ESL Teachers Classroom Practices and Beliefs in Malaysian Classroom Context
Hema Vanita Kesevan1*
1 Faculty of Languages and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: hemakesevan@fbk.upsi.edu.my Accepted: 15 December 2021 | Published: 31 December 2021
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2021.3.4.10
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study assessed the ideologies and actual classroom and pedagogical practices of teachers. It explored the classroom talk and ideological stance of Malaysian English teachers. The findings of the study revealed there were discrepancy of ideologies and practices among the teachers. Although the divergence can be associated as a reaction to the natural occurrences of classroom context where teachers need to accommodate to the needs of the classroom, the divergence suggests teacher training should be strengthen and greater awareness should be given to avoid greater divergence between ideologies and its actual implementation. Even though the small sample of teachers involved in this study limits generalization of the findings to similar contexts, it still enables to gain an understanding into the factors that differentiate the teachers' classroom ideologies and practices. The purpose of assessing the classroom ideologies and practices teachers is not to determine the best practice or compare the teachers but to understand to what extend the training and experience of a teacher can influence their pedagogical decision that further impact the teaching and learning process.
Keywords: classroom ideology, classroom talk, ESL teachers
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Current research on classroom discourse views discourse or the language use in the classroom as a social means of communication and it has a crucial role in the process of language learning (Hicks, 1996). Discourses in the classroom are the central means through which new knowledge and understandings are negotiated between teachers and learners and that teachers working in the classroom settings are also well aware of the role of classroom discourse in the mediation of learning. The social and contextual nature of human learning has received great emphasis in research on learning and instruction (Greeno, 1997; Heller, et al., 1997). In general, research on classroom interaction investigates the nature of social activity by focusing in particular on the verbal interaction of the teachers. It pays considerable attention to the practices, processes and conditions leading to the social construction of knowledge in different learning situations (Fisher, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Palincsar, 2005; Tuyay, Jennings, & Dixon, 1995). Over the years, emerging research has been extended its analysis from external factors influencing learning processes and achievements to the student’s participation in and developing understanding of the teaching and learning process in the classroom lessons (Grossen, 1994; Perret-Clermont, Perret, & Bell, 1991). Research from the former perspective helps us to to understand the teachers’ role as facilitator in the student-centered and teacher-
centered teaching styles. Despite its considerable benefits in understanding the evolving language practice in a situated classroom setting, research in classroom interaction rarely compares the teachers’ actual practice with their ideologies. That is, classroom interaction research only focuses on the language use in the particular setting and to a certain extend includes the influence of the social condition of the classrooms such as the learners’ behaviour., However, no attempt is made either to investigate how the teachers’ ideologies are manifested in their actual interaction or how the teachers’ actual practice correlates with their ideologies.
Thus this study aims to investigate ESL teachers’ ideologies particularly focusing on discourse practices and investigate the actual practices of the teachers in the Malaysian EFL classroom settings.
2. Literature Review
A review on language studies that were conducted to examine English language teaching reported that the teachers’ beliefs about teaching approaches, classroom discourse, practices and their subject matter are important factors in classroom decisions (Tsui, 2000). Teachers’
ideologies influence their choices concerning what to teach, how to teach and how to deal with learners’ behaviours (Sullivan & Woods, 2008). However, it was also found that the teachers’
ability to implement their beliefs is not only subject to their knowledge about a teaching approach also dependent on other factors, such as the learners’ culture and proficiency level, and various institutional constraints. Among those constraints is the fact that teachers are required to teach according to the requirements of specific curriculum content and must adhere to the norms set by the institutional authorities. Various actions by teachers in the classroom such as their manner of asking questions, allocating turns and the type of English or varieties used in classroom interaction are not random or neutral, but rather are linked to their ideologies about languages, teaching and learning. The ideological stance of the teachers in Malaysian language classroom settings is not homogeneous as the teachers have different social, language and pedagogical backgrounds, and also deal in different ways with how institutional authority is exercised (Li, 2015).
