learning English – a 50.2% difference favoring pair or small-group work. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in those who responded “neutral” to Statement 12, that is, 10 respondents (22.7%), compared to 24 (54.5%) who replied “neutral” for Statement 13, “Working alone, following the teacher’s instruction, is a better way to learn English than working in pairs or small groups.” Yet again, there was a strong “neutral” response with a majority, 24 (54.4%), choosing this answer to Statement 13. Ten (22.6%) responded “strongly agree” (2) or “agree” (8), and 10 responded “disagree” (9) or 16 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 “strongly disagree” (1) – thus, a 50/50 split for the students who gave an answer other than “neutral.” To Statement 14, “Students should begin working in pairs or small groups earlier in their education, perhaps in junior high or high school,” 37 respondents strongly agreed (18) or agreed (19) for an 84% total, with only 1 (2.2%) answering “disagree.” Six (13.6%) gave a “neutral” response. This shows another highly positive view of pair and group work, indicating that students see these types of activities as being very useful for future English language learning. DISCUSSION This small survey showed that Korean students in these three classes felt pair and group work was a good way to learn English at the beginning of the semester (70.7%) more than “working alone, following the teacher’s instructions” (35.3%). It also showed that at the end of the semester (a) they preferred pair and group work to teacher-centered activities (70.4%) to (35.3%), (b) they thought pair and group work was a better way to learn English than working alone (72.8%) to (22.6%), and (c) students should begin working in pairs and groups at an earlier stage in their education, perhaps junior high or high school (84%). One previous study (Nam, 2009) showed that English majors at a Korean university stated that learning communication skills was more important than learning skills in reading, writing, and grammar. Communicative teaching methods (pair and small-group work) were preferred over teacher-centered methods in this present study. The findings of another study (Nam, 2005, p. 33), that “according to the Korean culture and convention, students are not expected to talk in class, unless asked. They are supposed to listen carefully and take notes thoroughly to get a good score on an exam,” did not appear to be true for the students in this study. Nor did this study corroborate with Nam’s earlier statement that “the current communication-based EFL curriculum may not be aligned well with students’ desires” (p. iii), because students in the present pair and small-group study clearly showed they had a higher positive opinion of pair and small-group work than of GRT methods. Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 17 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The present study does, however, corroborate with another more recent study (McClintock, 2011) that dealt with CLT methods in general, but four of the eight items concerned pair and small-group work. In that study, more than 70% of the students had favorable opinions of pair and small-group activities. This present study showed that at the end of the semester (a) 70.4% of the students preferred pair and small-group work to GRT work, (b) 72.7% thought pair and group work was a better way than GRT for learning English, and (c) 84% thought pair and group work activities should be implemented earlier in students’ English education. McClintock’s (2011) study was conducted at a top-level private Korean university with high academic requirements for acceptance, while the present survey was conducted at a medium-level private university with less stringent academic requirements for entrance. Also, McClintock’s number of survey participants (88) was double the number of participants in the present survey (44 at the end of the semester). Nevertheless, we see that students surveyed at both universities have a high preference for pair and group work over teacher-centered learning methods, both at a high-academic-level university and at a moderate- academic-level university. The traditional Asian language learning strategies of Liu and Littlewood (1997), illustrated in Table 2, no longer appear to be true, according to these two surveys, and an additional study (Nam, 2009) that showed English majors rating learning communication skills higher than learning reading, writing, and grammar skills. In light of recent findings in students’ language learning in the second decade of the 21st century, are we actually perpetuating a sociocultural stereotype by saying that Korean students are taught to learn language in a teacher-centered Confucian method of transmission of knowledge directly from teacher to student, when published research is beginning to show students’ favoring pair and group work learning? Nim and Griffith (2003) have stated that Korean students do not express their opinions in the classroom; however, this, too, did not appear to be the case in students’ answering the items on this questionnaire. They also willingly expressed their opinions in discussions about their responses after they took the survey. Two exceptions are worth noting here. Students showed a majority of “neutral” answers (54.4%) to both statements that (a) working alone following the teacher’s instructions was a “better” way to learn English, and that (b) it was the way they “preferred” to learn English over pair and small-group work. 18 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 This clearly shows their reluctance to state a strong direct negative opinion about the method (GRT) by which most of them had been taught English since elementary school, and perhaps they viewed a “strongly agree” or “agree” response as a direct criticism, or a showing of disrespect, for their Korean English teachers’ teaching methods. As both Korean students and the Ministry of Education show a positive reaction to CLT methods, it is time for all English language teachers to implement these practices, including pair and group work, in the classroom to their fullest potential. It is not acceptable for teachers to use GRT methods because “that’s the way they were taught” to learn a foreign or second language. Nor is it acceptable to claim that teachers are being insensitive to students’ native culture in rejecting a centuries-old tradition that claims all learning is a direct transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. Recent published research has shown students are more than ready to engage in CLT activities. If the majority of Korean English teachers are still using GRT methods, as Nam (2005) claims, language teacher education needs to move forward and respond to this problem, which is ultimately hindering the English language education of Korean students at all levels. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH This study was a type of action research that sought to discover students’ English study background and their perceptions on teacher-centered and pair and small-group activities. The study was limited to three beginning-level classes in a sophomore English Communication 1 course. The study does not intend to make generalizations beyond these three classes. Also, the study did not measure students’ performance in teacher-centered or pair and group work, but only their opinions and attitudes toward these activities. Finally, no specific type of teacher-centered or pair or group activities were mentioned or surveyed, only teacher-centered and pair and small-group activities in general. This small study is pertinent to EFL pedagogy because the students’ first-year program was teacher-centered and the second-year program was student-centered and communicative-based. Both classes are compulsory in the general English education program at this private Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 19 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korean university. The sample size of the student population was small, and more research is needed that uses a larger sample population. CONCLUSIONS While CLT has become the major teaching method in most native-speaking countries since the 1980s, it has been slower to “catch on” in East Asian countries. Even though the Korean Ministry of Education designated CLT in 1992 as the major method to be used in English education, published research has shown as late as the middle of the first decade of the 21st century that it was not being successfully implemented in the classroom (Nam, 2005). Some claimed that the reason for the slow acceptance of CLT was at least partially due to Confucian teaching methods (Lim & Griffith, 2003; McClintock, 2011) by which knowledge is directly transmitted from the teacher to the students, while CLT often involves pair and group work. At the beginning of the 21st century, Walker (2001) noted that there had been few published articles that reported on students’ perceptions of group work in general. A literature review revealed no previous studies on Korean students’ perceptions of pair and group work, although McClintock’s (2011) study contained four items that addressed pair and group work. The present study showed that students have a favorable opinion of pair and group work, by over 70%, corroborating with McClintock’s (2011) findings on the pair work and group work items. Considering another study (Im, 2009) showing that students valued learning communication skills over reading, writing, and grammar skills, CLT methods are receiving a favorable response from Korean EFL students in the second decade of the 21st century. Considering these recent findings, it seems clear that obstinate claims about Korean students being unable to adapt to pair and group work are certainly questionable, if not no longer valid. While the Ministry of Education and university EFL students are showing positive reactions to these methods, EFL teachers should now take heed and implement these teaching methods in their classrooms. Further research into pair and group work studies, a major technique used in CLT, will enable Korean EFL teachers to become aware of this phenomenon with more certainty, allowing them to use this approach more comfortably in their classrooms in the future. 20 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 THE AUTHOR Kenneth Parsons is an assistant professor of EFL at Seokyeong University. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois’ Division of English as an International Language MATESL program, Marshall University (MAJ, Journalism), and the University of Kentucky (BA, English). His first novel, Our Mad Brother Villon, was published in 2015 by Little Feather Books. Email:
[email protected]REFERENCES Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to pedagogy (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson-Longman. Hwang, M. J. (1993). Factors affecting Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese learners’ passiveness in oral interaction in the intermediate ESL spoken classroom. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo. Kwon, O. (2000). Korea’s English education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations to gear the nation for the 21st century. English Teaching, 55, 47-91. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Life, J., Falout, J., & Murphey, T. (2009). EFL students’ educational preferences in Korea and Japan. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 216-233). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2009). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lim, H.-Y., & Griffith, W. I. (2003). Successful classroom discussions with adult Korean ESL/EFL learners. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(5), 1-4. Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384. Long, M., Adams, L., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group situations. In R. Crymes & J. Fanselow (Eds.), On TESOL ’76. Washington DC: TESOL. Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the role of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141. McClintock, K. (2012). Korean students’ perception of communicative language teaching. TESOL Review [Daegu Haany University], 4, 143-157. Nam, I. (2009). An analysis of English majors’ needs at a Korean university. Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 21 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The Korea TESOL Journal, 9(1), 109-134. Nam, J. M. (2005). Perceptions of Korean college students and teachers about communication based English instruction: Evaluation of a college EFL curriculum in South Korea (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1110161814 Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle Language Learning. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language acquisition? Conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. Polley, E. (2007). Learner perceptions of small group and pair work in the ESL classroom: Implications for conditions in second language acquisition (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Texas at Arlington, USA. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 304707412 Porter, P. (1983). Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English as a function of the proficiency level of the participants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Richards, J. (2003, April). Group work in language teaching. Paper presented at Cambridge Day 2003 Korea (Cambridge University Press), Busan, Korea. Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Walker, A. (2001). British psychology students’ perception of group work and peer assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 28-36. 22 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX A Students’ English Background and Perceptions on Learning Name _________________ Student Number _________________ Please answer the questions/statements below. This will not affect your grade. How many years have you studied English? _____ Years. (Fill in the blank with a number.) Circle one answer for each statement below. 1. I think learning English will help my life in the future. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 2. I have worked in pairs and small groups in learning English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 3. I have worked alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 4. Working in pairs and small groups is a good way to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. Working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, is a good way to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 6. I prefer to work in a pair or small group to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 7. I prefer to work alone, following the teacher’s instructions, to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Korean EFL Students’ Perceptions of Pair and Small-Group Work 23 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX B Students’ Perceptions on Learning English (End of Semester) Name (in English) _______________ Student Number _________________ Major _____________________________ Please circle the best answer below. Your answers will not affect your grade. 1. Working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, is a good way to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 2. Working in pairs or small groups is a good way to learn English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 3. I prefer working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, in learning English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 4. I prefer working in pairs or small groups in learning English. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. Working alone, following the teacher’s instructions, is a better way of learning English than working in pairs or small groups. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 6. Working in pairs or small groups is a better way of learning English than working alone following the teacher’s instructions. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree 7. Students should begin working in pairs or small groups earlier in their English education; perhaps in junior high or high school. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree 24 Kenneth Parsons Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback in a Korean University General Education English Conversation Classroom Patrick Travers Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea This paper investigates student and teacher perceptions of corrective feedback (CF) in the context of a Korean university’s general education English as a Foreign Language program. The study looked at three different groups: native-speaking teachers, non-native teachers, and L1 Korean learners of English. All three groups completed a survey that targeted the six CF movements identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997). Survey questions also targeted attitudes toward classroom CF practices. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis were conducted. The results showed significant differences in perception across all three groups for both the type of CF and CF classroom practices. The findings underscore the importance of teachers and students communicating about CF expectations. INTRODUCTION Oral corrective feedback (CF) in conversation classrooms has long been a contentious issue among second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and teachers. Opinions on the role of CF in the language learning process vary considerably depending on one’s teaching philosophy. At one extreme are the behaviorists, who believe that CF should be provided consistently and explicitly to prevent the formation of “bad” habits. This view is most evident in the audio-lingual method that dominated language classrooms throughout the 1960s and continues to be an important method of instruction in many areas around the world. At the other end of the spectrum, we find those who adhere to the natural approach advocated by researchers such as Stephen Krashen, who suggests that CF is of no benefit to the learner (Krashen & Terrell, Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 25 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 1983). John Turscott argues quite strongly that due to its complex nature CF is not effective and should not be used in classroom practice (Turscott, 1999). While acknowledging that it is a complex process, other researchers claim that CF plays a critical role in SLA (Ellis, 2009 Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013). Given these conflicting viewpoints, teachers are left without clear guidelines for best practice in the classroom. Deciding what, when, how, or even if one should provide oral CF is something that each teacher must do. How they choose to implement CF will impact the learning outcomes of their students. Complicating matters is the fact that students often view different types of CF to be more useful than their teachers do. Several studies have shown that students are more likely than teachers to feel explicit CF plays a pivotal role in SLA. In one study, Shulz (2001) found strong differences in opinions on CF between EFL students and teachers. Investigating the preferences of Japanese university students, Kagimoto and Rodgers (2008) found students preferred explicit rather than implicit CF. Still, many teachers are reluctant to use explicit corrective feedback, fearing that it will increase student anxiety and disrupt the flow in meaning-based communicative classrooms. CF is clearly an issue that deserves careful attention from teachers. A better understanding of student and teacher perceptions of CF can help teachers reflect on their own practice and make the best decisions for their students. As Vásquez and Harvey (2010) point out, raising teachers’ awareness about CF can lead to a reflective reevaluation of their actions in the classroom. To date, few studies comparing student and teacher perceptions of CF have taken place in the Korean university context. The current study is an attempt to fill that gap in the literature by investigating perceptions of the effectiveness of different types of CF in a general education English conversation program at a Korean university. LITERATURE REVIEW In Support of Corrective Feedback An examination of the literature reveals a strong case for the effectiveness of CF in the conversation classroom (Ellis, Loewen, & 26 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Erlam, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster et al., 2013; Schulz, 1996; Sheen, 2004). Ellis et al. (2006) defines corrective feedback as “responses to learner utterances that contain an error” (p. 340). They go on to classify the teacher responses as any or a combination of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error. As Ellis et al. (2006) describes, CF falls along a continuum from the more implicit, as in the form of most recasts, to the more explicit, where the learner is made fully aware of the error that was made. Lyster and Ranta (1997) investigated the relationship between the type of CF provided and learner uptake. They observed, recorded, and transcribed more than 18 hours of lessons that included both content-based and French language arts classes. They then quantified the CF that took place. They were able to identify six types of feedback provided to students, which they later reclassified into two broad categories: reformulations and prompts. Reformulations include recasts and explicit correction, which both provide learners with the correct form of the target language (TL; Lyster et al., 2013). Prompts, on the other hand, rely on a variety of techniques to encourage students to self-correct. Depending on the exact nature of the technique used by the teacher and the context of instruction, reformulations and prompts can vary significantly in the degree to which they provide implicit or explicit instruction (Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001). Uptake by students can also vary quite significantly depending on the type of CF provided (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Despite the differences in uptake by students, Lyster and Ranta found that teachers showed a strong preference for recasts as their primary means of CF. As they note, recasts tend to be a more implicit form of CF. They suggested that teachers may be reluctant to use other forms of CF for fear of disrupting the flow of communication. However, their observations showed more explicit CF that encouraged self-correction did not inhibit conversation flow (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This indicates teachers may be unnecessarily limiting the types of CF they use in class. The Gap Between Student and Teacher Beliefs A significant gap between student and teacher perceptions of CF is also evident in a variety of studies. Brown (2009) compared the beliefs of 49 language teachers and 1600 students taking part in those teachers’ Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 27 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 classes. The study was designed to directly compare the teachers’ beliefs with those of their students. Brown found that there was a considerable difference in how the students and teachers valued grammar practice. Brown’s results showed that the type of CF teachers choose to provide can be associated with their underlying beliefs about SLA. The teachers in Brown’s study favored a communicative approach to SLA that deemphasized the role of explicit grammar instruction. However, the students in the study showed a clear preference for a focus on form. As Brown states: The students felt that effective L2 teachers should correct oral mistakes immediately, whereas the teachers were not nearly as convinced – a stance on error correction that is generally reflective of communicative approaches to L2 pedagogy. (p. 54) This is in line with earlier research on how teacher beliefs affect teaching practice. As Richards (1996) points out, teachers’ performance in the classroom is strongly influenced by the personal “maxims” they develop. Students also bring their own ideas about SLA into the classroom. Brown (2009) suggests that teachers would be well advised to establish student perceptions of SLA and provide them with the rationale for the chosen pedagogy. Toward a Model of Best Practice for CF Several researchers have found that CF feedback uptake varies considerably depending on learner demographic and classroom focus (Lyster et al., 2013; Russell, 2009; Sheen, 2004). As we have seen, there is also substantial evidence for the benefits of both implicit and explicit CF (Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster et al., 2013; Nicholas et al., 2001; Russell, 2009). Furthermore, as Shulz (1996) points out, there are often considerable differences between student and teacher perceptions of which types of CF are most effective. Therefore, a model of best practice for CF is likely to be heavily dependent on context and learner preference. In line with the model put forward by Ellis (2006), the author of the present study suggests identifying perceptions of students and teachers in a given context as a logical first step toward best practice. The current study is an attempt to identify student and teacher perceptions of CF in the Korean university context. 28 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Research Questions Building on earlier research, the current study addresses the following research questions: 1. Which types of oral corrective feedback (CF) do Korean university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students, native-speaking (NS) EFL teachers, and nonnative-speaking (NNS) EFL teachers perceive to be the most effective? 2. Do perceptions of CF effectiveness differ between Korean university EFL students and their teachers? 3. Do perceptions of CF effectiveness differ between NS teachers and NNS teachers? 4. How do perceptions of classroom CF practices compare between the three groups? RESEARCH METHOD Participants The participants in this study consisted of students and teachers in a general education English conversation program at a private Korean university. A total of 174 students participated in the study, with the majority (52%) being female. Of the student participants, 86% were in their first year of study. The course is a mandatory requirement for graduation, and classes are arranged so that students of the same major study together. Students from a wide variety of majors (45% engineering, 19% business, 14% natural science, 12% art, 9% law) were selected to participate. Class sizes ranged from 10 to 23 students per class. The curriculum is partially standardized, and teachers are asked to implement communicative language teaching (CLT) with the focus on maximizing student output. Classes are mixed-level with the majority of students rated as beginners. All students have a minimum of seven years of English instruction prior to entering university. Students were asked to rate their level of interest in learning English as low, medium, or high, and results showed rates of 5%, 63%, and 32%, respectively. A total of 55 NS English teachers and 21 NNS English teachers Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 29 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 participated in the study. Of the teachers, 46 were male and 30 female. The teachers’ backgrounds varied considerably in terms of years of experience, education, and nationality. Almost half of the teachers, 47%, reported having at least 8 years of experience teaching in a similar EFL context, while 18% reported just 2–4 years of experience. Over half of the teachers, 57%, indicated that they did not possess a university degree directly related to teaching EFL, and 58% reported that they possessed a TESL/TEFL certificate qualification. Instrument The study utilized a 26-item survey constructed following the steps outlined by Dörnyei (2010). Items were adapted from surveys used by Kagimoto (2008) and Shulz (2001). Three items targeted each of the six CF types identified by Lyster (1997). The CF types examined in this studied are defined in Table 1. TABLE 1. Types of Corrective Feedback CF Type Description Explicit Clearly indicates a learner’s utterance is incorrect, Correction provides the correct form and metalinguistic feedback Recast Reformulation of a learner’s errors Clarification Asks students to repeat their utterance to clarify meaning Request Metalinguistic Provides isolated metalinguistic comments or questions Feedback without providing a reformulation Uses a partial repetition of the learner’s utterance, Elicitation pausing in the middle to elicit a learner’s correction Repeats a learner’s erroneous utterance using stress to Repetition indicate the error The 18 items were presented as conversation samples, which participants were asked to rate using a five-point Likert scale as shown in Example 1. The conversation samples were constructed using language from the units covered in the weeks prior to the survey. 30 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Example 1. Explicit Corrective Feedback Student: Do you hungry? Teacher: No, not do - are. You should use the be verb with adjectives. Very Very Ineffective Neutral Effective Ineffective Effective Seven items targeted general perception regarding CF practice in the classroom. These items also used a five-point Likert scale as shown in Example 2. Example 2. Teachers should correct students when they make speaking errors in class. Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Several items collecting demographic information were placed at the end of the survey, as suggested by Dörnyei (2010). The survey was constructed in English and translated into Korean for the student participants, following the steps advocated by Dörnyei (2010). The conversation samples were not translated. The items were translated from English to Korean by one bilingual native Korean speaker. A second bilingual native Korean speaker translated the items back to English and comparisons were made to identify any discrepancies. A final version of the translated survey was then piloted with two students from the target population in the presence of one of the translators. Minor adjustments were made to ensure the language sounded natural. The English version of the survey was piloted with five teachers and several items that appeared problematic were revised. Procedure Eighty teachers were provided with a hardcopy of the survey to complete during their scheduled office hours. Teachers were asked not Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 31 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 to discuss the survey questions with each other. Seventy-six of the surveys were completed and returned. Following the example set by Kagimoto and Rodgers (2008), 18 student/teacher sample conversations were recorded prior to survey administration to students. A 26-year-old Korean student from the same university provided the voice of the student. The researcher provided the voice of the teacher. Five teachers were selected to administer surveys to their classes. The researcher provided teachers with detailed instructions for survey administration. To ensure that students would not rush through the survey, teachers were asked to administer it during the first 20 minutes of the class following the midterm exam and to continue with their regular lesson thereafter. Teachers were instructed to have students read the instructions on the first page of the survey. They were then asked to have students mark the 18 items in part 1 of the survey after hearing the corresponding conversation sample on the audio CD. All students completed part 1 of the survey together. Teachers were then asked to allow students to complete parts 2 and 3 of the survey at their own pace. Once all students were finished, teachers were asked to collect the surveys and proceed with the lesson for the day. Teachers were provided with a total of 200 surveys, and 187 were returned. Thirteen of the surveys were found to be incomplete and were discarded, leaving 174 for analysis. The completed surveys were coded on a scale of 1–5, where higher scores reflect the perception of greater effectiveness of CF. All data were entered into SPSS 17 for analysis. RESULTS Data Analysis The primary purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of CF as perceived by three distinct groups: NS teachers (n = 55), NNS teachers (n = 21), and students (n = 174). Both inferential and descriptive statistics were used to compare the three groups. Internal reliability analysis was carried out for each of the 6 Likert scales described in part 1 of the instrument. Each subscale consisted of 3 items, and the results are reported in Table 2. The recast subscale showed questionable reliability; hence, the results for that scale should be viewed 32 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 with caution. All other subscales appeared to show good reliability. TABLE 2. Subscale Reliability Corrective Feedback Type Cronbach’s α Explicit Correction .864 Recast .623 Clarification Request .817 Metalinguistic Feedback .713 Elicitation .780 Repetition .820 The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of all participants (N = 250) for each of the six types of CF are provided in Table 3. The results reveal that recasts, elicitation, and explicit correction were viewed to be at least moderately effective by the participants as a whole. Clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition were perceived to be somewhat ineffective. TABLE 3. Subscale Mean and Standard Deviation Corrective Feedback Type Mean Standard Deviation Explicit Correction 3.26 .979 Recast 3.63 .647 Clarification Request 2.46 .779 Metalinguistic Feedback 2.68 .761 Elicitation 3.36 .894 Repetition 2.71 .805 Note. N = 250. M and SD were then calculated for each of the 3 individual groups (NS, NNS, SS). The results are presented in Table 4 and described below. Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 33 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 4. Mean and Standard Deviation by Group NS Teachers NNS Teachers Students CF Type Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Explicit Correction 2.54 .989 3.03 1.02 3.51 .849 Recast 3.53 .758 3.60 .854 3.66 .578 Clarification Request 2.50 .870 2.62 .791 2.43 .749 Metalinguistic Feedback 2.64 .873 3.08 .900 2.64 .693 Elicitation 3.69 .806 3.24 1.11 3.27 .872 Repetition 3.19 .872 2.68 .756 2.56 .732 Note. SD = standard deviation. Students Students perceived recasts, explicit feedback, and elicitation to be effective, with mean scores of 3.66, 3.51, and 3.27, respectively. Clarification requests (M = 2.43), isolated metalinguistic feedback (M = 2.64), and repetition (M = 2.56) were not perceived to be effective by students. NS Teachers Looking at the responses from the NS teachers, we see that they perceived recasts and elicitation to be effective, with mean scores of 3.53 and 3.69, respectively. They also found repetition to be marginally effective (M = 3.19). NS teachers viewed explicit feedback, clarification requests, and metalinguistic feedback to be ineffective, with mean scores of 2.54, 2.50, and 2.64, respectively. NNS Teachers NNS teachers found recasts to be most effective (M = 3.60), followed by metalinguistic feedback (M = 3.08) and explicit feedback (M = 3.03). NNS teachers viewed both clarification requests (M = 2.62) and repetition (M = 2.68) as ineffective. To determine whether the differences between the means of the three groups were significant, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out for each of the six subscales. The results are presented in Table 5. There were no significant differences within groups. However, significant differences were found between groups for explicit correction 34 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 with metalinguistic feedback, isolated metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. TABLE 5. One-Way ANOVA for Significant Difference Between Group Means CF Type df SS MS F p Between Groups Explicit Correction 2 40.7 20.33 25.33 .000 Recast 2 0.72 0.36 0.86 .426 Clarification Request 2 0.73 0.37 0.60 .549 Metalinguistic Feedback 2 3.68 1.84 3.24 .041 Elicitation 2 7.74 3.87 5.00 .007 Repetition 2 16.13 8.06 13.72 .000 A Tukey post-hoc test revealed significant differences between NS teachers and SS for explicit correction, elicitation, and repetition. Explicit correction showed the starkest contrast, as revealed by the difference in means. Clearly, students view explicit CF as effective while NS teachers do not. In contrast, NS teachers viewed repetition as being somewhat effective while students saw it as ineffective. The NNS teachers and students showed a significant difference only in regards to isolated metalinguistic feedback. They were largely in agreement for the other forms of CF. Similarly, NNS teachers and NS teachers showed a significant difference only for repetition. These results are summarized in Table 6. TABLE 6. Tukey Post-hoc Test for Significant Differences Between Groups Corrective Feedback Type NS/SS NNS/SS NS/NNS Between Groups MD MD MD Explicit Correction 0.972** 0.480 0.492 Recast 1.295 0.060 0.070 Clarification Request 0.064 0.186 0.122 Metalinguistic Feedback 0.007 0.436* 0.443 Elicitation 0.42* 0.032 0.453 Repetition 0.621** 0.115 0.505* Note. NS = native-speaking teachers; NNS = nonnative-speaking teachers; SS = students; MD = mean difference. *p < .05, **p < .001. Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 35 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Attitude Toward CF Practices in the Classroom The M and SD for the seven items that targeted general perception regarding different CF practices in the classroom were calculated for each of the 3 individual groups (NS, NNS, SS). The results are presented in Table 7. See the Appendix for the complete survey questions. TABLE 7. Mean and Standard Deviation by Group for CF Classroom Practice NS Teachers (n=55) NNS Teachers (n=21) Students (n=174) Survey Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Necessity of CF (Q19) 4.03 .793 3.52 1.12 4.24 .556 SS Desire for CF (Q20) 3.36 .868 3.00 1.00 3.88 .834 SS Desire for CF (Q21) 3.78 .629 3.57 .676 4.27 .582 Necessity of CF (Q22) 3.67 .721 3.52 .928 3.16 .844 CF in Front of Peers (Q23) 2.45 .899 2.29 .845 3.22 .938 Benefit of CF (Q24) 3.78 .762 3.67 1.01 3.99 .613 Benefit of CF (Q25) 3.73 .732 3.73 .749 4.06 .683 Question 19 asked whether or not teachers should correct students when they make speaking errors. All groups agreed that teachers should correct students, with students agreeing more strongly than both NS and NNS teachers. Question 20 asked whether students like it when they are corrected in class. All three groups held a neutral to positive view, with students again most in favor of CF. Question 21 asked whether students would like to be corrected when they make errors in speaking the target language. Again, students agreed more strongly than both NS and NNS teachers. Question 22 again asked whether errors should be corrected and all groups held the view that they should be. Question 23 asked whether students prefer to be corrected privately by their teacher rather than in front of the whole class. Both NS and NNS teachers felt that students do prefer to be corrected privately. In contrast, students were much less likely to feel that private correction would be preferred. Questions 24 and 25 asked whether students feel they learn when they or their classmates are corrected in class. Once more, students agreed more strongly than NS and NNS teachers that they learn from CF in class. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests were also carried out on 36 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 the seven items that targeted general perception regarding different CF practices in the classroom. The results are presented in Tables 8 and 9. There were no significant differences found within groups. However, there were several significant differences between groups, which are discussed in the next section. TABLE 8. One-Way ANOVA for Classroom CF Practices Classroom CF Practices df SS MS F p Between Groups Necessity of CF (Q19) 2 10.3 5.17 11.31 .000 SS Desire for CF (Q20) 2 22.1 11.05 15.06 .000 SS Desire for CF (Q21) 2 16.5 8.27 22.92 .000 Necessity of CF (Q22) 2 12.1 6.03 8.82 .000 CF in Front of Peers (Q23) 2 35.7 17.84 20.96 .000 Benefit of CF (Q24) 2 3.36 1.68 3.54 .030 Benefit of CF (Q25) 2 8.77 4.38 8.95 .000 TABLE 9. Tukey Post-hoc Test for Classroom CF Practices CF Classroom Practices NS/SS NNS/SS NS/NNS Between Groups MD (p) MD (p) MD (p) Necessity of CF (Q19) 0.205 (0.13) 0.718 (0.00)** 0.513 (0.01)* SS Desire for CF (Q20) 0.516 (0.00)** 0.198 (0.00)** 0.364 (0.23) SS Desire for CF (Q21) 0.490 (0.00)** 0.700 (0.00)** 0.210 (0.36) Necessity of CF (Q22) 0.512 (0.00)** 0.363 (0.14) 0.149 (0.76) CF in Front of Peers (Q23) 0.770 (0.00)** 0.938 (0.00)** 0.169 (0.77) Benefit of CF (Q24) 0.212 (0.12) 0.328 (0.10) 0.115 (0.79) Benefit of CF (Q25) 0.336 (0.01)* 0.540 (0.00)** 0.203 (0.49) Note. NS = native-speaking teachers; NNS = nonnative-speaking teachers; SS = students; MD = mean difference. *p < .05, **p < .001. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study examined the perceptions of CF among students, NS teachers, and NNS teachers in a Korean university general education context. Looking only at the M and SD, we see that all groups viewed recasts as effective. This is in agreement with many other studies that Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 37 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 have found recasts to be viewed positively by students and teachers (Ellis et al., 2006; Kagimoto, 2008; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Sheen, 2004). Elicitation was also viewed as effective by all three groups. In contrast, all three groups found clarification requests to be ineffective. In answering the first research question, the responses to the survey items revealed that students perceived more explicit CF techniques to be effective, including recasts, explicit feedback, and elicitation. The results also showed that students in this study did not find isolated metalinguistic feedback to be effective. This is likely due to non-English major Korean university students’ general lack of understanding of the terminology associated with this form of CF. NS teachers found recasts, elicitation, and repetition to be effective. The fact that recasts were viewed favorably was not surprising, since several studies have noted teachers’ tendency to rely primarily on recasts for CF. However, even though elicitation was viewed as the most effective form of CF by NS teachers and the second most effective by NNS teachers, research has shown that elicitation typically makes up a substantially smaller portion of CF moves in practice (Lee, 2013; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster et al., 2013; Sheen, 2004). This would suggest that teachers are using recasts simply out of convenience or because they may fear that elicitation is too disruptive to the communicative classroom environment. Given that students also view elicitation as effective, teachers should not hesitate to incorporate it into their practice. NNS teachers found recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and explicit feedback to be effective. Yet, interestingly, NNS teachers’ perception of CF effectiveness was very closely aligned to that of students. This may be due to their shared experience as language learners. It may also be an asset for NNS teachers when it comes to building shared expectations for CF in the classroom. The second research question asked whether there were any differences between students and teachers. A closer look at the data does reveal several interesting differences. NS teachers found repetition to be marginally effective; however, students viewed repetition as ineffective. As pointed out by Lyster (1998), CF in the form of repetition may not be noticed, especially by lower proficiency students. Thus, teachers should implement repetition with caution. The use of pausing and inflection to highlight errors may need to be exaggerated to draw students’ attention to the error and allow them the opportunity for self-repair. 38 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Another striking difference was found with regard to explicit CF, which was viewed as ineffective by NS teachers, but effective by students. This clearly represents a gap between student and teacher perceptions of what constitutes effective CF. This also offers further support for earlier studies that have found students desire more explicit forms of CF, while teachers generally prefer to rely on more implicit techniques, predominantly recasts (Ellis, 2009; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005). Interestingly, NNS teachers viewed metalinguistic CF significantly more favorably than both NS teachers and students. This may be due to their command of grammar or the style in which they themselves learned English. NNS teachers should be advised to use metalinguistic CF with caution given that students perceive it as ineffective. To answer the third research question, we compared the perceptions of classroom CF practices between the three groups. In general, all three groups seemed to hold a positive opinion of CF in the classroom. However, several noteworthy differences emerged. First, the NNS teachers seemed to be the least in favor of CF in the classroom. This was not what we expected to find. It had been assumed that the NNS teachers would put more of an emphasis on accuracy over fluency. However, with the participants in this study, that did not appear to be the case. Second, students’ responses plainly indicated that they are more in favor of CF in the classroom than their teachers. They showed clear agreement that students should be corrected, students would like to be corrected, and that they learn when they and their classmates are corrected. Each of these categories was viewed much more positively by students than by either group of teachers. This supports the findings by Brown (2009) that students generally prefer a more grammar-oriented approach while teachers tend to focus on fluency. The third important difference was in regards to how students feel about being corrected. Question 20 asked whether students dislike it when they are corrected in class. NNS were neutral in their response while both students and teachers did not agree that students dislike being corrected. Students, however, held the most positive view, indicating that they are much more open to feedback than their teachers realize. In addition, students indicated that they do not feel the need to be corrected in private rather than in front of the class. Both NS and NNS teachers felt strongly that students would prefer to be corrected in private. This is further evidence that teachers underestimate students’ desire and Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 39 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 openness to CF in a variety of forms. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS The results for this study support findings from similar studies done in different contexts (Sheen, 2004; Yavuz, 2014; Yoshida, 2010). CF is clearly viewed positively by students in a Korean university general education context. Teachers in this context should not overlook students’ clear desire for CF. They should also not presume that students prefer to be corrected in private. Students clearly feel that they learn not only from the corrections they receive from their teacher, but also when teachers correct their peers. Teachers also need to consider employing a wider variety of explicit CF techniques in an effort to meet the expectations of students (Ellis, 2009). As Ellis suggests, all EFL teachers should make an effort to explore their students’ CF preferences, agree on general best practice guidelines, and establish common goals and expectations. This can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time by using a simple survey and conducting brief interviews with students. A mutual understanding of CF expectations is likely to result in a more productive classroom environment. LIMITATIONS While the findings of this study may be applicable to other general education English conversation programs in Korea, it does have several limitations. While there were significant differences between the three groups in the study, the results of the survey failed to show exceptionally strong agreement or disagreement with many of the survey items. In addition, the sample size for the NNS teachers was fairly small (n = 21), making those results less likely to be generalized to a different context. Furthermore, CF is a complex interaction between students and teachers that involves a variety of elements including intonation, gesture, lesson focus, and rapport. Judging the effectiveness of different types of CF based on short dialogues taken out of context is a difficult task for both teachers and students. 40 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Ellis (2009) suggested ten general CF best practice guidelines. Further research toward developing a more concise best practice guide based on these guidelines is needed. In addition, the researcher suggests further study targeting the impact of training on improving teachers’ general CF awareness and practices. THE AUTHOR Patrick Travers is an assistant professor and the director of the English faculty in the Division of Creative Integrated General Studies at Daegu University, South Korea. He received his MEd from the University of Southern Queensland and is currently pursuing his PhD in Foreign Language Education at Keimyoung University. Email:
[email protected]REFERENCES Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141 Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2008). Students' perceptions of corrective feedback. In JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings (pp. 868-879). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2007/E079.pdf Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2/3), 112-127. Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. doi:10.1016/j.system. Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 41 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 2013.01.022 Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457-467. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719-758. doi:10.1111/ 0023-8333.00172 Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281-296. doi:10.2307/3588144 Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA―Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. doi:10.1191/1362168804lr146oa Turscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456. Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443. doi: 10.1177/1362168810375365 Yavuz, F. (2014). EFL students’ preferences towards error correction in classroom setting. International Journal of Academic Research, 6(3), 29-34. doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-3/B.5 Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x 42 Patrick Travers Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX Survey Items 1. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. 14. Student: She’s watch a movie. Teacher: No, not go – went. You should Teacher: Present continuous? use the past tense. 15. Student: She’s watch a movie. 2. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. Teacher: Excuse me? What did you say? Teacher: I see…you went for a walk last weekend. 16. Student: She’s watch a movie. Teacher: Are you sure? She’s listening to 3. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. music. He’s doing homework. She’s watch Teacher: Sorry? Would you say that again? a movie? 4. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. 17. Student: She’s watch a movie. Teacher: Past tense? Teacher: Good…she’s watching a movie. 5. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. 18. Student: She’s watch a movie. Teacher: Really? I drove a car last Teacher: No, not watch – watching. You weekend. I played tennis…I go for a should use the present continuous. walk? 19. Teachers should correct students when 6. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. they make speaking errors in class. Teacher: I go for a walk last weekend? 20. Most students dislike it when they are 7. Student: Do you hungry? corrected in class. Teacher: Are you hungry? 21. When I make errors in speaking 8. Student: Do you hungry? English, I would like my teacher to correct Teacher: No, not do - are. You should use them. the be verb with adjectives. 22. When students make errors in speaking 9. Student: Do you hungry? English, they should be corrected. Teacher: Do you hungry? 23. I prefer to be corrected privately by my 10. Student: Do you hungry? teacher rather than in front of the entire Teacher: Pardon me, can you say that class. again? 24. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects 11. Student: Do you hungry? the errors I make in class. Teacher: Be verb? 25. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects 12. Student: Do you hungry? the errors made by my fellow students in Teacher: Hmmm…Are you happy? Are class. you tired? Do you hungry? 13. Student: She’s watch a movie. Teacher: She’s watch a movie? Student and Teacher Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 43 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 44 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection in Reflective Practice Sessions Christopher Miller Daeil Foreign Language High School, Seoul, Korea While reflection using videoing as a medium has been advocated by many in the TESOL literature (Mann, 2005), many commentators (Oliphant, 2003) have also noted deficiencies in teacher development groups (TDGs). Though TDGs are often praised by participants, it has been difficult to quantify these benefits. After video-recording a total of six reflective practice (RP) sessions, the author considered the impact of video-recording of teacher performance on the nature of reflection among English teachers working in the Republic of Korea by using frequency counts. Additionally, the author noted emergent themes by using a grounded theory approach. The results indicate video has a significant impact on the quality of reflection. Themes include (a) clarifying questions, (b) social exchange, (c) activity exchange, (d) negative comments, (e) unsolicited advice, and (f) concerns voiced. The article concludes with recommendations for enhanced facilitation of future TDG meetings among English teachers and suggestions for further research. INTRODUCTION Reflection has been vigorously discussed in teacher education literature since at least the 1970s (Stanley, 2011). Multiple authors have noted the value of reflection in a group setting. However, guidelines for facilitating effective teacher reflection in groups are lacking in both specificity and evidence for guidelines (Oliphant, 2003). The literature review, therefore, focuses on the proposed value of reflection in general for educators, traditional frameworks for reflection, and the presumed value of peer observation. The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 45 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Reflection in Education Hatton and Smith (1995) define reflection as follows: “deliberate thinking about action with a view to its improvement” (p. 40). This is a simple concept that can find many expressions. The history of reflection in education will be discussed, as well as the proposed benefits of various forms of reflection including avenues for reflection, practices advocated and reported in the ELT literature relative to reflection, best conditions for reflection, and various frameworks established for reflection. It will conclude by noting some concerns with using reflection as a method to enhance pedagogical skills. Reflection has a rich history in educational literature. For modern educational literature (if not always practice), many take Dewey as a starting point for so-called reflective teaching (Valli, 1997). Dewey gives a somewhat nuanced view of reflection. For Dewey, reflection is not merely a form of thought; it is also an expression of an individual’s character. According to Dewey (1933), the reflective individual possesses three personality traits: open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility. He defines reflective thought as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (as cited in Valli, 1997, p. 68). Dewey contrasts reflective thinking with habits of thinking that are unsystematic, lacking evidence, based on false beliefs, or conform to authority or tradition. Dewey sees such thinking as offering the prospect of liberation, as he states, “It emancipates us from merely impulsive and merely routine activity... enables us to direct our activities with foresight and to plan according to ends-in-view...it converts action that is merely appetitive, blind, and impulsive into intelligent action” (as cited in Valli, 1997, p. 69, italics in the original). This is the main function of education in Dewey’s estimation. More directly related to TESOL, Bailey, Curtis, and Nunan (1998) wholeheartedly embrace reflection in their practice. Each author utilizes a reflective strategy in his/her professional practice and reports the subjective benefits. The strategies are portfolio construction, journaling, and videoing. The authors enthuse that the process provides “undeniable 46 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 insights” (p. 46). One example is provided through Bailey’s journal writing, where she notes the difficulty in using student-centered approaches in the Hong Kong context. Early in the semester, she notes in her journal her tendency to over-explain vocabulary items. After reflecting, she begins to explain less, and when clarification is necessary, she solicits the assistance of other students in explaining a vocabulary item. While such examples may provoke a deep affective response for the reflective participant/practitioner and change teaching behavior at the individual level, it is unclear if such shifts have any influence on student outcomes. Reflective practice (RP) has a rich tradition in the ELT literature (e.g., Farrell, 2008; Lockheart & Richards, 1996; Mann, 2005). In other areas of education, teacher development groups (TDGs) have been promoted since at least the 1970s (Stanley, 2011). There is much support from many educators for the value of various forms of TDGs both in general education (Flythe, 1989; Matlin & Short, 1991; Stanley, 2011) and ELT (Farrell, 2008; Oliphant, 2003; Vo & Nguyen, 2008). However, many of the benefits listed for TDGs are often lacking precision and are derived from either personal experience or qualitative studies. For example, Oliphant, in an appendix of a prevalent ELT practicum textbook (Crookes, 2003), cites the following benefits: greater awareness, increased motivation, better teaching, benefits to students, joy of sharing, connection to others, new ways of thinking, and empowerment. She does not support these claims with citations. Indeed, it appears very difficult to verify these statements quantitatively. There are a few prerequisites for effective teacher reflection that promotes further professional development. Multiple authors (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Farrell, 2008; Mann, 2005; Valli, 1997) reiterate the need for self-direction in teacher professional development. Without self-direction – and by extension, autonomy, in choosing one’s route in professional development – attempts at promoting professional development are greatly constrained. A’Dhabab (2009) reports on teacher reflective journal writing among EFL teachers in Oman, where keeping reflections is often a compulsory activity for EFL instructors. From analyzing 25 samples of reflective journal writings by 10 randomly selected participants in a 118-participant survey, A’Dhabab notes that the vast majority of reflections were at the “recall” level; many complained of the “boring and tedious nature” (p. 9) of keeping reflections. This is despite 60% of respondents claiming they had received training in The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 47 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 “effective reflective writing practice” (p. 6). Perhaps most damning is the length of the journal entries: The men averaged only 17 words per journal entry. Simply completing a task is in many respects the antithesis of notions of reflection postulated by Dewey, among others. FRAMEWORKS FOR REFLECTION A variety of scholars, ranging from those providing more theoretical concepts to others with a more action-research focus, have offered a variety of frameworks for conceptualizing reflection. Lee (2005) divides reflection into three broad categories: recall, rationalization, and reflectivity. Farrell (1998) describes a framework for “analytical reflectivity” (p. 99), primarily based on action research conducted among four ELT instructors working in Korea (two Koreans, two native English-speaking teachers [NESTs]), that attempts to categorize the nature of more mature reflection into journal entries. His categories include a greater variety of journal entries, critical reflection (meaning the ability to take into account larger factors not immediately apparent in the classroom context, such as institutional and governmental policies), discussing theories both personal and expert, going beyond the classroom context, being able to evaluate both positive and negative aspects of teaching, better problem solving, and asking more questions. Bartlett (as cited in Posteguillo & Palmer, 2000) notes that mature reflection focuses on “what/why” questions, whereas early-career reflection often deals with “how to” questions. Valli (1997), borrowing heavily from Schon (1983), notes five different types of reflection. They include technical reflection, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, deliberative reflection, personalistic reflection, and critical reflection. For ease of reference, a table by Valli has been elaborated upon by adding definitions, content, and quality of the reflective components (Table 1). Hatton and Smith (1995) provide a framework for reflection that greatly overlaps with Valli’s taxonomy. The framework reported by Hatton and Smith has been discussed vigorously. A Google Scholar search indicates the article has been cited 1,175 times. By way of comparison, a text well known among ELT professionals, Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, has been cited 1,770 times (Google Scholar, December 10, 2015). The author’s comments are prefaced within a table reproduced from the Hatton and Smith study (Table 2). 