Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities : Global Visions and Local Practices [1 ed.] 9781443868648, 9781443861410

Citation preview

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities: Global Visions and Local Practices

Edited by

David D. Qian and Lan Li

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities: Global Visions and Local Practices, Edited by David D. Qian and Lan Li This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by David D. Qian, Lan Li and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-6141-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6141-0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ...................................................................................................... ix Antony John Kunnan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... xii CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................................... xiii SECTION 1: ASSESSING LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................. 2 Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning in Language Education Alister Cumming CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................... 19 Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores: Applying an Assessment Use Argument Approach Min Liu and David D. Qian CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................ 37 Nonverbal Delivery in Speaking Assessment: An MTMM Validation Study Mingwei Pan and David D. Qian CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................... 63 Theoretical Considerations of Standardised Graduation English Testing at Universities in Taiwan Byron Gong CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................ 83 Validity Evidence of an Interlanguage Pragmatics Test Rui Xu

vi

Table of Contents

SECTION 2: TEACHING ENGLISH WRITING CHAPTER SIX............................................................................................ 100 Individual Performances in Peer Response: A Case Study in EFL Writing Class Zhongshe Lu and Yushi Han CHAPTER SEVEN ...................................................................................... 120 Incorporating Critical Thinking into College English Writing Classes Wanqing Cheng CHAPTER EIGHT ....................................................................................... 138 The Relationship between Meta-cognitive Strategies and English Writing Proficiency of English Majors: An Empirical Study Song Zhu CHAPTER NINE ......................................................................................... 155 Course Design and Materials Development for Reading and Writing for Academic Argumentative Essays Gehui Wang, Meihua Liu and Mingfang Jia SECTION 3: LEARNER AUTONOMY CHAPTER TEN .......................................................................................... 170 Investigating Learner Preferences for Learning Modes in a University EST Course David D. Qian CHAPTER ELEVEN .................................................................................... 194 The Use of Visualisation as a Reading Strategy among Hong Kong Chinese College Students Mary Tabarsi Tsang CHAPTER TWELVE .................................................................................... 209 Examining Learner Strategies in a Facebook Corpus of Lexical Priming Vincent B. Y. Ooi CHAPTER THIRTEEN ................................................................................. 225 An Exploration of the Sources of Language Anxiety for Taiwanese English Majors Learning Foreign Languages Po-Kai Chang

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities

vii

CHAPTER FOURTEEN ................................................................................ 242 Learner Autonomy in FLT: A Comparative Study between UNNC and Three Tertiary Schools in China Yan Zhu CHAPTER FIFTEEN .................................................................................... 262 Fostering Students’ Self-Management Ability during their Study: An Empirical Study on the Application of Portfolios in an Autonomous College English Class Yijing Wang, Jin Qian and Qian Han CHAPTER SIXTEEN ................................................................................... 278 The Effects of Teacher Role in Web-Based English Listening Autonomous Learning Zhongmei Li, Jin Qian and Li Xu SECTION 4: CORPUS AND DISCOURSE RESEARCH CHAPTER SEVENTEEN .............................................................................. 302 Contextual and Cultural Influence on the Use of First Person Pronouns by Chinese Learners of English Lan Li CHAPTER EIGHTEEN ................................................................................. 323 Investigating Metatalk and Paralinguistic Features on Collaborative Learning and Negotiation in ESL: A Conversation Analysis Dora Wong CHAPTER NINETEEN ................................................................................. 345 The Effects of Discourse Signaling Cues and Rate of Speech on Chinese EFL Learners at Tertiary-Level in an Academic Lecture Fangyuan Du CHAPTER TWENTY ................................................................................... 360 Ontogenetic Analysis of College English Textbooks in China: A Systemic-Functional Perspective Nancy Songdan Guo

viii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE ........................................................................... 378 Profiling Prevailing EFL Word Lists in China: Streamlined and Academic? David. D. Qian and Mingwei Pan SECTION 5: LEARNING ENGLISH IN EAST ASIAN CONTEXTS CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO........................................................................... 402 English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? Glenn Toh CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE........................................................................ 415 Coming to China to Study English: A Case study in Why International Students Choose to Major in English in a Non-English Speaking Country Aaron Doyle CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR ......................................................................... 431 English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation at Tertiary Level Andrew Sewell CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE ........................................................................... 448 Never Forgotten: Poetry in the Hong Kong Language and Literature Classroom Kate Rogers and Jason Ho