The term language ideology in classroom studies tries to capture “the implicit, usually unconscious assumptions about language and language behaviour that fundamentally determine how human beings interpret events” (Tsui & Tollefson, 2007:26). Language ideologies are rooted in the social practices of people. It does not only refer to people’s ideas, notions, or representations of language, but also to the practices through which they are enacted (Kroskrity, 2010). That is, when people are engaged in language practices such as classroom instruction, they are simultaneously displaying their beliefs about the nature, function, and purpose of language use. Traditionally, research on language attitudes in education tends to explore an individual’s beliefs, but pays less attention to shared beliefs and politics of language as in the case of language ideologies. Research on language ideologies, variously referred to as language ideology, linguistic ideologies, or ideologies of language, investigates how speakers rationalise their language use, including linguistic forms and discursive practices (Kroskrity, 2010). Based on the review of past studies in language classrooms, it is apparent that there is a complex relationship between teachers’ ideologies and pedagogical practices. The ideologies held by the teachers are reflected in various aspects of classroom practices, such as teaching styles, classroom instructions, discourse practices, along with other instructional practices. The classroom ideologies of all teachers are not necessarily the same as each teacher’s ideologies are formed based on various aspects (Borg, 2013).
3. Methodology
In an attempt to study the teachers’ classroom practices and ideologies two forms of data were collected from the participants. First is classroom observation, it focuses on classroom interactions between teachers and students during lessons it tries to capture the types of classroom interaction that occurs among its participants. The classroom observation lasted for duration of six weeks. Secondly interviews were conducted with teachers and students, interviews with teachers intended to probe further on teachers’ intentions in using specific type of interaction and their awareness on using those patterns of interaction, it aims to correlate their ideologies to actual practices. Meanwhile the focused group interviews with students intended to gather their perceptions on the teachers’ classroom interaction practices; it intended to probe further on its effectiveness from students’ perspectives. This study uses a mixed method approach of qualitative and quantitative design. The data from classroom observations were analysed to study the natural occurrence of classroom practices. The classroom observation data were transcribed using E-LAN software and the patterns of interaction were categorized following the types of classroom interaction that usually occurs in classroom talk.
Meanwhile the interview data is analysed critically to investigate the teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and the learners’ perception towards the teachers’ actual classroom practices.
4. Conclusion
The analysis of the teachers’ general pattern of questioning showed that the classroom interaction of the teacher participants appeared to be more instructional than communicative.
Regardless of the teachers’ backgrounds, all the teachers used more display questions than referential questions in their classroom interactions. The small number of referential questions used by the teachers did not exceed more than 20% of their overall classroom discourse. The variation in the percentage distribution between the teachers was not quite substantial. Overall teachers employed 6% of referential questions throughout their classroom talk. However, most of the referential questions of the teachers were pseudo-questions and not open-ended referential questions. The teachers were observed to include language games in their lessons, which elicited the use of referential questions. The overall classroom interaction of teachers tended to be teacher-centred and frontal, since the display questions were predominated in all of the teacher participants’ classrooms. The tendency as found in this study for teachers to rely on the display questions showed that the questioning and answering sessions in the classroom are usually short, reflective of the I-R-F (initiation, response, feedback /evaluation) pattern.
That is to say, the classroom interaction is controlled by the teachers and the learners had little opportunity to experience the real-life conversational context, such as authentic turn management between interlocutors.
In addition, this study indicates that non-academic questions played a crucial role in generating participation in the classrooms. There was quite a substantial variation among the teachers in the use of non-academic questions. The teachers were observed to use approximately 50 to 60 per cent of non-academic questions in their classroom discourse. The findings indicated that teachers used more academic questions than the trained teachers. However this study indicates that academic questions alone do not determine learner participation in classroom lessons. That is because the teachers that used fewer academic questions managed to generate more participation than the monolingual teachers. Thus, it proves that non-academic questions can play a significant role in generating participation. The teachers’ concern in managing turn allocation equitably and ensuring that each student has an opportunity to provide an answer
increases the level of participation in the classroom, although the length of utterances appeared to be short. The questioning patterns of the multilingual teachers demonstrated that they were concerned to generate participation rather than a higher interactivity level. That is they focus on the quantity of exchanges between them and the learners over the lengthy conversation.