48 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 1. Valli’s Taxonomy of Reflection Type Definition Content for Quality of Reflection Reflection Focus on “the narrow domain of General teaching instruction and Matching one’s Technical Reflection techniques or management own performance skills”; attempts behaviors that are to external to apply research based on research guidelines. on teaching; often on teaching. rule-governed. Reflection-on- action: retrospective Basing decisions thinking teachers on one’s own Reflection-in-Action do after a lesson One’s own unique situation; and has been taught; personal teaching weighing Reflection-on-Action reflection-in- performance. competing action refers to viewpoints and the spontaneous, research findings. intuitive decisions made during the act of teaching. Emphasizes A whole range of decision-making teaching based on a concerns, variety of including Weighing Deliberative sources: research, students, the competing Reflection experience, the curriculum, viewpoints and advice of other instructional research findings. teachers, personal strategies, the beliefs, and rules, and values. organization of the classroom. Focusing on One’s own Listening to and Personalistic personal growth personal growth trusting one’s Reflection and relational and relationships own inner voice issues. with students. and the voices of others. Aim is to not just understand but Judging the goals improve the and purposes of quality of life for The social, moral, schooling in light disadvantaged and political of ethical criteria Critical Reflection groups. Entails a dimensions of such as social commitment to schooling. justice and unlimited inquiry, equality of fundamental opportunity. self-criticism, and social action. From Valli, 1997, p. 75. The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 49 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 2. Hatton and Smith’s Taxonomy of Reflection Reflection Type Nature of Reflection Possible Content Contextualization of Dealing with on-the-spot Reflection-in-Action multiple viewpoints. professional problems as they arise. *Thinking about the effects upon others of one’s Critical actions. *Hearing one’s own voice; Reflection-on-Action Dialogic exploring alternative ways to solve problems. *Analyzing one’s Descriptive performance in the professional role. Beginning to examine Technical: Drawn from a (usually with peers) one’s given research/theory base, use of essential skills or Technical Rationality but always interpreted in generic competencies as light of personal worries often applied in controlled, and previous experience. small-scale settings. From Hatton and Smith, 1995. The major variations from Valli’s scheme are the inclusion of dialogic and descriptive reflection. Humble and Sharp (2012) opine that descriptive reflection is a rather weak form of reflection: “Journals consisting only of descriptive writing are the least helpful in terms of stimulating pivotal, pedagogical insights” (p. 4). Peer Observation Using video of teacher performances in an ELT teacher development group entails some form of peer observation (PO). There is extensive literature on this topic. This section will address the current view of PO, attitudes towards PO, and research and theory justifying the use of PO, as well as optimum conditions for implementing PO. Bell (2005) defines PO as a “collaborative, developmental activity in which professionals offer mutual support by observing each other teach; explaining what was observed; sharing ideas about teaching; gathering student feedback on teaching effectiveness; reflecting on understandings, feelings, actions and feedback; and trying out new ideas.” This is a very broad definition and could be implemented in a variety of formats. 50 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Traditionally, PO occurs with a teacher sitting in the back of a room and observing another’s teaching performance, followed by providing feedback and suggestions for improvement. However, Hendry and Oliver (2012) note that something akin to a “paradigm shift” (p. 12) is occurring with respect to PO. They argue that the act of observing is just as powerful as, if not more powerful than, being observed and receiving accompanying feedback. The theoretical justification for the belief comes from social modeling theory initially associated with Albert Bandura (Hendry & Oliver, 2012). According to Bandura, much learning is social and a result of observing similar peers. However, certain conditions are necessary. These include similarity in terms of interest and levels of competence. A peer learns best when another peer has a slightly higher status. With the above conditions, Hendry and Oliver (2012) also claim that observer sensitivity, a supportive environment, and rapport between the observer and individual observed facilitates more beneficial outcomes in relation to PO. Bell and Madenovic (2008) report the results of a survey detailing opinions among individuals following participation in a tutor induction program at a university that included PO. Participants supported “the use of peer feedback in conjunction with expert feedback (88%)” (p. 746). Thus, there are multiple social (status, similarity, etc.), cultural (supportive environment), and even interpersonal factors (rapport among participants) necessary for optimal implementation of PO-based programs. There is a heavy research base detailing the benefits of PO, whether the participant is an observer or observed. Dalgaard (1982, as cited in Bell & Madenovic, 2008) reports that university tutors rated observing videotapes of their own and peer teaching performances as the most useful in a tutor induction program. Williams also reports that “teaching assistants who underwent a program of expert and peer mentoring and observation had significantly lower levels of anxiety about teaching at the end of semester and higher student evaluations of their teaching compared to those in a group who received training only” (p. 738). Bell (2005) lists the following benefits of peer tutoring: improves teaching practice, develops confidence to teach, transforms educational perspectives, develops collegiality, cultivates more respect for diverse teaching approaches, integrates tutors into university departments, encourages reflection on teaching, fosters debate, and assists in disseminating best practices. Nevertheless, there are some criticisms of PO. First, it is The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 51 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 time-consuming. As noted previously, rapport helps facilitate useful PO experiences. In a somewhat different domain, Farrell (2008) offers guidelines for forming a teacher development group. One component includes a strong passion and belief in the purpose of the group. Similar dynamics may influence an effective PO. If PO programs are compulsory, any potential benefits may be hampered by less than enthusiastic participants. This line of thinking is congruent with many voices in ELT arguing that professional/teacher development should be self-directed (e.g., Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Mann, 2005). Lomas and Nicholls (2005) offer additional critiques of PO; they claim the act is intrusive and challenges academic freedom. There is strong support for the benefits of PO in relation to teacher development. However, several support structures are necessary to optimize the influence of PO. This includes appropriate peer groupings, institutional support, and maintaining a sense of autonomy among the participants. METHODS Research Questions This study hopes to answer the following questions: 1) Using a modified framework applying the constructs stated by both Valli (1997) and Hatton (1995), how does the presence of teacher-videoed performance impact the reflectivity of a teacher development group of English teachers in Korea? 2) Using a grounded theory approach (Perry, 2011), what emergent themes are present during the six reflective practice sessions observed for purposes of this research in Korea? The author believes that a better understanding of the nature of reflection during an RP session can promote better facilitation of future meetings, as well as contribute to empirically based guidelines for conducting such sessions in the future. Sample 52 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 In total, the author recorded six sessions in three major metropolitan areas in Korea. The sessions were grouped according to two broad conditions. The first condition (consisting of a total of four sessions, Sessions 1-4) was no use of video-recorded teacher performance during the RP meeting; rather, the discussion focused on a topic selected by the facilitator. In the second condition (a total of two sessions, Sessions 5 & 6), video-recorded teacher performance was the focal point of the discussion. The fifth session featured four video-recorded performances from four different teachers employed at the university, high school, elementary, and teacher-training level. The sixth session featured two video-recorded performances from teachers: one working with elementary students, the other engaged in teacher training. The sessions were recorded between March and November 2014. There was no deliberate effort to modify the content of the sessions. The author took a naturalistic orientation to data collection (see Table 3 for a description of sessions and demographic considerations). The author was present at all sessions as a participant and served as facilitator for the first session. TABLE 3. Descriptive Features of the RP Sessions Session* No. of Topic/ Education Level Length of Gender of Order, Participants Nationalities Theme* and Facilitator’s Session Facilitator Month Education Level Bachelor’s: 4. Working toward an MA in TESOL: 1. 1 The First MA in a March 8 American, Week of TESOL-related 57:00 M 2014* Canadian School field (e.g., Applied Linguistics): 3. Facilitator: MS Ed TESOL. Bachelor’s or American, lower: 4. Filipino, MA or higher in 2 South Proudest a TESOL-related May 9 African, Accomplismnent field: 4. 56:41 F This Doctoral 2014 Canadian, Semester French candidate (non-TESOL): 1. Facilitator: Bachelor’s. The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 53 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Bachelor’s: 1. Soliciting MA in a 3 and TESOL-related June 5 American, Utilizing field: 4. 1:54:13 M 2014*** Canadian Student Facilitator: MA, Feedback applied linguistics. Bachelor’s: 1. 4 No formal MA in a September 5 American, theme** TESOL-related 1:59:20 F 2014** Canadian field: 4. Facilitator: MA TESOL. All (4) held an 5 Videoed MA or higher in November 4 American, Teacher a TESOL-related 1:58:00 F 2014 Canadian Perfor- field. mance Facilitator: MA American, Bachelor’s: 5. 6 Canadian, Videoed MA or higher in November 9 Korean, Teacher a TESOL-related 2:02:00 F 2014*** New Perfor- field: 4. Zealander mance Facilitator: MA. *Selection of a session facilitator varied among the groups. In Session 1, the facilitator had been the de facto facilitator for approximately one year. In Session 2, the facilitator had never previously occupied the facilitator role in a RP/TDG session. In Session 5, the facilitator’s role was minimal due to the presence of video. **This RP/TDG’s organizer was replaced prior to this session. Thus, the new group organizer did not establish a formal theme, and approximately the first 20 minutes featured a discussion about future directions for this particular RP/TDG. ***There was loss of data during these sessions, as the facilitator devised breakout sessions in which participants discussed the topic in pairs. The author attempted to collect as much data in such instances as possible; however, data was lost, as the author only used one recording device during the session. The sample was chosen in part due to convenience and time constraints, as well as difficulty in establishing sessions that were aligned with the research question. Previous research focused on reflection has exhibited similar constraints. For example, Farrell’s (1999a) analysis of a TDG meeting in Seoul was limited to six sessions. Abednia et al.’s (2013) research utilizing a focus group probing the impact of reflection on Iranian teachers consisted of six total sessions. Likewise, research focusing on written forms of reflection have had more narrow time constraints than the present research. McDonough’s (1994) research on 54 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 university-level ESL instructors’ journaling practices lasted four weeks, while Numrich’s (1996) study of pre-service ESL instructors’ journal entry patterns lasted ten weeks. Data Collection and Coding Procedures All sessions were audio-recorded and then transcribed by the author. Session transcripts were read multiple times by the author in an attempt to note any recurrent themes. This strategy is congruent with an emergent-themes approach for qualitative data (Perry, 2011). Once the categories were established, the author performed a frequency count for each category. In an attempt to measure the level of reflectivity in the sessions, the author used a framework for reflection utilizing constructs from both Valli (1997), and Hatton and Smith (1995). These frameworks were chosen in part due to the level of recognition the latter article has in the teacher education literature. For example, the article has been cited 1,672 times according to Google Scholar (Google Scholar, October 12, 2015). All sessions were coded for these items using frequency counts: deliberative, personal, descriptive, critical, technical rationality, evaluating strengths and weaknesses, and problem solving. RESULTS Emergent Themes In this section, the author will describe the emergent themes that were evident during the RP sessions under discussion, as well as provide examples illustrating each theme. The author noted seven themes. As will be clear, there was substantial deviation both among individual sessions and between sessions in which the videoed teacher performance was either present or not present. The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 55 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 4. Frequency Counts of Key Themes in the Sessions Category Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 Clarifying Questions 48 22 64 50 48 47 Social Exchange 42 32 43 22 15 29 Activity Exchange 33 16 44 11 8 16 Negative Comments 21 8 4 1 8 2 Chaining/ Aha Moments 0 0 0 6 16 8 Unsolicited Advice 1 3 8 13 30 6* Concerns Voiced 0 1 0 2 2 0 * A participant deliberately asked for advice during this session – how to get staff at a private English academy to agree to video record themselves for purposes of group reflection/analysis. The frequency count was six. Clarifying Questions Asking for clarification was evident throughout. It may be considered a general conversational feature. However, it may hold special value for reflection on two levels: (a) it helps the listener to establish a clearer understanding of the phenomenon the speaker is trying to describe, which could have a variety of consequences, such as using an idea shared during an RP session in one’s classroom; and (b) it forces the speaker to communicate more precisely, thus helping to refine the nature of the speaker’s words, and possibly thinking, and thus serves as reflection as well. Examples included checking how many students were in another teacher’s classroom (Session 3), or if the teacher was in the classroom during the administration of surveys related to teacher evaluation/performance (Session 3). Social Exchange “Social exchange” refers to comments related to the professional life of the participants. For example, how many teachers were hired in Department X at University Y? Examples from the sessions in this research include discussion of the treatment of learners with possible learning disorders (Session 2) at both the elementary school and university level, and one participant who noted that he/she had to use seventeen textbooks in one semester due to teaching both at multiple 56 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 schools and different grade levels (Session 1). This may benefit participants on several fronts. For younger participants, it may help prepare them for similar instances or challenges in the future. Additionally, as the majority of NESTs are hired on a short-term basis (e.g., one-year contracts), such information may assist teachers during the job search. Activity Exchange “Activity exchange” refers to clear, concrete activities that a teacher could presumably apply in their own classroom at a later date. Though the participants of the sample in this research worked at a variety of levels, there still may have been a chance for transfer. Examples include one teacher during a session noting the value of using the app Socrative to get quick, whole-class feedback, especially when learners had limited proficiency and exhibited a reluctance to communicate in English (Session 1). In Session 3, on the topic of soliciting more effective forms of student feedback, one participant recommended training students on how to give more useful feedback with an activity where students would create statements for a five-point Likert scale survey related to “How useful is this for Teacher X?” This participant gave examples, such as “X is boring” and “Discussion activities sometimes go too long.” Negative Comments Negative comments were strongest in Session 1, but they did occur in other sessions. Some complaints included the rigidity of administrative decisions, such as textbook quality (Session 1), apathetic students (Session 3), and an inability to trust bosses (and especially their intentions) who may view videos of teacher performance (Session 6). Chaining/Aha Moments Chaining, or “aha moments,” were the strongest when video was present. Often after viewing a problematic teaching point, the participant featured in the video would begin to note methods to fix the problem. At other times, when advice was given, the recipient of the advice would also begin to expand on the advice and consider possible ways to adapt it to their own context. Examples include one teacher recognizing that they should have demonstrated their expectations, rather than merely explaining instructions to students (Session 5). In another example from the same session, after one teacher recommended checking off lesson The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 57 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 objectives immediately after they are accomplished, the recipient responded with some degree of enthusiasm and extension from the original recommendation, for instance, uttering, “And they’ll even start to tell me...” Unsolicited Advice Unsolicited advice was present in all sessions, but spiked sharply in Session 5. Examples include recommendations for training students on how to properly give feedback (Session 3) and, from one teacher working in a series of rural elementary schools, a method to control anger caused by challenges related to classroom management. The strategy was to face the blackboard, give students a short writing task, and while students engage in the task, to practice deep breathing (Session 2). Concerns Voiced “Concerns voiced” refers to teachers noting some limitations related to group-based reflection. Though rather sparse, there were valid criticisms. These included the presence of non-teachers in a session (Session 2), the generally negative impact that a lack of clear focus has on an RP meeting (Session 4), and the limitations of giving feedback on a five-minute clip of teacher performance, when the participating teachers do not know the learning context, nor the general school culture of the videoed teacher (Sessions 5 and 6). It appears as though video has an influence on the ability to generate insight, and perhaps the penchant to deliver unsolicited advice among participants at an RP session. Also, the role of status should not be overlooked. Session 3 was somewhat unique. The facilitator had over twenty years’ experience dispersed throughout multiple countries in the field of TESOL, as well as currently holding a prominent position in a teacher-training program. Such characteristics may partially explain the significant spike in both activity and social exchange during Session 3. Degree of Reflectivity This section will provide the frequency counts of the aforementioned reflective categories. Examples for each will be provided. Finally, the author will provide a series of observations on significant trends revealed in the data. 58 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 5. Frequency Counts for Reflectivity During RP Sessions Evaluating Session Deliberative Personal Descriptive Critical Technical Strengths Problem Rationality and Solving Weaknesses 1 7 21 71 47 9 10 0 2 5 26 38 16 7 7 11 3 14 15 75 20 42 22 20 4 9 20 37 6 15 5 7 5 8 14 26 11 37 52 39 6 10 6 37 6 11 21 23 Deliberative Focusing on possible strategies for teaching practice, one participant noted the value in channeling the energy of an enthusiastic elementary school-level class, which the participant claimed was both noisy and stress-inducing (Session 5). Personalistic One teacher noted the habit of repeating the exact same phrase multiple times when giving instructions. The participant noted that the habit was not derived from teacher training in any way (Session 6). Another teacher, reflecting on limitations in his past teaching performance, stated, “[I] lead by default. ... That can stifle possibilities for learner interaction” (Session 5). Descriptive Descriptive reflection has been referred to as the least valuable form of reflection (Sharp & Humble, 2012). Examples in this research included one participant noting that boys were sleeping during a game (Session 6), which according to the participant was because many learners in Korea believe that games are not an effective learning method. Another participant in the same session noted that the students and colleagues advised him/her “no game, no game,” when the participant began at their current school. Critical There was a variety of critical awareness displayed by participants. The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 59 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 In Session 4, one participant noted that training in reflection in TESOL education courses is highly similar, and that perhaps hearing perspectives from outside sources, such as non-related TESOL academic fields, may be of assistance. In Session 6, multiple participants noted the “washback” effects of the Korean university entrance examination (Suneung) on the curriculum and the use of instructional time. Technical Rationality Especially evident when multiple participants held an MA or higher in a TESOL-related field was that many participants exhibited a fluent understanding of a wide variety of constructs in the field of TESOL. For example, in Session 5, one participant evaluated their teacher performance on a scale established by Walsh (2002) related to the degree of dialogicality vs. monologicality in classroom discourse. In Session 6, one participant described their method of eliciting responses from students, and during the same discussion, another participant indicated that such a strategy was a form of activating schema. Evaluating Strengths and Weaknesses A broad spectrum of self-criticism and recognition of personal strong points was evident in the collected data. In Session 5, one teacher noted the problem of frontloading too many instructions. In Session 6, another participant claimed that learners in the class “trust [him/her].” In Session 5, one teacher took a degree of pride in their ability to “build a co-constructed” space by having students rearrange the desks in a fashion deemed more desirable by the instructor. Problem Solving Problem solving was much greater during reflective sessions featuring the use of videoed teacher performance. During Session 5, while the instructor was noting some limitations of students’ attention to the task, the teacher realized that the activity might have gone more smoothly had students brought their laptops (the goal of the lesson was to make digital presentation slides using a minimum amount of language on the slides). In the same session, focusing on the same teacher, a recommendation was made to have students practice in pairs, then in small groups of four to six, and then in a whole-class format so as to reduce any anxiety learners may experience when delivering a whole-class presentation. 60 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 There are a few clear trends in the data. As reflected in the data coded for this research, greater levels of evaluation were obtained when videoed performance was present (video present = 73, two sessions; no video present = 44, four sessions). A similar phenomenon occurred with problem solving, with the difference being 62 for videoed teacher performance and 38 for sessions in which video was not present. The negative comments that were predominant in Session 1 can be explained as an artifact of the sample population. That session featured three participants who all worked at the same technical college with students often characterized as low in motivation. Also, for Session 1, the facilitator was the second youngest person in the meeting. Additionally, three members in the session had known each other for over ten years. This resulted in a lot of inside jokes, which may have contributed to the negative comments. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Demographic considerations had a significant effect on the nature of the discourse. In Session 1, the familiarity of four of the members in the session (either due to length of acquaintance or working at the same institution) may have contributed to greater negativity in the atmosphere. One possible way to mitigate the impact of such “cliquish” behavior is to have a facilitator with a higher status than the participants (Cialdini, 2007). Likewise, the data from the current study seems to indicate that if a person with high status, which in the field of TESOL might include the level of educational attainment (e.g., MA, PhD) and years of experience, facilitates the session, more productive outcomes may result. Greater openness to advice was displayed when higher status members made recommendations. When a person with over 20 years’ experience and an MA or higher led the sessions, there was a greater degree of descriptive reflection, technical rationality, and evaluative thinking, as well as the highest amount of problem solving among the sessions without the use of videoed teacher performance. A facilitator should be aware of the tendency for participants to overwhelm other participants with unsolicited advice. This was especially acute when the video was present. The facilitator should use their judgment to decide if the amount of unsolicited advice might make the The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 61 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 participant receiving such advice feel uncomfortable. If so, the facilitator should gently intervene. If they do not, this may impact the level of attendance and participation during an RP session. A more narrow demographic for RP sessions may yield more concrete benefits for participants. The groups in the data collected for this study were disparate in terms of nation of origin, and more importantly, student level, both in terms of proficiency and grade. While being an ear in the room, especially when participants have an extensive array of experience to share, can be useful, it seems logical that if RP groups consisted of members who teach similar grade or proficiency levels, the potential benefits of participation would be increased. Also, the use of video may enhance the legitimacy of the RP session itself. In the final two sessions, several participants demonstrated their pleasure with the use of video during the RP sessions. One facilitator noted, “This is great. I want to do this more often in this group of people; it’s really helpful.” In Session 5, a participant who had attended multiple sessions where the use of videoed teacher performance was not present commented, “I mean, I can feel the difference [between a session with videoed teacher performance, and sessions without videoed teacher performance].” Finally, facilitators should be aware of the potentially seductive effects of active listening and a supportive atmosphere. Indeed, many commentators for some time have noted the value of being listened to and providing a person with an unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1989). While these tendencies do have their place in an RP meeting, they also may lead to an unjustified belief that one’s teaching performance is adequate when, in fact, significant problems may exist. At multiple times during the recorded sessions, teachers provided either loose, incomplete descriptions of personal teaching performance or self-criticisms. Both were typically met with uncritical acceptance. For the former, responses such as “That’s awesome” occurred. In fact, participants in an RP session frequently possess sufficient understanding of other participants’ teaching contexts to make legitimate evaluations of a teacher’s performance. Such tendencies likely persist due to the “face” needs (Verderber, 2006) of participants in the RP session as well as the need to maintain group harmony. There is no perfect solution to this issue, as a facilitator must balance the competing demands of maintaining group harmony and simultaneously attempt to provide a degree of feedback and implicit assessment of a participant’s teaching 62 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 performance (whether through information shared via discussion or through videoed teacher performance), the latter being an inherently sensitive topic. There are obvious constraints to the value of the information exchanges occurring during a TDG. While there were many activity exchanges, explicit detail was not always present. Teaching has a justified reputation as a context-specific task (Farrell, 2014). An idea practiced in one environment is not readily transferable to another context. Addressing another area of concern, human memory has long been recognized as rather corrupt (Schacter, 2002). Hence, the information shared in the TDG sessions under consideration probably contains several inaccuracies, regardless of the sincerity of participants or authenticity of the experiences related. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study design itself had a series of limitations. First, the length of the sessions was not standardized or controlled. The author took a naturalistic approach to data collection. Future research should attempt to standardize times for RP sessions. In the design stage, factors related to status were not addressed. Future research should attempt to understand more precisely the role status plays on the openness of participants and the nature of reflection. This study only used six sessions in data collection. More committed researchers should spend months in advance working on social contacts and attempt to record a greater number of sessions; a split between four sessions with no videoed teacher performance and four sessions with videoed teacher performance may have been more desirable. Ultimately, group facilitators and RP groups/sessions for English teachers in Korea are highly variable, and the author experienced considerable difficulty due to this variability. As participants were aware that they were being audio-recorded, the possibility of a novelty effect on the participants, and by extension the data, may have occurred (Perry, 2011). Finally, the author was a facilitator for one session and a participant in all sessions. This may have given rise to experimenter effects (Perry, 2011). The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 63 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 CONCLUSIONS In the research reported in this paper, the author has attempted to recognize the themes present in reflective practice sessions composed of English teachers in the Republic of Korea, as well as to discern the impact that video has on the nature of reflection during the aforementioned sessions. The key emergent themes were (a) the consistent use of clarifying questions through all sessions, (b) social exchange related to issues of professional concern among members, (c) activity exchange for potential implementation of ideas in actual classroom practice, (d) negative comments, (e) the phenomenon of chaining or aha moments, (f) unsolicited advice, and (g) concerns voiced related to the quality of reflection that can emerge during an RP session. In this study, video had a clear impact on reflection, especially as it pertained to problem solving and evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Somewhat unexpectedly, the present data indicates that status and years of experience among facilitators can greatly impact the quality of reflection during a session. At least since the time of Dewey, teachers have been encouraged to reflect on their practice. Too often, the quality of that reflection, at least in a group setting, has gone unexamined. By reflecting on reflection itself, this study has aimed to enhance the quality of reflection in social settings among members of the TESOL community. THE AUTHOR Christopher Miller has been involved in ELT for over seven years and holds a MSEd in TESOL from Shenandoah University. His research interests include quantifying the benefits of reflective practice. Email:
[email protected]. REFERENCES Abednia, A., Hovassapian, A., Teimournezhad, S., & Ghabari, N. (2013). Reflective journal writing: Experienced in-service EFL teachers’ perceptions. System, 41, 503-514. A’Dhahab, S. M. (2009). EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding 64 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 reflective writing. In S. Borg (Ed.), Researching English language teaching and teacher development in Oman (pp. 1-15). Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman. Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (1998). Undeniable insights: The collaborative use of three professional development practices. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 546-556. Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735-752. Bell, M. (2005). Peer observation partnerships in higher education. Milperra, NSW, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Collins. Crookes, G. (2003). A practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery. Farrell, T. S. C. (1998). EFL teacher development through journal writing. RELC Journal, 29(1), 92-109. Farrell, T. S. C. (1999a). Reflective practice in an EFL teacher development group. System, 27(2), 157-172. Farrell, T. S. C. (1999b). Teachers talking about teaching: Creating conditions for reflections. The English Journal for English as a Second Language, 4(2), 1-16. Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Reflective practice in the professional development of teachers of adult English language learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/reflectivepractice.html Farrell, T. S. C. (2014). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education. New York, NY: Routledge. Flythe, V. L. (1989). Beginning a faculty writing group. English Journal, 78, 62-63. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. R. (2012). Seeing is believing: The benefits of peer observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 1-9. Humble, A., & Sharp, E. (2012). Shared journaling as peer support in teaching qualitative research methods. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1-19. Lockheart, C., & Richards, J. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on Reflection 65 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Loman, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11, 137-149. Lee, H. J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 699-715. Mann, S. (2005). The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching, 38, 103-110. Matlin, M., & Short, K. G. (1991). How our teacher study group sparks change. Educational Leadership, 49, 68. McDonough, J. (1994). A teacher looks at teachers’ diaries. ELT Journal, 48(1), 57-65. Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131-153. Oliphant, K. (2003). Teacher development groups: Growth through cooperation. In G. Crookes (Ed.), A practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice (pp. 203-214). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Perry, F. (2011). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. Posteguillo, S., & Palmer, J. C. (2000). Reflective teaching in EFL: Integrating theory and practice. TESL-EJ, 4(3), 1-15. Rogers, C. (1989). The Carl Rogers reader. Boston, MA: Mariner Books. Schacter, D. (2002). The seven sins of memory. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Stanley, A. M. (2011). Professional development within collaborative teacher study groups: Pitfalls and promises. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(2), 71-78. Schon, D. A. (1983). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67-88. Verderber, K. S. (2006). Interact: Interpersonal communication concepts, skills, and contexts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vo, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2010). Critical friends group for EFL teacher professional development. ELT Journal, 64(2), 205-213. Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23. 66 Christopher Miller Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction Tory S. Thorkelson Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea Many associations constantly struggle with trying to increase the size of their membership base, either by recruiting more members or by retaining a larger percentage of existing members. This paper examined the existence and experiences of teachers in Language Teaching Organizations (LTOs), like Korea TESOL (KOTESOL), and the role these organizations play in reinforcing the job satisfaction experienced by the teachers. A review of the available data enabled the author to analyze and highlight the probable connections between KOTESOL membership and their job satisfaction. Results showed that members were satisfied with KOTESOL’s role as a tool for professional development and personal growth, but were not happy with the ways that information was shared as well as with the leadership. This data provides insight for KOTESOL and other EFL associations on how to better recruit and retain membership. INTRODUCTION Many academic associations constantly struggle to increase the size of their association’s membership base, either by recruiting more members, retaining a larger percentage of existing members, or a combination of the two. With this also being true for English language teaching (ELT) associations, this research had two major goals: (a) to give KOTESOL a clear snapshot of who its members are (in terms of their nationalities, education levels, gender breakdown, and teaching credentials) and (b) to find out what they want from a professional organization for teachers based in Korea, but with strong ties to both other Asian (e.g., PAC – Pan-Asian Consortium) and major international teacher organizations (e.g., TESOL). This data will hopefully be used to Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 67 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 plan for and ultimately provide better services, benefits, and programs for the current members while helping to attract even more English teaching professionals and those interested in English education to join KOTESOL’s ranks. Obviously, this is only one small step in an ongoing process. Founded in 1992, Korea TESOL was created when the young Korea Association of Teachers of English (KATE; formed in 1989) joined the original Association of English Teachers in Korea (AETK; formed in 1981). As stated in the Constitution and Bylaws of Korea TESOL (2011): Korea TESOL is a not-for-profit organization established to promote scholarship, disseminate information, and facilitate cross-cultural understanding among persons associated with the teaching and learning of English in Korea. In pursuing these goals, KOTESOL shall cooperate in appropriate ways with other groups having similar concerns. (p. 1) KOTESOL is the sole Korean-based affiliate of TESOL (a 14,000 member international organization based in the US), as well as an associate of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, based in the UK), which has 3,000 members. Closer to its home, Korea is also a founding member of the Pan-Asian Consortium (PAC), which includes teachers’ organizations in Japan (JALT), Thailand (ThaiTESOL), ETA-ROC (Taiwan), FEELTA (Russia), and the Philippines (PALT). KOTESOL’s membership includes teachers in private and public schools at all levels (K-12, as well as university faculty and hagwon [private institute] instructors). Anyone interested in English education or learning English can also join, so the organization’s membership includes teachers-in-training, administrators, researchers, materials developers, publishers (Organizational Partners), and students. Members are from all over the world, and Korean membership has remained at about 35% of total membership over the years. Finally, active chapters are present in the following areas: Busan-Gyeongnam, Daegu-Gyeongbuk, Daejeon-Chungcheong, Gangwon, Gwangju-Jeonnam, Jeonju-North Jeolla, Jeju, Seoul, Incheon, Yongin-Gyeonggi, and Suwon-Gyeonggi, as well as growing numbers of lifetime and international members (Korea TESOL, n.d.). 68 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW This section reviews the relevant definitions and models within the disciplines of organizational management, leadership, and behavior that inspired the relevant items on the two surveys of KOTESOL members. According to Reeves et al. (2000), the ways and means of defining terms like “change” and “organization” are manifold and often contradictory, but – while they try to define an organization in terms of “its position in a multidimensional space” (p. 15) and try to solve this problem by looking at a “thermodynamic model” (p. 27) – no model perfectly explains any given organization in its entirety. For example, work by Mel D. Gill (2005) analyzing 20 non-profits in Canada necessitated the use of nine broad types, which seems a bit excessive considering the sample size. Further, White (2008) suggest a few characteristics of successful LTOs that are of more interest in creating a framework for analyzing organizations like KOTESOL. According to the authors, a successful LTO 1) is clear about what it is, what it is doing and why it exists, 2) has a clear sense of vision and vocation which indicate where it is going, how it is going to get there and how to know whether it got there or not, 3) listens and learns, 4) recruits and retains effective and loyal staff that know their jobs and how they fit into the overall organisation, 5) is committed to maintaining and raising quality standards overall, 6) is characterised by continued growth, diversification, adjustment, development and demonstrating levels of attainment, 7) has the ability to adapt while maintaining credibility and reliability. (pp. 2-3) While these offer an excellent set of factors that could easily lead to a workable model for analyzing and comparing organizations, the organization also needs to look at what members want from such an organization and what more general theories and models of various organization offer – especially vis-a-vis not-for-profit organizations. As mentioned in Gautam (2003), teachers’ organizations may serve some complementary or contradictory purposes. One of these may be “whether [these organizations are] micro or macro, ... centrally concerned with the professional development of their members. This is the ultimate Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 69 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 justification for their existence” (p. 88). Another purpose may be necessary for places where there is strict control of education and teachers from the top levels of government and where individual teachers have little or no effect on changing English language teaching (ELT). This calls for an association that acts as a platform to [sic] teachers where they can unite and advocate change and updating [sic] of [the] educational process and thus improve the teaching and learning standards in their environment. Seen from its [sic] perspective, success in teachers’ own development is closely linked with the success and growth of the professional organisation (sic) [he/she] belongs to. (Sarwar, as cited in Gautam, 2003, p. 88) In a similar way, teachers’ organizations may serve to meet needs that are not being met elsewhere. In discussing the science of motivation, Daniel H. Pink (2009) says the following: Too many organizations – not just companies, but governments and non-profits as well – still operate from assumptions about human potential that are outdated, unexamined and rooted more in folklore than in science. They continue...practices such as short-term incentive plans and pay-for-performance schemes in the face of mounting evidence that such measures usually don’t work and often do harm. Worse, these practices have infiltrated our schools, where we ply our future workforce with iPads, cash and pizza coupons to “incentivize” them to learn. (p. 9) Such practices have almost as negative an effect on the teachers that put them into practice as they do on the students that are the recipients of these “incentives to learn.” Essentially, members of teachers’ organizations like KOTESOL are looking to meet or satisfy a need that is not being met anywhere else, especially in contexts like those that have been listed above, but it often seems that what teachers do (and how they do it) is under attack. Korea is no exception, with the recent removal of any form of physical punishment from schools, accompanied by no clearly accepted alternatives to help teachers keep their students in line and not erode the teacher’s authority inside and outside the classroom. The unique history of English education in Korea as well as the prevalence of “English fever” are also important for KOTESOL’s 70 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 membership. Cowie (2010) discusses a third purpose in reporting on his interviews with teachers about their emotions expressed about colleagues and professional networks. While their relations with their colleagues were often a source of satisfaction, especially when there was emotional warmth based on friendship, respect and collegiality...these relationships were viewed negatively when the teachers felt that they were isolated from their colleagues or when they perceived differences in educational values. (p. 8) Organizations can serve as meeting places for like-minded professionals, as an outlet for accumulated angst, and as a place to utilize skills that may or may not be valued in the workplace or by one’s colleagues. Especially in the field of EFL, where the routes and backgrounds of many teachers are so diverse (and the value of seemingly equivalent credentials may not be universally accepted), professional organizations and networks are important for teachers at all levels of experience and education (whether in K-12 public schools, or private institutes, or universities and colleges). Cowie (2010) also shows this in the section of his paper on emotions expressed about professional networks, where this most often involves talking with peers through participating in teacher groups and networks. However, the reasons for involvement in these groups are quite diverse as are the characteristics of these types of organizations. This is expressed by the interviewees themselves. Take “Tom,” for example: Just meeting with colleagues who have a similar interest...you’re inquisitive about teaching and learning and want to talk about it...I’m the sort of person who likes having that supportive network or having colleagues you can talk to. (p. 9) While emotional and personal, as well as professional, support are key for both experienced and inexperienced teachers, for those who are younger or less trained, the professional aspects may take precedence, as they do for “Mike”: Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 71 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 So that’s been incredibly important...in learning because I’ve not had any formal training in teaching, I mean just...learning about doing things....very simple things that I probably would have learnt in a four-week certificate that I just haven’t come across...those kinds of chances for teacher development are important that way, just very practical, simple ways. (p. 10) Finally, Oliphant (2000) lists the following benefits of joining teacher development groups, which are relevant regardless of how formal or informal, large or small, or homogeneous or heterogeneous such groups may be: TABLE 1. Summary of Oliphant’s Benefits of Joining a Teacher’s Group Positive Outcomes Greater awareness of the profession and associated problems Motivation to renew their focus on learning and teaching Better teaching through exchanges of ideas and greater involvement Benefits for students from more professionally knowledgeable and motivated teachers Joy of sharing ideas and experiences with other teachers Connection to others, which helps them overcome loneliness and isolation New ways of thinking Empowerment as part of confidence and growing expertise Adapted from Oliphant (2001). The question remains whether KOTESOL’s members see the organization as satisfying the needs listed above. The two surveys discussed below are designed to confirm, or fail to confirm, whether KOTESOL’s members feel that they are getting these types of support from the organization. Naturally, research on organizations in general and the resultant models also have valuable insights to offer here. Malcolm Macpherson (2001) offers a succinct, but thorough, overview of models and factors that are potentially useful for measuring the performance of not-for-profit organizations. He discusses models like 72 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 those proposed by Kennedy and Murphy (2001), which look at basic indicators like membership, bank balance, and average attendance, and then move on to higher-level indicators such as success in meeting expectations. KOTESOL as an organizations wrestles with issues like how to build up membership and whether to focus on larger numbers of members who may join for only a year at a time, as opposed to those who join for a longer period and perhaps decide to become active in the leadership at some level as well. But how should KOTESOL rate itself in terms of active versus passive membership? Is it by attendance at various conferences (which attract from 100 to 1200) or by chapter meeting attendance (which can range from 10 to 50, depending on chapter size, presentation/workshop topics, related events, and location)? Macpherson writes: Organisations in the not-for-profit world approach performance management issues and...performance information from a wide variety of perspectives, and for many different reasons. But they all want the same return – better performance. And the key is measurement. (p. 13; emphasis added) The question here is how accurately to measure (and what to measure) in evaluating a given organization. Macpherson states that human resource performance is more critical in not-for-profit organizations than capital-based ones since benefits, training, and development account for more than 75% of costs for the first type of organization and less than 15% for the second. This makes a lot of sense since members are greatly concerned with how their money is being spent and what types of visible or invisible benefits they receive in return for their membership fees. However, one of the most oft-repeated criticisms of KOTESOL over recent years has been the lack of transparency and accountability for the actions taken or policy decisions of the executive, so human resources cannot be ignored either. For Jack Phillips, measurement of human resources falls into three major categories (as cited in Macpherson, 2001, p. 13): 1. Functional measures include employment efficiency and effectiveness measures like turnover but do little to improve overall performance. Sick leave is considered a proxy for staff dissatisfaction. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 73 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 2. Operational measures track productivity and profitability, and claim to link HR management to organisational performance. 3. Strategic measures are future-oriented and match current capability with future needs. All of these have an impact on the functions and performance of KOTESOL with one- or two-year terms for officers, regular financial reports, reviews by outside accountants and the Financial Affairs Committee, and multiple revisions of the organizational documents and organizational purpose. On the other hand, Steven S. Prevette (as cited in Macpherson, 2001) gives details of some of the barriers associated with creating performance indicators for any organization. These include the following: 1. Fear that developing such indicators also gives potential “weapons” to managers, leaders, or other stakeholders to be used against those who create them. It may also lead to the imposition of inappropriate quotas and targets. 2. Variation as it relates to natural fluctuations or variations and creating an indicator that could subsequently be used to “fix” such a blip through tampering or accusations that people within the organisation are “missing the mark.” Loss of control as indicated by the created indicator and differing opinions about what the indicator means may cause even more problems than not having any indicator at all would. 3. The desire to develop the “perfect” indicator – which leads to prevarication. There are three classes of these indicators: a. Facts of Life. “Raise enough money or go out of business.” b. Planning, Prediction and Budget numbers – which are used for making reasonable predictions and to drive continuous improvement. c. Arbitrary numerical targets (or indicators), which are used to judge workers. These types of indicators should be avoided at all costs. (p. 15) Fear of the impact of indicators that measure the organization’s health and long-term viability is a poor reason to ignore creating and monitoring them entirely or to fail to follow up when the actions or policies of previous administrations are effective in meeting organizational needs. The KOTESOL Travel Policies (2008-09 only) and 74 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Policies Manual (2009-11) both served as lessons as they were well intentioned and met organizational needs for financial austerity and transparency, but were allowed to lapse by later executives whose needs or purposes they failed to serve. Macpherson also suggests three sources for not-for-profit indicators. These are worker and client/customer opinions, expert review, and process measurement. However, in not-for-profits, customer/client information exists and is linked to purpose and outputs, but only rarely to outcomes, and process information is not usually gathered regularly or efficiently. In many cases, these models and their terminology clearly demonstrate their roots in for-profit models (e.g., customer/client). Thus, while they may provide some minimal value and insights for an all- volunteer and non-profit organization like KOTESOL, any recommendations based on such models will be of minimal value due to their focus on business-related issues rather than NPO-specific issues. For KOTESOL, this manifests itself in very few surveys of member satisfaction with the organization as a whole, as well as a lack of consistent and reliable data on members. Thus, the organization has a small but growing number of lifelong members (60 in 2011) and a revolving door of annual memberships with maybe 30-50% renewing beyond the one-year period. While the numbers are clear, as are the trends, the reasons behind the fluctuations in membership – other than economic factors and frequent policy changes by the leadership – are unclear. Finally, Macpherson suggests that the search for indicators should start from the organizational vision and mission statement, the customers, products/benefits, and the process of delivering these. This situation in turn leads to measures, data sources, and eventually data, including outcomes. There are no perfect indicators or measures as such, but the process has to start somewhere – and may ultimately create more questions than it answers. Where these models and sets of factors are useful is in suggesting what questions need to be asked of an organization’s members to evaluate what an organization like KOTESOL is doing right and wrong, and how to improve performance in better meeting the current and future membership’s needs. Over the years, there have been disagreements over who KOTESOL is as an organization and what the organization should be doing to positively impact the lives of members both inside and outside the classroom. Naturally, as the organization has grown from 150 members Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 75 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 to nearly 800 as of 2014, it has been natural to rethink and adjust things like the documents that KOTESOL uses to govern itself. The Constitution has been modified a number of times over the years since it was adopted in 1993, and a policies manual was created in 2009-10 to help fill in some gaps in the extant documents, for example, but getting input from members has always been done in a haphazard manner at best and has never been centralized to any extent as the current member’s project (in cooperation with the Membership Chair) can make possible now and for the future with regular surveys at least. Four previous attempts to get survey and interview data, and analyze it with the intention of understanding better the KOTESOL members as professionals in the Korean context were made between 1999 and 2011, and were published in conference proceedings. While there is some overlap in their methods and outcomes, they all suffer from limitations in terms of those surveyed (Gongwer & Nelson, 2000, 2001, 2002) or those interviewed (Davies, 2002; Y. S. Kim, 2002), the small numbers of participants (Davies, 2002; Y. S. Kim, 2002), and the absence of any mention of the role an LTO like KOTESOL has to play in the lives of ELT professionals in Korea per se (Gongwer & Nelson, 2000, 2001, 2002; Davies, 2002; Y. S. Kim, 2002; Pinto, 2012) ultimately limits their value. Nevertheless, their findings agree fairly closely with the more recent surveys where the questions asked were related to issues of job and life satisfaction. For example, Gongwer & Nelson (2001) showed that a majority of their respondents were as follows: [A majority of...] respondents were in their 30’s (32%), male (56%), [had] MA degrees (34%), [and...] have lived in Korea for 1-3 years (55%). They live in cities of over 1,000,000 people (54%) [and...] they teach only one communicative skill (40%). (p. 226) The make-up of both the 2011 and 2014 surveys’ respondents, their profiles, and response sets overlapped and concurred with their study. Next, Davies (2002) found that five factors played important roles in cultural adjustment for EFL teachers in Korea: From the analysis of...qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires) data, five major categories emerged: (1) past experiences (including...prior education, training and teaching experience); (2) job (including...type of job); (3) living situation...; 76 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (4) interpersonal relationships...; and (5) host culture.... (p. 159; emphasis added) While this paper discusses job satisfaction as it relates to KOTESOL, it deals with only three of Davies’ factors (job, interpersonal, and professional relationships) and KOTESOL as a mechanism for receiving personal and professional support for the members. This may make KOTESOL into a bridge between the members’ home and host cultures in ways that are important for their ability to live and work in Korea for longer periods of time. Y. S. Kim (2002) found that for EFL teachers in Korea from the US: “[those] whose majors are TESL/TEFL or related to teaching English as a foreign/second language enjoy teaching EFL in Korea much more than those who did not major in this field” (p. 178). Further, both a better knowledge of the Korean language and familiarity with Korean culture made for more successful teachers. But Kim did not mention the importance of KOTESOL in helping EFL teachers in Korea to become more professional and better teachers, even though he was presenting this information at a KOTESOL conference. Thus, despite the interesting ideas and suggestions gleaned from these previous studies, they appear to overlook the potential or actual role KOTESOL has to play in the lives of members. More recently, Pinto (2012) surveyed 84 educators in Japan and Korea, and while many of the findings agreed with this paper’s findings, KOTESOL or other teacher organizations were never addressed. Only three of the participants mentioned the importance of professional development to their working lives. Therefore, the need for a study like this one is quite clearly justified. METHOD The initial membership data was provided by the KOTESOL membership chair in 2011, and the most recent data was received from the Technical Committee in February 2014. All lists were in Excel format, and the survey data was collected and analyzed on the SurveyMonkey website using their tools or downloaded in PDF versions that included both tables and graphs for analysis by the researcher. An initial email invitation was sent to all current members, and links were Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 77 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 posted on all KOTESOL-affiliated groups in 2011. In 2014, an initial email invitation was sent to all current members with three follow-up emails to those who did not respond during March 2014. Links were also posted on all KOTESOL-affiliated Facebook groups. Both surveys were reviewed or piloted by the author and several KOTESOL officers after which changes were made to question options, order, and types used to collect data. The data was downloaded from SurveyMonkey in the form of charts and tables, and then reviewed for both high and low trends that were relevant to this topic. Quotes from individual respondents were also used to highlight dominant opinions where appropriate. In every case, the most recent or pertinent data available was used and reviewed by the author with a mixed-methods approach as the data was mostly quantitative (numbers, percentages), but also contained qualitative content as well (written responses to open survey questions). Appendix C has the full text of both surveys. Some survey questions were ignored in writing this paper as they are unrelated to this study. These include all the questions related to ATEK, a now defunct organization, and a few questions requested by KOTESOL officers about publications read by members, questions about a possible members’ gala, and a few questions about brand items that were already addressed in general terms by other questions. RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS As previously stated, this research had two major goals: (a) to give KOTESOL a clear snapshot of who its members are (in terms of their nationalities, education levels, gender breakdown, and teaching credentials) and (b) to find out what the members want from the organization for teachers based in Korea, but with strong ties to both other Asian and major international teacher organizations. This data will ideally be used to plan for and provide better services, benefits, and programs for the current members and to help attract even more English teaching professionals and those interested in English education to join KOTESOL’s ranks. Obviously, this is only the first step in this ongoing process, but an important one, nonetheless. 