Drawing on the learners’ responses to teachers’ questions, it suggests that the learners were hesitant to participate voluntarily unless the teachers allocated turns individually. Teachers relied on non-academic questions to generate participation and the classroom interaction appeared to be controlled by the teachers. The learner-centred teaching paradigm is associated with implicit skill instructions, integration of critical thinking skills and learners’ collaboration that enhance autonomous and real-life context learning. Drawing on the learner-centred perspectives, the teachers’ questioning practice focused on promoting a relaxed learning environment and collaborative learning, since the teachers did not engage in individual nomination and their classroom tasks promoted group discussion. Although the broad questioning patterns of the teachers demonstrated inclusion of more academic questions, the teachers’ were dependent more on display questions over against referential questions.
Consequently, this practice generated only short utterances from the learners. In addition, the low level of use of classroom management questions led to fewer responses and less active participation on the part of learners. This suggests that the teachers’ teaching style influences the success of a classroom lesson in terms of participation and interactivity. This study indicates that the teachers’ questioning techniques plays a crucial role in determining the teachers’
teaching style. This has a powerful impact in turn on interactivity and participation in a classroom.
The findings of this study also indicated that teachers use the Malaysian English (ME) variety to assist the learners’ understanding. Teachers use ME for two purposes: first, when engaged with tag questions, and second, when reducing the structure of a question. The responses of the students to the ME variety in questioning appeared to assist the learners’ understanding to a certain degree. Although the teachers’ reductions seemed to be uncontrolled, it managed to generate responses from the learners. This suggests that the non-standard variety of questions used by the teachers has the capacity to enhance learner understanding. While the dominant Malaysian social viewpoint may consider Standard English as the only ‘proper’ way of speaking in the classroom contexts, the results from this study suggest that other varieties of English such as use of ME have actually enhanced the language learning process for the ESL/EFL learners.
The findings of this study confirm that the teachers’ language background has little effect on the overall teaching style, learning and teaching process. There were only slight variations in terms of devising classroom tasks: the monolingual teachers tend to use communicative tasks that promote group collaboration, while the lessons of the multilingual teachers tend to be frontal, with teacher-led discussion. However, the teachers’ variation in terms of managing the classroom events suggests that training is essential irrespective of the language background of a given teacher. That is because the findings of this study would appear to indicate that what matters is the type of the questions rather than their quantity; this is what determines the level of participation and interactivity in a classroom setting. Therefore, appropriate teacher training is required for all types of teachers in order to increase learner participation. Since questioning is an important aspect of teaching and learning across all levels of classrooms and all types of learners, the teachers should be informed in detail and depth about how questions are formed and responded to in a classroom. Building an understanding of better managing questions effectively in the classroom will certainly help teachers to improve their teaching techniques, thus promoting more efficient teaching and heightening the pupils’ learning experience.
References
Ãrva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28(3), 355-372.
Baker, R. M. & Dwyer, F. (2005). Effect of Instructional Strategies and Individual Differences:
A Meta-Analytic Assessment. International journal of instructional media, 32(1), 69.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001
Chall, J. S. (2000). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom? New York: The Guilford Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(02), 339-368.
Farimah, G. & Fatimah, H. (2013). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and their English language proficiency: A study of nonnative EFL teachers in selected language centres. Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, 103, 890-899.
Farahian, M., & Rezaee, M. (2012). A Case Study of an EFL Teacher's Type of Questions: An Investigation into Classroom Interaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 161-167.
Gibson, C. & Swan, A. (2008) In IELTS Research Reports, Vol. 8 Kuala Lumpur.
Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL quarterly, 39(3), 535-543.
Jerome, C., & Samuel, M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices in Malaysian ESL secondary school classroom. Paper presented in International Conference on Language Studies in Kuching, Sarawak.
Kaanta, L. (2012). Teachers‘ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166-186.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies in evolving perspectives. Society and language use, 7(3), 192-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hoph.7.13kro
Liao, P. (2007). Teachers‘ beliefs about teaching English to elementary school children.
English Teaching & Learning, 31(1), 43-76.
Samad, A.A., & Nurusus, E. (2015). Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs in Teaching Grammar.
Malaysian English Language Teaching Journal, 25 (1), 23-32.
Tollefson, J. W. (2000). Policy and ideology in the spread of English. In J. Kelly Hall & W. G.
Egginton (Eds.), Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Tsui, A. & Bunton, D. (2000). The discourse and attitudes of English language teachers in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 19(3), 287-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467- 971X.00180
Tsui, A. B. & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wing, E. C. (2012). Classroom teaching skills: the research findings of the teacher education project. London: Psychology Press.