78 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 WHO ARE KOTESOL’S MEMBERS? In 2010-11, KOTESOL had 61 lifetime members, 27 international members, 3 student members, and 689 annual members. This suggests that there was little stability in the membership. Location-wise, 33.97% of members were in the Seoul Chapter, with the other larger chapters being Daegu and Daejeon (both at around 13%), while Gwangju, Busan, and Jeonju all had smaller memberships with 10.25%, 6.57%, and 6.4%, respectively. This suggests that most members were in or around the major cities in Korea (see Appendix A for tabulated data). In terms of male/female ratio, KOTESOL was and still is almost equally divided, but females did slightly outnumber males with 50.51% female members and 49.23% males. Job-wise, the organization was 50% college/university employed, 21.69% were in grade schools (no discrimination between public or private institutions in the data), and the next largest category was those who worked in language institutes at 9.23%. All other categories were at just over or significantly under 1%, so those categories will be ignored here. Finally, in terms of overall membership, KOTESOL reached a high of 851 just recently (December 2014) from an initial membership of 150 in 1993 with peaks and valleys coinciding roughly with education-related changes such as new requirements from the Ministry of Education or the financial crisis in Korea in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Interestingly, the attendance numbers at the International Conferences since 1997 show that with the notable exceptions of 1997, when people had to be a member to attend, and 2000, perhaps due to the tail end of the financial crisis period, a large number of non-members attended these conferences (see Appendix B for a yearly list of membership numbers and international conference attendance). This trend is only highlighted by the main Facebook group for KOTESOL’s membership, which reached 1,000+ members in recent years, and exceeded 2,253 members on February 20, 2014. These two trends are a major reason the KOTESOL Member’s Project was initiated in late 2014 at the behest of the newly elected president, Peadar Callaghan, and the initial survey results will be discussed in some detail in this paper to answer the three key questions mentioned above. The full survey deals with many aspects of KOTESOL’s paid members and Facebook groups, but the unrelated data and results will be dealt with elsewhere. The 2014 data show that KOTESOL had 83 lifetime members, 21 Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 79 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 international members, 11 student members, and 638 annual members. In early 2014, 30.49% of members were in the Seoul Chapter with the other larger chapters being Gwangju (13.28%), Daejeon (11.58%), and Daegu (8.79%), while Gwangju Chapter grew to 13.28%, Busan fell to 4.8%, and Jeonju also fell to 2.93%. This confirms that chapters in major cities attract a larger number of members than chapters in smaller cities do, although Busan, Jeonju, and Daegu Chapters have continued to struggle to attract members as the data shows. Incidentally, both Gangwon and Yongin Chapters have increased percentage of KOTESOL membership during the same period by 1.06% and over 2%, respectively. Unfortunately, the latest membership data does not include gender information, but the survey question related to gender shows that 52.99% of the respondents were male, 44.44% female, and 2.6% chose not to say. Therefore, the sample is pretty representative of both genders’ views and, numerically at least, is a representative sample of the organization. The KOTESOL Member’s Survey, completed by 239 members and non-members, showed the following when compared to the original 2010-11 survey data. Both in 2011 and 2014, the largest number of respondents had master’s degrees (69.57% vs. 58.2%, respectively), but the percentage of those with bachelor’s grew (17.39% vs. 22.78%) while the numbers of those holding doctorates was roughly the same (13.04% vs. 12.66%). While 52.12% of those surveyed in 2014 had a TESOL-related degree, 66.1% had a TESOL certificate. In both 2011 and 2014, Americans (47.86% vs. 54.2%) and Canadians (16.18% vs. 21.85%) were the largest groups of respondents, with the UK next in 2011 (14.71%), but then they dropped to only 4.62% of the larger sample in 2014; Irish respondents were a separate group of 1.68%. Married respondents outnumbered those single, but only by a small margin (50.7% vs. 45.07% of those who responded in 2011) and, in 2014, single respondents outnumbered those married (46.84% vs. 41.77%), especially when we add separated (0.84%), divorced (2.95%) and widowed (1.27%) categories. However, 6.33% of respondents chose not to respond, so the gap may be less than it appears to be. Those on E visas made up 64.82% of the respondents in 2014, and in both 2011 and 2014, respondents preferred by far to be called by Mr./Ms./Mrs. (74.64% vs. 52.24%) rather than by teacher (11.26% in 2014) or Professor/Dr. (22.54% vs. 18.18%). However, 17.32% preferred none of the above (meaning they preferred to be called by their names in most cases). In 2011, most of the respondents belonged to more than one ELT 80 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 organization (more than 65%), but in 2014, most of the respondents did not belong to other ELT organizations (70.8% vs. 61.71 and 67.66% for domestic and international organizations, respectively). Of the rest, TESOL membership was by far the most popular for respondents with 25.42% in 2011 and 29.14% in 2014. Members’ ages have remained somewhat consistent over the past few years with over 71% being between 20-45 in 2011 and just over 78% of the 2014 group being between 26 and 46. Interestingly, 72.3% of the original 2011 survey said that the fact that KOTESOL has a paid membership (and ATEK did not) had no effect on their decision to join. WHAT DO THEY THINK OF KOTESOL AS AN LTO? In 2011, members responded that they joined primarily for services (like seminars and workshops) at 72%, to network (56%), with benefits (publications) at 40%, and for their resume at 38%. Intriguingly, organizational reputation was important to only 22% of respondents. Here are a few of the longer comments that sum up what others said: On the chapter level (where all my experience lies), the main goal of the people that I work with is to provide a high-quality product to our members. By product, I mean workshops, conferences, newsletters, etc. I think everyone works hard for that goal, and at the end of the day, even though there might be some arguments or disagreements on how to achieve that goal, we never stray from that. (LTO#60) It puts on some great conferences and it publishes a good newsletter. Most chapters regularly host workshops. KOTESOL creates opportunities for SIGs, research grants, etc. Not all of these opportunities get used as much as they could be, but it’s nice to have them available. (LTO#16) Providing numerous opportunities for members to network via workshops and conferences, both at local chapters and in national settings. (LTO#1) Words like “professional development,” “networking,” and “events for Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 81 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 members” were most often mentioned by respondents in 2011, which explains why the author added “professional development” as a category for the 2014 survey. In terms of what KOTESOL could be doing better, the 2011 respondents had this to say: It’s a hard question. Obviously, I believe that our product is getting better and better. I think we are more efficient at running conferences, at putting out publications, etc. But, it seems like membership numbers are decreasing and conference/workshop participation is decreasing slightly. It also seems, as of late, that overall morale of the organization is down, although it is hard to know why. There are more and more qualified people coming to Korea each year to teach, so it would seem that our membership numbers and participation should naturally increase. Maybe we are getting more quantity over quality? Maybe a higher percentage of our members hold masters [sic] degrees and above? I am not sure. (LTO#60) Conducting fair (National) elections, having a website that works, ensuring that people don’t get away with vote-rigging, providing a base for training people for positions, and having a pool of people who are capable of stepping in for each nominated post (especially Webmaster). Putting a cap on the number of nominated and elected titles one person can hold. Sticking to the rules and regulations they developed. Conducting themselves in an open and above-board way. Not conducting personal attacks on people or making decisions designed to exclude people [that] members of the current National Council have a[n unfair] personal bias against. (LTO#19) These comments sum up member’s positive and negative views of what KOTESOL should have been doing better over the past few years. The most recent member’s survey (2014) showed the following changes in member’s attitudes towards KOTESOL as a well-recognized LTO. The fact that more than 60% of respondents are members of KOTESOL alone puts pressure on the organization to satisfy their diverse needs to the best of its ability. In order of importance, members want professional development (87.21%), networking (59%), and social interaction (36.53%) opportunities. Conferences, as places that offer all of these, were also highly desired with a 62.56% approval rating. Not surprisingly, members joined for the following primary reasons: 82 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Professional development (88.21%), conferences (64.19%), networking opportunities (63.32%), and social interaction (just under 40%). On the other hand, the number one complaints from the small group of non-members who responded (only 7) is “too much politics” (66.67%) followed by “no tangible benefits” (42.86%) and “too expensive” (20.57%). Interestingly, “no chapter near me” was also a factor (28.57%). This sentiment was echoed by members who said that the National Council should be less concerned with politics (56.11%) and be offering more membership benefits (44.44%), be more transparent (35.56%), and provide more networking events (27.78%). Since 60.4% of respondents heard about KOTESOL from friends or colleagues, obviously KOTESOL should be listening to what they have to say. The good news is that those surveyed are “very likely” (44.1%) or “likely” (28.82%) to recommend KOTESOL to someone else as a good organization to join. Further, 77.74% said that they were likely or very likely to continue their membership in KOTESOL. WHAT CAN KOTESOL BE DOING BETTER? The original 2010-11 survey showed that members thought the following: KOTESOL should make bigger attempts to raise the standards of teaching (foreign teachers) in this country. The ESL industry in this country needs to be made aware of the benefit of having CELTA-qualified teachers, as a bare minimum. Higher education institutes should also be educated as to the benefits of employing DELTA-qualified teachers. An MA in applied linguistics should not be considered the be-all and end-all of university work. (LTO#54) If this LTO is focusing on professional development, then there must be some payoff for the membership in terms of better job security, a rise in awareness of what TESOL credentials are really worth, and hopefully, a higher level of respect for a background in TESOL as a recognized subset of the education profession. As the membership gets older and more experienced, as well as more settled into life in Korea, one respondent said Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 83 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Over the years, the conferences have become less interesting to me...I think this is a function of having more experience & also getting an MA in TESOL...many of the workshops feel like things I really ate up when I was more of a starting teacher, but now I have trouble finding workshops that satisfy w/big take away value personally, so I kind of miss that. Sometimes all the politics that seem to always being ‘goin’ down’ gets to me = "dislike!" As an extension of this complaint, a few individuals seem to "take over everything" and have their thumbs in all the pies, and if those individuals are too political, or if they aren’t inspiring or attractive professionally, then I’m less inclined to be involved, which has been the case especially in the past 2 yrs. (LTO#52) Essentially, KOTESOL needs to evolve with its membership as it ages, while also offering enough opportunities and benefits to entice newer and younger members to join and stay involved. The most recent members’ survey (2014) showed the following changes in members’ attitudes towards KOTESOL’s place in affecting their professional lives in Korea. Surprisingly, the largest number of respondents continue to teach English conversation classes (80.09%) rather than the other traditional skills of listening (42.92%), reading (40.71%), and writing (53.1%). This suggests that conferences and workshops should continue to focus on how to teach these skills more effectively. On the other hand, as far as special interest groups (SIGs) were concerned, 71.35% of respondents were not members of any SIG, so this either suggests a lack of knowledge about the available SIGs or a lack of important needs being addressed by the SIGs as such. Not surprisingly, based on what was mentioned previously, the Professional Development (PD) SIG is the most popular SIG that participants would like to join, with 43.65% expressing interest. In a similar vein, perhaps, the Reflective Practice (RP) SIG and KOTESOL Teacher Training (KTT) were next with 32% and 27%, respectively. The Research SIG was at just under 25%. When ranking the importance of KOTESOL’s activities in a variety of areas, the most important things to members were that KOTESOL remain active in professional development for teachers (94.6%), provide a quality international conference (91.28%), be open to everyone (90.63%), be respected as an academic organization (88.79%), be 84 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 transparent in what it does and how it does it (86.6%), foster cross-cultural understanding (80.16%), and maintain close relationships with international organizations like TESOL (78.16%) and domestic organizations as well (73.87). Surprisingly, although many respondents mentioned research and the importance of the Korea TESOL Journal in their comments, and 88.79% want KOTESOL to be a respected academic organization, only 60% responded that offering research opportunities and grants were something the organization should be doing. Further, only 20.19% thought KOTESOL brand items were worth having, even at a cost, and only pens and travel mugs were liked by 50.24% and 46.87% of respondents, respectively. This could suggest that while many members appreciate KOTESOL personally, there is little pride in being a member. DISCUSSION The results suggest that KOTESOL plays a viable role in different ways for its members as a professional organization. Perhaps the most significant news for the organization’s long-term viability are the following: First, members are not unhappy with the current price of membership per se as long as the current benefits are there in a variety of forms as they have been. Second, a majority of those who responded will recommend KOTESOL to a friend or colleague. Since the majority of those who took the surveys heard about KOTESOL from a friend or colleague (94.55% in 2011 and 60.4% in 2014), this is very important for the organization to bear in mind. The large decline from 2011 to 2014 is important to consider in order to reverse the trend as peer advertising plays an important role in membership vitality. Third, 82.22% of the 2011 group and 79.74% of the 2014 group reported they were likely or very likely to renew their memberships for at least one more year. This suggests that current members are satisfied with the professional benefits of the organization and expect to remain active as long as they reside in Korea and/or find benefits in the organization. In terms of continuing to provide good services and benefits for the membership, a few clear results are worth mentioning: 1. Communication: The need to rebuild confidence in KOTESOL’s leadership by communicating frequently what they are doing and Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 85 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 why they are doing it to the membership; 2. Publications: The need to be publicized better and put into the hands of members regularly and in a variety of forms; 3. Teamwork: Chapter and national officers need to work together to build KOTESOL’s identity and brand in positive ways so that it can be used to foster respect for members and TESOL as a profession and as a career; 4. Organizational Focus: KOTESOL should continue to focus on helping members to develop professionally above all other possible goals; 5. Special Interest Groups (SIGs): To fulfill their potential, the SIGs need to become more active and better publicized. While some respondents wanted new SIGs to meet new needs, it is the opinion of the author that the existing SIGs need to be better funded, have more visible roles at the chapter or national level, and be monitored more closely before new SIGs can be created to meet a broader variety of needs; 6. Conferences: The conferences must evolve better to meet the needs of a more experienced and stable membership, while still offering something for the newer and younger teacher; 7. Membership Diversity: Korean and non-E-visa nationality teachers remain a smaller percentage of KOTESOL’s membership, but are the future of this organization, and possibly even the ELT profession as a whole, as older and better-trained teachers often leave for better pay and greener pastures in other parts of the world, like the Middle East; 8. Pride: If these goals are met, pride in KOTESOL and being a member will ideally influence KOTESOL in a variety of positive ways, including a more stable membership and leadership that is more widely trusted and respected; 9. Marketing: This is an increasingly important issue as word of mouth has fallen significantly as the primary means of attracting new members. A coordinated publicity and marketing plan is evolving and needs to continue to do so to attract new members as well as encourage existing members to renew membership for at least another year. KOTESOL, like many associations, struggles to maintain and/or increase the size of the association’s membership base either by recruiting more members, retaining a larger percentage of existing members, or a combination of the two. Like other associations, 86 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 KOTESOL attempts to offer meaningful and practical benefits to attract and retain its membership. For members who value the professional networking, volunteer opportunities, and continuing education, they may find more to the organization than the tangible front-line benefits. However, the fact remains that not every member values what association leadership may perceive as benefits. Meetings, conferences, or opportunities to publish are not weighted the same by all members. The assumption of offering more perceived benefits will increase member retention and push members to be more involved and actively engaged is not necessarily the case. Members join associations for a variety of reasons, and not everyone values the same things. For this reason, there is no single solution for increasing member acquisition and member retention that will resonate with all. Nonetheless, there is a methodical approach for determining which benefits and experiences members value within an association. By knowing what members value, and giving them more of what they value, KOTESOL can not only increase member perceptions of value in the organization as well as retain current members, but can possibly also attract more new members through word-of-mouth. This study outlined in detail how to examine KOTESOL membership by what they value, how to calculate the value the association currently provides to members, and how to determine which benefits and experiences foster membership. This study was conducted as part of doctoral research provided to KOTESOL leadership and membership through publication in the organization’s research publications and presentations. In turn, the data can inform the current and future leaderships’ approach to offer professional interest and investment in the association’s membership. For example, KOTESOL may wish to periodically recruit members to replicate similar studies as part of their academic interests and degree requirements that offer data that can then be utilized by the association. An alternative option is that KOTESOL may wish to expand the role of the Membership Committee to conduct an annual survey that offers data that can be utilized for various purposes through year-to-year comparisons. Having a diverse membership population with a variety of reasons for joining an association requires a variety of strategies. It is essential to understand what motivates individual members to join or rejoin KOTESOL. Without accessing this information and harnessing its Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 87 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 content, the association may continue to offer value to numerous current and future members. However, as with a business, the association is unable to segment current and future members with both domestic and international demographics for the purposes of consulting, accessing, and retaining currently available, but unassessed, members. Some of the survey tools and analytic tools presented in this paper will enable KOTESOL leadership to use the current information presented, and possibly acquire subsequent data, to specifically target EFL professionals for the potential benefit of both the individual and the association. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY In terms of limitations of this research, even though the collected data shows that this latest survey represents KOTESOL quite well in terms of gender, education levels, and levels of experience, it is harder to say how well it reflects the broader ELT presence in Korea since a large number of EFL teachers are not in Korea for more than a year or two and are in the age group that this organization tends to miss (20-25). Further, since the number of respondents (232) is much smaller than the total membership (741), the results must be interpreted with some caution if used to answer the aforementioned research questions. Future surveys and research are necessary to ensure that the data available to KOTESOL’s leadership is current and valid considering the rapid and frequent turnover of the membership. However, in terms of those ELT professionals who stay longer than a few years and end up in more stable work situations (like universities), and who may even marry or have families here, the samples were quite representative. This group may be a minority in terms of the total number of English language teachers in Korea – both Korean and non-Korean – but those surveyed also represent those groups most concerned with the long-term prospects for the English teaching profession in Korea, as well as those most likely to benefit or suffer from both short- and long-term trends and changes in the Korean educational environment. As they will also form the probable base and core of KOTESOL’s long-term membership and leadership, the shelf life of this data is therefore probably a bit longer than KOTESOL and this author might have expected. But the data should be updated and analyzed every two to three years to remain 88 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 current. Further, this is one of the groups KOTESOL needs to strive to better serve in the future. While the surveys also had some problems in terms of question content, as some were misunderstood by the respondents or were not as well-constructed as the researcher would have liked because of the question type or types chosen, the fact that the response rate was so high for the second survey (239 total respondents) and the fact that both times respondents were favorable when asked about follow-up interviews (55.56%) and future surveys (89.91%) indicates that KOTESOL now has a viable way to get direct input from members every few years. This input will help the organization know who they are, what members are happy and unhappy about, and what they need and want in order to remain in KOTESOL, and to bring new members into the organization. As this is a KOTESOL members’ survey (except for the seven respondents who were not members, as mentioned previously), it is worth quoting Gongwer and Nelson (2001) here as a further caution about generalizing these results beyond KOTESOL’s membership: It is important to inject a note of caution: the survey results are of limited use when describing...[those] who are not KOTESOL members. By definition, ours is a professional organization whose members seek ways to improve their teaching skills. Many had...teaching backgrounds before arriving in Korea...and many intend to stay in this country. Consequently, those who responded (about 40%) may show a different pattern of attitudes than teachers here for a year or two, fresh from college, who view living and working in Korea as an adventure and not a career. (p. 227; emphasis added) Additionally, only domestic membership was addressed in this research. International membership was not assessed. Although international membership is a percentage of membership that mainly exists for attending the annual international conference, such membership does significantly impact KOTESOL’s membership revenues and demographics. Therefore, it may be beneficial to examine how these latent members can become involved in a more active manner. While this research is a good first step, and gives KOTESOL some insight into the views and preferences of a large cross-section of members, the data needs to be updated and reviewed regularly to develop a deeper Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 89 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 understanding of the needs of its members. CONCLUSIONS Revisiting the literature reviewed above, the surveys confirmed that the membership of KOTESOL sees professional development as its most important trait, which agrees with Gautam (2003), but does not or cannot go so far as to impact educational standards or education policy, despite KOTESOL’s long and seemingly distinguished reputation in Korea. Further, Cowie’s (2010) views of the LTO as a path to help teachers interact and network with others are being promoted by KOTESOL’s regular chapter meetings, conferences, and other events. Almost all of Oliphant’s (2000) list of benefits are present in the organization’s activities for beginning and mid-career teachers, but not as adequately for long-term teachers in the field. This study has served both to help decide which model or models (e.g., Macpherson, 2001; Kennedy, 2005) could best be used to assess KOTESOL as a unique LTO in the Korean EFL context (E. G. Kim, 2011; J. K. Park, 2009). This study has filled in gaps in the Korean-focused studies to date, which did not address the place of KOTESOL in the lives of Korean ELT professionals at all (Gongwer & Nelson, 2000, 2001, 2002; Davies, 2002; Y. S. Kim, 2002; Pinto, 2012). What this study does is offer a first step in the process of analyzing KOTESOL’s membership at two points in time in order to begin building the data necessary to address the ever-changing needs of its members by becoming a more transparent, professional, and accountable LTO in both the short and long terms. It additionally offers short-term and long-term options for KOTESOL to formally approach its membership regarding recruitment and retention. Meeting those needs effectively will be an ongoing process and further research will be necessary to ensure that the data and insights are as current as possible. THE AUTHOR Tory S. Thorkelson, MEd (TESL/TEFL) is an associate professor at Hanyang University’s Seoul campus. He is a past president of KOTESOL’s Seoul 90 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Chapter (2004-06) and of KOTESOL (2008-09). Recently, he became head of KOTESOL Teacher Training (KTT) for the second time. He is working on his doctoral dissertation related to this paper’s topic through Middlesex University and is also working on a business communication textbook. Work-wise, he teaches ESP- and EAP-type courses in a program he helped design and create. Email:
[email protected]ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge that this research was supported in part by a KOTESOL research grant (2011) as well as by the efforts of numerous KOTESOL officers and members, past and present. REFERENCES Cowie, N. (2011). Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 235-242. Crookes, G. (2003). A practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Davies, D. (2002). Working and living in Korea: Facilitating adjustment. In D. E. Shaffer (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2001 (pp. 157-171). Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL. Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher-research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Gautam, G. R. (2003). Professional organization and professional development: A ten years’ journey of NELTA. Journal of NELTA, 8(2), 88-96. Gill, M. D. (2005). Governing for results: A director’s guide to good governance. Victoria, Canada: Trafford. Gomez, S. (2011). Running an association for language teachers: Directions and opportunities. Kent, UK: IATEFL and British Council. Gongwer, J., & Nelson, P. (2000). Proposals to increase teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction. In D. E. Shaffer (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 1999 (pp. 225-230). Daejeon, Korea: KOTESOL. Gongwer, J., & Nelson, P. (2001). Teaching effectiveness and job satisfaction: A survey of KOTESOL professors (Part II). In K. B. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 91 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Reitan (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2000 (pp. 69-79). Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL. Gongwer, J., & Nelson, P. (2002). A survey of KOTESOL professors: Part three. In D. E. Shaffer (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2001 (pp. 125-156). Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL. Kennedy, B. (2005). A systems approach to training and complexity. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(6), 509-521. Kim, E. G. (2011, April 18). History of English education in Korea. The Korea Times. Retrieved from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/ special/2011/04/181_21843.html Kim, Y. S. (2002). A survey study of US EFL teachers in Korea. In D. E. Shaffer (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2001 (pp. 173-185). Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL. Korea TESOL. (2011). Constitution of KOTESOL. Retrieved from https://koreatesol.org/sites/default/files/pdf/KOTESOL-Constitu-Bylaws- 2015-amend.pdf Korea TESOL. (n.d.). KOTESOL: Who and what we are. Retrieved from http://www.koreatesol.org/content/kotesol-who-and-what-we-are Leahy, J. (2004). Using Excel for analyzing survey questionnaires (Report No. G3658-14). Retrieved from the University of Wisconsin-Extension website: https://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3658-14.pdf Lott, B. (1984). ELT and the British Council: The first fifty years. ELT Journal, 38, 283-285. Macpherson, M. (2001). Performance measurement in not-for-profit and public-sector organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), 13-17. Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oliphant, K. (2003). Teacher development groups: Growth through cooperation. In G. Crookes (Ed.), Practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice (pp. 203-213). Singapore: Cambridge University Press. Park, J. K. (2009). English fever in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(1) 50-57. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Pinto, M. (2012). Who we are, what we think: Teachers talking about themselves and teaching. In D. E. Shaffer & M. Pinto (Ed.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2011 (pp. 135-150). Seoul, Korea: KOTESOL. Reeves, T., Duncan, W. J., & Ginter, P. W. (2000). Leadership change by managing paradigms. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, 7(1), 14-29. 92 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Schumacher, S., & MacMillan, J. E. (1993). Research in education. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper-Collins College Publishers. Seliger, H. W., & Shohany, S. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. TESOL, Inc. (2007). Position statement on the role of teachers’ associations in education policy and planning. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=32&DID=37 White, R. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organisations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 93 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX A KOTESOL Membership Data: 2011 & 2014 KOTESOL Membership by Type Type of Members 2011 2014 Lifetime 61 (7.80%) 83 (11.20%) Student 3 (0.04%) 21 (2.83%) International 27 (3.5%) 11 (1.484%) One Year 689 (88.30%) 638 (86.1%) Total 780 (Total) 741 (Feb 28, 2014) KOTESOL Membership by Chapter Members per Chapter (KOTESOL) 2011 2014 (January) Seoul 265 (33.97%) 229 (30.49%) Suwon-Gyeonggi 45 (5.76%) 27 (3.6%) Busan-Gyeongnam 51 (6.57%) 36 (4.8%) Daejon-Chungcheong 104 (13.33%) 87 (11.58%) Daegu-Gyeongbuk 109 (13.97%) 66 (8.79%) Gangwon 25 (3.2%) 30 (4.26%) Gwangju-Jeonnam 80 (10.25%) 100 (13.28%) Jeonju-North Jeolla 50 (6.4%) 22 (2.93%) Jeju 8 (1.025%) 19 (2.53%) Yongin-Gyeonggi 7 (0.897%) 23 (3.06%) International 31 (3.97%) 27 ( 3.6%) KOTESOL Membership by Job Type Job Type 2011 (KOTESOL) 2014 (KOTESOL; Survey only) College or University 390 (50%) 114 (58.46%) Elementary School 76 (10%) 53 (27.18%)(All schools) Middle School 50 (6.4%) High School 41 (5.29%) Government 9 (1.0%) Teacher Training Institute 12 (1.5%) Student/Trainee 10 (1.28%) Language Institutes (All) 72 (9.23%) 19 (9.74%) (College & Private) Freelance 19 (2.43%) Corporation 9 (1.0%) Non-ELT 4 (0.50%) 6 (3.08%) Other ELT 12 (1.5%) 3 (1.54) Unknown 6 (0.76%) 12 (6.15% Skipped Question) 94 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX B KOTESOL Membership and IC Attendance KOTESOL Membership International Conference Attendance 1992 ?* 1993 150 1994 395 1995 655 1996 655 1997 800 800 1998 820 700 1999 750 870 2000 250 500 2001 293 500 2002 389 445 2003 535 800 2004 495 830 2005 430 920 2006 615 910 2007 600 1,050 2008 610 1,190 2009 685 1,368 2010 730 1,557 2011 790 1,250 2012 800 1,100 2013 851 1,050 2014 785 1000 Note. Official numbers as of November 29, 2014. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 95 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX C Survey Questions: 2010/11 and 2014 2010/11 Version Dear fellow ELT Professional, The purpose of this survey, and the optional follow-up interviews, are to fill in some gaps in the data that is available to the typical members of teacher’s organisations like KOTESOL (Korea Teachers of English as a Second or Other Language) and ATEK (Association of Teachers of English in Korea). In doing so, I hope to see some patterns emerge in terms of what attracts people to join organisations like ours, what kinds of people our members are and what benefits or aspects of our organisations make you, as members, stay or leave. The survey will take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. Some of the questions are designed to be quick to answer, but there are also open response sections and questions. It is hoped that your comprehensive answers to these questions will help these organisations evaluate member perceptions, and give them information about what they are doing right/wrong. Thanks again for taking the time to do this and be assured that your personal details will remain confidential. Please share this survey with your fellow ELT colleagues and friends so that I can collect as much pertinent data as possible. Also, if you are willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview, please indicate that as well and fill in your contact details in the appropriate places on the survey. Yours sincerely, Tory S. Thorkelson, M.Ed. Questions: 1) What is your preferred title? Dr. / Professor / Mr. / Mrs. / Ms. / Prefer not to say 2) What is your gender? Male / Female / Prefer not to say 96 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 3) What is your current age? 4) What is your marital status? Married / Single / Prefer not to say 5) What is your visa type? 6) What is your nationality? 7) What is your highest completed level of education? High School / Bachelor’s degree / Master’s degree / Ph.D, Ed.D., Doctorate 8) What was your major/minor in university if applicable? 9) What EFL credentials do you have (CELTA, etc.) if any? 10) What is your current job and title? 11) What KOTESOL chapter or ATEK PMA are your affiliated with? 12) How long have you lived in Korea? 13) How many countries have you visited prior to coming to Korea (less than 1 month)? 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5+ 14) How many countries have lived in prior to coming to Korea (1 month or more)? 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5+ 15) What was your average length of stay in each country other than Korea? (Country name) (years/months) 16) What was your purpose in visiting these countries? Work / Study / Leisure 17) How many professional teacher organisations do you belong to? 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5+ 18) Which ELT organisations do you belong to? ALAK / ATEK / ELLAK / IATEFL / KOTESOL / KATE / TESOL / None. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 97 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 19) What lead you to join the organisation(s) you did? (Pick your top 3). Benefits (publications, etc.) / Services (seminars, workshops, etc.) / Organisational reputation / Discounts on events / SIGs / To Network / For my résumé / Other reason: (Explain) SIG = Special Interest Group (e.g., Extensive Reading, Games, etc.) 20) How long have you been a member of: ATEK: _____________ / KOTESOL: _______________ / Other organisation(s): List them. 21) What type of membership(s) do you have? :(Tick all that apply) Annual / Lifetime / General / Associate / Two years / Don’t know 22) Did the cost of the membership for ATEK versus KOTESOL affect your decision to join? Yes / No Explain: 23) In your opinion, what is your KOTESOL doing right? Explain: 24) In your opinion, what is ATEK doing right? Explain: 25) In your opinion, what could ATEK be doing better? Explain: 26) In your opinion, what could KOTESOL be doing better? Explain: 27) Do you think you will continue your membership in ATEK? Yes / No 28) If so, for how long? (Tick) 1 Year / 2 Years / 5 Years / Lifetime / No idea 29) Do you think you will continue your membership in KOTESOL? Yes / No 30) If so, for how long? (Tick) 1 Year / 2 Years / 5 Years / Lifetime / No idea 98 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 31) How would you describe ATEK to a potential new member? 32) How would you describe KOTESOL to a potential new member? 33) How important is it for you that your organisation(s) have a relationship with: ATEK / KOTESOL / TESOL / IATEFL / Other organisations (domestic or international) Explain:____ ? Very important / Somewhat important / Don’t care / Unimportant / Very unimportant 34) ATEK should be involved in formulating government policies regarding English education in Korea. Yes / No / Not a member of ATEK, so no opinion. 35) The purpose of ATEK is to improve the situation of the average English teacher in Korea. Yes / No / Not a member of ATEK. 36) KOTESOL should be involved in formulating government policies regarding English education in Korea. Yes / No / Not a member of ATEK, so no opinion. 37) The purpose of KOTESOL is to improve the situation of the average English teacher in Korea. Yes / No / Not a member of ATEK. 38) How do you think your membership in organisations like KOTESOL or ATEK has influenced your life in Korea? ATEK: Not at all / Somewhat negatively / Don’t know / Somewhat positively / Very positively KOTESOL: Not at all / Somewhat negatively / Don’t know / Somewhat positively / Very positively 39) How did you find out about ATEK? (Tick all that apply.) Friends / Coworkers / Facebook / Twitter / At a Conference / At a PMA meeting 40) How did you find out about KOTESOL? (Tick all that apply.) Friends / Coworkers / Facebook / Twitter / At a Conference / At a chapter meeting 41) Would you be willing to do a follow-up interview? Yes / No Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 99 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 2014 Version Dear Members (or potential members) of KOTESOL, The purpose of this survey is to get a clear idea of who our members are (or could be) as well as allowing us to predict to some extent how to better serve our current members as well as attract new members (perhaps from the many Facebook groups, for example). The survey is designed to be filled out in a reasonable period of time (10-20 minutes, depending on how detailed some of your answers are) but also to get as much quantitative and qualitative data as possible in one place. Other surveys may be forthcoming for assessing things like publicity or marketing, but this is the first attempt to get a solid set of data to construct a profile of our ‘average’ member and will probably be an ongoing effort with a similar survey going out every few years to keep our profile current and meaningful. Thank you for taking the time to fill this survey out. Yours sincerely, Tory S. Thorkelson, M.Ed. KOTESOL Member’s Project Head 1) How long have you been a teacher/educator? 0-1 year / 2-4 years / 5-7 years / 17-10 years / 10-15 years / Over 15 years 2) What is your highest level of education? Bachelor’s / Post Graduate Certificate / Master’s / Ph.D., Ed.D. 3) What was your major in your bachelor’s degree? Education / Arts / Sciences / Linguistics / Applied Linguistics / TESOL, TEFL, TESL / English / Languages / Communication / Other major 4) Do you have a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate in a TESOL-related field? Yes / No 5) Do you have a teaching credential in your home country? (Pick one) Yes (Primary) / Yes (Secondary) / No 6) Do you have the following? CELTA / DELTA / TESOL Certificate / Other TESOL certificate / None of these 100 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 7) What is your nationality? Korean / Canadian / American / New Zealander / Australian / UK citizen / South African / Filipino / Other 8) What is your marital status? Single / Married / Separated / Divorced / Widowed / Prefer not to say 9) What type of visa do you have? D10 / E1 / E2 / F1 / F2 / F4 / F6 / Other Visa / No visa (Korean citizen) 10) What is your preferred title? Dr. / Professor / Teacher / Mr. / Mrs. / Ms. / None of the above 11) What other domestic ELT or linguistics organisations are you a member of? (Pick all that apply.) None / ALAK / ATEK (Defunct) / DisCog / ELLAK / GETA / ETAK / KATE / KAFLE / KAPEE / KMALL / KEERA / KELTA / KASEE / KOSETA / LSK / MEESO / MLSK / SEEK / STEM 12) What other international ELT or linguistics organisations are you a member of? (Pick all that apply). None / AAL / AILA / ACTA / ALA / Asia TEFL / BAAL / CamTESOL / ETA-ROC (Taiwan) / FEELTA / IATEFL / JALT / LSA / PALT / PAAL / TESOL / ThaiTESOL 13) Which journals do you subscribe to or read regularly? (List from most often to least often read.) 14) What is your Western age? 20-25 / 26-31/ 32-36 / 37-41 / 42-46 / 47-51 / 51-56 / 56-60 / Over 61 / Prefer not to say 15) What was it that made you join these organisations? Networking / Professional Development / Publications / Conferences / Research Opportunities / Prestige / Social Interaction / Job Hunting / Looks Good on Resume, CV / Other Reasons (List them.) 16) How many organisations are you a member of at present (ELT and non-ELT)? 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / more than 5 Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 101 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 17) What category of job best describes your current employer? Public University / Private University / College / FLI (University/College) / Public School / Private School / Private Institute / Publisher / Non-ELT 18) What subjects/skills do you primarily teach? (Pick all that apply). English Conversation / English Education / Teacher Training / Listening / Reading / Writing / Presentations / Interviews, Job Skills / Business English / Debate / Drama / EAP, ESP 19) How long have you been teaching in Korea? 0-6 months / 6-12 months / 13-18 months / 19-24 months / 25-30 months / 31-36 months / 3-5 years / 6-10 years / 10-15 years / Over 15 years 20) How many full-time jobs have you had during your stay in Korea? 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / More than 7 21) How many other countries did you visit for up to a month before coming to Korea (other than your home country)? 1-3 / 4-6 / 7-10 / 11-15 / Over 15 22) How many other countries did you live in for more than a few months before coming to Korea (other than your home country)? 1-3 / 4-6 / 7-10 / 11-15 / Over 15 23) What was your average length of stay in these countries? A few days / A week / 2 weeks / 1 month / 2-4 months / 5-12 months / 2-3 years / Over 3 years 24) What was your purpose in visiting these countries? Work / Study / Leisure 25) What is your gender? Male / Female / Prefer not to say 26) How long have you been a KOTESOL member? I am not a member / 1-6 months / 6-12 months / 1-2 years / 3-5 years / 5-10 years / Over 10 years 27) What type of membership do you have? Annual (1 year) / Biannual (2 years) / Lifetime / I plan on joining soon / I am no longer a member (membership has lapsed) / None of the above 102 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 28) If you have a one-year KOTESOL membership, how often have you renewed it? First-year / Once / Twice / Three times / More than 3 times 29) Do you belong to any of the KOTESOL Facebook Groups? Yes / No 30) Which KOTESOL Facebook groups? Main KOTESOL group / Korea TESOL News / Chapter group / SIG group / Concerned Members of KOTESOL / None of the above 31) Which chapter do you belong to? Busan-Gyeongnam / Daegu-Gyeongbuk / Daejeon-Chungcheong / Gangwon / Gwangju-Jeonnam / Incheon / International Community / Jeju / Jeonju-North Jeolla / Seoul / Suwon-Gyeonggi / Yongin-Gyeonggi 32) Which Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are you a member of? (Pick all that apply.) Christian Teachers / Extensive Reading / Holistic Education / KTT: KOTESOL Teacher Training / Multimedia & CALL / Professional Development / Reflective Practice / Research / Young Learners & Teens 33) Which of the SIGs might you be interested in joining (membership is free to KOTESOL members)? Christian Teachers / Extensive Reading / Holistic Education / KTT: KOTESOL Teacher Training / Multimedia & CALL / Professional Development / Reflective Practice / Research / Young Learners & Teens 34) Which Special Interest Groups would you like to see have SIGs of their own? 35) Why did you join KOTESOL? I did not / Networking / Professional Development / Publications / Conferences / Prestige / Chapter events, meetings / Organisation’s reputation (i.e., good) / For my resume / Other reasons (List them.) 36) In your opinion, what is KOTESOL doing right (other than what is in question 35)? 37) If you are not a member, why aren’t you? Too expensive / No tangible benefits / No chapter near me / Facebook group Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 103 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 is enough for me / Politics / Organisation’s reputation (i.e., bad) / I was told not to by someone I work with or know 38) What suggestions do you have for KOTESOL’s National Council and officers to make KOTESOL better? Less politics / More transparency / More membership benefits (membership card, publications, etc.) / More conferences / More frequent updates on the websites / More social events (Christmas dinners, picnics, etc.) / More networking / Classroom observations to improve my teaching 39) In your opinion, what could KOTESOL be doing better (other than what is listed in questions 37 and 38)? 40) We are working on a Member’s Gala. How much would you pay for such an event? Free (benefit) / Under 15,000 won / 20,000 won / 30,000 won / 40,000 won / 50,000 won 41) When should we hold the Member’s Gala? National Conference / International Conference / Hotel or Conference Center Event / With ABM / With a professional development day 42) How important is it for you that KOTESOL.... Is involved with education policy in Korea: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Is active in promoting professional development for teachers in Korea: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Is transparent in what it does and how it does it: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Fosters cross-cultural understanding: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides a wide range of publications: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides a wide range of social activities: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides a quality international conference: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides smaller conferences throughout the year: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides other events (e.g., drama festival/symposiums/outreach events): 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides research opportunities and grants: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Is a respected academic organisation: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Provides legal or other support for members: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Maintains strong connections with domestic ELT organisations like ALAK: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Maintains strong connections with international ELT organisations: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 104 Tory S. Thorkelson Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 43) How likely are you to recommend joining KOTESOL to a friend/colleague? Very likely / Likely / Somewhat likely / Not likely 44) How likely are you to continue your membership in KOTESOL? Very likely / Likely / Somewhat likely / Not likely 45) How did you find out about KOTESOL? Friend or colleagues / Facebook / At a conference / At a chapter event / From the media (newspaper, etc.) / Don’t remember. 46) How often do you visit the KOTESOL website? Never / Rarely (once every 6 months) / Occasionally (once per month) / Twice a month / Weekly / More than once a week 47) As you may know, KOTESOL produces brand items and sells them at cost or with a small margin of profit to our members. Do you think these are a good use of KOTESOL funds? Yes / No / No idea. 48) Current items include: Lapel Pins: Like / Dislike / Do not care Coffee Mugs: Like / Dislike / Do not care Travel Mugs: Like / Dislike / Do not care Pens: Like / Dislike / Do not care 49) In the past, KOTESOL had T-shirts and backpacks as well. What items other than those above would you like to see included in KOTESOL items? (Click all that apply.) T-shirts / Long-sleeved shirts / Backpacks / Business card holders / Other ideas? (List and explain.) 50) Would you be willing to fill out similar surveys in the future? Yes / No Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. We will keep all personal data confidential, but the overall findings/trends may be written up in research articles or presented on at future conferences/chapter meetings, where appropriate, as well as provided to the National Council for planning programs and KOTESOL events, and for helping us better serve the KOTESOL membership. Language Teaching Organizations and Professional Job Satisfaction 105 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 106 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores Jong-hee Youn Paiwha Girls’ High School, Seoul, Korea This study investigates the effects of Extensive Reading (ER) on Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (KSAT) scores. At the end of an ER program incorporated into a regular school curriculum over a year, 260 first-year Korean high school students were surveyed. Their responses to the survey, reading activity records, and their scores from the practice KSAT in June and November were gathered for analysis. The independent samples’ t-test demonstrated that those who read more in the ER program gained significantly higher scores than those who read less. Significant differences are found in the low test score group (t(38) = -3.40, p = 0.002) and the middle test score groups (t(78) = -2.43, p = 0.017) but not in the high test score group. Regression analysis supported this finding, revealing that, among L2 learner factors, students’ reading amounts in English are the most influential to their performance on the practice KSAT. INTRODUCTION In many Asian EFL contexts, especially where pressure from the college entrance exam is overwhelmingly intense, high school English reading lessons tend to become excessively teacher-centered. Students get themselves ready to listen silently and passively to tedious instruction. This practice is ascribed to the negative washback effect (Bailey, 1996) from a high stakes testing environment. Teachers attempt to demonstrate how to translate every single word precisely into L1 and analyze the grammatical structure of each sentence and phrase. This teaching approach is often believed by practitioners to be the only way to train students to be successful in the exam. As an alternative to the The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 107 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 traditional approaches, Extensive Reading (ER) has gained remarkable popularity. Koreans also seem to have more interest in ER than ever. Many Korean parents, equipped with the information that ER is an effective way to improve reading skills, pay tuition to enroll their young children in ER programs. Nevertheless, ER has not yet found its way into high schools due to the skepticism about its impact on test score improvement. As a matter of fact, several attempts have been made to implement ER programs in high schools (Shin, 2014; Han, 2007; Cha, 2009). The results from these programs demonstrate that an ER program has a positive impact on boosting high school students’ language development. In spite of the empirical evidence on the effects of ER, most high school English teachers remain reluctant to bring ER into their classroom, unsure of its impact on the college entrance exam. To date, very few studies have investigated the effect of an ER program incorporated into a regular high school curriculum. This current study aims to investigate the impact of ER in the Korean high school context by examining its association with their standardized test scores. The research question we posed was “Does adding ER to the regular high school curriculum improve students’ KSAT scores?” LITERATURE REVIEW What is Extensive Reading? ER is often used as the counter term of traditional Intensive Reading (IR). In IR lessons, students read relatively short passages predetermined by their teacher. The aim of IR is a thorough understanding of the text (Day, 2011). Thus, learners are trained explicitly by an expert to be able to utilize various skills such as finding main ideas, separating opinions from facts, and locating specific information (Carrell & Carson, 1997). Conversely, ER does not regard reading classes as a place where linguistic knowledge is delivered and the skills for reading are trained, but as a place for reading itself to actually happen. It “helps learners to build their reading speed and automaticity in reading of already known language in a pleasurable way” (Waring, n.d., para. 15). The major role of a teacher in ER is modeling (Day & Bamford, 2002). Waring (n.d.) illustrated how ER is different from IR as shown in Table 1. 108 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 1. Differences Between IR and ER Linguistic Difficulty Amount Selection Material Where Comprehension Focus Intensive Analysis Checked by Reading Usually Teacher All learners specific of the difficult Little selects study the In class language same. questions All learners read different Extensive Fluency, skill Very 1 book a Learner things Mostly Checked by Reading forming easy week selects (something at home reports and summaries that interests them). Adapted from Waring (n.d.). ER in the School Context School systems, by nature, seem to have a number of drawbacks for ER to be implemented. Grabe (1998) listed various reasons why ER is not frequently chosen by schools, such as lack of resources and reluctance towards ER by teachers and administrators. Many additional disadvantages are also expected in ER programs in schools. First, ER’s pursuit of a learner’s independent and autonomous engagement in reading through their “free” desire (Day & Bamford, 1998) does not fit into the controlling nature of school. The assessment system prevents schools from being an ideal place for ER. Among the ten principles of ER suggested by Day and Bamford (2002), the sixth principle, “Reading is its own reward” (p. 139), suggests that any external rewards, such as test scores or grades, should be avoided. Krashen (2004) also supported this claim, saying that (a) reading should be done completely by the reader’s own choice, (b) reading should be done anytime and as long as the reader wants, and (c) reading should not be tested. In educational institution settings, however, a student’s work is usually rewarded with their grades. Teachers are required to measure their students’ progress and assess them (Stoeckel, Reagan, & Hann, 2012). Thus, it is practically impossible to eliminate the reward of grades in schools. Considering these drawbacks, it seems rational to conclude that the benefits of ER are compromised in school settings. However, Stoeckel, Reagan, and Hann (2012) debunked the negative influence of evaluation in ER. They divided 177 first-year Japanese university students into two groups during an ER program. During the program, one group was quizzed while the other was not. On the end-of-semester test, however, The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 109 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 no significant difference was found in their attitude toward reading in English between the two groups. Teaching L2 Reading in Korean High Schools A number of problems have been identified in current high school English reading courses in Korea. First of all, students read texts they do not want to read. Since all reading material is predetermined by their teachers, students are rarely motivated to read, save for the pressure of an impending test. As a result, they do not have an opportunity to become autonomous readers. Second, students do not spend sufficient time reading in class. Walker (1997) ascribed the sluggish reading progress of the students in her English language courses to “simply not reading enough” (p. 121). She continued to argue that “classes by themselves, then, do not offer enough practice in the business of real reading” (p. 122). Day (2011) mentioned that it was frequently observed, especially in an EFL context, that students were not reading in class because the teacher talked excessively. Since the teachers carry out all the linguistic and cognitive processes required for readers to understand the text, the students end up reading very little on their own. Susser and Robb (1990) posited that this type of reading approach “may be justified as a language lesson but...is actually not reading at all” (p. 1). Third, an individual student’s reading proficiency is not taken into consideration. According to Krashen (1985), second language learners should be provided with material at i+1 to improve their language skills. His argument suggests that reading materials that are either too difficult or too easy for L2 learners do not help them promote their L2 development. In Korean high school classrooms, however, all the students read the same text, regardless of their abilities. Consequently, many students have to read texts that are not appropriate for their reading proficiency level. Previous ER Studies in Korean High Schools In Korean high schools, where the preparation demanded for the Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (KSAT) is overwhelmingly intense, ER has not been chosen very often. ER has been experimented with mostly 110 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 at a college or elementary school level where grades are not seen as life-threatening, as they are in high schools. As a matter of fact, there were several cases where ER was actually used in high school settings (Shin, 2014; Han, 2007; Cha, 2009). However, those ER programs were conducted as an extracurricular activity with a small number of volunteers. For example, Cha carried out experimental research into the effect of ER on their vocabulary and reading rates with 20 Korean vocational high school students. The results demonstrated that ER made a significant difference in their reading rates without impairing their comprehension of the texts. However, the results from these small-sized studies do not strongly support the claim that ER will also be successful in regular school classrooms because they do not properly address the difficulties expected in a high school context, where the students’ levels of proficiency, motivation, and anxiety are radically different from student to student. Impact of ER on Standardized Tests Research has examined the effectiveness of ER in improving standardized English proficiency test scores, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). For example, Constantino, Lee, Cho, and Krashen (1997) found that ER had a positive effect in boosting TOEFL scores. Gradman and Hanania (1991) investigated the factors that affected TOEFL scores. The TOEFL scores obtained by 115 international students from different L1 backgrounds were analyzed to look into how they were associated with their L2 learner factors. The results suggested that reading in English outside of class was the most prominent contributor to their test scores. On the other hand, a study with 42 Japanese college students by Storey, Gibson, and Williamson (2006) found no significant difference in the TOEIC scores between those who were involved in ER programs and those who were not. However, the average score of more active participation groups improved 30% more than those of less active ones. Recently, the impact of ER on standardized tests was investigated in Korean high schools. Shin (2014) looked into the correlation between ER and the Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test (KSAT) scores. She found that a student involved in an eight-week ER program showed immense improvement in her score. To date, however, no empirical research has been conducted with intact The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 111 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 school classes to evaluate the effectiveness of ER in promoting student KSAT scores in a quantitative manner. METHODS Settings This research was carried out in one of the regular high schools in Seoul, Korea. The ER program was initiated in this school in 2012, when the school was designated as a participating school in the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s (SMOE) Innovative School Project. The ER program of this school has been carried out in a partnership with Reading Gate, a privately owned franchise that provides ER solutions to many public schools nationwide. The entire cost incurred by the ER program was paid by SMOE. In 2014, for five 50-minute English classes per week, first-year students were required to attend one ER class, while four other sessions were dedicated to the regular curriculum. A female teacher in her early fifties taught this course. She had never been trained as an ER specialist, nor participated in any ER program as a learner. The ER classes met over the two semesters in the school library, which had a more favorable setup for group work. The reading groups were formed according to the online reading placement test results at the beginning of the school year (from Level K to Level 4) as shown in Table 2. K-level is equivalent to average preschool levels for native speakers while Level 5 is almost equal to the proficiency of native speakers of the same age as the ER class students. TABLE 2. Breakdowns of Students by Reading Proficiency Level Reading Proficiency Level K 1 2 3 4 Number of Students (N = 278) 44 63 78 72 21 Proportion (%) 16% 23% 28% 26% 7% Each group consisted of 4 or 5 students of the same or adjacent level. The level of the book, attached on its cover, guided their choice of books. The school library has five copies of the same book so that members of a reading group could each check out copies of the book they agreed upon. The students were required to read the book and 112 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 complete an online reading test before the next class. When the students passed the test, they received certain points (R-points), the amount of which varied according to the difficulty level of each book. The scores from the ER program were added to their regular English subject score in proportion to weekly class hours. If a student failed to collect the minimum R-points, the score she would get from the ER program was reduced. The entire class time was used for group activities, such as discussing and completing the reading report, with no formal instruction on reading skills. The KSAT is significant in this study. The KSAT is the exam that every high school student must take for college admission in Korea. The exam is developed and administered by the Korean Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE). KSAT scores are generally considered the most critical component for college admission. To be successful in the English section of the KSAT, reading comprehension is usually seen as the most important skill. In the KSAT in 2014, almost two-thirds of the questions involved reading comprehension skills; the rest of the questions were listening comprehension (see Table 3). TABLE 3. General Information on the English Section of the 2014 KSAT Part Number of Questions Raw Score Time Listening Comprehension 17 37 25 min. Reading 28 63 45 min. Comprehension Total 45 100 70 min. In addition to the actual KSAT, students have the opportunity to take a practice KSAT, which is a similar standardized test that all high school students must take nationwide each semester. This gives students the ability to practice and prepare for an actual KSAT. According to KICE, there are two primary purposes in providing a practice KSAT. By definition, the practice KSAT aims at providing future KSAT applicants with an opportunity to prepare for KSAT through a simulation test with the same format and difficulty. Another aim of the test is diagnosing students’ general academic performance if an actual KSAT were taken at that time (KICE, 2015). Since the practice KSAT is developed with The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 113 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 close resemblance to the KSAT in every aspect, the scores that individual students get are usually regarded as reliable predictors of their score in the actual KSAT. For this reason, in this current study, the practice KSAT scores were used to examine the impact of ER on KSAT scores. Participants Two hundred sixty first-year high school students participated in this study. Since this school admits only female students, all of the participants were 16-year-old females. As soon as new students were enrolled in the school, they were assigned to nine different freshman homeroom classes with no consideration of English proficiency. Each homeroom class was made up of 28 to 30 students. All freshmen students, equivalent to tenth-grade students in the American system, were required to take this course. The characteristics of the participants as an L2 learner are summarized in Table 4. They reported reading from zero to 150 books in their first language (L1), (M = 8.7). Since Korean parents tend to enroll their children in English programs at hagwon, or private institutes, from an early age, the majority of the participants reported starting to learn English before starting school. They spent two hours studying English a day and three hours having formal instruction in English a week on average. TABLE 4. L2 Learner Characteristics of Participants Characteristic Mean Mode Max Min Number of books in L1 9.65 5 150 0 Years of learning English 8.69 11 11 3 Hours spent on English per day 2.10 2 14 0 Hours of English instruction outside 3.56 3 28 0 of school Ninety percent of the participants either had no prior experience living in an English-speaking country or lived there for less than a year. Only 10% of the participants had prior experience living in an English-speaking country for over a year. It is well known in Korea that the students’ experience of living in English-speaking countries is 114 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 influenced by the socio-economic status of their family. It can be inferred that, in general, the participants were not from exceptionally affluent communities. Materials In order to examine the impact of the school ER program on KSAT scores, the results from a survey, two standardized test scores, and online reading activity records were gathered for analysis. The survey consisted of seven items regarding the participants’ characteristics as L2 learners, including the age at which they started learning English, prior experience in living in English-speaking countries, previous involvement in ER programs, the number of books they read in L1, the amount of time spent on studying English on their own per day, and the amount of time spent on formal English instruction outside of school per week (see Appendix A). All the items and instructions were translated into Korean. The survey was administered online via Google Drive Survey, as shown in Appendix B. The R-point was used as the indicator of how much English the student read in this study. The R-point is the point awarded to a student when she successfully completed an online reading test. During the ER program, all students were required to take the online reading test after reading a book per week. A set of the online reading tests was composed of vocabulary, reading comprehension, sequence matching, and gap fills. The R-point system was developed by Reading Gate, the ER service provider. The legitimacy of the R-point as a reliable indicator of the amount read is somewhat questionable. It would also be somewhat problematic to compare the results from this current study with those of other ER studies because the R-point is not a generally used indictor of the amount read. In spite of these foreseeable complications, this current study adopted the R-point to represent the individual student’s reading amount in English because the students were required to collect a certain amount of R-points throughout the course. The two scores that individual students gained from the practice KSAT in June and November were used to measure the impact of ER on boosting students’ KSAT scores. The test in June was used as a pre-test while the test in November was used as a post-test. The official transcript of the practice KSAT offered each test-taker with four different scores: a raw score, a standardized score (T-score), a percentile, and a The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 115 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 grade level. Among them, percentiles were used to represent the participants’ test performance in the current study. Since percentiles indicate where the applicant is located compared to the rest of the testing population, rather than directly representing a student’s test performance, they might not be a good option for measuring an L2 learner’s language development. However, in this study, percentiles were adopted on the grounds that the size of the testing population in June and November were almost identical (n = 502,678 in June, n = 490,111 in November) and that the percentiles are the scores that are commonly used for college admission. Procedure Data collection was conducted in December 2014. The students who participated in the school ER program for more than a school year were asked to complete the survey during the last week of the ER program. The students were brought to a school computer lab to answer the online survey. At the completion of the survey, the record of students’ reading amounts (R-points) was downloaded from the Reading Gate website. In addition, the students’ practice KSAT scores from June and November were handed over to the author from the school. After that, the data was inputted into SPSS 21 for analysis. First, based on their test scores, the participants were divided into three groups. Then, within each group, two sub-groups were formed: a (+) participation group and a (-) participation group. The former is a group of students who read relatively more than the others, while the latter read less. The independent samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the test scores between the two groups. After that, regression analysis was carried out to examine the factors that had influence on the test scores among the L2 learner factors. This whole process was carried out under the consent of parents, students, and the school principal. RESULTS The Number of Books Read The number of books that the participants read in the course ranged from 0 to 97, with the average being 16 books, as shown in Table 5. 116 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 5. Number of Books Read per Student (N = 260) Number of Books Read M SD Max Min 4253 16.36 11.12 97 0 As shown in Figure 1, the majority of students read 11 to 20 books. The second largest group read 20 to 30 books. A few participants read exceptionally large amounts, up to 97. FIGURE 1. Number of Books Read During the Course. Relationship Between the L2 Reading Amounts and the Practice KSAT Scores The independent samples t-test was performed to investigate the difference in the test score improvement between (+) and (-) participation groups. Prior to the t-test, the 260 participants were divided into 3 divisions of High, Middle, and Low, depending on their practice KSAT scores in June, for the purpose of comparing the test score improvement within similar score ranges. The KSAT grade levels were used to assign the participants into the three divisions. The KSAT divides all test The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 117 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 applicants into 9 grade levels. The percentiles used in the KSAT are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6. KSAT Grade Levels and Distribution of Participants in Each Level Grade Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 96 89 77 60 40 23 11 4 Percentile (%) ~ 96 ~ 89 ~ 77 ~ 60 ~ 40 ~ 23 ~ 11 ~ 4 ~ 0 Frequency 20 46 51 69 31 23 14 6 0 (N = 260) The participants with grade level 1 and 2 were assigned to the High test score division (n = 66), those with grade level 3 and 4 to Middle (n = 120), and those with 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to Low (n = 74). After the participants are assigned to the corresponding divisions, two subgroups, (+) and (-) participation groups, were formed in each division based on their R-points. Table 7 summarizes the amount of reading by each group. The descriptive statistics show that the mean R-points gained by the (+) participation groups were substantially higher than those of the (-) participation groups in all three divisions. In the Middle and Low score divisions, the R-points of most of the participants in the (-) participation groups were not even up to 115, the minimum course requirement. On the other hand, the R-points of most of the students in the High score division received R-points above the course requirement regardless of the participation group they were in. TABLE 7. Summary of Descriptive Statistics for R-points Score (+) Participation (-) Participation Division Frequency M Min Max Frequency M Min Max High 20 390.1 286 1130 20 173.5 100 173 Middle 40 345.1 198 1466 40 120.0 40 148 Low 20 215.3 149 475 20 49.7 0 95 Tables 8, 9, and 10 show the results from the descriptive and inferential statistics. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, in the Low and Middle score divisions, the (+) participation groups’ mean test scores improved more than those of the (-) participation groups. For the low proficiency students, the difference in their test score improvement between the two 118 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 groups was as great as 14.4 points. The independent samples t-test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between the two groups in the Low score division, F(38) = 0.89, t = -3.4, p < .01. For the middle proficiency students, the gap between the two groups somewhat decreased at 5.3 points. Nonetheless, a significant difference was also found between the two groups, F(78) = 1.39, t = -2.43, p < .05. However, when it comes to the high proficiency students, whose pre-test scores were within the top 11%, there was no significant difference between the (+) and (-) participation groups in the High score division (see Table 10). Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d to examine whether the differences have any theoretical significance. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the effect sizes for the differences between the two groups were very large for the Low score division (d = 1.07) and moderate for the Middle score division (d = .55). To sum up, students who read more in the ER program, whose scores ranged from the 0 to 89th percentile in the pre-test, gained higher test scores on the post-test. However, for the students within the top 11 percentiles, the amount they read in the ER program showed no relationship with their improvement in the post-test, as shown in Table 10. TABLE 8. Results of T-test and Descriptive Statistics for Test Score Improvement: Low Division (+) Participation (-) Participation t df Cohen’s d M SD n M SD n Test Score 20 -3.40** 38 Improvement 10.65 14.77 20 -3.75 11.90 1.07 ** p < .01. For Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 might be a “small” effect, around 0.5 a “moderate” effect, and 0.8 to infinity, a “large” effect. TABLE 9. Results of T-test and Descriptive Statistics for Test Score Improvement: Middle Division (+) Participation (-) Participation t df Cohen’s d M SD n M SD n Test Score 1.48 9.08 40 -3.80 10.30 40 -2.43* 78 .55 Improvement Note. * p < .05. The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 119 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 10. Results of T-test and Descriptive Statistics for Test Score Improvement: High Division (+) Participation (-) Participation t df M SD n M SD n Test Score Improvement -1.65 5.00 20 -1.25 4.66 20 -0.26 38 One additional analytic step was employed in order to further investigate the relationship between the students’ test scores and the ER program. The stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the most influential factors on the test scores among L2 learner factors, including the amount read in the ER program. Prior to the regression analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to examine the linear correlation of the post-test scores to the L2 learner factors. As shown in Table 11, reading amount in English, living in English-speaking countries, years of studying English, and formal instruction hours per week were found to be significantly correlated with the students’ post-test scores. TABLE 11. L2 Learner Factors Correlated with Posttest Scores (Pearson correlation coefficients) L2 Learner Factors Post-test Reading amount in English .34** Living in English speaking countries .20** Years of studying English .20** English study hour per day .12 Formal instruction hours per week .14* ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Next, the stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed. The post-test scores were the dependent variables. All of the variables that showed a significant correlation with the post-test scores were selected 120 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 as potential predictors. Table 12 summarizes the descriptive statistics and the results from the stepwise multiple regression analysis. In the preliminary step, “years of studying English” was removed because it did not fit into a significant regression model (default criterion for removal, p = .01). Reading amounts in English, years of living in English-speaking countries, and hours of formal instruction per week were brought into the computation as the independent variables. TABLE 12. Summary Statistics and Results of the Regression Analysis Multiple Regression Variable M SD Weights B β Step 1 Reading amount in English 198.38 150.19 0.05** 0.34 Step 2 Reading amount in English 198.38 150.19 0.05** 0.33 Living in English-speaking countries 0.29 1.10 3.86** 1.78 Step 3 Reading amount in English 198.38 150.19 0.05** 0.34 ** Living in English-speaking countries 0.29 1.10 3.86 0.19 Hours of formal English instruction 3.56 3.78 1.17** 0.19 Note. R2 = .12, F (1, 255) = 33.43 for Step 1, (p < .01); R2 = .15, F (2, 254) = 21.91 for Step 2, (p < .01), R2 = .18, F (3, 253) = 18.63 for Step 3 (p < .01) In each step, a new, independent variable was added into the existing model, starting from the strongest independent variable. The results indicate that the amount that English students read was the most significant predictor of their post-test scores. The influence of the reading amount remained equally strong in the second and third models where it was used, along with the other two independent variables. However, it should be noted that in all of the models, the R2 values, which represent the variance percentage of the independent variables for The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 121 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 the test scores were not very high (12% to 18%). DISCUSSION This study aims to examine the effects of an ER program incorporated into the English curriculum of regular Korean high schools on student KSAT scores. In this section, the findings of this study will be discussed in relation with the literature reviewed. Summary of the Findings Among the three groups, the results from the Low and Middle proficiency groups were very encouraging. The participants who read more in the ER program improved their practice KSAT scores remarkably more than those who read less. This finding is particularly important because as high as 89% of the testing population nationwide can be categorized into these two groups. In other words, almost 9 out of 10 high school students can benefit from an ER program incorporated into the school curriculum. Furthermore, the impact of the ER program on the test scores was confirmed by regression analysis, which indicated that reading quantity was the most influential factor on the post-test scores. However, compared to the impressive observations in the Middle and Low proficiency groups, the impact of the ER program on the High proficiency group was relatively disappointing. This result appears to be consistent with the findings from Elley (1992) and Beglar and Hunt (2014). In both studies, the increasing pattern of reading achievement was observed in middle- and lower-proficiency-level students. However, the increasing pattern weakened or disappeared in higher-level students. Is ER Effective Only for Middle- and Lower-Proficiency Students? In spite of the discouraging results for high-proficiency students obtained in this study, it would be inappropriate to generalize that the benefits of ER are limited to only middle- and low-proficiency learners. There could be several factors that played into the result shown among high-proficiency-level readers. First, this result could be attributed to the 122 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 difficulty of the text. Even though the students in the ER program were required to choose the books in accordance with their reading proficiency levels, the texts available for the highest-level students were not as difficult as the texts used in the practice KSAT. Thus, the immediate effects of the ER program may have been only minimally observed in the higher-level students’ test results. The text difficulty issue in ER will be further discussed in the following section. The next possible explanation is that the post-test was unable to accurately measure the high-proficiency students’ performance because it was easier than the pre-test. The mean score on the practice KSAT in June was 47.7 (BMOE, 2014) while the mean score on the practice KSAT in November soared to 59.2 (GPOE, 2014). Hence, the failure in controlling the difficulty level between the two tests made it difficult to observe improvement in the high-proficiency students’ test performance. Next, the practice KSAT is not an effective measure to assess high-proficiency students’ performance. The raw score of a student whose percentile was 89% in the post-test was 93, which means that this student got only 3 questions wrong out of 45. Based on this lowest score in the high-proficiency group, it can be inferred that higher-scoring students in the High division got two or fewer questions wrong. Therefore, even though the ER program may have made an improvement in their reading ability, the influence would have been extremely difficult to detect with the practice KSAT scores. In addition, intervening variables should be acknowledged. Competition among the high-proficiency students is overwhelmingly fierce. Thus, in order to outperform competitors, they constantly make a lot of effort to hone their reading skills, even outside of the ER program. As a result, the influence of the ER program, in particular, may have been very hard to detect, due to other variables being present for the high-proficiency students. Last, but most importantly, the advancement of high achievers is difficult to measure at any rate. Since the high-proficiency-level students already have attained advanced language knowledge, it is not easy to advance beyond their present advanced level. A considerably large amount of reading would be necessary for high-proficiency-level students to make noticeable progress. Text Difficulty Issue in ER The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 123 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 In connection with the result of the High division students, it is necessary to elucidate the text difficulty issue in ER because this is one of the major concerns related to implementation of ER in Korean high schools. It seems that students, parents, and teachers share these concerns. In Byun’s (2010) study, one of the Korean in-service teachers expressed concerns about the applicability of ER, especially in Korean high schools, mentioning that parents, as well as students, would not agree that ER is helpful in improving high school students’ test scores. This skepticism might have been driven by the belief that reading only texts with a high degree of difficulty could help students deal with the higher difficulty texts or passages on the KSAT. For this reason, Korean high school students are constantly required to read exceedingly difficult English texts, regardless of their level of reading ability. However, a considerable body of literature warns that using texts too difficult for the learner’s proficiency would lead to failure in improving L2 reading. Researchers generally agree upon choosing a text with at least 95% of the running words known to a reader (Laufer, 1989). If more than 5% of the running words are unknown to the reader, comprehension is not ensured. When the reader does not understand the text properly, reading becomes less enjoyable and cannot be sustained. On the other hand, if the text is too easy, learners do not have an opportunity to learn new words. This will also deprive the learners of an opportunity for incidental vocabulary learning. Therefore, choosing proper materials for learners is a decisive factor for the success of L2 reading lessons in general, including an ER program. Nevertheless, many Korean high school students are forced to endure the pain of reading overly difficult text for the sake of a good KSAT score. This widely held myth of using difficult text is reinforced by the success stories of those who survived. What people overlook here is that only a few students enjoy this success while the majority constantly struggles and fails. Pedagogical Implications English teachers in Korea find it enormously challenging to teach lower-proficiency students because there is a huge gap between the difficulty level of the texts used on the KSAT and the students’ linguistic competence. Bored and frustrated, these students are often trapped in a “vicious cycle” (Nuttall, 1996). ER can give these students an opportunity to practice L2 reading with material that suits their 124 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 reading ability, helping to build a firm foundation for more sophisticated reading with texts of a higher difficulty level. According to a recent survey, 67.5% of Korean middle and high school students reported rating their school’s English classes as “unsatisfactory” (Han, 2015). It was also reported that 74.7% of high school students do not think that their English class can enhance their English. To sum up, Korean high school students are forced to sit in for English lessons they do not find beneficial or to their liking for five hours a week. Incorporated in a regular English curriculum for schools, ER can help learners boost their KSAT scores while minimizing the pain of decoding excessively difficult text. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to the commonly held skepticism that ER is not feasible in Korean high school L2 classrooms, where pressure from highstakes testing is notoriously intense, this study provides strong, empirical support for the claim that Extensive Reading leads to substantial improvements in students’ KSAT scores. The analysis confirmed that students who read more than others showed significant improvement in the nationwide practice KSAT than those who read less. This pattern was strong among the lower- and middle-reading-proficiency students but not among the students with high proficiency. In addition, among the L2 learner characteristics, the amount of reading in the ER program was found to be the most influential factor on the students’ test scores. ER is not only feasible in Korean high schools but also urgently needed in a practical sense. Limitations Controlling intervening variables was an enormous challenge in this study. Since the pressure from college admissions is often intense, Korean high school students are constantly involved in a myriad of study schemes designed to improve their test scores. There are also a variety of elements that might play into their test performance, such as aptitude in L2 acquisition, their family’s socioeconomic status, psychological aspects, and so forth. Hence, it is difficult to assert that ER was the only The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 125 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 factor that affected their test performance. I must concede that there must have been countless variables, which were impossible to account for in this study. A study with a more experimental and laboratory-like setting could allow more accurate measurements. However, it should be noted that those types of studies would have less applicability than a study conducted in a real-life setting. Suggestions for Future Study The following questions should be investigated further in a future study: 1. How do the results change with more class hours dedicated to ER? 2. How can ER be implemented in various high school contexts, such as boys’ and co-ed schools, vocational schools, and special purpose schools? 3. How can an ER program be designed to contribute to the improvement of high-proficiency level learners? THE AUTHOR Jonghee Youn has been teaching EFL students at Paiwha Girls’ High School, Seoul, Korea since 2002. He received his MA in TEFL from St. Cloud State University and his BA from Korea University. Due to his teaching background in the public sector, his interests are in developing more effective and enjoyable ways for both teachers and learners of English in the Korean high school context. Email:
[email protected]REFERENCES Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257-79. Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2014). Pleasure reading and reading rate gains. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 29-48. Busan Metropolitan Office of Education (BMOE). (2014). Results and analysis of 1st-year high school nationwide overall scholastic ability 126 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 evaluation administered on June 12, 2014 (Document Index No. 4411). Retrieved from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, Information Center website: http://www.sen.go.kr/web/services/bbs/bbsList.action? bbsBean.bbsCd=105 Byun, J. (2011). Korean EFL teachers’ perspectives about their participation in an extensive reading program. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(12), 4339. Cha, J.-E. (2009). The effects of extensive reading on enhancing vocational high school students’ L2 vocabulary and reading rates. English Teaching, 64(3), 3-30. Cho, K., & Krashen, S. D. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37(8). 662-667. Constantino, R., Lee, S., Cho, K., & Krashen, S. (1997). Free voluntary reading as a predictor of TOEFL scores. Applied Language Learning, 8(1), 111-118. Day, R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136-141. Day, R. (2011). Bringing extensive reading into the classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. Hamburg, Germany: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gradman, H., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 39-51. Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education (GPOE). (2014). Results and analysis of 1st-year high school nationwide overall scholastic ability evaluation administered on November 18, 2014 (Document Index No. 4473). Retrieved from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, Information Center website: http://www.sen.go.kr/web/services/bbs/ bbsList.action?bbsBean.bbsCd=105 Han, K. (2007). Extensive reading for Korean high school students in an EFL setting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Seogang University, Seoul, Korea. Han, D. (2012). 68% of high and middle students are not satisfied with school English lessons. Retrieved from http://www.veritas-a.com/news/ articleView.html?idxno=35875 The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 127 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Judge, P. B. (2011). Driven to read: Enthusiastic readers in a Japanese high school’s extensive reading program. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(2), 161-186. Korean kids most stressed in the world. (2015, March 12). Retrieved from ChosunMedia/The ChosunIlbo website: http://english.chosun.com/site/ data/html_dir/2015/03/12/2015031201934.html Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman. Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Komiyama, R. (2013). Factors underlying second language reading motivation of adult EAP students. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 149-169. Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation. (n.d.). Outline of practice test of KSAT. Retrieved from http://suneung.re.kr/contents.do?contentsNo= 22&menuNo=226 Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE). (2015). Outline of practice test of KSAT. Retrieved from the KICE website: http://www.suneung.re.kr/sub/info.do?m=0201&s=suneung Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316-323). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Nation, P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. The Language Teacher Online, 21(5). Retrieved from http://jalt-publications. org/tlt/files/97/may/benefits.html Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language (2nd ed.). London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books. Mori, S. (1999). The role of motivation in the amount of reading. Temple University Japan Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 14, 51-68. Shin, E. (2014). Extensive reading and the English section of Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test. The Journal of Extensive Reading in Foreign Languages, 1(1), 21-41. Susser, B., & Robb, T. (1990). EFL extensive reading instruction: Research and procedure. JALT Journal, 12(2), 161-185. Stoeckel, T., Reagan, N., & Hann, F. (2012). Extensive reading quizzes and reading attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 187-198. Stoller, F. L., Anderson, N. J., Grabe, W., & Komiyama, R. (2013). Instructional enhancements to improve students’ reading abilities. English Teaching Forum, 51(1), 2-11. Storey, C, Gibson, K, & Williamson, R. (2006). Can extensive reading boost 128 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TOEIC scores? JALT 2005 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1168-1179. Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students’ motivation for extensive L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 1-18. Walker, C. (1997). A self-access extensive reading project using graded readers (with particular reference to students of English for academic purposes). Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(1), 121-149. Waring, R. (n.d.). Getting an extensive reading program going. Retrieved from http://extensivereading.net/docs/get_ER_going.pdf The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 129 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX A Participant Survey Personal Information 1. Provide your student ID number. __________ <(ex.) 10325> 2. Have you lived in English speaking countries? __ No / For ______ years _________ months 3. How many Korean books do you read for fun a year? ______ books per year 4. When did you start to learn English? a. Before school age b. Grade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (circle one) c. In middle school 5. Have you been in a program similar to this ER program before? Yes __ / No __ 6. How many hours do you study English a day? (except for school English classes) ___ hours 7. How many hours do you study English at a hagwon or afterschool program in a week? ___ hours 130 Jong-hee Youn Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX B Screenshot of the Online Survey The Effect of Extensive Reading on KSAT Scores 131 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 132 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam Thuy Ngoc Dinh Monash University, Victoria, Australia Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Vietnam Research on culture in ELT materials in the era of English as an international language has been of pivotal concern. In such a global climate, English is attached to multiple cultures, including the local. Korea and Vietnam share similar characteristics as Asian EFL contexts, and the focus is on intercultural communication in the revised national curriculum. This study was conducted on a locally developed English textbook for Vietnamese grade 10 students as a case study to investigate the culture representations, as well as students’ comprehension of the cultures embedded in texts/visuals and the relation of these cultures to their own self-experience. The data reveals the dominance of the Vietnamese culture but also students’ incomplete comprehension of the local culture in the material. It informs English teachers in similar contexts of analytical tools to deal with culture and the importance of prompting interaction between the textbook and students’ self-experience. It suggests that attention be focused on culture within and beyond texts both in teaching and research. INTRODUCTION The intertwined relationship between culture and ELT has been of central focus over the last few decades. Numerous scholars such as Abdullah and Chandran (2009), Kramsch (1998), Hinkel (1999), and Zohrabi (2010) have argued for the integration of culture in language education, for a lack of cultural aspects can lead to superficial understanding of the language and miscommunication. There is a Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 133 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 growing body of research involving major issues such as culture representation in textbooks (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; Lo Bianco, 2003; McKay, 2003, 2006, 2012; Olajide, 2010; Orton, 2010; Seelye, 1984), incorporating culture in ELT (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994; Nguyen, 2005), teachers’ perception of culture (Byram & Risager, 1999), and students’ comprehension of culture in textbooks (Canagarajah, 1993). South Korea (hereafter Korea) and Vietnam are similar in that they are EFL contexts with a goal towards globalization and intercultural communication. Therefore, the role of culture has fuelled boundless discussions. The two countries have acknowledged the role of English as a global language and intercultural communication in their national English curriculum. In Korea, English is viewed as a key to participation in the international community, necessary for the political and economic growth of the nation (Jung & Norton, 2002; Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2008, as cited in Song, 2013; Park, 2009; Yim, 2007). As such, students’ ability to interact and negotiate in intercultural interactions is crucial (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2008, as cited in Song, 2013). Likewise, in Vietnam, English is referred to as “the key to local and regional participation” (Le, 2000), which is also reflected in the National Foreign Language Education Project 2020, implemented in 2008. The project puts an emphasis on the ability to communicate competently with different speakers of English (Nguyen, 2012). The role of culture and intercultural communication, as seen, has become more emphasized in both contexts. This has resulted in a rising interest in culture-focused research addressing the representation of culture in ELT materials both in Vietnam (Dinh, 2007; Dinh, 2014; Nguyen, 2005) and in Korea (I. Lee, 2009; K. Lee, 2009; Song, 2013; Yim, 2007). The cited studies reveal the dominance of specific groups of cultures, either those of inner-circle countries or the local cultures within the textbooks, rather than a mixture of various cultural groups. In other words, ELT textbooks fail to capture the cross-cultural interaction, hybridization, and critical reflections (Song, 2013) needed for students to understand English as a means of intercultural communication. This reality motivates a serious re-examination of the goal of intercultural communication in ELT of both contexts. Intercultural communication (IC) has attracted remarkable attention and can be categorized into various types of competence, such as 134 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 multidialectal competence (Canagarajah, 2006), intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997, 2000), and meta-cultural competence (Sharifian, 2013), to name just a few. These types of competence direct away from so-called native-speaker competence to the awareness of various cultures, including students’ local cultures, positive attitudes towards cultural differences, and different intercultural communication strategies. In an effort to achieve such objectives, as argued by Tseng (2002), culture should be seen as a process of transaction involving students’ recognition of their own culture together with others. Tseng maintains that “classroom environments must allow and encourage students to recognize their own culture, to transact with cultures outside their unique, individual culture, and to reflect on these transactions” (Tseng, 2002, p. 16). Several former studies in both Korea and Vietnam show that there is a dramatic lack of research “around the text.” In other words, most studies focus on how cultures are represented in the textbooks rather than how teachers and students deal with the culture in textbooks. Sunderland, Cowley, Rahim, Leontzakou, and Shattuck (2000) explain that the “in the text” approach looks into the text content, working with texts, whereas the “around the text” approach gears towards teachers’ and students’ exploration of texts in textbooks. Hence, there is a real need for research into students’ ability to recognize and reflect on their own culture, and negotiate between the cultures in the text and in their own context. This article reports on the examination of a locally developed English textbook in Vietnam as a case study for analysis in culture representations and students’ comprehension of sociocultural factors embedded in the textbook. The study springs from four primary motives: (a) English textbooks are regarded as a source of input and a lens through which to view cultures (Kramsch, 1998; McKay, 2012), (b) students’ learning of a language should go beyond the understanding of linguistic aspects to the sociocultural layers as well (Hinkel, 1999; Kramsch, 1998; McConachy, 2009; Orton, 2009), (c) research into textbooks should take into consideration both “in the text” and “around the text” approaches (Sunderland et al., 2000), and (d) the demographic changes transforming Korea into a multicultural society (Cho, 2010; Cho & Park, 2014) with large populations of children of Sino-Korean, Filipino-Korean, and Vietnamese-Korean heritage now entering the public school systems. Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 135 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 As a multicultural society, Korea places high importance on multicultural education. Such an emphasis, as Cho and Park (2014) ascertain, needs to be addressed in textbooks. The concern is echoed in a number of studies illustrating how multicultural education and multicultural values have not been adequately covered in Korean textbooks (Cho & Park, 2014). This case study on a locally produced English textbook in Vietnam introduces to ELT scholars and practitioners in Korea an example of how the Vietnamese culture is revealed and how Vietnamese students comprehend and relate the culture in the textbook to their cultural experience. Coping with the issues both “in” and “around texts,” the study aims to investigate via a sample text the sociocultural factors embedded in English 10, currently used by high school students in grade 10 across Vietnam; the students’ comprehension of these factors; and their relation of the factors to their own culture. The research questions that this study addresses include 1. How is culture represented in the locally developed English textbook? 1a. Whose culture(s) are represented? 1b. What sociocultural factors are embedded in the text? 2. To what extent do students understand the culture in the selected text? 3. To what extent can students relate the culture in the text to their own experience? As can be seen, the first question, with its sub-questions, deals with which cultures and what sociocultural factors are represented in the textbook. The second and third questions focus on students’ comprehension of culture within and beyond the text. THEORETICAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS Over the last three decades, culture as a concept has attracted numerous definitions and interpretations (Atkinson, 1999; Geertz, 1973; 136 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Kramsch, 1998). Lo Bianco (2003) observed that the concept of culture remains “complex and elusive” (p. 11). Over time, culture has been recognized to be “emergent,” “dynamic,” and “diverse”; as in the definition by Clifford (1986), culture is not “an object to be described...[nor] a unified corpus of symbols and meanings that can be definitely interpreted; [it] is contested, temporal, and emergent” (p. 19). This recognition has several implications for ELT, one of which is the emphasis on students’ ability to interact, negotiate, and reflect within and beyond the culture embedded in textbooks they learn with. Instead of trying to give a precise definition of culture, researchers have geared their attention to classifying culture into different types or layers. These classification models include cultural artefacts, cultural knowledge, and cultural behaviors as classified by Spradley (1972); “big C/small c” by many scholars including Moran (2001) and Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein, and Colby (2003); four senses of culture by Adaskou, Britten, and Fahsi (1990); and orientations of culture by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). In this study, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) orientations of culture were implemented to uncover human nature, the relations between human and nature, relations among humans, and the time and activity of participants embedded in the textbook under analysis. To be specific, the orientations can be specified as follows: · Human nature orientation (evil, neutral/mixture of good and evil, good). · Human being-nature orientation (subjugation to nature, harmony with nature, mastery over nature). · Time orientation (past, present, future). · Activity orientation (being, being-in-becoming, doing). · Relational (or human relations) orientation (lineality, collaterality, individualism). (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 11) Later, Condon and Yousef (1975) modified the model and made it into twenty-five orientations, which is actually a more elaborate model compared to that of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Based on the two models, these key orientations of culture were deduced: space orientation (privacy/non-privacy), human relations orientation (relationship among participants in texts), man-nature orientation (relationship between Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 137 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 human participants and non-human participants in texts) and human nature orientation (how human participants are featured, for example, punctual/unpunctual, etc.). These key orientations were analyzed in the studies by Nguyen (2005) and Dinh (2007) on English textbooks used in Vietnam. This framework advocates analysis beyond the surface linguistic level and draws attention to sociocultural factors embedded in texts and visuals. In working with culture, specifically in textbooks, previous studies by Kitao (1979, 1982), Basabe (2006), Krishraswamy and Aziz (1983), Hajjai (1981), Song (2013), Turkan and Celik (2007), and Wu (2010) have shown that it is essential to identify whose culture is represented prior to any in-depth analysis being made of that culture. Former studies looked for different cultural hints such as proper names, location, adjectives (in Yamanaka, 2006), or the context of the situation (topic, participant, setting, action; in Nguyen, 2005). Orton (2009), based on the works of Ramirez and Hall (1990), Gee (1999), and Freebody (2003), proposed sociocultural elements including topics, participants, actions, and attitudes of participants in her comprehensive study on English textbooks in China. The current study used these sociocultural elements by Orton (2009) together with other cultural hints such as proper names and nouns/adjectives related to a specific culture to gain an answer to whose culture was represented. So far the sociocultural elements and the orientations of culture allowing for analysis related to the research questions have been presented. Recent proposals in the field indicate that studies in materials should go from “in the text” to “around the text” (Sunderland et al., 2000). What is meant by “around the text,” according to Sunderland and colleagues, is the focus should be on how teachers deal with content in textbooks rather than the textbook content, itself. The researchers add that it also includes students’ reactions to text content, in this particular case, their comprehension of text with different layers of meanings, on both linguistic and cultural levels. With respect to literature on students’ comprehension of textbook cultural content, there have been limited studies, especially in the context of Vietnam. One of these studies was done by Dinh (2007), who demonstrated students’ lack of cultural knowledge in approaching texts, hindering reading comprehension to a great extent. She, however, did not focus on students’ relation of the material to their own cultural background or experience, which is, as Canagarajah (1993), Morgan 138 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1997), and Shin, Eslami, and Chen (2011) ascertain, very crucial in making sense of culture embeddedness and becoming aware of cultural diversity. This study, in an attempt to address the gap in research on culture “in” and “around the text,” examines the representations of culture and students’ comprehension of cultural content in English 10. THE STUDY Materials The material under study is English 10, a textbook currently used for students in grade 10 nationwide. The locally developed English textbooks for Vietnamese high school students include a junior high school series (from English 6 to English 9), and a senior high school series (English 10, 11, and 12). These series of English textbooks were under production from 2002 to 2007 and began being used in schools in 2008. There are two versions of English 10, 11, and 12: the basic and advanced versions. The basic version is used at most high schools in Vietnam, while the advanced set is used at high schools for the elite or in classes for students majoring in English at several high schools. Based on its widespread use and the fact that it is representative of locally developed curricular materials based on the study by Dinh (2014), the basic version of English 10 was selected. As it is a case study, the researcher chose one textbook rather than many, to give space for in-depth analysis. The textbook has 16 units focusing on 16 topics. Each unit contains materials aiming to develop the four macro-skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing plus a language-focus section focusing on grammar and pronunciation. The reading section plays a key role since it provides the lexical and grammatical input and topics for the other three skills (Hoang, 2006). Images are inserted in each text as illustrations. For the purpose of this research, the reading parts in English 10 were analyzed. Participants There were 40 students aged 16 in the nine-week teaching phase of Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 139 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 the research – one of eight classes in Grade 10 at a high school in Ho Chi Minh City. Of the 40 students, 14 were males coded as M1 to M14, and 26 were females coded as F1 to F26. They were from Ho Chi Minh City. The researcher was in charge of this class of students during the first semester, teaching from Unit 1 to Unit 8, and conducted a questionnaire on the chosen unit, Unit 1. It is noted here that after the analysis was conducted on whose culture it was and how culture was portrayed, the researcher decided to choose this unit since it represents Vietnamese culture and lends itself to several sociocultural factors to explore. Besides, it is the first unit of the semester, so students were not used to what the teacher and researcher expected and would not answer the questionnaire according to the teacher’s expectations. The researcher focused on only one unit as an example to showcase how culture is captured and how students understand the cultural content in an in-depth manner. Analysis Procedure This research consisted of three stages: text analysis, text presentation, and text reflection. In the first stage, the researcher analyzed 16 texts looking for culture representations and selected Unit 1. The researcher relied on materials from several Vietnamese cultural studies to analyze how the English text captures the local Vietnamese culture in the book. The second stage, text presentation, followed a two-step process: pre-questionnaire and in-class discussion. A week before the reading session, each student was given a questionnaire (see Appendix A). They were asked to answer in writing and hand the questionnaire in to the teacher three days before the class. From their answers to the questionnaire, the researchers could find out how much they could understand culture in the text and how they related it to their own culture. The researcher kept a journal to note down these issues, and the class was conducted in light of these data. The text reflection involved a journal kept by the researcher during the pre-questionnaire period, during in-class discussion, and after class. The researcher logged entries on how students showcased their understanding of “in the text” and “around the text” issues through their responses to the questionnaire, took notes while students had discussions about the text in class, and added further information to the journal after the class. 140 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Below is a summary of the techniques employed to find information related to the research questions. TABLE 1. Procedure of Analysis, Aims, and Methods of Collection Procedure of Aims Methods of Collection Analysis Text and visual To explore the analysis based on the representations of culture in Text preparation English 10 frameworks by Orton (before class) To explore sociocultural (2009), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), factors embedded in the and Condon and chosen text Yousef (1975) Text presentation To find out how students (before class and Questionnaire comprehend culture Researcher’s journal in class) embedded in the chosen text Text reflection To find out how students (before class, in relate the culture to a class, and after broader context and their Researcher’s journal class) self-experience Data Analysis and Findings Culture Representation in English 10 This section presents the representation of culture across 16 units in English 10 in terms of whose cultures they are and how the cultures are represented. Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix B) capture a summary of the findings and notable cultural issues for investigation based on the questionnaires and in-class discussion. The analysis has given rise to three major findings. First, the local culture, Vietnamese, is predominantly represented while other cultures, such as American, Australian, French, Dutch, and Brazilian, take up a very minimal share. These other countries represent both inner-circle English-speaking countries and expanding-circle English-speaking countries (terms by Kachru, 1992). Second, there are up to five texts, nearly one-third of the whole textbook, introducing no particular country’s culture, as the content Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 141 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 revolves around universal and/or general issues such as environment, technology, and computers without cultural hints. Third, the four orientations of culture, based on and largely found in the texts and visuals in the textbook, are mainly Vietnamese. The space orientation is not made clear but is implicitly non-private as the participants experience close-knit relationships in the text rather than constructing an independent space of their own. The human relations orientation is mainly embedded in family and neighborhoods that are described in the text to be cohesive and inter-influential for social and civic responsibilities, such as a wife assisting a husband, parents influencing children’s education decisions, and neighbors being on good terms with each other. The man-nature relation is depicted across texts to be harmonious, with humans working with animals, protecting the environment, and respecting nature. Human nature is portrayed to be family-oriented, community-oriented, education-oriented, and hard-working. Culture in Texts and Students’ Comprehension and Relation This section displays the analysis of culture embedded in the chosen text of Unit 1 in the textbook and students’ understanding of culture in and beyond the text, based on their answers to the questionnaire and in-class discussion. The questionnaire given to students prior to class addressed sociocultural elements (topics, participants, actions, and attitudes of participants), four orientations of culture, their understanding of the fundamental values and beliefs, and their relation to their own context and experience. Unit 1 (see Appendix C) was chosen for investigation for the reasons mentioned in the previous section. Table 4 (see Appendix B) summarizes the key culture orientations recognized in the text with the number of students who were able to recognize these orientations in their questionnaire responses. There are three major sociocultural issues in this text significant for evaluating students’ cultural comprehension: neighborhood, family, and social interaction (e.g., tea drinking). In the text, participants are described as having a close neighborhood relationship through the details of taking a rest and having tea with each other in a field as well as visiting each other for socializing after work. The close bond among neighbors in many parts of Vietnam has been documented in many previous studies, such as those by Ly (2014) and Tran (2001, 2013). Also, family roles, specifically the roles of husband and wife, are 142 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 boldly depicted across the text and visual illustrations. The husband is represented as the breadwinner, handling the heavy, primary workload and being work-oriented, whereas the wife is represented as his assistant, responsible for less heavy tasks and being family-oriented, showing care and emotion. These cultural images are made vivid in the details of the man “lead[ing] the buffalo” and “plough[ing] and harrow[ing his] plot of land” and the woman “do[ing] the transplanting,” “chat[ting with neighbors] about [their] work, [their] children and [their] plans for the next crop” and how she and her husband “love working and love [their] children.” They are also revealed in the visual with the husband clearly in front with the main labor aid (i.e., the buffalo), while the wife is quite small and far behind in the photo. The social roles and gender representations of husband and wife introduced in the text correspond with those documented in several Vietnamese cultural studies and sociology such as Hirschman and Vu (1996), Tran (1991), and Whitmore (1984). In these studies, scholars acknowledged that headship is normally assumed by men in many Vietnamese families. Another sociocultural practice represented in the text is tea drinking. The main characters drink tea in the morning before work, during break with fellow colleagues, and after work with neighbors. These three social drinking times illustrate the Vietnamese sociocultural value of tea, which is seen as more than just a type of beverage. Studies by Ly (2014), Tong and Pham (2012), and Wenner (2011) demonstrate that tea drinking is perceived as a practice to refresh people’s minds and reinforce friendships and relationships in general. These three cultural values were brought to students’ attention in the questionnaire to examine their awareness and comprehension of them. It can be understood from their responses that students struggled to understand these values. Only one student described the roles of husband and wife as breadwinner and caregiver, respectively, based on the text and visual, and only four students reached the level of unpacking the cultural values of tea drinking as mind refreshment and friendship reinforcement. The remainder of the students simply described tea as a type of beverage. When asked to relate the text to the broader context of Vietnamese culture, students did not display confidence, especially with respect to fundamental values and beliefs for cultural practices. To be specific, their responses to the questionnaire and in-class discussion demonstrated that most students could not understand why tea is important, how it is Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 143 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 represented in the text, or why most Vietnamese people place high importance on the family and neighborhood. The focus on the family, neighborhood, and tea drinking depicted in this unit compared to those documented in some Vietnamese cultural studies indicates that textbooks are a reflection of the local culture. However, in reality, culture is heterogeneously distributed across groups and individuals; hence, there are variations within a culture. It is, as such, essential to initiate this awareness by asking students to relate the text to their local context and individual experience. Data from the students’ questionnaire and researcher’s journal revealed students’ awareness of the variations in Vietnamese society, since their experience proves that, for example, not all the Vietnamese people drink tea in the same manner or develop a tight neighborhood bond. As M1 stated, “What is in the text is not true for all Vietnamese, like my family lives in the big city and we do not drink tea like my grandfather in the countryside [...] we drink coke, or cold water”; or as F6 wrote, “We used to have close neighbourhood but now many new people come and go in my place. The relationship among us is getting less close.... I think in big cities neighbourhood can’t be compared with that in the rural area.” The majority of students in the class, as noted in the journal, through their specific examples from everyday life, came to recognize the similarities and differences between their situations and the text content. They challenged the idea that what is represented in the textbook represents Vietnamese culture as a whole. Discussion and Relevance to the Korean ELT Context As Ndura (2004) emphasized, “The content of instructional materials significantly affects students’ attitudes and dispositions towards themselves, other people, and society” (p. 143). It is therefore significant to investigate the content, especially the cultural content, since in many contexts textbooks are regarded as a “legitimized” resource of knowledge and culture and “ideological constructions,” and therefore “help set the canons of truthfulness and, as such, also help recreate a major reference point for what knowledge, culture, belief, and morality really are” (Apple, 1990, p. 20). This study shares a similar scope with that of Song (2013), who analyzed four high school English textbooks for Grade 10 in Korea that were also locally published. The findings indicate the dominant 144 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 representation of Korean and/or American cultures rather than a range of cultures in intercultural contacts. Similarly, the textbook under study for Vietnamese 10th-graders mainly reflects local Vietnamese culture and fails to capture cultural diversity. The values of inner- and outer-circle English-speaking nations are not widely depicted, nor how these cultural norms intersect, or not, with Vietnamese cultural practices. Additionally, the Vietnamese textbook only depicts tangible practices of culture and does not address the beliefs and ideologies behind those surface-level cultural practices. The substantial impact of local culture on textbooks has been widely discussed in other contexts, such as Kuwait, Iran, and China, as in Cortazzi and Jin (1999), Hajjaj (1981), Krishraswamy and Aziz (1983), Majdzadeh (2002), Shin, Eslami, and Chen (2011), and Wu (2010). They propose that more cultures should be included in textbook content, not just the local culture. Shin et al. (2011) highlighted that “textbooks should incorporate learners’ diverse racial and cultural backgrounds and empower them to identify different voices and perspectives” (p. 253). The textbook under study does not incorporate multiple cultures, yet this research shows that by asking students to relate the text to their experience, culture variations and students’ cultural backgrounds can be brought into attention and discussion. Previous studies on culture in ELT textbooks in South Korea by I. Lee (2009), K. Lee (2009), Song (2013), and Yim (2007), and in Vietnam by Dinh (2007) and Dinh (2014) predominantly employ the in-text approach. This study combines two approaches, both in and around texts, which helps gain an answer to how culture is represented and how students make sense of the cultural content and relate it to their own situation. In so doing, culture has been treated as a process rather than a product, for the culture in a textbook needs to be linked to the students’ situations to provoke their understanding, awareness, and reflection. This research also reveals that the locally developed textbook reflects a large part of the local culture both in visuals and texts. However, it does not truly capture cultural reality, which is far more diverse and heterogeneous. Students’ relation of the text to their own cultural experiences showcases that cultural variation occurs not only across nations or regions but also across individuals. It raises the implication for both the Korean and Vietnamese contexts that importance should be placed not only on what and how cultures are represented in ELT textbooks but also on how teachers facilitate the relationship between Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 145 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 texts and reality to draw students’ attention to cultural variations and encourage critical reflection when dealing with culture. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In this study of culture representation, students’ comprehension of sociocultural factors embedded in the textbook English 10 and their relation of the culture to their own self-experience were analyzed and discussed. The analysis revealed the dominance of Vietnamese culture over others. Both text and visuals in the English textbook mainly project Vietnamese society in terms of space, the relationship between participants, the participants’ nature, and the relationship between participants and surrounding objects. What has been found is that the local culture, with close ties among family and community members, an education orientation, hard work, and harmony with nature, is made explicit. Students, nevertheless, struggled to comprehend and explain most of these sociocultural practices, values, and beliefs within their own culture. This implies that local students are not always aware of the ideologies and beliefs behind their local cultural practices, viewing them simply as superficial actions and not considering the roles they play in society. Additionally, students may not always relate to historically common dominant practices in their local culture, as many sub-cultures exist within any culture. As a result, local culture presented in textbooks may not always be familiar to the local students, as the awareness and comprehension of culture both in and beyond texts need to be taken into account. On relating what is presented in the text to their experience, students came to realize that variations and diversity exist within a country and challenged the idea that the representation in the textbook could truly capture multiple cultural dimensions in reality. Even though students’ attitudes toward the incorporation of culture through culture-based questions was not included in this study, some students did admit their awareness of and interest in analyzing culture was heightened. The revised national curricula in Korea and Vietnam are similar in that they stress the roles of culture and intercultural communication. In fulfilling the goal, as argued by many scholars in the two contexts such as Song (2013) and Dinh (2014), there is a need to incorporate cultural 146 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 diversity, intercultural interactions, and critical reflections. Korea has undergone changes from a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural society to a multicultural society thanks to immigrants with the purpose of education, employment, or international marriage (Cho, 2010). This demographic change across domains, together with globalization at regional and international levels, creates chances for intercultural communication inside and outside of Korea among different ethnic groups. As such, textbooks need to better represent multiple cultures and multiculturalism – to better represent the emerging transformations in the Korean population in general. Besides, textbooks and textbook users need to attend to students’ relation of the text to their own context as an acknowledgement of cultural diversity. THE AUTHOR Thuy Ngoc Dinh is currently a PhD candidate and teaching staff at the School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Australia. She is a lecturer of English at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Vietnam. Her areas of research include cultural linguistics, English as an international language, world Englishes, lexical innovations, intercultural communication, and ELT curriculum. Email:
[email protected]/
[email protected]REFERENCES Abdullah, N., & Chandran, S. K. (2009). Cultural elements in a Malaysian English language textbook. Retrieved from http://ddms.usim.edu.my/ bitstream/handle Adaskou, K., Britten, D., & Fahsi, B. (1990). Design decisions on the cultural content of a secondary English course for Morocco. ELT Journal, 44(1), 3-10. Apple, M. (1990).The text and cultural politics. Journal of Educational Thought, 24(3A), 17-33. Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 625-654. Basabe, E. A. (2006). From de-Anglicization to internationalisation: Cultural representations of the UK and the USA in global, adapted and local ELT textbooks in Argentina. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 147 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Development, 7(1), 59-75. Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and teaching popular media. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2000). Assessing intercultural competence in language teaching. Sprogforum, 18(6), 8-13. Byram, M., & Risager, K. (1999). Language teachers, politics and cultures. Sydney, Australia: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). American textbooks and Tamil students: Discerning ideological tensions in the ESL classroom. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6(2), 143-156. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218. Cho, Y. D. (2010). Policy note: Diversification of the student population and multicultural educational policies in Korea. Research in Sociology of Education, 17, 183-198. Cho, Y., & Park, Y. (2014). “Textbook as a contradictory melting pot”: An analysis of multicultural content in Korean textbooks. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34, 1-20. Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 196-219). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. S. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. Dinh, N. T. (2007). Teaching English for intercultural communication: Culture in textbooks (Unpublished MA thesis). HCMC University of Education, Ho Chi Min City, Vietnam. Dinh, N. T. (2014). Culture representation in locally developed English textbooks. In R. Chowdhury & R. Marlina (Eds.), Enacting English across borders: Critical studies in the Asia Pacific (pp. 143-167). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, UK: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, 148 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 NY: Basic Books. Hajjaj, A. S. (1981, December). English language teaching in Kuwait. Teaching English Abroad Newsletter. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hinkel, E. (1999). Introduction: Culture in research and second language pedagogy. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1-7). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hirschman, C., & Vu, M. L. (1996). Family and household structure in Vietnam: Some glimpses from a recent survey. Pacific Affairs, 69(2), 229-249. Hoang, V. V. (Ed.). (2006). Doi moi phuong phap day tieng Anh o trung hoc pho thong Viet Nam [Reforming English teaching methods at a high school in Vietnam]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publisher. Hoang, V. V. (Ed.). (2006). Tieng Anh 10 [English 10]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publisher. Jung, S., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary english program. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kitao, K. (1979). The present situation in the teaching of American culture in English course in Japan: Analysis of junior and senior high school English textbooks in Japan. Doushisha Studies in English, 21, 90-130. Kitao, K. (1982). Developing reading materials for teaching American culture in English courses. English Teaching Journal [College English Teachers Association of Korea], 24(1), 211-222. Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Krishraswamy, N., & Aziz, S. A. (1983). Understanding values, TEIL and the third world. In L. Smith (Ed.), Readings in English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Le, C. V. (2000). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. In J. Shaw, D. Lubelsk, & M. Noullet (Eds.), Partnership and Interaction: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development (pp. 73-79). Bangkok, Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology. Lee, I. (2009). Situated globalisation and racism: An analysis of Korean high school EFL textbooks. Language and Literacy, 11(1), 1-14. Lee, K. Y. (2009). Treating culture: What 11 high school EFL conversation Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 149 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 textbooks in South Korea do. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(1), 76-96. Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Culture: Visible, invisible and multiple. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching invisible culture: Classroom practice and theory (pp. 11-38). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia. Ly, K. C. (2014). Viet Nam: Van hoa va phong tuc [Vietnam: Cultures and customs]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Hong Duc Publishing House. Majdzadeh, M. (2002). Disconnection between language and culture: A case study of Iranian English textbooks. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=ED474691 McConachy, T. (2009). Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis: Some tools for teachers. ELT Journal, 63(2), 116-125. McKay, S. (2003). Teaching English as an international context: The Chilean context. ELT Journal 57(2), 139-148. McKay, S. L. (2006). EIL curriculum development. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 114-129). London, UK: Continuum. McKay, S. (2012). Teaching materials for English as an international language. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 70-83). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Morgan, B. (1997). Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 431-450. Moran P. R. (2001). Teaching culture: Perspectives in practice. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Ndura, E. (2004). ESL and cultural bias: An analysis of elementary through high school textbooks in the western United States of America. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(2), 143-153. Nguyen, H. N. (2012). National foreign language education project 2020. Paper presented at the Fourth “Engaging with Vietnam: Interdisciplinary Dialogues” Conference. East-West Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Nguyen, T. T. (2005). Incorporating culture into English language teaching in Vietnam (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Olajide, S. B. (2010). A critical assessment of the cultural content of two primary English textbooks used in Nigeria. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 656-661. Orton, J. (2009). “Just a Tool”: The role of English in the curriculum. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & Y. Gao (Eds.), China and English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 137-154). Bristol, UK: 150 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Multilingual Matters. Orton, J. (2010). Culture and English materials. In H. Widodo & G. Park (Eds.), Materials design in English language teaching. Munich, Germany: Lincoln. Paige, R. M., Jorstad, H. L., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A review of the literature. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp. 173-236). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Park, J. S. Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Ramirez, G. A., & Hall, K. J. (1990). Language and culture in secondary level in Spanish textbooks. Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 48-65. Seelye, H. N. (1984). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Sharifian, F. (2013). Globalisation and developing meta-cultural competence in learning English as an international language. Multilingual Education, 3(7), 1-11. Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W.-C. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture in current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(3), 253-268. Song, H. (2013). Deconstruction of cultural dominance in Korean EFL textbooks. Intercultural Education, 24(4), 382-390. Spradley, J. (1972). Culture and cognition: Rules, maps and plans. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Rahim, F. A., Leontzakou, C., & Shattuck, J. (2000). From “bias in the text” to “teacher talk around the text”: An exploration of teacher discourse and gendered foreign language textbook texts. Linguistics and Education Journal, 11(3), 251-286. Tong, N. T., & Pham, V. H. (2012). Hanh trang van hoa Viet Nam [Vietnamese cultural knowledge]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Culture and Information. Tran, H. T. (1991). Van hoa gia dinh Viet Nam [The culture of Vietnamese families] (3rd ed.). Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Hong Duc Publications. Tran, N. T. (2001). Tim ve ban sac van hoa Viet Nam [Discovering the identity of Vietnamese culture] (3rd ed.). Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City Publications. Tran, N. T. (2013). Nhung van de van hoa hoc ly luan va ung dung [Cultural issues: Theories and implementations]. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Theatre Arts. Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 151 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Tseng, Y.-H. (2002). A lesson in culture. ELT Journal, 56(1), 11-21. Turkan, S., & Celik, S. (2007). Integrating culture in EFL texts and classroom: Suggested lesson plans. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 1(1), 18-33. Wenner, R. (2011). The deep roots of Vietnamese tea: Culture, production and prospects for development. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, 1159-1213. Whitmore, J. K. (1984). Social organisation and Confucian thought in Vietnam. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 296-306. Wu, J. (2010). A content analysis of the cultural content in the EFL textbooks. Canadian Social Science, 6(5), 137-144. Yamanaka, N. (2006). An evaluation of English textbooks in Japan from the viewpoint of nations in the inner, outer, and expanding circles. JALT Journal, 28(1), 57-76. Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. Tsui and J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 37-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zohrabi, M. (2010). Cultural considerations in language teaching: The role of English in the globalised era. Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 165-186. 152 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX A Questionnaire for Text 1 Read the text and fill in this summary table. Topic Characters (both human and non-human) in the text and visual Characters’ activities/actions Attitudes of characters as described in the text and visual 1. What work do Mr. Vy and Mrs. Tuyet do (based on text and visual image)? What does it show about their roles? 2. What do you know about the roles of husband and wife in the Vietnamese family? In your specific culture? 3. What are their attitudes to their work? How do you know? 4. What is the relation between the buffalo and the peasant couple? Does the buffalo have any role? 5. What do you know about the role of buffalo in Vietnamese agricultural areas? 6. What do you think about the neighborhood of the people in the text? What details support your answer? Why do you think there is such a neighborhood in Vietnam? 7. Is the relationship among neighbors in Vietnam and in the community you live in the same as that depicted in the text? Elaborate on your answer with examples if possible. 8. When and with whom do Mr. Vy and Mrs. Tuyet drink tea? 9. What does it show about the meaning of tea to them? 10. When do people in Vietnam and people in your community/family drink tea? 11. Does tea have any cultural value in Vietnam? In your community/family? If yes, what are some of its cultural values? 12. What do you think about the space as described in the text and visual? (Privacy or non-privacy?) Why? 13. State what else you can find out about the culture in the text. Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 153 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 154 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 4. Students’ Comprehension of Culture in Unit 1 Ss’ Culture Representations Comprehension Within Text 00/40 Topic Daily Activities Students (sts) Participants Mr. Vy, Mrs. Tuyet, neighbors 40/40 sts Mr. Vy: working on the field; harrowing, ploughing the land; Sociocultural having tea in the morning, with Elements Actions fellows, and with neighbors 40/40 sts Mrs. Tuyet: helping husband on the field, having tea with neighbors and talking Attitudes of Positive attitude towards labor, Participants family, and neighborhood 40/40 sts Space Non-privacy 26/40 sts Husband and wife co-working on 40/40 sts the field, supporting each other Human Relations Husband as bread-winner 1/40 sts Wife as assistant/caregiver Orientations Close neighborhood bond 40/40 sts of Culture Harmony with nature: Peasant & 40/40 sts Man and buffalo Nature Relation Humans & tea: tea to refresh 5/40 sts mind & reinforce relationship Family-oriented 12/40 sts Human Community-oriented 4/40 sts Nature Nature-loving 23/40 sts Culture Representation in Locally Produced English Textbooks: A Case Study of Vietnam 155 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX C Text 1 (Unit 1) (Hoang, V. V. (Ed.). (2006). Tieng Anh 10 – English 10. Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publisher, p. 12.) 156 Thuy Ngoc Dinh Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran The present study aimed to investigate the role of learning styles as predictors of test performance. The participants were 152 undergraduate students majoring in English teaching at Imam Khomeini International University and Islamic Azad University in Qazvin, Iran. A general proficiency test was administered to make sure that there were no significant differences among the participants in terms of their proficiency level. Then, a learning styles questionnaire adapted from Honey and Mumford (2000) was administered to the participants. At the end of the semester, the participants took part in their usual final exams. The obtained data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. The results revealed that out of the four learning styles of theorist, activist, reflective, and pragmatist as possible predictors, only reflective and pragmatist styles accounted for a statistically significant portion of the variance in final-exam performance. The findings of this study may have theoretical and pedagogical implications for language learners, teachers, and syllabus designers in EFL contexts beyond Iran. INTRODUCTION According to Christison (2003), learning styles are learners’ preferred ways of perceiving and processing information that stem from the learners themselves. Learning styles are the individuals’ favored ways of perceiving and processing information; they can influence learners’ ease in completing a task successfully. The present study aims at examining the role of learning styles in learning English as a foreign language. Just as personality traits, such as tolerance of ambiguity and risk-taking, may improve foreign language Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 157 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 learning, certain learning styles may either assist or hinder language learning (Ely, 1986, 1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993). Ehrman (1994) postulates that wherever learning styles and teaching styles do not match, learning problems will arise. Therefore, research into the role of learning styles in foreign language achievement can help learners improve their foreign language performance. In fact, Zhenhui (2001) discusses ways to match learning and teaching styles in East-Asian contexts like Korea and Japan. Also, raising awareness of styles as a major component of communicative competence in learners is likely to lead to greater levels of success in language learning. Macaro (2001) believes that the development of learning styles is conducive to the development of successful language learning. In other words, a helpful way to accelerate learning is to teach students how to learn efficiently. Kim (1991) makes an attempt to develop a deeper understanding of the concept of “autonomous learner” in the Korean EFL context. Reid (1995) states that developing an understanding of learning styles helps students take control of their learning and maximize their potential for learning. Hence, the present study seeks to investigate the role of styles in English-as-a-foreign-language achievement. Although the study was situated in Iran, the findings may be informative for many EFL contexts such as Korea, Japan, and China, as the study examines individual preferences in English language achievement. Therefore, the characteristics of the location of the study on learning may be understood as less influential. The study attempts to answer the following research question: Are there any significant differences among learning styles (theorist, activist, reflector, and pragmatist) as predictors of test performance? LITERATURE REVIEW Learners approach learning in different ways, and “learning styles” refers to these differences. Keefe (1979) defines learning styles as cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors indicating how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment. Claxton and Ralston (1978) refer to styles as consistent ways in which learners respond to and use stimuli in the context of learning. According to Oxford (2001), learning style is the general approach learners prefer while learning a subject, acquiring a language, or dealing with a difficult problem. It is an overall pattern that directs learning and makes one 158 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 instructional method liked by some students and disliked by others. Skehan (1991, p. 288) is of the opinion that “learning style is a general predisposition, voluntary or not, toward processing information in a particular way.” Learning Styles Classification Various classifications have been offered for learning styles. Christison (2003) has offered the following taxonomy: TABLE 1. Learning Style Taxonomy for the L2 Classroom Type 1: Type 2: Type 3: Cognitive Styles Sensory Styles Personality Styles Field Dependent: learns Perceptual Ambiguity Tolerance: refers best when information is Visual: learns best when to how comfortable a presented in context. They there is visual reinforcement learner is with uncertainty; are often more fluent such as charts, pictures, some students do well in language learners. graphs, etc. situations where there are Auditory: learns more several possible answers; Field independent: learn effectively by listening to others prefer one correct most effectively information answer step-by-step and with Tactile: learns more sequential instruction. They effectively when there is an are often more accurate opportunity to use language learners. manipulative resources Kinesthetic: learns more effectively when there is movement associated with learning Analytical: works more Environmental Right- and Left-Hemisphere effectively alone and at Physical: sensitive to Dominance his/her own pace. learning environment, such Left-brain dominant learners as light, temperature, tend to be more visual, Global: works more furniture. analytical, reflective, and effectively in groups. self-reliant Sociological: sensitive to Right-brain dominant relationships within the learners tend to be more learning environment auditory, global, impulsive, and interactive Reflective: learns more effectively when they have time to consider new information before responding Impulsive: learns more effectively when they can respond to new information immediately; as language learners, they are risk takers Adopted from Christison (2003, p. 270). Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 159 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Ehrman and Leaver (2003) have identified nine different styles: field independence vs. field dependence; random (non-linear) vs. sequential (linear); global vs. particular; inductive vs. particular; synthetic vs. analytic; analogue vs. digital; concrete vs. abstract; leveling vs. sharpening; impulsive vs. reflective. As there were problems with Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) – with the psychometrics (Freedman & Stumpf, 1978) and with the construct and face validity (Wilson, 1986) – Honey and Mumford (1986) devised a questionnaire for measuring learning styles. Honey and Mumford identified four basic learning styles: activist, reflector, theorist, and pragmatist. Table 2 shows the descriptive terms associated with each category. TABLE 2. The Learning Styles of Honey & Mumford (1986, 2000) Activist Pragmatist • Suited to experiential learning • Favors independence rather than lectures • Could undertake more research • Not keen on implementation Reflector Theorist • Much time spent working things • Conscientious but hard to get out started • Much redrafting • Assimilates information • Detailed investigators Activists are eager to learn new materials, be involved in activities, and solve problems. Reflectors enjoy gathering and assimilating information from several different sources. They do not act before they are ready. Reflectors need ample information to assimilate and time to reflect upon that information. Theorists try to explain ideas and concepts, and build their own models and theories based on their own observations and experiences. Pragmatists are interested in learning techniques, practicing, and experimentation and try to solve real-world problems. According to Honey and Mumford (1986), activists and theorists tend to seek challenge, but pragmatists and reflectors prefer safety. Pragmatists like to be told what to do and to have opportunity to practice. Reid (1995) and Ehrman (1994) consider the following style performances useful in understanding the language learning process: 160 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 • Being visual, auditory, or hands-on • Being more extroverted versus introverted • Being more abstract and intuitive versus more concrete and thinking in step-by-step sequence • Preferring to keep all options open versus being closure-oriented • Being more global versus more particular • Being more synthesizing versus being more analytic Good language learners know how to adapt their learning styles to different learning contexts (Brown, 2001). Styles are not rigid and inflexible. Therefore, learners can change their styles to make them helpful in accomplishing different tasks. For example, upon realizing that risk-taking and right-brain dominance are conducive to language learning, learners will take more risks and strengthen their right-brain to be more successful in language learning. Learning Styles and Language Learning Studies Studies have shown that successful learners take charge of their learning (Baker & Brown, 1980). Brown (2001) believes successful second-language learners know how to manipulate styles when they encounter language. They know which personality and cognitive characteristics contribute to success in acquisition and try to develop them. Brown postulates that there are a number of personality and cognitive styles needed for successful learning and proposes “ten commandments” for good language learning that contain the main style factors that a language learner needs to know. Reid (1995) asserts that learners’ awareness of their learning styles makes them capable of taking control of their learning and maximizes learning potential. Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) investigated the relationship between four constructs – integrativeness, attitudes, motivation, language anxiety – and achievement. They found language anxiety to be the best correlate of achievement. Gardner et al. (1997) also found strong correlations among affective measures and foreign language achievement. Oxford and Ehrman (1993) studied 107 students at the high school level and reported that visual students significantly outperformed auditory and tactic/kinesthetic students. Hsieh, Jang, Hwang, and Chen (2011) investigated the effects of teaching styles and learning styles on the reflection levels of students. Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 161 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 They found that matching the learning styles of students with the appropriate teaching styles can significantly improve students’ reflection levels. Shaw (2012) concluded that different learning styles are associated with significantly different learning performances with respect to learning scores. He found that learning styles belonging to the abstract experimentation dimension led to better learning scores. Van Zwanenberga, Wilkinson, and Anderson (2000) used Felder and Silverman’s Index of Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire to obtain data. Samples from engineering and business students at undergraduate, postgraduate, and post-experience levels at two UK universities completed the Index of Learning Styles and a biographical data questionnaire. Van Zwanenberga et al. compared academic performance results and scores on each of the two instruments but found no significant correlation between learning style scores and performance in these samples. HemmatNezhad, Jahandar, and Khodabandehlou (2014) studied the role of individual differences in terms of extroversion vs. introversion on writing ability of Iranian EFL learners. They found no significant impact on writing ability. Can (2009) investigated the effects of science student-teachers’ academic achievements on their learning styles, and the findings of the study showed that nearly half of the students of the science department had an assimilating style. The other styles opted for by the students were given in the following order: converging, diverging, accommodating. No significant relationship was found between the students’ learning styles and their achievement levels. Okay (2012) studied learning styles of music teacher candidates. To collect data, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory-III and transcripts of students’ achievement points were used. It was observed that the “diverger” learning style was the most represented (44; 13%) style. It was also found that the “converger” learning style was represented with the lowest ratio (11; 4%). The “accommodator” (25; 7%) and the “assimilator” (18; 6%) learning styles had close ratios and stood out as styles that are endorsed by almost half of the total teacher candidates. The findings regarding the relationship between students’ learning styles and their performance showed that there was no relationship between learning styles and performance. Pei-Junga, Wen Shyab, Ming-Hsiaa, and Ying-Taia (2013) conducted 162 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 a study to identify the learning styles of students and to examine the associations between learning style and academic performance. They found that the most commonly occurring learning style was assimilator (44%), followed by diverger (23%), accommodator (15%), and converger (17%). They concluded that there was no significant difference in the academic performance of the four different styles of learners. The results of a study carried out by TabeBordbar (2013) were indicative of a correlation between personality traits and learning styles that could lead learners to a higher level of learning and, in turn, to the sense of self-satisfaction and enjoyment of the learning process. She stated that education specialists believe that learners who are enthusiastic and active in learning are more likely to achieve success in education. Homayouni (2011) examined the relationship between personality traits and emotional intelligence in learning English and math. He found that learning math was negatively correlated with Neuroticism and positively correlated with Extroversion and Conscientiousness. Learning English was positively correlated with Extroversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness. Learning English was also positively correlated with all components of emotional intelligence. Harshbarger et al. (1986) studied the personality types of Korean, Japanese, and Chinese learners of English and reported Japanese and Korean students as often quiet, shy, and reticent in language classrooms. They don’t like overt expression of ideas; hence, taking fewer speaking turns in class cause them to be less successful in developing oral proficiency. Kim (1983) avows that Korean students don’t ask questions or present their ideas in class because being quiet is considered as a virtue based on the old Korean adage: “Silence is golden.” He claims that since aggressiveness is essential for efficient language learning, most Korean learners fail to gain fluency in English. As the above short review suggests, various aspects of learning styles have been looked upon from different perspectives. However, there seems to be a partial paucity of research on the relationships between the four learning styles under investigation here (theorist, activist, reflector, and pragmatist), on the one hand, and learners’ test performance, on the other. In an attempt to partially fill this gap, the present study is aimed at investigating theorist, activist, reflector, and pragmatist learning styles as predictors of test performance. Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 163 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 METHOD Participants The participants of this study were initially 257 undergraduate students majoring in English Teaching at Imam Khomeini International University and Islamic Azad University in Qazvin, Iran. After homogenizing the participants and administering the questionnaires, only 152 homogenous participants who had answered all the questions of the questionnaires were selected as the main participants of the present study. They included 56 males and 96 females, and their ages ranged from 21 to 31. Instruments Data collection instruments utilized in this study included a language proficiency test and a learning styles questionnaire. A version of the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) was used to check the participants’ proficiency level and to homogenize them. The version of the MTELP used for the purpose of the present study contained 100 items in three sections: grammar (40 items), vocabulary (40 items), and reading comprehension (20 items), all in multiple-choice format. The learning styles of Honey and Mumford adapted from Honey and Mumford (2000) were used to check the participants’ learning styles. The questionnaire was divided into four categories: activist, pragmatist, reflector, and theorist learning styles. The questionnaire contained a total of 80 items (20 items on each learning style). Each item was presented in the form of a statement. The respondents are expected to decide whether or not the statement was true about them. If the statement held true for them, they were to put a check mark next to it. One point was awarded to each statement, and the tally of the points determined a respondent’s level in that particular style. Procedure To achieve the purpose of the study, the following procedure was followed. In the first stage, a general proficiency test was administered to make sure that there were no significant differences among the participants in terms of their proficiency level. The allocated time for 164 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 this stage was 65 minutes. Their scores on the test were analyzed. The scores of those who had gotten more than one standard deviation away from the mean (above or below) were excluded from subsequent analyses. Then, the learning styles questionnaire of Honey and Mumford was administered to the participants. A total of 152 students scoring between one standard deviation above and below the mean who had also answered the questionnaire in an acceptable way remained as the main participations. At the end of the educational semester, their scores on their usual general achievement tests were obtained from their teachers. The obtained data were then processed, summarized, and prepared for statistical analysis. Data Analysis To analyze the obtained data and to answer the research question, a multiple regression analysis was used. This analysis was selected to learn more about the relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable. In the social sciences, multiple regression procedures are very widely used in research as they allow the researcher to ask the general question of what is the best predictor of a particular outcome. RESULTS The research question attempted to see which types of learning styles are predictors of test performance. To this end, a stepwise multiple regression was used. Table 3 shows that of the four styles under investigation, only pragmatist and reflective styles entered into the TABLE 3. Variables Entered/Removed Variables Variables Model Method Entered Removed Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter 1 Reflector . <= .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100). Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter 2 Pragmatist . <= .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100). Note. Dependent Variable: Test score. Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 165 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 regression equation (stepwise criteria: p < 0.05). Reflective was the single best predictor (Step 1), and pragmatist was the next best predictor (Step 2). Model summary (Table 4) shows that the reflective style accounted for 36% of variance in test scores. Reflective and pragmatist styles share over 38% of the variance in the participants’ performance. This means that the pragmatist style has added only 2% to the prediction value of the test performance. TABLE 4. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate a 1 .609 .371 .367 2.32017 2 .630b .396 .388 2.27997 a b Predictors: (Constant), reflector. Predictors: (Constant), reflector, pragmatist. Note. Dependent Variable: Test score. Table 5 gives the results of the ANOVA performed on the model. The F-value and the significance level (F (1,150) = 88.38, p < 0.01; F (2,149) = 48.93, p < 0.01) indicate that both models are significant. TABLE 5. ANOVA Results Sum of Model Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 475.788 1 475.788 88.384 .000a 1 Residual 807.475 150 5.383 Total 1283.263 151 Regression 508.721 2 254.361 48.932 .000b 2 Residual 774.542 149 5.198 Total 1283.263 151 a b Predictors: (Constant), reflector. Predictors: (Constant), reflector, pragmatist. Note. Dependent Variable: Test score. To see how much of the variance in test performance is accounted for by each of the four predictors, the standardized coefficients and the significance of the observed t-value for each predictor were checked. As Table 6 shows, of the four predictors, only the reflective and pragmatist 166 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 styles account for a statistically significant portion of the variance in test performance. For every one standard deviation of change in one’s reflective style, there will be about 0.60 of a standard deviation change in one’s test performance. This is closely followed by the pragmatist style: for every one standard deviation of change in one’s pragmatist style, there will be about 0.16 of a standard deviation change in one’s test performance. TABLE 6. Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 5.741 1.085 5.290 .000 1 reflector 0.881 0.094 .609 9.401 .000 (Constant) 3.237 1.459 2.219 .028 2 reflector 0.870 0.092 .601 9.436 .000 pragmatist 0.233 0.093 .160 2.517 .013 Note. Dependent Variable: Test score. DISCUSSION The findings of the present study show that, out of the four styles of theorist, activist, reflective, and pragmatist, only the reflective and pragmatist styles account for a statistically significant portion of the variance in test performance. This finding is partially in line with the results of several previous studies (Can, 2009; Rayneri & Gerber, 2004) suggesting that learning styles play a main part in affecting academic achievement. The present study employed Honey and Mumford’s (1986) learning style inventory in data collection. Other studies focusing on this scale and its components have reported mixed results, both in line with and contrary to those of the present study. For instance, the findings of this study seem to partially corroborate those of the Hsieh et al. (2011) study. The present findings, however, do not place significance on the theorist and activist styles; instead, they show that only the reflective and pragmatist styles have predictive power on test performance. Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 167 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Moreover, Shaw’s (2012) investigation concerning learning styles showed that different learning styles are associated with significantly different learning performances. This means that certain learning styles help learners to perform better. This is what the present study also finds. On the other hand, this finding seems to partially contradict the findings of JafariGohar and Sadeghi’s (2014) study exploring whether learning style preferences of EFL learners measured through Kolb’s learning style inventory could have an impact on students’ foreign language achievement. Their study came up with the conclusion that students’ final term scores had no significant relationship to learning style. Likewise, at variance with the results of the present study concerning the predictive value of learning styles towards test performance, Van Zwanenberga et al. (2000), who compared the academic performance results and learning style scores of engineering students, found no significant correlations between the participants’ learning style scores and their test performance. A number of other studies have also revealed that students’ learning styles and instructional strategies are not significantly related to their learning performance (Akdemir & Koszalka, 2008; Massa & Mayer, 2006). Unlike the findings of the present study that style preferences directly affect the test performance of the participants, HemmatNezhad et al. (2014) reported no significant impact of style preferences on second-language writing performance. Recent research on learning styles and their relationship with second language development or test performance has also come up with mixed, and sometimes controversial, results. For example, Moenikia and Zahed-Babelan (2010), conducting a study to investigate the role of learning styles in second language learning of distance education students, found that listening, writing, structure, and reading mean scores of students with different learning styles differed significantly, whereas Srijongjai (2011) reports no significant differences in students’ achievement levels in a writing class based on their learning styles. In line with Srijongjai’s (2011) findings, and contrary to the findings of this study, Okay (2012) reports no relationship between learning styles and test performance of music education students. In addition, contrary to the findings of the present study, Biçer (2014) also claims that students’ achievement levels do not differ significantly according to their learning styles as the findings of his 168 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 study showed no statistically significant differences between the achievement levels of students who had different learning styles. These findings may also be indirectly contradicted by those of Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi (2013), who focused on the relationship between EFL learners’ learning styles and their L2 achievement and found that, although students had different styles, those learning style differences had no significant effect on course performance. It needs to be noted, however, that they investigated four other learning styles, not the ones included in this study. Meanwhile, these finding seem to be in direct opposition to those of Jean and Simard (2013) as well as those of JafariGohar and Sadeghi (2014), who reported no significant relationship between learning style preferences and foreign language achievement. A number of factors might have contributed to the findings of this study and may, therefore, account for the differences between the findings of this study and those of other similar studies. One such factor may be the participants’ age. The participants of this study were university-level learners, whereas other studies reviewed here were conducted with learners at various age levels. It could be argued that learners may resort to different learning styles at different age levels. Another closely related factor might be the proficiency level of the participants. The participants of this study were roughly at the intermediate level of English language proficiency. It would not be totally irrelevant to claim that part of the reason why the result of this study turned out to be somehow different from those of other studies might be due to the differences in the proficiency level of the participants of this and other studies. In fact, there is evidence suggesting that learners at different proficiency levels make use of different learning styles and strategies (e.g., Zarei & Baharestani, 2014). Still another factor accounting for the observed discrepancies might be differences in the educational contexts and the methods of language teaching used in different educational contexts. It might be cogently argued that each method of language teaching has its own requirements in terms of learning styles, among other things. This means that, depending on the method of teaching used, language teachers may unwittingly encourage their learners to use certain styles and probably discourage the use of certain others. Yet another factor may be the sociocultural context. Certain social and cultural contexts, like that of Iran, do not easily lend themselves to Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 169 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 certain teaching methods and, as a result, the use of certain styles and strategies. When this factor interacts with another factor, such as gender difference, results could be more strongly observed. To give just one example, in the cultural context of Iran, females are not encouraged to be overtly sociable and aggressive. In other words, female shyness is seen as a cultural virtue. Another example is that of Korean culture, based on Confucianism, vertical relationships, group-orientedness, harmony, modesty, unequal relationships between men and women, and subjective-emotional thinking, being totally different from American culture, which is characterized by democracy, pragmatism, openness, equality, individualism, and logical and critical thinking (Park, 1979). These cultural differences lead Americans to seek agreement or disagreement, while Koreans choose to avoid saying “yes” or “no” when one of them is expected (Kim, 1983). Whereas this ambiguity is not usually acceptable in English-speaking cultures, expressing “yes” or “no” explicitly is considered too direct and rude in Korean culture. Therefore, Korean students may not employ the expected level of directness in their English communications. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand that such social and cultural contexts automatically encourage the use of particular learning styles and strategies while discouraging others. Even the economic conditions of the learners and the learning institutions may influence learners’ use of styles. Given the recent developments in technology and the incorporation of multimedia in language teaching, one may understand why learners’ use of learning styles and strategies is undergoing a gradual change. Obviously enough, the new equipment has made it possible for teachers to make use of teaching techniques requiring the visual and auditory involvement of learners, as opposed to the traditional textual involvement. When learners’ mode of engagement with language changes, the need for learners to change their learning styles comes as no big surprise. CONCLUSION The findings of the present study show that learning styles are differentially related to EFL learners’ test performance. EFL learners need to know about the styles that are more strongly correlated with learning and test performance to gain better results in their 170 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 second/foreign language learning experience and to get nearer to native-like performance. Based on the findings of the present study, it may be concluded that learners’ test performance might be improved if certain learning styles are strengthened in learners. In other words, if learners are encouraged to develop their reflector and pragmatist predilections, their achievement may be positively influenced. This of course depends, to a large extent, on whether or not ones’ style of learning is subject to change or modification through encouragement. This argument is based on the assumption that participation in a styles-oriented classroom and its practices facilitate learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). It needs to be noted that the stronger predictive power of reflector and pragmatist styles over achievement scores might be related to the kind of instruction the participants received. Based on the aptitude treatment interaction hypothesis, learners with different learning orientations respond differently to different types of treatment. This means that learners with different learning styles may benefit differently from the same instruction. If this is the case, it may be concluded that those participants whose learning style orientations were closer to reflector and pragmatist styles benefitted more from the kind of instruction they received. What can be concluded from this is that probably dividing students into homogeneous groups based on their learning styles could be a useful way of improving their learning because the teacher may decide to provide the learners with a particular sort of instruction that is more compatible with their learning style preferences. These findings may have implications for learners, teachers, and syllabus designers in the larger Asian EFL context, including Iran, Korea, Japan, and China, where learners may experience similar learning contexts based on traditional educational structures and values in undergraduate institutions. Within this context, Kato (2005) emphasizes the importance of the presence of styles and recognition of learners’ preferences in prompting learners to find effective and more successful ways of learning. Kim (1991) comments that oftentimes Korean learners are not able to develop effective communication skills because of the large class size and teacher-centered classes. The Korean context most often emphasizes the teacher as the authority in the class, reducing the communicative role of the learner. Kim, therefore, advocates for self-directed autonomous learning in Korean EFL classrooms. This in turn would benefit from the consideration of individual students’ learning Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 171 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 styles for classroom lesson design, differentiated instruction, and self-study approaches for learners at home. In closing, with English learners aware of their learning styles, they can employ distinct approaches to classroom activities and self-study. This way, classroom interactions could be enriched and would promote subsequent language development. Additionally, materials developers in the field of ELT could also employ the findings of the present study, and those of similar studies, to include in teaching materials tasks in which learners’ awareness toward learning is enhanced. THE AUTHORS Dr. Parviz Ajideh, an associate professor in TEFL, is a member of the academic staff at the University of Tabriz, Iran. He has had several books and papers published and has also presented at many conferences around the world. Valeh Gholami, a PhD holder in TEFL, is an experienced language teacher with around 20 years of teaching experience. She holds an MA from Allame Tabatabaee University, Tehran, and her PhD is from Tabriz University. She has had several papers published and has attended and presented at several national and international conferences. REFERENCES Akdemir, O., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Investigating the relationships among instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1451-1461. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills (Technical Report No. 188). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Study of Reading. Biçer, D. (2014). The effect of students’ and instructors’ learning styles on achievement of foreign language preparatory school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 382-386. Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Can, S. (2009). The effects of science student teachers’ academic achievements, their grade levels, gender and type of education they are 172 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 exposed to on their 4mat learning styles (Case of Mugla University, Turkey). Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1853-1857. Claxton, C., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact in teaching and administration (AAHE-ERIC / Higher Education Research Report No. 10). Washington, DC: American Association for the Study of Higher Education. Ehrman, M. E. (1994). The type differentiation indicator and adult foreign language learning success. Journal of Psychological Type, 30, 10-29. Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31, 394-415. Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risk taking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36(1), 1-25. Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445. Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1978). What can one learn from the Learning Style Inventory? Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 275-82. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. L., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362. Harshbarger, B., Ross, T., Tafoya, S, & Via, J. (1986). Dealing with multiple learning styles in the ESL classroom. Symposium presented at the Twentieth Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Francisco, CA. HemmatNezhad, S., Jahandar, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2014). The impact of extraversion vs. introversion on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(1), 119-128. Homayouni, A. (2011). Personality traits and emotional intelligence as predictors of learning English and math. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 839-843 Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The Learning Styles Questionnaire. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey. Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1194-1201. Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 173 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 JafariGohar, M., & Sadeghi, N. (2015). The impact of learning style preferences on foreign language achievement: A case study of Iranian EFL students. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 754-764. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41, 1023-1042. Kato, S. (2005). How language learning strategies affect English proficiency in Japanese university students. Journal of the Faculty of Human Studies Bunkyo Gakuin University, 7(1), 239-262. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and proscribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kim, D. (1983). The contrastive analysis of Korean and English. English Education, 18, 128-144. Kim, E. (1991). Korean ESL learning styles based on their personality, oral proficiency, and national origin (Unpublished master’s thesis). The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London, UK: Continuum. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321-335. Moenikia, M., & Zahed-Babelan, A. (2010). The role of learning styles in second language learning among distance education students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1169-1173. Christison, M. A. (2003). Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 267-288; International ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Okay, H. H. (2012). The relations between academic achievement in field lessons and learning styles of music teacher candidates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 193-197. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1993). Second language research in individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205. Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murica (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 359-366). Boston, MA: Heinle. Park, M. (1979). Communicative styles in two different cultures: Korean and American. Seoul, Korea: Hansin. 174 Parviz Ajideh and Valeh Gholami Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Pei-Junga, W., Wen Shyab, L., Ming-Hsiaa, H., & Ying-Taia, W. (2013). Learning styles of undergraduate and graduate physical therapy students in Taiwan. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1254-1258. Rayneri, L. J., & Gerber, B. L. (2004). Development of a student perception inventory. Roeper Review, 26(2), 90-95. Reid, J. M. (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. viii-xvii). New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle. Shaw, R. S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58, 111-120. Srijongjai, A. (2011). Learning styles of language learners in an EFL writing class. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1555-1560. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298. Tabatabaei, O., & Mashayekhi, S. (2013). The relationship between EFL learning styles and their L2 achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 245-253. TabeBordbar, F. (2013). Academic performance of virtual students based on their personality traits, learning styles and psychological well-being: A prediction. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 112-116. Wilson, D. K. (1986). An investigation of the properties of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 7(3), 3-15. Van Zwanenberg, N., Wilkinson, L. J., & Anderson, A. (2000). Felder and Silverman’s Index of Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire: How do they compare and do they predict academic performance? International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20(3), 365-380. Zarei, A. A., & Baharestani, N. (2014). Language learning strategy use across proficiency levels. i-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 4(4), 27-39. Zenhui, R. (2001). Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian contexts. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zhenhui-TeachingStyles.html Learning Styles as Predictors of Students’ Test Performance 175 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 176 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom John Clayton Whittle Dankook University, Seoul, Korea In this study, the use of custom-designed games (CDGs) as a substitute for out-of-class homework is qualitatively explored through the students’ perceptions. Students in an intermediate college-level EFL class were provided with a virtual representation of their campus in the form of a classic role playing game. The students completed a cohesive storyline set in their own campus with themselves and the professors of the General English Department as the stars. They did this by completing simple tasks within the game that use the grammar and vocabulary drawn from the curriculum. Using surveys, the students were asked to report and explain their opinions on the use of CDGs as official classroom materials, including comfort, perceived effectiveness, challenge, and engagement. The result was an overwhelmingly positive response to an entirely new style of educational material, warranting further investigation into effective strategies for implementation. INTRODUCTION Recent research trends in the use of digital games (e.g., computer games, video games) as educational tools continue to point out ways in which the games can be used in many different classrooms and subjects, including math, writing, reading, and second language acquisition. Many of these studies involved the use of commercially available games (CAGs) relevant to the subject matter of the class. A very small number of studies used tailor-made games designed for use inside and outside the classroom. The majority of these studies focused on the use of short, focused games meant to teach a single skill Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 177 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 or concept. The one exception to this game design is “Quest Atlantis,” a custom-made, online game funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that has been in constant development since 2005. The growing hole in the research surrounding games as educational devices lies not in the games’ potential, which the literature review of this paper will outline in some detail, but rather in their integration. To that end, this paper outlines the initial steps taken in researching the use of a CDG as a core element of both the educational content of the class and the students’ grades. Based on the principles of design discussed in the following literature review, a CDG was created using the commercially available design software, RPG Maker VX Ace. This simple, but fully interactive game created a virtual representation of the campus on which the students attend the class. However, since so little research on the use of CDGs in classrooms exists, and even less on the use of CDGs as graded assignments, the goal of this research was not to examine the effectiveness of such games, but rather to understand the perceptions students have of such a radical change to the university classroom. Specifically, this study aims to answer these research questions: 1. How do students perceive the use of custom-designed games as class material? 2. What is the perceived effectiveness of custom-designed games as class material? Each week, the students involved in the study would navigate to a new area of the map within the game, usually a recognizable building on campus. In that building, students would advance the story by engaging in grammar-driven conversations with non-player characters (NPCs). The conversations the students had with these NPCs varied greatly in terms of narrative content, but the goal of each NPC conversation was the same: to instruct the student in the use of a specific grammatical concept, to test their mastery of the new concept, and to advance the plot. Through the use of these conversations facilitated in text-based multiple choice responses, students were introduced to each grammatical concept used during the semester in corresponding order. Students were then given self-report surveys at both the halfway point and the end of 178 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 the game to report their perceptions. The data gathered were analyzed for both quantitative and qualitative significance to construct an understanding of how students perceived the benefits and difficulties of the digital game materials used in the class. LITERATURE REVIEW Though it goes beyond the scope of this particular paper, it is important to briefly discuss the much longer and more precisely understood theoretical history of the usage of non-digital games in learning, specifically in the acquisition of L2 grammar and vocabulary principles. However, before moving into a theoretical discussion, an operative understanding of what a game is will be established by borrowing from game theory. For the purposes of this paper, a game will be defined as an activity, which follows both Salopek’s (1999) rule of being a structural activity with learning at the end and the principle of an activity only being a game if it is governed by definite rules as described in Pathan and Aldersi (2014). With that definition in mind, the idea of digital games, video games, and computer games can also be defined. So, for the purposes of this literature review, and this study as a whole, the term “digital game” can be understood to mean a computerized and graphically represented interactive system in which a person uses a computer or gaming console to change the state of the program, structured with the end goal of learning and a set of definite rules. This definition, though weighty, best creates an understanding of digital games as they are discussed in this paper. Digital Games in the Classroom The use of games in language learning is a commonplace practice in many classrooms, often being seen as the “fun factor” in language acquisition (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, p. 60) Digital games being used inside and outside the classroom is not a new concept. However, it is only in recent years that larger, bolder steps towards the cultivation of this relationship have been taken. Theorist Marc Prensky (2001, 2003) was an early proponent of digital games-based learning, claiming that the Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 179 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 experience offers “active learning” and gives great agency to learners by allowing them to take responsibility for their own progress. This, Prensky claims, compensates for the emerging desires of young learners to take a more active role in the learning process. Another understanding of this concept can be seen by contrasting the active experience of games with Gee’s (2007) comments on education: “All the facts and information the learner is studying would make a lot more sense if the learner had any opportunities to see how they applied to the world of action and experience” (p. 221). Digital games not only meet the physical component of involvement in a learning experience, but also strongly encourage, and in fact, require players to be mentally involved in the game itself. Digital games increase this involvement through combining the effects of narrative transportation, a process in which consumers of narrative become involved and invested in the narrative (Greene & Brock, 2000), and character identification, in which consumers identify with the experiences or attributes of a character (Cohen, 2006) either through real, perceived, or wishful similarities. Considering the experimental evidence supporting the theory that character identification can lead to modifications in behavioral patterns (Konijn, Nije Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007), Whittle (2010) argues that the combination of both narrative transportation and character identification creates a period of heightened capacity for learning and internalizing even the most complicated concepts, grammar patterns, and vocabulary. Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of digital games in learning is offered by Miller and Robertson (2010) in a study of 71 primary school children, who, when compared to the control group, showed considerable gains in mathematical computational ability over a ten-week period of drills using computer-assisted learning. Miller and Robertson (2011) followed this study with a large scale (634 students) study that showed that students using a digital game as a learning device improved an average of 50% more in response times and accuracy in answers to informational questions than the control group, who practiced using traditional learning methods. In addition, an understanding that motivation and comfort experienced when learning a language through digital games comes quite naturally to students already comfortable with the gaming platform was found through a series of interviews conducted with English language learners in Turkey (Turgut & Irgin, 2009). 180 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Experimental Evidence of Videogames in Education Research considering the use of digital games in language learning specifically provides further evidence that digital games can be utilized in ways that traditional methods cannot. Though the potential for educational value is apparent, many of these studies were hindered by reliance on commercially available games (CAGs) for a variety of reasons (Baierschmidt, 2013; Lombardi, 2012; Rama, Black, van Es, & Warschauer, 2012; Reinhardt, 2013). The choice of commercially available games is usually rooted in the technical, financial, and time restrictions on creating a custom-designed game (CDG) for use in the experiment, a hindrance which this study addresses in the methodology. Several experimental researchers were able to find that digital games, CAGs specifically, were capable of increasing vocabulary retention in the target language (Coleman, 2002; Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Rama et al., 2012; Ranalli, 2008; Reinders & Wattana, 2011). Miller and Hegelheimer achieved this by using The Sims, a simulation of adult life, as the game contained a significant number of words considered to be among the most frequently used in English. Having met with some limited success, the researchers eventually concluded that using supplemental materials such as vocabulary sheets was necessary to truly facilitate learning, a finding confirmed by Ranalli’s (2008) replication study. This sentiment of digital games being unable to stand on their own is significant, as it points to an aspect of education that is not present in the chosen CAG. While the vocabulary itself was present and available in the commercial game, no explanation of the abstract concepts or reference materials was available within the context of the game to assist in the understanding and acquisition of new words by these learners. Ranalli’s (2008) and Miller and Hegelheimer’s (2006) findings are hardly unique. Several studies over the past decade have found strong evidence that players can learn a foreign language through the use of gaming, but have been unable to show the digital game as a true classroom supplement due to the difficulties associated with the use of CAGs. Coleman (2002) found that students were strongly engaged in activities involving giving directions when playing Simcopter. But, with no presence of language in the game (this game contains very little reading and no writing or speaking), the game became little more than a map through which the students and teachers practiced giving Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 181 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 directions. Rama, Black, van Es, and Warschauer (2012) were also able to produce evidence that the use of the massively multiplayer online role playing game, World of Warcraft, could be utilized to facilitate conversational fluency in second language learners. Students of Spanish were asked to play the game regularly, interacting with both the game itself and the other players online through Spanish only. While positive results were found in increased fluency for intermediate/high beginning learners, the study was hindered by both the technical knowledge of the players and, to a much stronger extent, the game itself. World of Warcraft, being a multiplayer game, requires simultaneous action and quick understanding of other players’ situations. Emilio (alias), the focus of the study, was able to communicate within the game, but the nature of the gameplay forced him to make himself understood in the fastest way possible, often leading him to rely on acronyms, keywords, or common slogans to convey his messages. Again, the potential is clear, but the results are hindered by the commercial game itself. Sundqvist (2009) employed a series of language tests in combination with a diary of gaming habits on some 82 young English learners in Sweden. Sundqvist found that the participants who played more English language games learned English faster than their non-gaming peers. These findings were corroborated by a second study in which heavy gamers (five or more hours per week) learned faster than light gamers, who learned faster than non-gamers (Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). While both studies provide some evidence that English language gaming and English language learning are connected, the fact remains that these results rely on the students voluntarily playing commercial English language games for large amounts of time. Though not directly related to digital game-based learning, a body of evidence suggests that online and virtual communication methods can establish comfortable and beneficial learning by creating non-threatening environments (Beauvois, 1997; Hudson & Bruckman, 2002; Payne & Whitney, 2013). In addition, these virtual and online environments have also been shown to create democratic learning environments suitable for developing learner-centered education (Beauvois, 1997; Kern, 1995). However, the body of literature focuses on the online chat room community rather than gaming. There is little experimental research in the field of student perceptions specifically related to digital game-based language learning. 182 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 CDGs in Language Acquisition There have been several attempts at creating viable custom-design games (CDGs) for use in the classroom and other settings for teaching. The most well-known of these games is Tactical Iraqi, a 3D game designed using Unreal Engine to teach Iraqi Arabic and Iraqi culture to U.S. military officers serving in Iraq. This game, designed by the CARTE team, is a large-scale speech-operated game built to facilitate the practical applications of classroom-learned Iraqi Arabic (Losh, 2005) based on the psycholinguistic principle that task-based environments encourage critical thinking and decoding (Dougherty & Long, 2003). This massive project, while considered to be a success, did not see mass implementation due to its extensive cost per product. The other notable example of a CDG being used to teach English is the “Speech and PRonunciation ImprovemeNt through Games” project (SPRING). SPRING is a solely pronunciation-based CDG focused on improving English pronunciation through recitation in a play environment. In an experiment headed by Anuj Tewari et al. (2010), several Hispanic high school students in the United States participated in an afterschool program in which they drilled English language pronunciation in a CDG. The 18 students participating in the program showed recognizable word gain (number of words attempted during pronunciation tests) and positive acoustic score gain percentages (a pronunciation grade based on intonation, fluency, and clarity) compared to the control group. Though the positive results of Tewari’s SPRING project are hard to ignore, the weight of the study is considerably reduced by the limited test group size. Additionally, as Tewari noted, there was disassociation from the game itself caused by disinterest in play and/or characters, especially in female test subjects. GOALS Goals of the DELRE Project Before discussing the design of this study, the game involved, and the implementation of both, it is important to describe the goals of both this study and the game it utilizes. The game, Digital English Language Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 183 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Roleplaying Experience (DELRE [pronounced as “Del Rey”]), was originally designed by the research team as a supplemental material intended for private use in a single classroom. The initial intent of the product was to supplement traditional university language class homework with a system more engaging to the students and more capable of checking the grammar of remedial students by requiring students to answer correctly to progress. Additionally, the game was designed to be self-checking, so that students would be aware of their scores and encouraged to attempt each section again in order to obtain the maximum number of points. In this limited sense, the initial design of the game did not attempt to answer larger questions of classroom integration, inter-student involvement, or many other features discussed later in this paper. Instead, the original CDG was developed only as a “digital workbook” or grammar and vocabulary practice tool to accompany a very specific curriculum. The survey questions and results discussed later reflect those initial design choices. The primary tangible goal of this project addressed the many research studies in the field of DGBL hindered by the choice of a CAG as a learning tool (Coleman, 2002; Pathan & Aldersi, 2014; Ranalli, 2008). These commercial games are capable of facilitating computer-assisted language learning, but also distract or disengage students as their content is not intended to be educational. Yet, researchers continue to use CAGs as the technical and financial requirements of building CDGs are seen as a hindrance for all but the most intensive studies (Losh, 2005). However, the methods used to develop DELRE sidestepped many of these barriers, creating a massive potential opportunity for expansive research in digital language acquisition. As the potential became evident, both the design and research intent shifted towards an understanding of the potential use of DELRE, not as a single-class teaching material, but as a compass to guide future development projects and as a formula for future researchers. The second goal of DELRE was to create a viable ESL digital workbook for mass distribution to alleviate both the financial and environmental costs of the continued use of textbooks in the language classroom. This study was most directly aimed at the latter goal, as the research sought to understand the viability of such a project in terms of student perceptions. 184 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Goals of the Experiment The current experiment addressed the second project goal of determining the feasibility of large-scale implementation of digital-gaming classroom or homework material in the language learning environment. The experiment did this through investigating the perceptions of students in a language classroom. This research did not seek to understand if it is possible to educate through the use of CDG materials, but rather how students would receive an attempt to do so. Since it is entirely possible for students’ attitudes towards a material or their comfort level with that material to influence their ability to learn using it, it is critical that an understanding of these factors be reached. METHODOLOGY The methods of this research project included both a design method and a study method, as before the study could begin, creating a CDG was necessary, which was a project in and of itself. To reflect the nature of this design, the methodology section of this paper will also be divided into two major sections: (a) methodology of design in regards to creating the CDG and (b) methodology of study in addressing the actual research questions posed by this paper. Methodology of Design The Digital English Language Roleplaying Experience (DELRE) was designed using commercially available software. DELRE was developed in the form of a classic roleplaying game (RPG). An RPG is a computer game (or conversely a live action or tabletop game) in which the player takes on the role of a character and develops the character through social interaction. The common tenants of RPGs include in-depth stories, constant social interaction, long-term and short-term goals of varying difficulty and complexity, and a dialogue-driven plot and gameplay. The RPG format was chosen for the latter two of this list. The goal-driven play of an RPG is a particularly helpful affordance, as task-based environments have been theorized to encourage understanding and critical thinking in regards to psycholinguistic concepts (Dougherty Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 185 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 and Long, 2003). Stereotypical tasks in an RPG might vary from defeating rats to fetching a package or saving the world. Tasks in DELRE vary greatly but rely heavily on conversation tasks such as conveying a certain message or convincing a third party to take an action. A dialogue-driven plot offers a much more tangible affordance as students are forced to not simply direct their character from place to place, but actively participate in conversations that require their attention and constant input. The particular style of RPG created by this software is best described as “retro,” as much of the simplicity of design is due to out-of-date graphic and gameplay features. The game exists in a two-dimensional isometric field, in which “north” is only represented by height on a two-dimensional field. Likewise, character representations lack realism, as they appear as vaguely defined human shapes on the map and cartoon faces during conversation. In the beginning of the game, students are given the very simple task of meeting their new professor, Clayton Whittle. Following RPG standards, the task balloons are given as additional missions to facilitate specific grammar and vocabulary lessons. While the grammar goals, required vocabulary, location, and characters involve changes, the basic interactivity of DELRE remains constant. Students are capable of using both the arrow keys on the keyboard to direct their character and the “action button” to initiate interaction with an element within the game (a door or person). All interactions with the character take place in text-based conversation. The speech of the non-player characters (NPCs) is not heard, but only read by the player. The player is then capable of responding by selecting the appropriate or preferred sentence from a short list of possible responses. The system for managing conversations is similar to that of a hypertext novel, allowing students to jump from one topic to another or repeat sections of a conversation that were not fully understood. While there are certain limits created by a text-only system (e.g., lack of listening/speaking practice), the ability to read and reread conversational prompts was deemed necessary to prevent learners from becoming overwhelmed by the pseudo-immersive experience of operating in English only. The text-based system for responding to NPCs also allowed students time to carefully analyze and consider each answer before responding, which is a critical element of both grammar practice and testing facilitated by the game, as detailed in the following section. 186 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The inclusion of audio elements will be discussed in further detail at the end of this paper. Grammar and vocabulary lessons were provided to students in both the classroom and in the context of the game. Each game level was designed to provide self-practice for language concepts taught and practiced in the classroom during the previous week. For example, if the classroom grammar lesson for week 3 of a semester was simple past tense, then the game level to be completed for week 4 of the semester would focus on the usage of simple past tense. This design was chosen so that students would have some understanding of language concepts before being asked to perform them. In this way, DELRE was utilized in a way very similar to traditional homework assignments in language classrooms. The approach of mimicking traditional language learning materials was chosen by the research team for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, this approach is familiar to students in traditional education environments in all subjects, and therefore prevents the introduction of further variables. Second, the validity of determining students’ perceptions of the use of a CDG as an official class material, in essence, a replacement for a traditional workbook, meant that the implementation of such a CDG needs to resemble that of traditional material whenever possible, and thus be assigned to students as follow-up practice to in-class lessons. Grammar and vocabulary lessons within the game were presented through conversational modeling and practice. The completion of required tasks within the game required students to engage in conversations with different characters within the game. Certain characters represented grammar lessons. The conversations in which the player engaged with these characters were designed to accommodate the use of a specific grammar principle. For example, a character representing a simple-past-tense exercise may wish to have a conversation about an event that happened yesterday, giving cause to model the desired grammar. Following the period of desired grammar modeling, characters enter an explicit grammar instruction period. During this period, the student is provided with specific instruction on the grammatical rules dictating the use of a grammar principle and the day-to-day use of the said principle. Explicit instructional periods represent one of the most important affordances for the educational potential that DELRE provides, which a classroom or language workbook cannot. As the character explains the Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 187 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 usage and rules governing a grammar concept, the player (student) is able to ask for further clarification or explanation if they were unable to understand. Throughout the explanation, specific attention is given to the desired grammar pattern during conversational use. The NPC uses the grammar pattern to convey plot points or conversational narrative and also requires that the student playing the game participate in the conversation by experimenting with the new grammar pattern. This experimentation comes in the form of simple multiple-choice questions in which the correct answer is also a natural continuation of the conversation. The option to relearn any concept or have it explained again is available at several junctures during each grammar explanation period. While it is certainly possible for a teacher to do this as well, the reality is that explaining a single grammar concept multiple times for the benefit of a single student during large classes is not something that can be realistically achieved by all teachers. Likewise, while it is certainly possible for workbooks to contain multiple explanations and usage examples for grammar patterns, the inclusion of such examples takes up valuable space, which is not helpful for students who understand the pattern and, more importantly, the grammar-pattern examples can be very easily skipped over. In DELRE, the skipping over of grammar that is not understood is possible, but designed to be highly inconvenient for the student. DELRE is also specifically designed to address the possibility that low-effort students will not attempt to complete homework accurately, but instead, intentionally complete homework assignments incorrectly to save time. DELRE’s grammar instruction system, however, requires a correct answer to proceed to the next section. Just as in a conversation, communication cannot proceed until a coherent message is sent in DELRE grammar instruction, which takes place in the form of a prearranged conversation, and cannot continue until the student selects the correct answer. This “loop” is a method of automating corrective feedback, which is a positive reinforcement method known to improve acquisition (Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken, 2012). The selection of an incorrect answer will return the player to the beginning of a loop, where the player is re-prompted with the same or a similar question. In this way, the student is incapable of proceeding without first selecting the correct answer. It is still possible for low-effort students to simply guess until the correct answer is landed upon, but the arrangement of 188 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 correct answers and the formation of questions is presented in such a way as to ultimately make random guessing far more inconvenient than simply attempting to answer the question correctly. As a method of practice, each grammar instruction section is followed by a period of conversation-based grammar drills during which players advance the plot of the game by taking part in a text-based conversation that requires the use of the previously introduced grammar pattern. Students are also required to take quizzes at each level of the game. These quizzes, presented in a similar format to grammar instruction, are different from the grammar instruction in several ways. Most importantly, these quizzes allow incorrect answers, and provide both the player and the computer system with a score for the level. This score is directly related to the student’s performance on the quiz (e.g., 10 correct answers = 10 points). The cumulative score for all chapters is recorded by the computer and later submitted to the professor as completed homework. The overall design of both the quizzes and the grammar instruction periods encourages task-based learning in learners (Dougherty and Long, 2003). The accomplishment of these tasks, usually the furthering of the plot through some conversation, requires and encourages students to pay close attention to both what they are saying and what is being said to them Students have the traditional digital-game option of saving and loading their progress at any point during DELRE. This feature was explicitly included to encourage students to attempt each quiz until the maximum number of points was awarded by answering all questions correctly. This process serves the purpose of both encouraging students to self-correct and explore options (some quiz questions had multiple correct answers) in a safe environment. This feature also affords some simulation of real L2 conversation in which the L2 learner is required to learn through trial and error in conversation. Methodology of Classroom Implementation The game was introduced to three writing classes containing a total of 87 students and a single speaking class with 49 students as a required homework assignment. All of the classes were low-intermediate required English courses. There is some overlap in the introduction of vocabulary and grammar patterns in both corresponding textbooks, but for the most Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 189 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 part, the courses covered different material. The grammar and vocabulary from the courses were included in the game. Students from each class were required to complete the section of the game that included the material they learned in class and the section of the game that contained material only taught in the other course. The material was intermixed so that students learned on the same schedule. For example, if the speaking class studied past tense and the writing class studied prepositions of place during the third week of class, then both classes would be required to complete a chapter including both past tense and prepositions of place for the fourth week of class. In the Classroom As the project was meant to encourage students to explore the digital learning environment on their own, very little classroom implementation was involved. The small amount that was required can be classified as instruction on use. Instruction on use involved the professor explaining various technical aspects of the game so that students could more easily comprehend how to play. Though the game was designed to accommodate inexperienced players, it was deemed necessary to explain game usage in detail to prevent a lack of learner language acquisition due to technical or design distractions. Initial instruction was limited to explaining how to download and install the game, how to control the player-character, how to interact with the world, and how to save progress. Classroom instruction was therefore limited to explaining each chapter’s content including which area of the map the player must go to in order to complete the week’s homework. Outside the Classroom Outside of the classroom, students were required to complete one chapter of the game per week for each week. The game was provided via a download link, and included a self-installer application. Students with less technical experience indicated difficulties in installing the program, and so on the third week of the semester a pre-loaded version of the game was made available for download. The primary difference between the two was the inclusion of pre-installed runtime software, making the installation more streamlined. An online forum was created using the official course website to discuss problems that might arise during the game. Each week for homework, students completed the chapter of the 190 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 game that corresponded to the week’s lesson. Chapters were designed to take 20–60 minutes depending on the ability and focus of the student. Each chapter was marked by a change in location at the beginning and a quiz at the end. These indicators ensured that students did not proceed too far into the game without instruction. However, in general, students were encouraged to participate in the use of the game under their own recognizance with no more or less supervision than a student would receive in their completion of traditional ESL homework materials. Though recent game integration research often included heavy elements of teacher supervision and guided work in order to minimize confusion (Rama et al., 2012; Ranalli, 2008), this study specifically focused on student experience and compared it to traditional materials. Therefore, as few variables as possible were introduced to the implementation process. Experimental Methodology Primary data were gathered through self-report surveys. After DELRE was completed, a 23-item Likert scale survey was distributed. Self-report was chosen to gather data for two reasons. First, on a purely logistical level, the scale of the study (136 original students) made direct observation and interviews infeasible. Second, as this study focused on the perception of effect, the students’ own reports were deemed the most effective way to gain insight. In addition, the surveys contained five questions pertaining to the general difficulty of the material. These questions were intended solely for curriculum design purposes and were not analyzed in this study. Surveys The surveys distributed contained questions aimed at (a) understanding the perceived challenge, (b) understanding the perceived limitations of the material, (c) cross-referencing the perceived effectiveness of DELRE with perceived problems in the implementation, and (d) understanding student interactions with the game system. Surveys were distributed during class. Students were asked to complete the survey anonymously. Students were also told that the completion of the survey was completely voluntary and that no grade was associated with the survey itself. The decision to retain anonymity is a reflection of both a desire for student privacy and honesty, as the fear of answering in a manner that might displease a professor could Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 191 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 influence a student to fill out the survey in a less than honest manner. Surveys distributed to students employed a basic Likert scale. For each statement students were asked to answer by selecting “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “somewhat agree” (3), “agree” (4), and “strongly agree” (5). The decision to replace the common third option, “no opinion,” with “somewhat agree” was made to encourage students to strongly consider their answers by eliminating a neutral option. The “no opinion” response is often used in large scale surveys in which participants are not directly involved. This topic directly affected the students of the classes and a “no opinion” option was deemed both unnecessary and potentially detrimental. There were 136 students enrolled in the participating classes. Of those 136, 128 participated in the use of DELRE. The eight students not participating were excluded from course participation for unrelated reasons. Of those 128, 118 completed both the DELRE project and the final survey. Students who did not complete the DELRE homework assignments did not participate in the final survey, along with several students who were either absent or elected not to complete the optional survey. Student Grades As a second reference point for understanding student opinions of the DELRE project, and possibly how those opinions might enhance or limit its actual efficacy as an educational tool, student grades were compared to survey results. In order to protect the privacy of the students involved, no individual grades or survey results were considered. Instead, the anonymous survey results were averaged for each class and compared against the calculated grade average for each class. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The data from the final survey are represented in the Appendix. This table represents the student-perception survey scores after having completed the entire game. The differences in total responses for certain questions can be attributed to a small number of students skipping questions for unreported reasons. However, as the items were not 192 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 compared with each other, this small difference did not affect the overall results of the survey. Students in all classes showed a preference for using the video game and provided very positive feedback for its perceived effectiveness in post-completion surveys. In post-completion surveys, 72.03% either agreed or strongly agreed that the game assisted them in learning the grammar from class (Item 1). Additionally, 70.09% felt DELRE helped them to practice English (Item 2), while 57% agreed or strongly agreed that DELRE was more effective than a traditional workbook with an additional 31.35% selecting “somewhat agree” (Item 13). When asked if they saw DELRE as more engaging than the traditional workbook, 66.1% agreed or strongly agreed. The least favorable results were in relationship to the technical and actual gameplay experience. In the surveys, only 43.22% indicated that they did not have any problems in downloading and installing (Item 10), and only 49.77% agreed or strongly agreed that they had no problems in understanding their in-game objectives and missions (Item 6). Item 9 is somewhat misleading when viewed as a Likert scale question. While only 45.76% of students strongly agreed that they took advantage of the ability to retake quizzes by stating they agree or strongly disagree, that number jumps to 76% if students who had “no opinion” are understood to have retaken quizzes at least intermittently. The lowest perceived effectiveness can be seen in Item 18, which addresses perceived effectiveness in increasing writing ability (only 38.98%) and Item 19, which measures the same for conversational ability (only 35.59%). The sudden drop off in perceived effectiveness of these two skills compared to reading (Item 17) can be attributed to the technical limitations of the software discussed below in the “Limitations” section. Overall, the students appeared to have been receptive and engaged by the new material. Initial technological difficulties (only 43% did not have problems with downloading and installing) were overshadowed by mostly positive attitudes in most categories and a high perceived effectiveness in the target areas of language usage, specifically grammar. At mid-term/mid-completion, the difference in student grades between the classes using the game and classes not having used the game (gathered from previous semester averages) was negligible. For the writing classes, the Fall 2014 Semester students who used DELRE had an average of 81.38/100 points at mid-term testing, while the students’ Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 193 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 average from previous semesters in classes that followed the same lesson plan and were assessed with the same materials averaged 79.61/100 points. For the speaking classes, the Fall 2014 Semester students who used DELRE had an average of 85.26/100 points while the previous semesters averaged 86.06/100 points. Again, only a negligible difference is manifested, and even this difference is subject to interpretation as the constraints of varying levels of student ability mentioned above prevent the drawing of any solid conclusions from grade-related data. However, when viewed by class, it becomes clear that students with higher perceived effectiveness and understanding of the mechanics of the game regularly achieved higher grades. Writing Class 1, a small class of only 9 students, had an average mid-term assessment of 89.11/100 points compared to the total average of just 81.38/100. The comparative results of their perceptions of the games can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 compares only the Writing Classes, as critical differences in the writing classes and speaking class make comparison of surveys open to far too many variables. Writing Class 1, with a grade average 7.7/100 points higher than the other participating classes, reported that 100% of students either “agreed” or “strongly” agreed that DELRE was effective in helping them to understand grammar from class. In comparison, Writing Class 2 had a 56% agreement rate, and Writing Class 3 had a 75% rate. Likewise, 75% of students in Writing Class 1 reported taking chapter quizzes multiple times, a key feature of the educational method of DELRE. Only 53% of Writing Class 3 and 35% of Writing Class 2 reported retaking quizzes. Writing Class 1 also showed a significantly higher understanding of how to use the software itself, answering Item 6 with 75% “agree” or “strongly agree,” Item 7 with 100% “agree” or “strongly agree,” and Item 10 with 87% “agree” or “strongly agree.” Items 6, 7, and 10 were intended to understand the students’ grasp of the technological difference between using traditional class material and using a digital game as classroom material by focusing on the actual interaction with the material. There are several possible interpretations of the correlation between understanding the material and the grade itself. This first possible interpretation is that the students with a better understanding of how to play the game were able to gain more from the use of it as an educational tool. Additionally, it could be argued that the higher grades are indicative of a better grasp of English, allowing the students to more 194 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 easily understand instructions and therefore more quickly adjust to the new technology. FIGURE 1. Comparison of answers to specific items when categorized by class. It is, however, important to note that the original goals of this study did not include a specific analysis of grades or actual effectiveness of the material. Therefore, while the difference in achieved grade is significant, there is no evidence to suggest a causal relationship. Rather, the presence of this correlation suggests that further research into the potential existence of a causal relationship is warranted. Interestingly, there appeared to be no correlation between perceived relative effectiveness and actual enjoyment of the material. As Figure 1 shows, Writing Class 3, the class with the highest reported enjoyment of the material (Item 13), reported substantially higher levels of perceived effectiveness than Class 2 and somewhat lower levels than Class 1, both of which reported much lower levels of engagement and enjoyment. A somewhat contrary set of answers presents itself when comparing items focused on perceived effectiveness of the digital material. According to Item 1, 72% of students indicated that the game helped them understand grammar learned in class. Likewise, 57% found the game to be more helpful than a traditional workbook, and 53% felt they learned English through the game (Items 13 and 14). However, regarding Items 18 and 19, only 38% felt the game helped them learn to write, Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 195 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 and only 35% felt it helped them with conversation. The nature of the game’s interface (a non-verbal selection of prewritten answers) may very well be the cause of this differentiation. However, it might also be possible that the game’s integration of language skills into the narrative caused students to take less notice of the explicit instruction process, making them less aware of their learning. LIMITATIONS It should be noted that the use of a limited sample size (students taking a specific class) is a major limitation of this research. As many of the survey items included opinionated vocabulary such as “effective” or “fun,” students of different age groups and different cultures may be more or less willing to associate themselves or a class material with these words out of either shyness or perceived offense to an instructor. More importantly, the technically aware culture of Korea may predispose students to be more accepting of new technologies inside the classroom. Therefore, the results of similar research among students with less technological exposure (for any number of economic or cultural reasons) may or may not yield similar findings. The more limiting factor was the lack of a comparative workbook/traditional paper homework material for students to compare with DELRE. Several survey items asked students to draw comparisons between using CDGs and traditional paper homework materials. However, without material specifically designed to compare with DELRE, any comparison would be totally dependent on individual student experiences. Finally, it should be noted that any CDG is a unique entity. The perceptions reflected in this study are perceptions of an extremely limited and technologically stunted example of the potential for educational games. If anything, it could be assumed that any increase in graphic quality, story, sound quality, gameplay mechanics, and any other number of factors could drastically increase the positive attitudes of students towards CDG class materials. However, the time and finances required to develop advanced game programming and design were beyond the scope of this experiment, limiting the potential for students to become engaged with DELRE. 196 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 CONCLUSIONS Though further work comparing the results of this study with findings of similar studies in different cultures and environments would be critical before implementing CDG-based coursework on a noticeable scale, the results of this experiment do, at the very least, offer evidence that students are open to the use of games, not just as supplementary material, but as a core part of their language classroom. A notable majority of students found the material to be effective, and a small majority found the material to be both engaging and fun. The perception that the digital game was at least as effective, if not more so, than a traditional workbook shows us that, at least in this sample size, students are comfortable with the use of emerging technologies in the classroom. We see that these students were able to interact with the material in a meaningful and unintimidating way, creating an environment in which they began to perceive the computer game, something associated with play, as an educational tool. The perception of the digital game as an educational tool in combination with the perception that the digital game was at least somewhat engaging/fun is interesting. While by no means proof, this dual perception of the material would seem to indicate that students were able to engage in the learning process while being actively aware of both the aspects of educational value and play. This means that both the core experience of both learning material and game were perceived as present. From this point, several different possible research paths present themselves. If any wide-scale implementation is to be achieved, researchers and educators must first discern which aspects of CDG materials are the most effective for teaching which language skills and why. Research to isolate and develop the most effective aspects of CDGs for language learning is both the most daunting and most important task ahead for practitioners and researchers in the field. This kind of research would require longitudinal experiments employing highly specialized CDGs built to focus on specific skills. Further, effective strategies for implementation and assessment would need to be devised and tested. Currently there is no commonly accepted theory for developing or implementing CDGs in the language classroom. As the concept of designing games as classroom materials is still very much a new field, methods of presenting materials to students, Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 197 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 interacting (or not interacting) with the game during class time, level, and style of student input, and a vast number of additional pedagogical and administrative approaches will need to be explored. Such developments are beyond the scope of this paper. However, data collected during the present study do, at least, indicate that the further pursuit of CDGs as a classroom material is one warranted by student interest. THE AUTHOR John Clayton Whittle is an assistant professor of English at Dankook University. He obtained his MA in communication from Texas A&M University with a specialization in digital gaming learning potential. He is also the author/developer of the Digital English Language Roleplay Experience (DELRE) immersive language teaching game. Email:
[email protected]REFERENCES Baierschmidt, J. (2013). A principled approach to utilizing digital games in the language learning classroom. JALT Call Journal, 9(3), 307-315. Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Cohen, J. (2006). Audience identification with media characters. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 183-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coleman, D. W. (2002). On foot in SIM CITY: Using SIM COPTER as the basis for an ESL writing assignment. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 217-230. Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 50-80. Gee, J. P. (2007). Pleasure, learning, video games, and life: The projective stance. In M. Knobel and C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 95-113). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the 198 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. S. (2002). IRC Français: The creation of an Internet-based SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 109-134. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476. Konijn, E. A., Nije Bijvank, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1038-1044. Lombardi, I. (2012). Not-so-serious games for language learning. Now with 99.9% more humor on top. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 148-158. Losh, E. (2005). In country with Tactical Iraqi: Trust, identity, and language learning in a military video game. In Digital Experience: Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference 2005 (pp. 69-78). IT University, Copenhagen, Denmark. Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2010). Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of “Brain Training” programme on computation and self-esteem. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 242-255. Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2011). Educational benefits of using game consoles in a primary classroom: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 850-864. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2010.01114.x Miller, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2006). The SIMs meet ESL: Incorporating authentic computer simulation games into the language classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 311-328. Pathan, M., & Aldersi, Z. (2014). Using games in primary schools for effective grammar teaching: A case study from Sebha. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 2(2), 211-227. Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2013). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. Calico Journal, 20(1), 7-32. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21. Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 199 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 ReCALL, 24(3), 322-338. Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441-455. Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2011). Learn English or die: The effects of digital games on interaction and willingness to communicate in a foreign language. Digital Culture & Education, 3(1), 3-29. Reinhardt, J. (2013). Digital game-mediated foreign language teaching and learning: Myths, realities and opportunities. In M. Derivry-Plard, P. Faure, & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Apprendre les langues à l’université au 21ème siècle (pp. 161-178). Paris, France: Riveneuve. Salopek, J. J. (1999). Stop playing games. Training and Development, 53(2), 28-38. Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321. Sundqvist, P. (2009). Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the DiVA (Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet) website: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva 2%3A275141&dswid=-863 Tactical Iraqi (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Alelo. Tewari, A., Goyal, N., Chan, M. K., Yau, T., Canny, J., & Schroeder, U. (2010, December). SPRING: Speech and pronunciation improvement through games, for Hispanic children. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (p. 47). New York, NY: ACM. Turgut, Y., & Irgin, P. (2009). Young learners’ language learning via computer games. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 760-764. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71. Whittle, J. C. (2010). Measuring morality: Moral frameworks in videogames (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 200 John Clayton Whittle Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX Final Survey Results (118 Students) Percent agree or Participant Answer (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) strongly agree Survey Item 11. The game helped me understand 2 10 21 64 21 72.03% grammar used in class. 12. The game helped me practice the 2 11 21 60 23 70.94% English learned in class. 13. The quiz questions were about 2 7 29 58 21 67.52% things I learned in the game. 14. I had fun playing the game. 7 13 29 51 18 58.47% 15. I could understand the English in 2 10 40 34 32 55.93% the game story. 16. I knew where to go/who to talk to. 0 21 38 39 19 49.57% 17. I understand how to play the game 1 7 19 43 47 76.92% (buttons/menus). 18. I was happy with my quiz scores. 3 11 45 31 28 50% 19. I took the quizzes more than once. 7 13 44 38 16 45.76% 10. I did not have problems 3 22 42 39 12 43.22% downloading and installing the game. 11. The amount of work was fair. 4 15 38 37 21 50.43% 12. The game was more engaging than 2 7 31 34 44 66.1% a workbook. 13. The game was more helpful than a 3 10 37 43 25 57.62% workbook. 14. I learned English in the game. 5 9 41 44 19 53.39% 15. The game was challenging. 7 12 57 32 9 35.04% 16. The game was good English 3 10 38 54 13 56.78% practice. 17. The game helped my reading ability. 4 13 41 49 11 50.85% 18. The game helped my writing ability. 5 20 47 38 8 38.98% 19. The game helped my conversation 7 18 51 33 9 35.59% ability. The number of students choosing a certain answer for each item is shown in the corresponding column. The numbers (1) – (5) correspond to “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” as explained in the text. The far-right column is the percent of students who agree or strongly agree with the item. Understandings Perceptions and Perceived Effectiveness of Custom-Designed Games in the EFL Classroom 201 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 202 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video Mark Rebuck Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan When discussing the challenges of using authentic materials, relatively little appears in the literature on content appropriateness. This, however, is becoming an increasingly salient issue for teachers as the wired language classroom becomes the norm and Internet-sourced materials can easily be integrated into lessons. One of these resources, video, may contain images, and/or convey messages, unsuitable for certain teaching contexts. Yet, how does one decide on the appropriateness of content? Conducted at two Japanese universities, the main aim of this study was to investigate students’ reactions to a road safety video about which doubts over its appropriateness had been raised. Results of a questionnaire showed that the majority of the students surveyed favored incorporation of the road safety video over two other public awareness videos, although a sizable minority did consider it unsuitable for the classroom. The students’ reactions to the three videos are analyzed and wider concerns addressed. INTRODUCTION When Sherman (2003) commented that authentic video was a resource teachers “can’t ignore,” she was writing pre-YouTube, as the video sharing website began its service in 2005. With the ever-increasing repository of video on the Internet, teachers are now in an even better position to “stretch the boundaries of the classroom” (Sherman, 2003, p. 2). Video can be used in various ways; for example, to introduce a new topic, stimulate discussion, illustrate and reinforce language points, and to raise awareness of social issues. Despite its potential value as a Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 203 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 teaching resource, clearly not all video will be appropriate for the classroom. Yet what constitutes “appropriateness” is sometimes unclear. The exploratory study reported here emerged partly as a response to doubts raised by the author’s fellow English teachers about the suitability of a video used in the classroom. The study’s objective was to identify students’ views to help inform the author’s decision on the fate of this video as a classroom resource. The remainder of the introduction consists of two parts: first, an overview of the benefits and potential problems of using authentic resources, particularly video, and second, an explanation of the events that led to this study. While perhaps unusual in a research journal of this kind, a somewhat personal account of what motivated this study is necessary here. Without it, the author’s reasons for using a rather graphic video in the classroom could be misconstrued, and the degree to which he later questioned the rationale underlying his decision to use it may not be fully appreciated. The Strengths and Challenges of Using Authentic Material The use of authentic material has been advocated for several reasons. In relation to listening in particular, authentic resources can “afford a listening experience much closer to a real-life one” (Field, 2002, p. 244) by exposing students to the features of spoken English they will encounter in the real world. Using authentic material in the classroom can also have a positive psychological impact on students by making them feel that “they are in touch with a living entity, the target language as it is used by the community which speaks it” (Guariento & Morley, 2001, p. 347). Indeed, Rebuck (2008) found that simply emphasizing the authentic nature of a resource could in itself raise students’ motivation. Harmer (2007, p. 273) cautions that, if not carefully chosen, authentic material may be “extremely demotivating for students since they will not understand it”; however, Rebuck’s (2008) study indicated that excessively difficult authentic listening can, in fact, be motivational for learners, precisely because of their initial inability to comprehend it (this is contingent on comprehension being achieved by the lesson’s end). Authentic audio recordings expose students to language as it is actually spoken, as opposed to the adjusted language for learners common in textbook dialogues. On the other hand, authentic material can suffer from being less linguistically targeted (Gilmore, 2007). Swan 204 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2012) persuasively argues against a polarized view of authentic material, asserting that it is desirable to use both scripted and authentic material at different points in a language course for different reasons. The above brief overview of the benefits of authentic resources has not yet touched specifically on video material. As with audio recordings, authentic video can also provide learners with “a taste of ‘real’ language in use” (Swan, 2012, p. 24). One advantage of video over audio is that students’ comprehension can often be enhanced by visual input, particularly paralinguistic cues such as the facial expression of the speaker(s). So, the value and role that video can have in the classroom, in addition to that of presenting authentic spoken language, needs to be further explored. With this comes the challenge of addressing the potential problems posed by authentic video resources, to be explored next. Why Use Authentic Video? One of the “ten commandments for motivating language learners” suggested by Dörnyei and Csizer (1998) is to “make the language classes interesting” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 10). YouTube is a vast repository of videos – 300 hours of videos are uploaded to the site every minute (“How YouTube changed,” 2015). From this ever expanding video reservoir, a teacher is almost certain to find materials that can help in the fulfilment of this commandant. Johnston (2015) points out that one of the problems in the English education system is that many Koreans regard English as a subject divorced from the real world, a requirement that needs to be passed in exams. Internet videos could go some way to addressing this problem by helping learners to see English as a “living, breathing entity” (Johnston, 2015, p. 9). Video can be a “window on English-language culture” (Sherman, 2003, p. 2). Particularly effective in this respect are commercials, termed by Davis (1997) as “culturally-loaded slices of modern society” (Rationale, para. 3). He points out that, because of their concise aims and brevity, commercials encourage students to stay on task. In addition to commercials, the Internet hosts many other videos of short duration that can be easily slotted into existing lessons. MacGregor (2007), for example, advocates movie trailers, ranging from 60 to 150 seconds in duration, to introduce students to issues not offered by the coursebook. In an interesting activity designed to teach linguistic and cultural Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 205 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 differences, she uses original Hollywood movie trailers together with their Japanese counterparts (i.e., those remade for the Japanese audience). While video can add light relief, arguably a much more important role is to communicate content and introduce issues. A teacher who has been active in Japan, raising awareness of HIV and AIDS through her English classes, uses videos to explore a topic that can “have important ramifications in...students’ lives” (Haynes, 2002, p. 12). Another example of video helping to bring sensitive issues into the classroom is seen in a case study of a lesson to raise awareness of, and tackle ethical issues related to, disability (Rebuck, 2012). Video can serve as an effective springboard for discussion and other productive activities. Haynes describes one way this can be done: For the past few years, I have been using TED videos as homework. The students watch one video...and write a short response. In class, they briefly discuss with a partner what they have watched. The topic of the homework video is related to the theme for that week’s class, [for example] water pollution, bullying.... At the end of the semester...many students comment that although the writing each week was challenging, they learned a great deal by watching the videos. (L. Haynes, personal communication, February 15, 2015) Potential Problems of Authentic Video The author has found that while suitable videos may sometimes be discovered serendipitously, the search for others can take a substantial amount of time. Likewise, preparing any worksheet or transcript for video-centered activities can be time-consuming. On the other hand, once such activities are created, they can be used repeatedly, becoming part of a teacher’s unique repertoire. Although not applicable to the videos in this study, it may be the case that the language will be beyond the group’s comprehension. This can be dealt with in several ways. For example, “a difficult text could be manageable for students if all they have to do is listen [or watch] for global understanding” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, p. 177). Scaffolding can be provided in the form of post-viewing analysis of a language transcript, combining video with a more controlled language activity such as dictation, as described in Rebuck (2015), or even by using subtitles. As Haynes (2002) argues, this use of the students’ first 206 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 language could be more than justified in a lesson dealing with content that is highly relevant to the students: [In teaching about HIV/AIDS awareness] I believe that getting the information across with [Japanese] subtitles is often more important than trying to have them understand in English. (L. Haynes, personal communication, February 15, 2015) Harmer (2007, p. 308) cautions that because many students watch videos at home, they could relate them with relaxation. While this tendency may, indeed, be a factor to consider when, for example, longer clips from movies are shown, it can be countered by giving students while-viewing tasks. With videos that are short in length and/or deal with serious issues, the author has not observed students switching to “chill-out” mode in the classroom. Vandergrift and Goh (2012) suggest seven questions for the teacher to consider when selecting listening material, but which are also relevant for videos. Included, for example, are questions on the suitability of the language in the text and on its length (duration). One question that is not listed, however, is this: Is the message contained and/or conveyed in the media appropriate? This is an important consideration for videos since visual images are likely to be more impactful than sound messages. Moreover, much of the video to be found on the Internet has not been checked by any regulatory body. It is thus incumbent on the teacher to judge the suitability of a video. Sometimes unexpected consequences can occur when a teacher’s selection of authentic resources is deemed mistaken. Hobbs (2006), reports on a teacher who was suspended for using excerpts from the movie “The Passion of the Christ” during a sixth-grade social studies class in the Unites States. More recently, an elementary school teacher in Aichi, Japan, was reprimanded for showing pupils still shots of the body of a Japanese hostage murdered by ISIL (Islamic State). The teacher’s intention, it was reported, was to make pupils appreciate the importance of life and encourage them to think about how news is reported (Nagoya, 2015). In one of the few papers devoted to the subject of video selection for the language classroom, Gareis (1997) advises teachers to consider how comfortable students will feel with a particular video in the light of their religious and cultural backgrounds. She asserts, however, that Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 207 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 controversial subject matter need not be ruled out; indeed, movies containing “problematic content” can “enhance the learning experience and deepen critical thinking skills if treated sensitively, without sensationalism, and in a pedagogically sound manner” (p. 23). While Gareis offers useful recommendations, the voice of the student is mostly absent from her paper. In fact, to this author’s knowledge, there has been no research on the appropriateness of video content from the students’ perspective. It is hoped that what follows will go a little way to filling this gap. THE MOTIVATION FOR THIS STUDY: RECYCLING VOCABULARY WITH A ROAD SAFETY VIDEO An online article (Morris, 2009) alerted the author to a hard-hitting video that had gone viral, made to deter drivers from texting while driving. Watching this “texting” video (as it will be called hereafter), the author realized it could be slotted into an existing lesson (hereafter referred to as “Lesson 1”) to complement an authentic listening activity. Specifically, the video would provide another context for recycling the phrasal verb put off. In Lesson 1, prior to showing the video, students were asked whether they had ever used a mobile phone while driving, why this behavior could be dangerous, and how drivers could be put off doing it. The video was then played. Observing the physical reaction of students during and after the viewing, it was clear that the video had made an impact. In fact, a few appeared visibly shaken. At the end of the lesson, the author began to doubt whether his decision to use the video in class had been the correct one. These doubts about the video’s appropriateness intensified after the author received critical comments from other English teachers during a presentation in which he showed the video. Three of the most pertinent audience contributions are paraphrased below: 1. Although the message is important, something so graphic is completely inappropriate for the language classroom. 2. What if a relative or friend of one of the students had died in a crash? A person directly affected by such an accident could really 208 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 be disturbed by this video. 3. Aren’t you being paid to teach language? It’s not your job to educate young people about safe driving; leave that to the police and the driving schools. The Role of the EFL Teacher The third question developed into a discussion at the end of the conference presentation on whether EFL professionals can, or should, teach the language and nothing more. The author introduced two contrasting perspectives: that of Brown (2010), and Perrin (2010). Brown asserts that EFL professionals are educators in the widest sense of the word, and not just technicians teaching the “parts” of English. Perrin, on the other hand, argues that EFL differs in fundamental ways from other subjects, and that rather than “cast[ing] around for other roles” teachers should focus on the “difficult and unglamorous work” of teaching the nuts and bolts of the language (p. 45). The author argued that unless lessons are filled with decontextualized sentences, language will need to be parceled in some kind of topic wrapper. A likely consequence, whether intended or not, of employing real-world issues – for example, the problem of mobile phone use while driving – as a wrapper will be that the things students think and learn about will be more than just language. The choice for EFL teachers, however, the author argued, need not be a stark one between being language technicians and “instrument[s] of social change” (Brown, p. 5), and he offered examples of how grammar and content have been harmoniously integrated, including that of Schneider (2005). There is, the author concluded, a place for both focusing on linguistic form and for providing content that raises students’ awareness of various issues, and that may even help achieve what Sotto (2007) considers to be the aim of good teaching: “changing the way that people see things” (p. 254). While the author was able to offer an argument for a less restrictive view of the EFL teacher’s role, it was clear by the presentation’s end that, without determining what the students themselves thought, he could not respond convincingly to the charge that the texting video was inappropriate. It was this realization that led to the study described below. Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 209 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 METHOD: THE DVD-SEQUENCE LESSON To investigate the students’ views on the use of the texting video, a survey was conducted at the end of a lesson that was created specifically for this research. In this lesson, three public awareness videos (V), including the texting one, were each sandwiched between a dictation (D) and a dialogue (D). This sequence of dictation, video, and dialogue (hereafter referred to as the “DVD-sequence”) was conceived of as a way to package video for the classroom. Participants The study was conducted in two private universities in central Japan. The 123 participants were first-year students in six mandatory oral communication classes. Two of these classes comprised language majors with upper-intermediate proficiency in English; in the other four classes were non-language majors with a proficiency level that ranged from false-beginner to intermediate. All the students were Japanese, apart from four Chinese students in two of the classes. Procedure The author intentionally ended Lesson 1 fifteen minutes early, at 75 instead of 90 minutes (i.e., after the authentic listening). An empty slot was thus created into which students would choose a video to incorporate. The DVD-sequence lesson was held the following week. After a review of phrasal verbs with a focus on put off (introduced in Lesson 1), students were told they would be watching three videos made to “put people off doing different things.” Although the study’s main aim was to assess students’ reactions to the texting video, a single DVD-sequence alone would have been insufficient to fill a lesson. Moreover, the author considered that students could better judge the texting video if they had others of the same genre to compare it with. Therefore, two other public awareness videos were also shown. One warned of the dangers of fast-food (the “hamburger” video); the other, the “shark finning” video, sought to highlight the environmental impact of catching sharks for their fins. As was mentioned earlier, the narration of this video is in Chinese with English subtitles. 210 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 At this point, it is suggested that readers view the three videos, the URL links to which are shown below; watching them will help in picturing the DVD-sequence lesson and provide a clearer context for the students’ responses. The URLs of the Three Public Awareness Videos “Texting” video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9krX9fHAfHM &feature=related> “Hamburger” video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx0IJnO3o8g> “Shark finning” video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2UKg LsOhRM> Each video, as explained above, was shown after a dictation and before a dialogue. Dictation practices listening comprehension and other language skills, and, as Underhill (2005) points out, helps learners “discover what it is about spoken English that they tend not to hear” (p. 202). At the same time, the dictation in this study served to provide background information about, and piqued students’ interest in, the upcoming video. The text was projected onto a screen, then read and explained by the teacher (the author). It was then removed from the screen and dictated by the teacher to the students, who wrote down what they heard. Revealing the text beforehand makes the task more manageable for lower-level students and may encourage deeper cognitive processing as students endeavor to remember the passage while it is displayed. After watching the video, students practiced the dialogue, which encapsulated the video’s message and recycled the target lexical item: the phrasal verb to put off. A gap-filling component in the dialogue encouraged greater interaction with the text and added a limited degree of personalization to the activity. Put off occurred in each dictation and dialogue, meaning that students were exposed to this lexical item several times during the lesson. This could be considered an example of what Lightbown and Spada (2013) describe as an “input flood” (p. 218); that is, providing learners with input containing multiple examples of a particular language item After completing the DVD-sequences (Appendix A), students were handed the texts of the three dictations and told to check their efforts against the originals for homework. In the last 15 minutes of the lesson, students completed a questionnaire (Appendix B). Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 211 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Rationale for Video Selection The two criteria for video selection were duration and clarity of message. The three videos are short with messages that could, to a great extent, be understood through the images alone. While the author learned of the texting and fast-food videos by chance through online news articles (e.g., Morris, 2009; Clark, 2010), he actively searched for a video on shark finning, influenced by a long-standing interest in marine conservation. The issue also seemed a timely one because California had recently passed a law to ban possession or sale of shark fin, a story that was reported in the Japanese press at the time. RESULTS A Pearson’s Chi-square test found no significant difference at the 5-percent level between the six classes’ responses on the questionnaire’s Likert-scale items; the 123 students were therefore treated as a single group. Employing a grounded-theory approach to the analysis of the students’ comments in the open-ended questions, key words and phrases were identified in an iterative process until a number of main themes emerged from the data. TABLE 1. Responses to Q1 and Q2 Question Texting Hamburger Shark Finning Total Q 1 79 (64.2%) 26 (21.1%) 18 (14.6%) 123 (100%) Q 2 34 (27.6%) 12 (9.8%) 16 (13%) 62 (50.4%) Table 1 shows responses to the first two items (Q1 and Q2) on the questionnaire. The results of Q1, which asks students to select one video to use in Lesson 1’s fifteen-minute slot, indicates that the texting video would be chosen by the majority. An analysis of the comments revealed that the impact and relevance of the video were the two main reasons for this choice. The responses below are representative of those received (all students’ comments in this paper are translated from the Japanese). Response 1a: The video had so much more impact than the other 212 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 two. I could not ignore it as something that did not concern me. Response 1b: [The texting video] dealt with an issue that is most likely to affect us because we will be driving soon. The images were so real and graphic that I think they will be effective in stopping people from using their mobile phones while driving. Relevance was also the main reason given by students, including the one below, for their choosing the hamburger video. Response 2: It really struck a chord with me because students, especially those who live alone, tend to eat a lot of fast food. For the shark-finning video, however, relevance (expressed in this context by the Japanese word mijika) did not appear in the comments. Instead, the most common reason given for choosing this video was that it had opened students’ eyes to an issue of which they had previously been unaware. Of those students who responded to the second item (Q2), which sought to ascertain which, if any, of the videos were considered inappropriate, the majority chose the texting video. The comment below is representative of those who considered this video futekisetsu (inappropriate). Response 3: The images were too real and graphic; I’m sure that some students will feel sick watching this. This is not the kind of thing that is shown in public in Japan. It is interesting to note that the student above was one of ten who marked the texting video as inappropriate, but also selected it in Q1. These students’ comments expressed concern for the effect of the video on classmates rather than on themselves. Many students qualified their judgment of inappropriateness with a positive evaluation of the subject matter: Response 4: Although the video was particularly relevant for people our age, the images were too shocking for a classroom. The shark finning video was considered inappropriate by 13 percent Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 213 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 of the students. The main reason for this was its perceived lack of relevancy. Response 5: It wasn’t that the video was “inappropriate,” but shark fin is not something that students can afford. The content of the video had no connection to my life. Students who marked the hamburger video as inappropriate did so for a variety of reasons. Two students, for example, expressed disapproval for a lightly veiled attack on a specific company; another gave the following objection: Response 6: After watching this video it will change the way I see a food that I often eat. I didn’t want my enjoyment spoiled. The questionnaire also asked students to choose between three options for filling the fifteen-minute slot in Lesson 1 (Q3). This item served to provide another indication of students’ overall perception of the DVD-sequence. As can be seen in Table 2, almost 40 per cent of students chose to fill the slot with one of the three DVD-sequences. Some reasons for this choice, as gleaned from the comments, are presented later. TABLE 2. Responses to Q3 Incorporate a Spend time on other Leave 15 Total DVD-sequence parts of lesson minutes early 49 (39.8%) 31 (25.2%) 43 (35%) 123 (100%) DISCUSSION This study emerged as a way to respond to the concerns of fellow teachers regarding the appropriateness of the texting video. Three of these concerns were introduced earlier in this paper; the two that have yet to be addressed are reprinted below, together with a response informed by this present study. 214 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Although the message is important, something so graphic is completely inappropriate for the language classroom. The study showed that the majority of students did not judge the video to be inappropriate, although a sizable minority did indeed find it too hard-hitting and thus unsuitable. What if a relative or friend of one of the students had died in a crash? A person directly affected by such an accident could really be disturbed by this video. The concern of the questioner was, unfortunately, justified. The following comment was received from one of the students. Response 7: My uncle died in a road traffic accident last weekend. [Watching the video] I was reminded of what happened. It was difficult to bear and I almost cried. The video was given approval for classroom use by 64 percent of the students. Considering its potential for encouraging safer driving, it could be argued that there is a strong justification for showing the video in future lessons. The previous comment, however, forced the author to ask whether he can continue using a resource if there is a chance it could negatively impact even one student. Johnston’s (2003) observation that the “decisions made by teachers are never straightforward but always at some level involve a clash of values” (p. 146) was given particular personal resonance as the author grappled with this dilemma. The author responded earlier to the view that EFL teachers should not stray beyond instructing on language. Observing students’ high level of engagement in the DVD-sequence lesson seemed to him a further demonstration that content with the potential to change “hearts and minds” can be as much a vehicle for language practice as the more anodyne topics in much published ELT material. However, perhaps more problematic than the question of whether to include such content is determining the teacher’s position in relation to the specific issues chosen. If a video used as a classroom resource promotes a message with which the teacher has some sympathy, it is necessary to consider whether this would be tantamount to using the classroom as a soapbox or conduit for his or hers views and values. This Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 215 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 may be of particular concern in Korea (and, indeed, Japan), where students are generally more deferential to their teachers than their counterparts, for example, in the UK, and tend to view them as figures of authority (Lim, 2003). This could leave students more open to influence from the views espoused (whether implicitly or explicitly) by their seonsaeng-nim or sensei (Kor. “teacher” and Jap. “teacher,” respectively). In relation to this study, to the extent that the author supports the conservation message of the shark-finning video, it did indeed reflect one of his beliefs. Yet it could be argued that teachers purposively choosing only those topics on which they felt neutral, or topics that were “safe,” would itself constitute a value judgment on the role of the teacher, and indeed of ELT itself. Rather than being overly concerned with a teacher’s personal motivation for bringing a certain issue into the classroom, we should perhaps focus more on the potential effect of its message. Johnston (2003, p. 5) stresses that the aim of teaching is to change people and that “any attempt to change another person has to be done with the assumption...that the change will be for the better.” What “for the better” means is, of course, also a value judgment, but few could argue that becoming safer drivers (a potential consequence of the texting video) and more thoughtful consumers (a potential consequence of the other two) constitutes a change for the worse Concerns about “brainwashing” students may make some teachers shy away from using all but the most anodyne of authentic resources. However, if material is selected with due consideration (see below), videos with a message can be a highly stimulating and productive resource, and also one particularly suited to Korea. In 2009, Korea ranked top in an OECD PISA survey on teenagers’ use of computers and the Internet to learn (OECD, 2011). With such “wired” learners, video-related activities can easily be followed up out of class. For example, homework could be set that requires students to ask a family member or a friend to view the video previously used in class. In the following lesson, students report back on this outside-viewer’s opinion on some aspect of the video. A lesson in which controversial video is used may also provide an apt context for focusing on the media literacy, including how to spot bias and implicit stereotypes. Although not specifically related to the Internet, a paper by Haynes (2004) can provide some pointers in this area. 216 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Classroom Application: Selecting Materials Chambers (1993) considers relevance to be a key motivational element; indeed, he asserts, it must be “the red thread” running through all activities (p. 37). The perceived relevance of a video to the students’ lives was shown in this study to be an important factor in its positive evaluation. This confirms what most teachers already know: Choose content that connects with the students. It should be noted, however, that this connection is not always as obvious as that of, for example, road safety. An issue’s relevance may need to be highlighted. For example, more students in this study may have selected the shark-finning video if they had been told that Kesennuma, a port city devastated in the 2011 tsunami in the Tohoku region of Japan, had been responsible for 90 percent of the country’s shark fin catch (McCurry, 2011). As Tomlinson (2012) points out, commercial publishers avoid risks with the coursebooks they sell globally, often leading to products that are “sanitized, bland, and boring” (p. 273). Video can serve as a resource to help replace, or at least provide a break from, these global coursebooks. While Tomlinson argues for valuable and more provocative classroom materials, authentic video does not, of course, need to be provocative to be of value. There may, however, be times when a video’s pedagogical value lies in its power to make an impact. In such cases, teachers may need to decide whether it strays beyond what is appropriate. Since conducting this study, the author has moved from teaching general English to ESP, specifically English for pharmacy. One of the topics he is required to cover with his third-year pharmacy students in a few months’ time is end-of-life care. As well as looking at palliative care, this will also include exploring ethical issues around euthanasia and assisted suicide. The author has decided, after careful consideration of whether or not it crosses his appropriateness boundary, to use a clip from a controversial BBC television documentary – called “Choosing to Die” (2012) – showing a man, Peter Smedley, taking his own life at the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland. The clip shows Peter drink the drug cocktail and fall into a sleep from which he would never awake. Unlike the videos in this present study, the BBC clip contains dialogue, and it is delivered slowly and deliberately – perfect speed for language learners. Handing over the poison, the doctor asks, “Are you sure that you want to drink this Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 217 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 medicament with which you will sleep and die?” to which Peter replies, “Yes, I’m quite sure that’s what I want to do.” The author feels strongly that, in the context of the topic he has been assigned to teach, this video clip can serve an important role in educating future healthcare professionals. Yet he does have certain reservations. Will it, for example, be appropriate if he uses the final frame of a person’s life partly as a “resource” with which to highlight useful or interesting language points? (“OK,” the author can imagine himself saying, “so why does the doctor use the word ‘medicament’ rather than ‘medicine’ and what’s the function of ‘quite’ in this sentence of Peter’s?”) Deckert (2004) proposes five guidelines for the selection of topical content. He suggests, for example, that materials need to address the ethical setting of the target audience, and promote mutual respect of diverse perspectives. Thus, if the author were teaching in Korea, a country in which Christianity (a religion which, at least in the past, has regarded suicide as a sin) has a much stronger influence than in Japan, he would probably be less inclined to use the assisted suicide clip described above. While Deckert’s guidelines provide a useful reference point for teachers, it is often the case that a teacher’s instinct, if honed by ample experience and knowledge of the students’ background(s), will be the best guide when selecting materials. When unsure as to a video’s suitability, seeking the opinion of other practitioners can be helpful. The author, for example, consults his Japanese wife, also a university teacher, for a perspective that is more rooted in the Japanese culture than his own. Feedback from the class, such as that obtained in this study, can serve not only to decide the fate of a particular video, but to provide insights into the views and feeling of the students that may help inform future selection choices. The teaching context will often be an important factor when selecting materials because students’ perceptions of what is and what is not appropriate may differ. Weintroub (1998), writing on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a classroom topic asserts that the EFL classroom can be the ideal venue for grappling with those “‘hot potatoes’ – burning, controversial issues” (p. 11). In Israel, where he teaches, this may be so, but in EFL classes in some other countries in the Middle East this topic could not be broached. In relation to this long-standing conflict, Deckert (2004), as an ESL teacher in Canada, recounts how his choice of a news report (he does not state whether this was a video or written text) on a “fatal Palestinian-Israeli shootout” for 218 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 a production activity offended a Middle Eastern student so greatly that he/she transferred to another class. Although geographically close, Japan and Korea have many cultural differences. Aubrey (2009) explores how these differences can manifest themselves in the EFL classroom. He asserts, for example, that because of their very different histories (Korea as “defender” and Japan as “aggressor”) students will respond differently to topics that deal with national pride and standing. Koreans, Aubrey contests, will be eager participants in activities on such issues, while in Japan students will be more passive because they are less attached emotionally to topics that affect Japan as a nation. The author happens to be writing this on Takeshima no hi (“Takeshima Day”) – initiated in 2005 to draw public attention to the islands that are in Korean called Dokdo. By Aubrey’s assertion, it could be expected that an English-language video on this issue would thus be a wiser choice as a stimulus for debate in a Korean rather than Japanese classroom (inputting into a search engine “Takeshima – seeking a solution based on law and dialogue” and “Dokdo, beautiful island of Korea” will bring up videos expressing the often contrasting standpoints of the Japanese and Korean Governments, respectively, on this territorial dispute). Other factors may influence selection. In this study, the author’s main aim for selecting a video with Chinese narration was to make the activity more inclusive for the few Chinese students in the class; however, in hindsight, a video on the same issue with English narration would have been more in keeping with an EFL class. The video does, however, raise interesting issues about what constitutes “authentic.” As the intended audience is Chinese speakers, it could be argued that the video does not qualify as an authentic resource in an English class, although it would do in a Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) class. On the other hand, it would certainly fall under the category of authentic if such materials are considered to be those originating as “real-life messages in society” (Deckert, 2004, p. 75), rather than concocted for the purpose of language teaching. Made by a US-based NPO (WildAid), the subtitles were likely to have been written by a native English speaker. In this respect, the video provided an authentic reading experience. The author intentionally incorporated words and phrases from the subtitles into the dictation (see Appendix A, Video 3), so as to support students’ comprehension of them as they watched (and also “read”) the video. Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 219 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The DVD-Sequence for Language Learning and More While conceived of as the means to elicit students’ views for this study, the DVD-sequence could have wider pedagogical applications. In response to item 3 (Q3) of the questionnaire, several student responses, including the one below, alluded to the synergistic effects of the three components: Response 8: Watching the video brought the dictation to life. It made me understand what I had just written. Teachers could dedicate a complete lesson to multiple DVD-sequences, as was done in this study, or a single sequence could be integrated into existing lessons. The DVD-sequence need not finish once the lesson has; narration and/or dialogue on the video can be made into a gap-fill or dictation exercise to be done outside of class, as illustrated in Rebuck (2015). Conducting a study similar to the present one may help foster students’ autonomy if, as was done in this research, it is stressed that their opinions will influence future classroom content. As a further step in shifting content selection away from the teacher, students could choose their own videos and create the accompanying dictation and dialogues. Finally, while the DVD-sequence was designed as an awareness-raising rather than a discussion activity, opportunities for students to respond to the issues raised could be provided outside of class, for example, in written homework or end-of-semester interviews. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS For teachers considering using one or more of the videos in this study in their own classroom, caution should be taken in generalizing from the results. As discussed earlier, students in different contexts may react differently to the same material; for instance, views towards American culture or large corporations could be influenced by factors such as nationality or social class. This may, in turn, affect their perception of appropriateness of the hamburger video, which was not only aimed at raising health-awareness, but was also clearly attacking 220 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 what is a symbol of US culture, McDonald’s. As described in the Introduction, the impetus for this study was the reaction of fellow teachers to the author using the texting video. This study suggests that, in respect to this particular video, there was a divergence in the perception of appropriateness between teachers and students. However, this research did not seek to survey a sample of teachers in a formal way. Future research could perhaps compare more rigorously how learners and those who teach them evaluate video in terms of appropriateness as a classroom resource. Despite its limitations, this exploratory study illustrates how gaining insights into learners’ perceptions of particular videos can help inform the selection of authentic resources for the classroom. Finally, it is hoped that the DVD-sequence, originally designed specifically for this study to deliver video in combination with two staples of language instruction, dictation and dialogue, can be adopted and adapted by teachers as another way to take advantage of the video resources that now abound online. THE AUTHOR Mark Rebuck has taught English in London (the city of his birth), Korea, and, for the last two decades, Japan. His areas of interest include materials development using authentic resources, particularly in the field of medical English. Email:
[email protected]REFERENCES Aubrey, S. (2009). A cross-cultural discussion of Japan and South Korea and how differences are manifested in the ESL/EFL classroom. Asian Social Science, 5(5), 34-39. Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ ass/article/view/1697 Brown, P. (2010). Political correctness versus common sense. Modern English Teacher, 19(3), 5-9. Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Clark, A. (2010, September 14). McDonald’s targeted in US health ad. The Guardian. Retrieved from Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 221 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 ht t p : / / www. gua r d ia n. co. uk/ bus i ne ss / 201 0/ s ep / 14/ us- hea lt h- ad-targets-mcdonalds Davis, R. (1997). TV commercial messages: An untapped video resource for content-based classes. The Language Teacher Online, 21(3), 13-15. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/mar/davis.html Deckert, G. (2004). Guidelines for the selection of topical content in ESL programs. TESL Canada Journal, 4, 73-88. Retrieved from http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/1041 Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman. Field, J. (2002). The changing face of listening. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 242-247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gareis, E. (1997). Movies in the language classroom: Dealing with problematic content. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 20-23. Gilmore, A. 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118. Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Haynes, L. (2002). AIDS: A topic that spans the curriculum. Academia, Journal of the Nanzan Academic Society, Literature and Language, 72, 53-67. Haynes, L. (2004). Reading the media: Introducing media literacy in EFL. Explorations in Teacher Education: JALT Teacher Education SIG Newsletter, 12(1), 15-21. Retrieved from http://www.hum.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/ ~louise/research/assets/reading-the-media.pdf Hobbs, R. (2006). Non-optimal uses of video in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(1), 35-50. Retrieved fromhttp:// mediaeducationlab.com/pub/non-optimal-uses-video-classroom How YouTube changed the world. (2015, February 9). The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/youtube/ Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Johnston, J. (2015). Tiger moms and English in Korea. The English Connection, 19(1), 8-9. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford, 222 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 UK: Oxford University Press. Lim, H. Y., & Griffith, W. I. (2003). Successful classroom discussions with adult Korean ESL/EFL learners. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(5). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lim-AdultKoreanshtml MacGregor, L. (2007). Looking at cultural difference in movie trailers. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006 Conference Proceedings (pp. 634-643). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. McCurry, J. (2011, February 11). Shark fishing in Japan: A messy, blood-spattered business. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www. guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/11/shark-fishing-in-japan Morris, S. (2009, September 3). Made in Gwent with £10,000: The road safety video taking YouTube by storm. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/03/gwent-road-safety-film Nagoya no sho 5 jugyou de itai gazou nihonjin hitojichijiken, shusei mo sezu [Fifth-grade school pupils shown un-retouched photograph of dead Japanese hostage]. (2015, February 5). Chunichi Shimbun. Retrieved from http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/front/list/CK2015020502000265.html OECD. (2011). Education: Korea tops new OECD PISA survey of digital literacy. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/educationkorea topsnewoecdpisasurveyofdigitalliteracy.htm Perrin, G. (2010). EFL teachers and social change. Modern English Teacher, 19(4), 43-45. Rebuck, M. (2008). The effect of excessively difficult listening lessons on motivation and the influence of authentic listening as a “lesson selling tag.” JALT Journal, 30(2), 197-223. Rebuck, M. (2012). Bringing life to the classroom: Disability as an EFL topic. In A. Stewart & N. Sonda (Eds.), JALT2012 Conference Proceedings (pp. 79-93). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Rebuck, M. (2015). Mixing ancient and modern: Dictation and Internet media combinations. In N. Sonda, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014 Conference Proceedings (in press). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues. ELT Journal, 59(4), 298-305. Sherman, J. (2003). Using authentic video in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sotto, E. (2007). When teaching become learning: A theory and practice of teaching. London, UK: Continuum. Swan, M. (2012). Thinking about language teaching: Selected articles 1982-2011. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development. In J. C. Richards & A. Burns (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 223 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 269-278). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Underhill, A. (2005). Sound foundations. Oxford, UK: Macmillan. Weintroub, E. (1998). Teaching about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Global issues in language education newsletter, 33, 11. Retrieved from jalt.org/global/newsletter/33hot.htm 224 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX A Handout for DVD-Sequence Lesson Phrases to complete the conversations 1. A) It was a complete waste of time B) It was OK C) It was quite interesting D) It was really interesting 2. A) I don’t think it will. B) it might. C) it may make people think twice about [ ]. D) I think people who watch it will definitely not [ ] again. Video 1 Dictation Welsh awareness specifically (Show Video) Dialogue A: How was your English lesson? B: 1 . We saw a video that was made to raise awareness of the dangers of texting while driving. A: Why did your teacher use such a video in an English class? B: I think it was to illustrate one of the uses of the phrasal verb put off. And maybe he showed the video because he wanted to put us off texting while driving. After all, many of us will be getting our driver’s license in the near future. A: Do you think that just watching a video will really put people off texting while driving? B: Actually, 2 Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 225 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Video 2 Dictation Mortuary advert spokesman propaganda (Show Video) Dialogue A: How was your English lesson? B: 1 . We saw a video that was made to raise awareness of the health hazards of eating too much fast food. A: Why did your teacher use such a video in an English class? B: I think it was to illustrate one of the uses of the phrasal verb put off. And maybe he showed the video because he wanted to put us off eating too much fast food. After all, many young people often go to McDonald’s and similar places. A: Do you think that just watching a video will really put people off eating too many hamburgers? B: Actually, 2 Video 3 Dictation fin wasteful extinction subtitles 226 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Show Video) Dialogue A: How was your English lesson? B: 1 . We saw a video that was made to raise awareness of how the demand for shark fin is driving sharks to extinction. A: Why did your teacher use such a video in an English class? B: I think it was to illustrate one of the uses of the phrasal verb put off. And maybe he showed the video because he wanted to put us off buying shark fin soup. After all, fukahire is very popular in Japan. Our teacher said that although the top shark catching nation is Indonesia, followed by India, Spain and Taiwan, Japan was in 9th place, with an annual average catch of almost 25,000 tonnes in 2010. A: Do you think that just watching a video will really put people off buying shark fin soup? B: Actually, 2 Dictation Transcripts 1) The video you are about see is a public information film that was made by the Welsh police. It aims to raise people’s awareness of road safety. Specifically, it was made to put people, particularly young people, off texting while driving. The video has been shown in high schools in and outside the UK. (54 words) 2) The video you are going to see is a commercial made by a Washington-based medical group. It shows an overweight, middle-aged man lying dead in a mortuary. In his hand is a half-eaten hamburger. The aim of this not-for-profit advert, which was shown on TV in some parts of America, was to alert people to the dangers of fast food and put people off eating it. A spokesman for McDonald’s has criticized the advert as “propaganda.” (77 words) 3) This video, made by an international NGO, aims to raise awareness of the threat to sharks by overfishing. Sharks are mainly caught for their fins, the main ingredient of shark fin soup. Often, only the fins are cut off and the shark is thrown back into the sea to die. This cruel and wasteful practice is called “finning.” Because of the rising demand for shark fins, some species of shark have declined by 90%. Sharks that have lived in the oceans for over 400 million years are now threatened with extinction. The video ends with a catchline aimed at putting people off shark fin products: “When the buying stops, the killing can too.” The language spoken on the video is Chinese; this is because China is the main consumer of shark fin. But don’t worry if you don’t understand Chinese because there are English subtitles! (146 words) Appropriate for ELT? Students’ Views of the Use of “Contentious” Video 227 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 APPENDIX B Questionnaire (Translation of Japanese language version completed by students) Please complete this short questionnaire. Your views will help decide which, if any, of the three videos will be incorporated into future courses. Did you attend last week’s lesson? Yes No Q1 If your teacher were to include one of the three videos into last week’s lesson, which one do you think he should choose? Please circle either a, b, or c below: a VIDEO 1 (‘texting’ ) b VIDEO 2 (‘hamburger’ ) c VIDEO 3 (‘Shark finning’) Please give a reason for your choice of video: Q2 Do you think any of the three videos are inappropriate to show in an English class? YES NO If you answered ‘Yes,’ which one(s)? a VIDEO 1 b VIDEO 2 c VIDEO 3 Please give a reason for your answer: Q 3 We finished last week’s lesson around fifteen minutes early. What do you think should be done in this fifteen-minute slot? Please circle ONE of the below: a Use it to watch one of the videos and to practice the accompanying dictation and conversation. b Use it to work on another part of last week’s lesson. c We should finish the lesson fifteen minutes early as we did last week. Please give a reason for your choice: 228 Mark Rebuck Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi University of Shahrood, Shahrood, Iran Jamal Alinejad Sari High Schools, Mazandran, Iran Although studies that explore the effect of interactive whiteboards on language education abound, the empirical findings they present are inconclusive. To fill in this gap, this study aims at exploring: (a) the impact of interactive whiteboard on EFL learners’ vocabulary development and (b) EFL learners’ perceptions of this interactive technology. Using the cluster sampling procedure, 60 EFL learners were randomly selected and assigned to experimental and control conditions to explore the comparative effect of interactive and ordinary whiteboards on their vocabulary development. A questionnaire was also administered to explore the subjects’ perception of teaching vocabulary through interactive whiteboards. Data were analyzed using the t-test for independent samples and the chi-square test of significance, respectively. The results showed that (a) using interactive whiteboards produces a significant difference in EFL learners’ vocabulary development and (b) EFL learners have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. INTRODUCTION In Asian countries, language education has many things in common. What follows clearly shows aspects of language education in South Korea. However, they also remind Iranian high school practitioners of what happens in public high school language education in Iran: The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 229 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 · Language teachers have heavy accents; therefore, students mispronounce the words they learn. (Gavran, 2013) · Due to the importance of the university entrance exams, lots of classes are dedicated to preparing students for these highstakes national exams. (Seth, 2002) · During the twelfth year of secondary-school life, students are given repeated school examinations, which may include “weekly exams,” “monthly exams,” “mid-terms,” “finals,” and “university entrance practice exams.” (Lee & Larson, 2000) · Getting a high score in the CSAT examination guarantees entry to prestigious universities. (Gavran, 2013) · Everywhere you look, you can see an English private school and a lot of them have the signs “TOEFL” or “TOEIC.” (Gavran, 2013) Although these two countries are geographically distant, the foregoing studies show that in terms of language education policy and practice, they are under the same roof. One of the most acknowledged weaknesses of language education in these contexts is “over-reliance on teacher-centred instructional methodologies involving rote-memorization” (McGuire, 2007, p. 230). Mayer (2002) noted that knowledge acquisition can be divided into two important parts: retention and transfer. While the former aims at recalling the memorized material, the latter is “the ability to use what was learned to solve new problems, answer new questions, or facilitate learning new subject matter” (Mayer, 2002, p. 226). Since rote learning is an inherited learning technique in Asian countries, language learners have difficulty in using the vocabulary they learn in the language curriculum. Although language learners learn lots of words to pass highstakes tests, they cannot use them in interacting with others. With the advent of modern educational technology, especially interactive whiteboards (IWBs), language education in these countries can shift learners away from retention of information towards transfer of training. The authors hypothesize that introducing IWBs into language classes can have a positive effect on the learner’s vocabulary, which is one of the main component parts of nationwide university exams in these two contexts as well as numerous other contexts. 230 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW In addition to being large and touch sensitive, IWBs exhibit projected representations and allow the teacher and students to manipulate them. Moreover, an average IWB has the capacity to transmit information from the board to the computer immediately after the screen is touched (Duran & Cruz, 2011); hence, there has been an ever-increasing interest in utilizing IWBs in classrooms. Another undeniable benefit of this technology is that it combines all pre-existing instructional aids such as chalkboard, whiteboard, television, video, overhead projector, CD player, and computer (Yáñez & Coyle, 2011). Moreover, Gray (2010, p. 71) points out that the IWB has “the capacity to facilitate more individualized styles and rates of learning.” According to Duran and Cruz (2011), L2 learners in IWB classrooms are more attentive, engaged, and supportive of each other since they find the lessons more interesting and fun. Finally, Beeland (2002) points out that the use of IWBs in L2 classrooms is very effective in enhancing and increasing the levels of learner engagement in the teaching and learning activities. These benefits have led to their increased popularity and attractiveness as expressed by a number of researchers (Brown, 2003). Among other things, IWBs can enhance the functionality of computers and projectors by adding interactivity to these media that make it distinct from traditional PowerPoint presentations (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Mercer, Hennessy, and Warwick (2010) investigated how teachers could use the technical interactivity of the IWB to support dialogic interactivity. The results showed that teachers use effective strategies in using IWBs in orchestrating dialogues. Considering the possible advantages of IWBs, teachers can enrich their instructions with various instructional strategies and techniques, and therefore increase students’ attention, motivation, participation, and collaboration by means of an IWB (Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005). In spite of the benefits of IWBs in classrooms, there are also some challenges that the use of IWBs may pose in L2 teaching and learning. These challenges often consist of technical issues such as the breaking down of IWBs, high cost, and extra time required to plan and prepare materials (Thomas & Cutrim Schmid, 2010), lack of teachers’ confidence and ICT skills in using IWBs (Hall & Higgins, 2005), and special training required for teachers to appropriately use IWBs and to support The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 231 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 their selection of appropriate software (Isman, Abanmy, Hussein, & Al-Saadany, 2012). Although there are numerous studies that focus on the use of IWBs in education, these studies have two main drawbacks. First, researchers, who have attempted to evaluate IWB use, have relied on perceptions of teachers as the main data source (Slay, Siebörger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008) to determine the effectiveness of this technology in school settings. In fact, there is exceedingly little empirical research evidence regarding the effectiveness of the IWB technology in L2 teaching and learning. According to Hockly (2013), for example, there is little reference to any specific improvements in student attainment due to the use of the IBWs in the language classroom. Studies exploring teachers’ and learners’ perceptions show that · students and teachers have or develop positive attitudes toward the IWB (Hall & Higgins, 2005); · IWBs increase interest and motivation among students and teachers (Johnsona, Ramanaira, & Brineb, 2010); · both teachers and learners have generally favorable attitudes towards IWBs (Moss, Jewitt, Levacic, Armstrong, Cardini, & Castle, 2007); · learners are more motivated and like lessons in which IWBs are used since these lessons are quicker, more fun, and more exciting (Duran & Cruz, 2011). Despite teachers’ and learners’ positive attitude towards using IWBs in language education, some studies show that they did not make any significant difference in teaching and learning. In their recent meta-analysis research into the use of technology in L2 teaching in the primary and secondary sectors, Macaro, Handley, and Walter (2012) indicated that there is slight and inconclusive evidence that technology has a direct beneficial impact on linguistic outcomes, but it may impact indirectly and positively on learner attitudes and behaviors, and may promote collaboration. Similarly, Bell (2000) found that IWBs do not have any significant effects on writing achievement but do lead to a significant improvement in learners’ attitude towards writing. In another related study, Hall and Higgins (2005) found that teachers and students have positive attitudes towards IWBs, but IWBs do not have any significant effect on students’ attainment on the national test. Likewise, 232 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Cutrim Schmid and Schimmack (2010) found that teachers engaged in the research reported that the use of IWB technology did not enhance their teaching in a significant manner. Based on their personal experience, however, the authors believe that IWBs can have a significant effect on EFL learners’ vocabulary development. However, they further hypothesize that the difference they have observed in their professional practice may be due to other intervening factors; hence, they felt the need to test the impact of IWBs under controlled experimental conditions and explore learners’ perceptions of teaching vocabulary though this innovative and functional technology. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study aims to explore the impact of IWBs on EFL learners’ vocabulary development. More specifically, it aims at answering the following questions: · What is the effect of using interactive whiteboards on EFL learners’ vocabulary development? · What are EFL learners’ perceptions of teaching vocabulary through interactive whiteboards? Based on their previous experience, the authors hypothesized that · Using interactive whiteboards has a significant effect on EFL learners’ vocabulary development; · EFL learners have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. METHOD Design To test the impact of using IWBs on EFL learners’ vocabulary development, the authors used common experimental design: random The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 233 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 assignment, a control group, and pre- and post-testing. The design can be schematically represented as follows: R Control Group: Pretest (Voc.) / Control Treatment / Post-test (Voc.) R Experimental Group: Pretest (Voc.) / Test Treatment / Post-test (Voc.) To test the aforementioned research hypotheses, the learners were randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups. Having pre-tested the learners for any possible initial differences, the authors exposed the experimental group to the test treatment: presenting vocabulary through IWBs. To pave the way for comparison, the control group was exposed to a control treatment: presenting vocabulary through ordinary whiteboards. Finally, learners’ performances on the post-tests were compared to observe the differential effect ordinary and interactive whiteboards had on the dependent variable: vocabulary development. To answer the second question, learners’ attitudes towards the IWBs were elicited through a questionnaire with an acceptable level of reliability and validity. Participants To select a statistically representative sample, the authors used cluster sampling. To this end, two junior high schools were randomly selected from among high schools of Sari, the capital city of Mazandran Province, Iran. Then, from each high school, one class was randomly selected for the study. Finally, these two classes, each consisting of 30 learners, were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental treatments. Since public high schools of Iran are segregated, the authors had access only to male learners, and as such, sampled only male language learners. The subjects were all third-graders learning English as part of the national curriculum for public high schools in Iran. Instruments The instruments used for data collection consisted of a questionnaire and a 40-item vocabulary test, which was used as the pre-test and post-test. The authors constructed the scale based on a review of 234 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 previous studies (Alfarra, 2014; Al-Mamun, Mostafizar Rahman, Mahbuber Rahman, & Hossain, 2012; Karahan, 2007; Kolak, 2008; Lakshmi, 2013; Shah, 2008). The scale was evaluated by university professors, specialists, and experts, as well as by some practitioners to see if each item of the scale represents the intended domain. The developed questionnaire was them administered on a random pilot sample to ensure the clarity of the scale items and instructions, and to calculate its psychometric features, such as validity and reliability. A list of 150 new words was given to the students, and they were asked to check the words that were familiar to them. This helped the authors discard 30 words that were familiar to the students. From among the list of words that proved to be new to the learners, 40 words were randomly selected to develop a teacher-made vocabulary test. The test showed content validity since its content and form were verified by supervisors and teachers teaching English to third-graders. The reliability of the instrument was also calculated by the test-retest method, and the result was found to be 0.89, which is statistically acceptable. Treatment Treatment lasted for forty days, and in each session, twelve new words were presented along with their usual classroom instruction. Except for the IWB, new words were taught through the same techniques, activities, and procedure. Among other things, presenting words to the control and experimental groups involved the following: · Clarifying the meaning of new words through appropriate pictures. In this activity learners were expected to match the words with appropriate pictures. · Clarifying the semantic relationship between words through “semantic mapping” (Decarrico, 2001, p. 288). This activity brings the relationships among words in a text into the learners’ consciousness and helps deepen understanding by creating associative networks for words. · Encouraging learners to discover the hidden connections between words through word mapping. · Involving learners in memory games. In this activity, learners were asked to find a matching pair that consists of a picture and a word. This is a very simple matching activity. Students place The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 235 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 words under correct pictures and after clicking on a check button, they get immediate feedback. · Finally, checking learners’ mastery over the words presented in that session. Two or three learners were randomly selected and tested to see if they could use the words they learned in sentences of their own. Data Analysis This study aimed at testing two null hypotheses regarding the use of interactive whiteboards: (1) using an interactive whiteboard produces the same effect as using an ordinary whiteboard in teaching vocabulary to EFL learners; and (2) EFL learners do not have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. To test the first null hypothesis, first, the authors calculated the descriptive statistics for both the experimental and control groups. In the post-test, the mean score of the control group was 14.16 and for the experimental group it was found to be 18.80. While the standard deviation of the control group was 3.02, it was 5.78 for the experimental group. Although there appears to be a difference in the performance of the learners taught through IWBs and ordinary whiteboards, this is what is observed in the sample rather than the accessible population. Since the authors are interested in the effect of interactive whiteboards on the population, they tried to estimate parameters: the probability of observing similar results in the population by using the independent sample t-test. To test the second null hypothesis; that is, EFL learners do not have a significantly positive perception of using IWBs in teaching vocabulary, the authors used the Chi-square test of significance to compare observed frequencies with expected frequencies. In both cases, the tests were run at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS Based on their previous experience, the authors hypothesized that (1) using interactive whiteboards has a significant effect on EFL learners’ vocabulary development; and that (2) EFL learners have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. The statistics observed in the random sample show that the 236 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 experimental group, which was taught through IWBs, outperformed the control group, which was taught through ordinary whiteboards. Moreover, based on the calculated statistics, the authors found that the random sample of EFL learners perceive learning vocabulary through IWBs positively. But the observed statistics could have been due to chance. To show that the observed effects were beyond chance and estimate the probability of their occurrence in any other random sample and the degree to which they can be generalized to the accessible population, the authors tested the following null hypotheses: · Interactive whiteboards do not produce any significant difference in EFL learners’ vocabulary development. · EFL learners do not have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. To test the first null hypothesis, a vocabulary test was administered at the beginning of the experiment to account for any possible pre-existing differences. Table 1 shows the relevant descriptive statistics. TABLE 1. Learners’ Performance in Pre-test Group N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Control 30 4.00 16.00 11.7667 3.00211 Experimental 30 6.00 16.00 11.9333 2.36254 As Table 1 shows, the mean of the control group was 11.76 and the corresponding standard deviation was found to be 3.00. On the other hand, the mean of the experimental group was 11.93 and the corresponding standard deviation was 2.36. Since the arithmetic mean of the two groups were nearly identical, the authors found using an independent sample t-test to be redundant and concluded that there was no significant difference in the entry behavior for the two groups prior to experimentation. TABLE 2. Learners’ Performance in the Post-test Treatment N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Control 30 6.00 19.00 14.1667 3.02955 Experimental 30 3.00 32.00 18.8000 5.78583 The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 237 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 As shown in Table 2, there was a difference in performance between the control group and the experimental group, but this difference may have been due to chance factors, while the arithmetic mean of the control group is 14.16, the arithmetic mean of the experimental group is 18.80. To see whether the observed difference was significant or not, the authors used the independent sample t-test. The results are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3. Independent Sample t-test Levene’s Test for Equity t-test for Equity of Means of Variance 95% Confidence Sig. Mean Std. Error Interval of the F Sig. t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Difference Lower Upper -3.677 58 .001 -4.30000 1.16936 -6.64072 -1.95928 6.956 .011 -3.677 44.435 .001 -4.30000 1.16936 -6.65603 -1.94397 As shown in Table 3, the mean score of the two groups in the post-test shows that the experimental group outperformed the control group. Moreover, based on the values of Table 3, (df = 58; p < 0.05), we can feel quite confident that the difference is significant at the 0.05 probability level. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis that states that using IWBs produces a significant difference in EFL learners’ vocabulary development. This means that presenting vocabulary through IWBs is more effective than presenting words through ordinary whiteboards. The second null hypothesis states that EFL learners do not have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary. To test this hypothesis, after the experimental treatment, a questionnaire including 32 items were administered to the study sample, and the learners’ perception was explored by asking them to check one of the five choices from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” As shown in Table 4, those who strongly agreed with using IWBs outnumber those who strongly disagreed with using IWBs. 238 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 TABLE 4. Results of the Chi-Square Test Level of Df Q2 Expected Observed Attitude Categories Significance Statistics Frequency Frequency 191.6 97 Strongly Disagree 191.6 157 Disagree 191.6 182 No Opinion 0.000 4 103.973 191.6 256 Agree 191.6 266 Strongly Agree – 958 Total To determine whether this difference in frequency is significant or not, the authors used the Chi-square test of significance. As shown in Table 4 (df = 4; p = 0.000 < 0.05), the p-value is much smaller than the pre-determined level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. It can, therefore, be concluded that EFL learners do have a significantly positive perception of using IWBs in teaching vocabulary. To sum up, the results clearly show that (a) using IWBs produces a significant difference in EFL learners’ vocabulary development and that (b) EFL learners do have a significantly positive perception of using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary since there is a significant difference in frequency between those who strongly agree with using IWBs and those who strongly disagreed with using IWBs in teaching vocabulary. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Taking the positive effect of whiteboard-based vocabulary instruction on EFL learners’ vocabulary development together with EFL learners’ positive attitude towards using interactive whiteboards in teaching vocabulary into account, it can be concluded that replacing ordinary whiteboards with IWBs pays off. Despite their facilitative role in EFL learners’ vocabulary development, however, a great many public and private schools still use ordinary whiteboards. These schools do not welcome IWBs on two grounds: (a) they are expensive and a great The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 239 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 majority of public high schools, especially those in rural areas and deprived urban areas, cannot afford them, and (b) the school principals and supervisors are skeptical about their positive effect. Taking the facilitative role of IWBs and students’ perceptions into account, one can conclude that both of the aforementioned reasons are unjustified since (a) buying interactive whiteboards is not an educational expenditure, rather it is an educational investment, and (b) the empirical evidence presented in this study and similar studies leaves no room for skepticism. The study has clear implications for all stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and parents. Based on learners’ positive attitude towards using IWBs together with the positive effect of this educational technology on EFL learners’ vocabulary development, it is imperative that · policymakers take the positive effect of interactive whiteboards on vocabulary development in particular and language development in general, turn the empirical findings presented in this and similar studies into policy, and pave the way for their widespread use; · practitioners publicize the facilitative role of interactive whiteboards and convince school principals that buying this technology is an investment rather than an expenditure; · parents be involved in funding interactive whiteboards through parent-teacher associations. THE AUTHORS Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi (PhD, TEFL) is currently a full-time associate professor of TEFL in the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Shahrood, Iran. He teaches both graduate and undergraduate courses, including language teaching methodology, research methodology, materials development, and EAP. His chief research interests are language teacher education, grounded theory, and theories of practice. He has published in a number of leading peer-reviewed journals. He is also a full member the editorial board of several journals in applied linguistics and language teaching. Email:
[email protected]Jamal Alinejad has an MA in TEFL. He is teaching English in public high schools of Sari, the capital city of Mazandran, Iran. 240 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 REFERENCES Al-Mamun, A., Mostafizar Rahman, A., Mahbuber Rahman, A., & Hossain, A. (2012). Students’ attitudes towards English: The case of life science school of Khulna University. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 200-209. Retrieved from http://irssh.com/yahoo_ site_admin/assets/docs/20_IRSSH-264-V3N1.131231435.pdf Alfarra, R. S. (2014). The effectiveness of using smart boards in developing tenth graders’ vocabulary achievement, retention, and attitudes towards English in Gaza (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Islamic University-Gaza, Gaza. Brown, H. D. (2003). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Beauchamp, G., & Prakinson, J. (2005). Beyond the “wow” factor: Developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(3), 97-103. Beeland, W. D. (2002, July). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Bell, M.A. (2000). Impact of the electronic interactive whiteboard on student attitudes and achievement in eighth-grade writing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA. Cunningsworth, A. (1998). Choosing your course book. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cunningham, M. (2003). Laptops for teachers: An evaluation of the first of the initiative. Retrieved from http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/lft_evaluation.pdf Cutrim Schmid, E., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197-213). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary language and learning. In M. Celce-Murcuia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.; pp. 285-299). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Duran, A., & Cruz, M. (2011). The interactive whiteboard and foreign language learning: A case study. Porta Linguarum, 15, 211-231. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology Pedagogy The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 241 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 and Education, 19(2), 195-209. Govran, S. (2013). The importance of English language teaching and learning in South Korea (Unpublished master’s thesis). Victoiria University, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.uir.vu.edu.au/ 24435/1/Sunny%20Gavran.pdf Gray, C. (2010). Meeting teachers’ real needs: New tools in the secondary modern foreign languages classroom. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 69-85). New York, NY: IGI Global. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perception of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117. Hockly, N. (2013). Interactive whiteboards. ELT Journal, 67(3), 354-358. Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A., Hussein, H. B., & Al-Saadany, M. A. (2012). Saudi secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards using interactive whiteboard in classrooms. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 286-296. Johnsona, E. M., Ramanaira, J., & Brineb, J. (2010). “It’s not necessary to have this board to learn English, but it’s helpful”: Student and teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboard use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 199-212. Karahan, F.( 2007). Language attitudes of Turkish students towards the English language and its use in Turkish context. Journal of Arts and Sciences, 7(2), 37-87. Kolak, A. (2008). Attitudes, motivation and study habits of English language learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Lakshmi, G. (2013). High school students’ attitude towards learning English language. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(9), 1-7. Lee, M., & Larson, R. (2000). The Korean examination hell: Long hours of studying, distress, and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 249-271. Macaro, E., Handley, Z., & Walter, C. (2012). A systematic review of CALL in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. Language Teaching, 45(1), 1-43. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. McGuire, J. M. (2007). Why has the critical thinking movement not come to Korea? Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 224-232. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards 242 Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi and Jamal Alinejad Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195-209. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London Challenge (Research Report No. 816). London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London. Seth, M. J. (2002). Education fever: Society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Shah, T. (2008). An exploration of attitudes towards the English curriculum in educational establishments in urban and rural Pakistan (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers and Education, 51, 1321-1341. Thomas, M., & Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Preface. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. xvii-xxiv). New York, NY: IGI Global. Yáñez, L., & Coyle, Y. (2011). Children’s perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal, 65(4), 446-457. The Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Development 243 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 244 Book Reviews Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 246 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals Thomas S. C. Farrell. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Pages: xv + 138. (ISBN 978-1-138-02504-2 Paperback) Reviewed by Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park INTRODUCTION Thomas S. C. Farrell is one of the key advocates of reflective practice (RP) in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals is the product of more than thirty-five years of love and labor. His vast and varied experience as a teacher, trainer, and researcher informed and motivated his three main purposes for publishing this work: (a) to propose an operational definition of RP, (b) to describe methods of reflection, and (c) to provide an overall framework for reflecting on teaching practice (p. xi). This book, part of Routledge’s ESL and Applied Linguistics Professional Series, is intended not only for teachers, but also those responsible for support and professional development, such as program administrators and supervisors. According to the author, unique characteristics of this framework are its versatility as a tool for formal and informal reflection as part of pre- and in-service training as well as continuing professional development for novice and experienced teachers alike, regardless of their country or context; its use (alone or in collaboration); and its flexibility since teachers can advance through it at different paces and approach it inductively or deductively, intensively or extensively. Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 247 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS Farrell aims to provide a practical yet grounded presentation of RP. His concrete definition of this “cognitive process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which teachers systematically collect data about their practice, and while engaging in dialogue with others use the data to make informed decisions about their practice both inside and outside the classroom” (p. 123) is, therefore, of great importance. However, it is introduced only at the very end of his book in his final reflections. How did he arrive at this point? In the first chapter, the author chronicles early experiences in his career that he recalls stimulated reflection in and on his practice. He documents his increasingly academic interest in RP and shares sources of inspiration, including John Dewey and Donald Schön, which eventually prompted him to create his 2004 framework. After outlining this early framework and noting limitations (viz., its general approach, limited methods, and difficulty for novice teachers to use independently), he discusses key influences on the development of his newest framework. He ends by briefly outlining its five stages (i.e., philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice). In chapter 2, after introducing the Latin definition of reflection (“to look back and become more aware,” p. 6) and philosophical (Buddhist and Existential) considerations of contemplation, he goes on to distinguish between “common sense” reflection and “contemplative reflective practice” (p. 6). The latter logically flows from the former. According to Farrell, systematically grounding decision-making in an evidenced-based approach differentiates the individual and collaborative process from mere contemplation by allowing for distance, or objectification. Although acknowledging the murky domain of RP, he says that there is agreement on the three levels of reflection that teachers can move through over their careers when ready: descriptive, conceptual (or comparative), and critical (p. 9). These levels involve an increasing widening of perspective (from classroom practice to society) and critical examination of contexts. Next, after briefly outlining various approaches to reflection, he cites a set of attitudes that Dewey (1933) considers necessary to carry out reflection: open-mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness. Upon turning our attention to the purposes of reflection, he stresses 248 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 accountability both for actions and non-actions. Then he offers ten additional purposes adapted to the profession. Additionally, he presents the main models that have contributed to his framework. Besides Dewey’s (1933) cyclic, five-phase Reflective Inquiry Model (similar to action research) and Kolb and Fry’s (1975) four phases of reflection and some derivatives, he includes Kolb’s (1984) research on experiential learning and learning styles. Although these models have provided inspiration for Farrell’s new “model that helps teachers examine their meta-theory” (p. 18), he claims that they tend to ignore the person reflecting and do not provide scaffolding for all teachers. By making this assertion, he attempts to justify the existence of his new, more holistic framework, adapted to reflective practitioners. In chapter 3, Farrell explains that examining philosophies, principles, and theories can lead to the greater awareness of teaching practices necessary for making subsequent informed decisions. He begins by reminding practitioners that they can use his inclusive framework, consisting of five linked and interdependent stages, according to their particular needs, interests, and experience. He then explains how they might use each stage over their careers and provides theoretical insights, asks “probing questions,” and offers strategies aimed at getting practitioners to go beyond description and also examine and challenge assumptions. He rounds out the chapter with an overview of the five stages in his framework, each of which is developed further in the subsequent five chapters, with chapters 4-6 discussing reflection on the “theoretical foundations of practice” (p. 79): teachers’ philosophies, principles, and theories. In chapter 4, the author looks at the influence of personal philosophies of teaching. Philosophies are a reflection of teachers’ histories (i.e., experience and development), beliefs, and values. To gain awareness of these, Farrell states that it is necessary to contemplate one’s inner world. This requires calm observation, free from interference. Citing Miller (1994), the author suggests four techniques for mindfulness: insight meditation, mantra, visualization, and movement meditation. Next, he focuses on reflecting on experiences through the telling and/or writing of teacher-generated narratives. Constructing and deconstructing these narratives can help teachers reveal, in a safe way, who they are as teachers, contributing to greater understanding and Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 249 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 mindfulness. He offers three ways to structure narratives: biographically in chronological order; using open sentence frames to structure and guide content; and focusing on career critical incidents or phases or encounters with people who have marked us in some way. These activities allow teachers to uncover “commonalities, differences, and patterns” (p. 43) that might illuminate and give coherence to their “theory of being” (p. 42). Teachers’ guiding principles are shaped by their assumptions, beliefs, and conceptions of practice. In chapter 5, the author begins by introducing three types of implicit and unquestioned beliefs: paradigmatic, prescriptive, and casual assumptions (Brookfield, 1995). The first relates to maxims or adages that guide our activity; the second, to what teachers think teaching and learning should be like; and the last, to general suppositions. They are all interconnected and can be modified if teachers question them and find them to be incongruent. A fourth, more oppressive type of assumption to be aware of is termed hegemonic (Brookfield, 1995). Socially imposed, these involve teachers having “power over” rather than “power with” learners and can, thus, promote harmful learning environments. Next, he discusses the experiential factors shaping beliefs and how these beliefs relate to actual teaching practice. Exploring teaching metaphors can also offer insight into beliefs and is especially helpful for new teachers and those in training. Farrell goes on to discuss several of these. Finally, he turns to organizing frameworks of which teachers are more conscious and presents two conceptual frameworks. The first is Kember’s (1997), consisting of a continuum from teacher-centered and content-oriented to student-centered and learning-oriented with a middle ground where student-teacher interaction and apprenticeship take place. The second, Freeman and Richards’s (1993), makes use of three interconnected conceptual categories for teaching: science and research, theory and philosophy, and art and craft. In chapter 6, the author begins by informing us that “all teachers hold theories about their practice” (p. 66), whether conscious or unconscious, objective or subjective, official or unofficial. He then highlights the critical utility of reframing theory through reflection for uncovering practice. After briefly discussing the concept of theory, he states Brookfield’s (1995) three reasons for reflecting on it. He mentions that “different theories of teaching will inevitably lead to different understanding of classroom life” (p. 68) and skims over didactic, 250 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 discovery, and interactionist teaching theories. In the remainder of the chapter, he presents three main activities. First, he invites readers to uncover their theoretical beliefs by examining their lesson planning designs. He describes three specific types and then discusses how practitioners can use critical incidents (CIs) and case studies (CSs) for the same purpose as well as for sharing their experiences and problem-solving strategies with others. With regard to CIs, he proposes questions to guide reflection, and methods and tools for reporting and analyzing them either through self-reflection or collaboration with a critical friend or group. These include a CI protocol for story-sharing and feedback, a CI questionnaire for insights into lessons, and data collection in the case of serious incidents, culminating in lesson breakdowns. As for CSs, he suggests topics for reporting cases and offers procedures for deconstructing either these or others through a questioning and analyzing process. Then, in chapter 7, Farrell takes a closer look at what actually happens in the classroom, why examining practice is important, and individual methods for discovering this activity. The author starts with repeating the three-way distinction between “reflection-in-action,” “reflection-on-action,” and “reflection-for-action” (pp. 81-82) first mentioned in chapter 1. Given that the ultimate goal of reflection is to transform teaching, he emphasizes the need to determine inconsistencies between what teachers do in class (“actual classroom teaching practices”) and what they believe they do (their “theoretical foundations of practice”) through systematic approaches. Methods proposed include self-observation, peer-observation, and action research. Farrell points out some advantages and disadvantages of using observation tools and technology, and offers suggestions on how to use them effectively while minimizing any negative effects. The author then mentions the benefits of collaborative team-teaching, followed by a description of lesson study, a cyclical process that involves: first, co-planning and co-analyzing a lesson, and then, redoing the lesson based on feedback. The final stage is to publish a comprehensive report after undertaking a second review of the lesson, focused on effectiveness. He also offers an explanation of peer coaching, which involves two teachers collaboratively planning and exploring some aspect of their teaching following a four-step process. Last in this chapter, the author discusses action research as a way to resolve classroom-based issues discovered through observation. He Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 251 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 emphasizes the need to choose a specific topic and purpose of investigation, and recommends reviewing the literature before beginning and redefining the initial issue after finishing. At the end of this section, he promotes collaborative action research with the benefits of greater distance, community-building, and professionalism, as well as critical research beyond the classroom. He points out that the latter, which aims to address and improve social conditions, is an area open to further exploration. In chapter 8, the author shifts the focus from reflection on technical aspects of practice to the sociocultural, moral, and political impacts on and of practice and the consideration of equality, justice, and respect. Following Brookfield (1995, 2006), he lists two purposes for such critical reflection; namely, “to understand power relations within education and to question assumptions and practices” (p. 96). Teachers need to understand societal values, assumptions, norms, and morals as well as spiritual and religious beliefs that influence decisions related to curricula, methods of teaching and evaluation, and the social context. Citing the same sources, he emphasizes the utility of critical reflection for empowering teachers to transform their teaching contexts as practice becomes better informed and justifiable, articulated and shared professionally, and reasonable in terms of expectations for emotional grounding (p. 97). He highlights that this is especially important in TESOL, given that many teachers encounter contexts with the following characteristics mentioned in Crookes (1989): set curricula, many administrative demands, limited opportunities for interaction, and big classes with few resources (p. 97). When it comes to adopting a critical approach, two collaborative options are mentioned. The first is social networking through professional organizations and teacher unions. The second way involves forming study/reflection groups. Farrell notes that the process of critical reflection must be dialogic and deliberative, and requires “a non-judgmental, open climate of discussion which welcomes multiple and contradictory views in a safe environment” (p. 99). He also emphasizes the need for groups to be “power-with” not “power-over” following Kriesberg (1992). He looks at issues to take into account when forming groups: type, membership, essential conditions for forming the group, participants and their roles, modes of reflection, topic generation and choice, sustaining a group by establishing a climate of trust and respect, and final group evaluation. Recommended follow-up methods for 252 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 critical reflection include presenting at conferences and publishing. In the final chapter of this book, the author reiterates the flexibility of his framework and proposes three main ways to navigate it: from theory to practice and beyond (a deductive approach), from practice to theory (an inductive approach), or each stage separately. While the first approach can be used by any practitioner, he points out that the second might be difficult for pre-service teachers. To illustrate the different approaches and demonstrate how using them can reveal congruence and disparity between theory and practice, he presents two case studies from English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts. The author concludes by restating the need for teachers to regularly reflect on their own practice; that is, to not only be consumers but also producers of knowledge. His redefinition of RP provides direction forward. STRENGTHS AND SUGGESTIONS Having summarized the chapters in detail, we now turn to a discussion of the content, organization, and readability of Farrell’s book. Content With regard to content, there are four aspects that are particularly noteworthy. First, the most significant features are Farrell’s redefinition of RP and his framework. He takes a hazy term and, by precisely defining it, makes it operational. Moreover, in his definition, he includes reference to attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral elements and also underscores both the individual and social dimensions for its occurrence. This is important, as Farrell notes, because the “self-as-teacher” (p. 24) and the wider teaching context are less commonly explored through reflection than technical aspects. By further specifying the different focal areas (stages) of reflection (i.e., philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond practice), he succeeds in presenting a holistic and comprehensive framework for RP that is not only technically but also socially responsible. Thus, this descriptive framework is both deep and wide. Second, the book is truly an excellent resource for TESOL professionals. It references a wide range of theories and models that can Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 253 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 subsequently be explored in more detail. As well, it offers a goldmine of practical activities and projects for reflection at each stage. For instance, to reflect on philosophy, the author proposes telling one’s story through a “Tree of Life” graphic organizer (pp. 43-44) or writing a “Philosophy of Practice” statement (p. 48). We might also suggest that compiling a portfolio be added here. As for reflecting on principles, Farrell proposes four interesting activities for visually representing teaching metaphors (i.e., drawing, painting, photography, and guided fantasy). In his discussion of reflecting on theory, examples of activities include writing and analyzing autobiographical sketches of critical incidents and one’s own case studies, as well as writing a “Foundations of Practice” letter to a friend (p. 80). To reflect on practice, Farrell proposes a number of activities for collecting classroom data, including using seating charts during observations. Finally, two suggestions for reflecting beyond practice are to form study circles (Crookes, 2009) and make use of discussion-initiating inventories (Brookfield, 2006). The third point relates to experience, both the author’s and the readers’. Farrell shares valuable learning from his many years of RP. Readers who are new to RP can become acquainted with his other work as he summarizes content from sixteen of his prior publications. He also recounts a few memorable anecdotes (e.g., one about peer observation, pp. 87-89), critical incidents (e.g., “Teacher you are stupid,” p. 1), and case studies (e.g., teaching reading strategies, pp. 111-116; coping with negative feedback, pp. 117-119; and exploring how practice relates to one’s teaching metaphor, in this case, “teacher as facilitator,” p. 120) and a few other examples from other researchers, which help to illustrate points. The book is also effective in terms of offering the reader ample opportunities to reflect on their own experience. The 45 Reflective Moments (RMs) in Chapters 2-9 and the seven Chapter Reflections (CRs) feature a variety of questions to make readers pause and draw parallels between the material and their own experiences and contexts, as well as activities and projects. The fourth reason is that Farrell raises some present-day “beyond practice” issues and also highlights a research opportunity. Critically, he encourages readers to challenge their hegemonic assumptions by drawing attention to issues such as the power relations at play when teachers take on the role of facilitator and two others cited in Brookfield (1995): the extent to which teaching is a calling versus “self-destructive 254 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 ‘workaholism’” (pp. 52-53) and some negative aspects of required group work. In terms of research, he notes that the term “critical reflection” is often misused in TESOL and that more inquiry needs to be done in this area. Although the content is rich for teachers, we would like to comment on a few areas that could be improved on and propose suggestions. First, upon learning the narrower definition of RP, some readers, especially those who have not been systematic in collecting data, may initially feel alienated. Hopefully, however, they may feel empowered to practice reflection thanks to the wealth of resources provided in this book. Second, as already mentioned, Farrell presents many useful models, theories, and examples. While few are introduced in depth, some definitely receive superficial coverage. Specific examples of “micro” metaphors (p. 60) and developmental stages concerning group roles (p. 103) would be useful. Novice teachers may also appreciate more detailed explanations of didactic, discovery, and interactionist teaching theories (p. 68). As for activities, usage has shown that some, while containing great concepts, require minor adjustments. This is the case for the “Teacher’s Beliefs Inventory” (pp. 58-59) adapted from Johnson (1991). We appreciate this activity because it has transformative potential in helping readers become more aware not only of their beliefs about teaching but also of how they teach. However, it is not always clear that the inventory items fit into the assigned skills-based, rule-based, and function-based approach categories. We also feel that some items should be reworded to reduce ambiguity. Moreover, as the author himself admits that one of the sources “is a bit old” (p. 58), he might consider updating it. Another activity that could use adjustment is the RM on the three levels of reflection (pp. 10-11). Some of the items seem too specific (“I write about my practice regularly.”), others exclusive (“I engage in action research.” – How about other modes?), and some need rewording to make sense given the rating scale (“intuitive in making judgments” could better be reworded negatively). In the Conceptions section of chapter 5, there are no activities other than the self-assessment activity listed in the RM (p. 64). In this case, Farrell refers readers to an article, which inconveniently requires research time and is not free. If he feels his description (p. 63) is not comprehensive enough, rather than recommending external reading, he might consider providing the reader with additional details. Finally, in chapter 3, “concept maps” are Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 255 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 introduced, but they do not appear in chapter 7, though expected. Next, every chapter contains numerous questions for reflection both in the RMs and the CRs. The author acknowledges this could be overwhelming and recommends they be used as needed (p. xiv). We feel that, although they do include a wide range of useful activities for each level of reflection, reducing the overall quantity of questions, especially redundant ones, and prioritizing them might be a good idea. Moreover, as there is no substantial difference between RMs and CRs, the latter could probably be merged with the former. Finally, while the author includes a number of anecdotes, critical incidents, and case studies, a few that were more carefully chosen, labeled, and commented on (cf. “The Dyslexic Student,” p. 78) to show how experts have handled problems could be interesting and helpful for beginning teachers. As almost all examples currently come from ESL contexts, while most language learning takes place in countries where English is a foreign language (EFL), one suggestion to improve inclusivity would be to add more EFL examples. This might also make the content more meaningful for these teachers. Organization In terms of organization, already in the Preface, the author provides an accurate outline (pp. xii-xiii) of his book and indicates distinctive features (pp. xiii-xiv). Usual ones, such as table of contents, figures, and tables, a reference section, and an index help the reader navigate the book easily. Additionally, the systematic organization of theoretical sections followed by practical application ones is characteristic of other work by the same author (e.g., Farrell, 2004) and a feature familiar readers will recognize. The book has achieved the author’s aim of flexibility. Teachers can progress through it at their own pace. They can focus on chapters 2–8 according to their needs and interests at a given time. Moreover, each chapter is relatively self-contained. Generally, topics are clearly organized into manageable sections that can conveniently be read in a matter of minutes. Of course, there is room for improvement. For example, the table of contents could show how main ideas are developed if expanded. Additionally, at only six pages, the index is incomplete. Important terms that are missing include “critical friend” and “teaching high” and 256 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 “teaching low.” It is also not easy to find “autobiographical sketch” and “calling,” and “concept maps” is mentioned on two pages, but the index lists only one entry. Also, there is no glossary, although this feature would be extremely useful since the book targets all TESOL professionals, including those new to the field. Finally, we believe that Figure 3.1, Framework for Reflecting on Practice should appear in chapter 1, when the author first discusses it (p. 23). We also wonder if chapter 3, Framework for Reflecting on Practice, a practical chapter, could not have come after each level was described in depth. One proposal would be to combine it with chapter 9 at the end, as this chapter does not add much in the way of new content, aside from the redefinition. Readability As for readability, the first edition of this 154-page book has a very clear layout. The writing style is unpretentious, simply worded, and generally straightforward, assuming little required background knowledge of applied linguistics or education. Consequently, it is easy to read and user-friendly for both novice and experienced teachers. That being said, three changes could be made to enhance the aesthetic appeal and readability of this volume. First, additional tables and visuals would make this book more attractive and enjoyable. For example, boxes separating case studies and RMs from the main text, as in Farrell’s 2004 publication, would be refreshing for the eyes. Second, we feel that the visual presentation of the framework provided (p. 23) does not do his work full justice. Although we find merit in its simplicity, and it successfully draws our attention to the different stages, in its current form, it is somewhat confusing as the arrows suggest a definite order of progression (either clockwise or counter-clockwise) rather than the flexibility he claims. Additionally, the cyclical aspect leads readers familiar with RP to expect a practical model (such as Kolb’s or Dewey’s cited earlier). However, the present framework figure gives no visual indication of how to carry out RP at each stage. Instead, based on our understanding of the contents of the book, we would like to dedicate an Altered Framework for Reflecting on Practice (see Figure 1.) to Farrell. Having adopted a floor plan metaphor, we present a space with a number of rooms each with a theme (e.g., Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 257 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Philosophy, Principles, Theory, Practice, and Beyond Practice). In the middle, there is an open lounge area. TESOL professionals can decide which rooms they want to go into according to their needs and interests. As each is logically connected, they can easily move from one to the next (in either direction), with the option of exiting at any time. Every room is equipped with resources (on bookshelves). Thus, therein, they can engage (alone or with others) in a reflective cycle or do any of the recommended activities for as long as they wish. The advantage of our design is that it more clearly shows how RP can be carried out and how the models in chapter 2 might connect with his framework. FIGURE 1. An Altered Framework for Reflecting on Practice. Finally, there is repetition both within and across chapters. Several times material is recycled unnecessarily, given the short length and smooth read of this volume. In addition to revising for tighter coherence and cohesion, careful editing would be helpful. Currently, this text is sprinkled with distracting mechanics-related issues (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar). CONCLUSIONS In Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals, Farrell has successfully provided a 258 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 thorough overview of RP, demonstrating both his knowledge and passion. Key strengths of this work include its operational redefinition of reflective practice for TESOL, its holistic and comprehensive framework that includes more than just observable classroom activity, and its ease of application. As reviewed, this book is packed with useful theories, methods, findings, strategies, techniques, projects, activities, and questions for reflection. TESOL professionals (teachers, program administrators, and supervisors alike) can learn a lot from it whether they are novices or more experienced, alone or in collaboration. In this way, the author makes a valuable contribution to RP, and thereby promotes professional development. Revising some aspects related to content, organization, and readability could improve the quality of the reading experience for an even better second edition. However, overall, the first edition is an excellent resource. Happy reading! THE REVIEWERS Jocelyn Wright works in the Department of English Language and Literature at Mokpo National University near Mokpo, South Korea. She has degrees in linguistics and education and is also CELTA certified. She has been teaching practical and theoretical courses in English in Korea at the university level for more than seven years. As well, she has taught in Canada, the Dominican Republic, and France. In addition to being a lifetime member of KOTESOL, she is actively involved in the organization at the chapter level and coordinates the local Reflective Practice Special Interest Group. Her many interests include professional development and critical pedagogy. Email:
[email protected]Yeon-seong Park is currently an instructor of English at Chonnam National University in Gwangju, South Korea. She has thirty years of experience teaching EFL conversation and composition classes, including social issues, debate, creative grammar practice, and British and American culture. She is a lifetime member of KOTESOL and has served as president of the Gwangju-Jeonnam Chapter (2006-2007). She is a dedicated member of her local Reflective Practice Special Interest Group (RP-SIG). As well, she has given numerous presentations not only in the field of ELT but also in the field of English poetry and published dozens of articles and co-authored books. Email:
[email protected]Promoting Teacher Reflection in Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL Professionals 259 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 REFERENCES Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. (2006). The skillful teacher (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crookes, G. (1989). Grassroots action to improve ESL programs. UH Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 45-61. Crookes, G. (2009). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 1-16. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflection breaks for busy teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 193-216. Johnson, K. E. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83-108. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academic’s conception of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-75. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 35-58). New York, NY: Wiley. Kriesberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Miller, J. P. (1994). The contemplative practitioner: Meditation in education and the professions. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. 260 Jocelyn Wright and Yeon-seong Park Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice Aisha Walker and Goodith White. Oxford University Press, 2013. Pages: 208. (ISBN: 978-0194423687 Paperback) Reviewed by David B. Kent Since the turn of the century, the learning landscape has come in ever-increasing ways to be reshaped by technology. For English language learners this has ultimately seen changes emerge in relation to the language skills viewed as necessary and important to them and in the means of how those skills are to be acquired (Goh, 2015). As a result, how teachers, particularly those in the English as a foreign language context (Warschauer, 2000), are expected to instruct has also come to change. Keeping this in mind, many teachers today are consistently and continually incorporating technology into their classrooms. However, as new technologies emerge, and are then appropriated, their use needs to come from a base of acceptable and well-established methods and practices that are grounded in learning theory. It is here where the book Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice (Walker & White, 2013) stands out. The book is designed for teachers working with all age groups. Its twelve chapters cover a comprehensive range of practical content that can be taken on board and implemented. As such, the book serves as a guide to effective technology integration over that of a research reference, with links and resources mentioned in the book available from an associated website. Each chapter has a similar layout, but each addresses a different area of language and learning, and what this means for teachers and students. For the most part, this layout involves three sections: (a) situating the area of language in relation to technology, (b) exploring how technology can further aid students in learning, and (c) how theory integrates with practice. Importantly, this third section Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice 261 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 presents a series of example tasks utilizing various tools and apps, and the means to adapt these to suit unique educational contexts. This meshes well with the aims of the book, allowing for implementation techniques to be developed from a pedagogical base and in a manner befitting of the technological prowess of the practitioner. However, this kind of chapter structure has advantages and disadvantages. It allows teachers of specific skillsets to dip into the text and focus on content that can enhance their instruction, but it may not allow a teacher to readily see how to use technology across a range of language skills or learner age groups. This is particularly poignant as novice teachers, or those totally unfamiliar or uncomfortable using technology for language learning, might be the first to turn to such a book. The first two chapters of the book outline the theoretical aspects behind how technology has traditionally come to integrate with language learning in terms of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and covers the groundwork and rationale behind technology-enhanced language learning (TELL). This sees a discussion revolving around Taylor’s (1980) “tutor, tutee, tool” model in chapter 1, which is premised on the notion that technology serves different roles at different times throughout the learning process, with students fluidly adopting these roles as they learn. For example, the authors see the “tutor” role as including the use of technology to provide learners with the likes of customized exercises or drills to complete; the “tutee” role is one where students might construct their own learning by creating activities for each other through the use of authoring software; and the “tool” role is one where students could employ applications like editing software to complete tasks like video creation. While chapter 2 establishes the importance behind language construction and digital communication, it also comes to highlight Prensky’s (2001) “digital native versus digital immigrant” argument. Crucially, the authors recognize that it is not always the case that those among a younger generation are naturally technologically savvy. Also emerging is the notion that students should not become reliant on technology when learning or producing language, but come to actively engage with language in the classroom from a context where technology is used to assist students as required, and perhaps in a way that Bax (2011) might see as seamlessly integrated or “normalized.” Chapters 3 through 5 deal specifically with language skills: listening and speaking, reading, and writing. Each of these chapters outlines the 262 David B. Kent Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 skills that are seen as important for the improvement of language proficiency and matches these to technology-enhanced language learning activities. One strength of the book is that these activities use free online resources and are therefore easily accessible. The content would also suit teachers of varied technological abilities, from those who are comfortable using digital practices on a daily basis through to those who are just getting started. Examples include creating materials with Audacity and using lyrics and music from YouTube (for listening); utilizing speech-to-text, employing Vokis, and practicing language skills in virtual spaces (for improving speaking); using digital fiction and interactive online fiction, as well as graphic organizers (for improving reading skills); and employing maps and plans along with tweets, wikis, and blogs (when focusing on writing skill development). Chapter 6 moves on to multimodality and learning, taking into account new literacies, particularly visual literacy, and the awareness of critical analysis when constructing and viewing such material. There is, of course, a need for ensuring that today’s students can successfully interpret and analyze visuals, and in terms of a meaning-making process, are able to socially and culturally (de)construct products that result from the technologizing of communication. Royce (2007) would argue that this chapter is one of the more important, as multiliteracies have to date had little concentration in second and foreign language contexts. Chapters 7 and 8 focus on two distinct age ranges: university-level learners and young learners. Chapter 7 looks at study skills and English for academic purposes (EAP), and centers on the use of digital tools geared for the typical university-aged student. The chapter covers both traditional contexts of study as well as virtual learning environments and a range of technology-led means of presenting and assessing learner content. Chapter 8 looks at young learners and the need to ensure continued engagement of these learners. Examples like coding and digital storytelling are provided. Another important element found in this chapter is the need to protect users, especially children, from cyberbullying. Chapter 9 presents a means of assessing learners with technology, from computer-adaptive tests (CATs) to more traditional methods such as multiple-choice questions and cloze exercises. Importantly, concepts such as reliability and validity are discussed, as is washback, and what these mean when conducting digital assessment. Unfortunately, in-depth means of conducting such assessments with a variety of learners are only hinted Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice 263 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 at and could have been explored more fully. The final chapters of the book, 10 through 12, look at the teachers’ role in relation to incorporating technology into the classroom, the need for continual professional development, and the future of TELL. In this regard, a means of developing skills to work with technology is provided, which in turn aims to promote technological competency and the means for teachers to see themselves becoming increasingly proficient in TELL pedagogical procedures over time. Ultimately, in terms of technology-enhanced language learning and at its core, the book offers insight into a wide range of content and the potential means to exploit it for benefit in the language learning classroom. Significantly, by introducing material in this manner instead of ready-made lesson plans, the book allows readers to gain an understanding of how similar content, found in app stores or on the Internet, could be successfully applied to their teaching. Overall, the book can prove useful to teachers of varied technological skill levels, allowing them, without doubt, to take away something meaningful for both them and their students. THE REVIEWER David Kent is currently employed by the Graduate School of TESOL-MALL, Woosong University. His doctoral specializations are computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). He has been working and living in Korea since 1995. REFERENCES Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1-15. Goh, C. C. M. (2015, December). Professional development for teachers of 21st century English language learners. Paper presented at the 2015 TESOL Regional Conference, Singapore. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/107481 20110424816 264 David B. Kent Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Royce, T. Multimodal communicative competence in second language contexts. In T. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 361-403). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taylor, R. P. (1980). Introduction. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss2/seminal/ article1.cfm Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology enhanced language learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535. Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice 265 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 266 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Language Learning with Digital Video Ben Goldstein and Paul Driver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pages: 218. (ISBN-13: 978-1107634640 Paperback) Reviewed by Colin Walker The role of video in the language classroom has traditionally been used as a mechanism to reward or motivate learners. Nowadays, however, while advances in digital technology have made it easier to view and produce videos, many language teachers lack skills in digital literacy. Part of the Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers series edited by Scott Thornbury, Language Learning with Digital Video (Goldstein & Driver, 2014) is a timely and warranted resource that features 73 innovative, cutting-edge activities on how to integrate video into language learning. Following the introduction, the book is divided into two parts. Part 1: Video Exploitation features five chapters on how to analyze, interpret, compare, and predict video content. Aside from a projector and computer with a working Internet connection, little preparation or equipment is required to guide learners through these activities. The time required to complete an activity typically depends on its degree of difficulty. Activities targeted for learners with lower levels of L2 proficiency can be done in as little as 15 minutes, while more challenging ones tend to take upwards of an hour. For example, Mini Bollywood, an activity where learners add their own L2 subtitles to an Indian film, can appeal to beginners, whereas analyzing film trailers from a historical perspective in Trailers Past and Present is an activity that would be best suited for advanced learners. The majority of activities, however, can be completed in 30-60 minutes and are targeted for intermediate language learners. Chapter 1, Video and Text, includes ten activities focusing on subtitles, captions, scripts, and thought bubbles. Slightly different from Language Learning With Digital Video 267 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 other chapters, the activities in chapter 1 focus mainly on reading and writing skills. Chapter 2, Video and Narrative, includes ten activities that draw the learner’s attention to how actions are sequenced throughout a video to reveal a story through interpretation, summary, and analysis of narrative plots. Chapter 3, Video and Persuasion, includes eight activities that draw the learner’s attention to techniques used to influence the opinions of others. This can be particularly appealing to teach courses in marketing and debate. In the activity Views About News, learners identify persuasive language by comparing two different news reports on the same event. Chapter 4, Video and Music, includes eight activities that go beyond traditional audio-lingual dictation. In One Song, Many Versions, learners contrast two renditions of the same song, and then discuss how differences are represented visually and acoustically. Chapter 5, Video and Topic, the concluding chapter of part 1, includes activities on love, water, sport, daily life, memory, humor, and culture. Part 2: Video Creation introduces the reader to components of video production: hardware, software, sharing, and stage design, including tips on how to use a green screen. Sequenced in order of difficulty, the four chapters of part 2 include innovative activities where learners engineer, design, create, reconstruct, remix, and synchronize video to produce original content. Though these activities might appear complex and typically require a minimum of investment of 60 minutes, it should be noted that 13 of the 30 activities listed in part 2 can be taught to learners with lower levels of L2 proficiency. Chapter 6, Straightforward Video Creation: Level 1, and chapter 7, Medium Video Creation: Level 2, include six and seven activities, respectively, that provide an introduction to the world of digital literacy and some of the generic features of popular media. In Voice-Over Substitution, learners replace the audio of a news report with a narrator of their own. In Prove It, learners manipulate the text, audio, and graphics in support of or opposition to controversial statements. Chapter 8, Challenging Video Creation: Level 3, and Chapter 9, Elaborate Video Creation: Level 4, go beyond analysis and manipulation by tasking learners to design, create, and engineer their own original video. From narrated voice-over video reports on how people lived 100 years ago (That Was Then) to documenting a video diary from the perspective of an inanimate object (Object), these activities typically require more of a time investment and familiarity with video software (e.g., Apple’s Final Cut Pro or Adobe’s Premier Pro) and hardware (sets, lighting, camera, props). 268 Colin Walker Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Each activity is described with detailed precision, yet avoids subjecting the reader to irrelevant information. Activities in part 2 are explained within a space of two to three pages, while activities in part 1 are adequately explained in less than a page. This level of organization reveals the authors’ intent to provide language teachers with quick, foolproof ideas for their classes. Each activity begins with a section highlighting the activity’s outline (what learners will do), focus (what skills they will obtain), time (how long it will take them to do it), level (how difficult it will be), and preparation (necessary materials or actions needed to be taken prior to beginning the task). Procedure, the next section, provides a list of instructions for the teacher to guide the learners through the task. By tasking the learners to, for instance, collaborate in pairs, reflect upon their own personal experience, and answer thought-provoking questions, it becomes clear that the authors designed these activities to encourage learners to take an active role in their learning. In the introduction, the authors point out that few books have reported on the role of moving images and the pedagogical advantages of video in the language classroom. In order to come full circle, however, it would have been nice for the authors to expound on the teaching tools and techniques that could be used to evaluate the learner’s performance on these activities. While the book does mention video-editing software, readers should be aware that the learning curve may be steep depending on one’s level of digital literacy. Thankfully, YouTube is replete with tutorials on the topic. Aside from these minor observations, the summary presented above concludes that this book does an exceptional job in fulfilling its purpose. THE REVIEWER Colin Walker has an MA TEFL/TESL from the University of Birmingham and currently works in the Department of English Language and Literature at Myongji University, where he teaches Presentation and Debate, Written Composition, Listening Comprehension, and three levels of English Conversation. His research interests include storytelling and narrative non-fiction. Email:
[email protected]Language Learning With Digital Video 269 Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 Korea TESOL Journal General Information for Contributors As an academic journal in the field of English language teaching (ELT), the Korea TESOL Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence. Submissions should be of practical import, dealing with aspects of the Korean ELT context or directly applicable to it. As a journal that is dedicated to the nurturing of research among ELT practitioners, the Journal also welcomes quality submissions from the early-career researcher. The Korea TESOL Journal invites submissions in three categories: 1. Full-Length Articles. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manuscripts of 5,000 to 8,000 words in length, including references, tables, etc. 2. Brief Reports. The Journal also invites short reports (approximately 2,500 words). These manuscripts may present preliminary findings, focus on some aspect of a larger study, or summarize research done in the pursuit of advanced studies. 3. Reviews. The Journal invites succinct, evaluative reviews of scholarly or professional books, or instructional-support resources (such as computer software, video or audio material, and tests). Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and a brief discussion of the significance of the work in the context of current theory and practice. Submissions should generally be no longer than 1,500 words. Manuscripts are accepted for peer review with the understanding that the same work has not been submitted elsewhere (i.e., not pending review or currently under review) and has not been previously published, online or in print. Manuscripts should follow APA style guidelines (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed.), especially for in-text citations, references, tables, and figures. Submissions should be made with tables, figures, and other graphics included in the manuscript text (and upon request, as separate files). All figures should be created in black and white, and graphs must display distinctive shades or patterning for readability. Manuscripts should be submitted as MS Word (DOC or DOCx) files. The Korea TESOL Journal accepts submissions for two issues annually following a rolling/ongoing submissions policy. Manuscripts may be submitted at any time of year and will be processed and reviewed on a first-come first-served basis. Inquiries/manuscripts to:
[email protected]For more information on submissions to the Korea TESOL Journal, including paper submission deadlines, evaluation criteria, and formatting requirements, visit: https://koreatesol.org/content/call-papers-korea-tesol-journa 270