PREFACE ENGLISH IN EAST ASIA: TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSING ANTONY JOHN KUNNAN

Starting from Deng Xiaoping’s Open Door Policy period (1978 to the 1990s), there has been rapid growth in every public sector endeavor in China. Since then anything about China has involved world-record statistics, mainly because of its geographic and demographic size. It is no different when it comes to English language teaching, learning, and assessing in the university context. According to estimates from Wei and Su (2012), Mainland China has about 390 million learners of English, 30% of these learners (about 130 million) use English often or sometimes, and 20% of these learners (about 78 million) have the ability to at least conduct daily conversations in English. At the tertiary education level, 27 million university students in China are learning English and taking English language tests (Cheng & Curtis, 2010). For instance, the College English Test (CET) was taken by 18 million college students in 2012 (Jin, personal communication), and the number of college applicants who took Gaokao (National Matriculation Entrance Test) - the all-important college entrance examination which has an English component - was about 9.5 million in 2011, just a slight drop of one million from previous years (Chen, 2011). According to a Xinhua News Agency report (2013) and TESOL President Deena Boraie’s blog (2013), these high volumes may not hold as there have been lower enrolments in recent years due to the lowering of weightage of English from 150 to 100 points in the Gaokao (see Murphy, 2013, for similar views). These statistics, of course, are only from the Chinese Mainland, which boasts the largest number of English language learners in East Asia at the university level, and thus, do not include English language learners from other East Asian regions and countries (such as Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Japan and Korea). Nor do the

x

Preface

statistics include the English language learners who use the ubiquitous private tutorial schools and centers - where much teaching and learning of English takes place before and after college hours particularly before all major examinations. If all the regions, countries and organizations from East Asia are included in a survey of English language learners, the English language operation in East Asia could easily be considered the largest in the world. But as East Asia is large and diverse in terms of socio-economic, linguistic, and ethnic parameters, statistics alone cannot give us an understanding of what goes on in rural and urban university contexts. For example, from just numbers we would not understand the complexities of teaching and assessing listening, speaking, reading and writing, and grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics; training teachers of English so that the quality of teaching is high with reasonable consistency; designing curriculum and textbook writing well aligned with national/regional language policy and teaching/learning goals; using corpora to investigate linguistic and discourse features of written and spoken discourse; designing, piloting, and researching assessment systems in universities; and the different kinds of learners in terms of their strategies, preferences and so on. To understand this wide gamut of applied linguistics activities in East Asia is thus a very large undertaking. Still, an honest beginning has to be made. This is what we have in the present collection edited by David D. Qian and Lan Li titled “Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities: Global Visions and Local Practices.” The 25 papers in the volume were chosen, through a rigorous blind peer review process, from about 91 paper and colloquia sessions at the 7th International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level held at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2011. They are arranged in five sections: Assessing Language Performance, Teaching English Writing, Learner Autonomy, Corpus and Discourse Research, and Learning English in East Asian Contexts. Many of the papers are on familiar topics such as linking assessment to teaching, learning and curriculum, conducting assessment validation research, examining meta-cognitive strategies, investigating teaching and learning English for academic purposes or as a lingua franca, profiling prevailing word lists for language learners, and understanding contextual and cultural influences on the use of first person pronouns. Other papers are on lesser known topics such as non-verbal delivery in speaking assessment, the use of visualization as a reading strategy, learner strategies in a Facebook corpus, effects of discourse signaling cues and rate of speech, and an ontogenetic analysis of college English textbooks, to

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities

xi

name a few. Collectively, the papers showcase English language learning, teaching, and assessing in a range of contexts using a variety of methods and techniques to deal with issues relevant to East Asian teachers, learners and researchers. If similar collections are produced regularly, over a period of time, a comprehensive picture of the practice and research in teaching, learning, and assessing English in the complex plurilingual communities of East Asia will surely emerge.

References Boraie, D. (2013). Rethinking English Language Teaching and Learning in China. Personal Blog, November 25, 2013. Retrieved from http://blog.tesol.org/rethinking-english-language-teaching-andlearning-in-china/ on December 16, 2013. Chen, H. (2011). Number of Gaokao Applicants Declines Again. June 11, 2011. Retrieved from http://english.caixin.com/2012-06-11/1003 99272.html/ on December 16, 2013. Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2010). (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner. Madison, NY: Routledge. Murphy, C. (2013). English May Be Losing Its Luster in China. Wall Street Journal China, November 7, 2013. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/11/07/learning-english-maybe-losing-its-luster-in-china/ on December 16, 2013. Wei, R., & Su, J. (2012). The statistics of English in China. English Today, 28(3), 10-14. doi: 10.1017/S0266078412000235. Xinhua News Agency (2013). China's English fervor under scrutiny. October 15, 2013. Retrieved from http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/203691/8426108.html/ on December 16, 2013.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The chapters in this volume were primarily selected, through a blind peer review process, from research papers presented at the 7th International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level (ISTETL), which was held at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University on the 13th and 14th of October, 2011. The Symposium was attended by over 130 researchers and practitioners from 15 countries in the field of English language teaching at the tertiary level. The 7th ISTETL witnessed the presentation of 91 papers, which were chosen from a large number of submissions, also based on the result of rigorous peer reviews. We wish to acknowledge the support from the Department of English and PolyU-Tsinghua U Centre for Language Sciences at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, whose generous sponsorship made this event possible. We would like to thank all colleagues and research students who contributed to this Symposium in various ways in the process of organizing and running the Symposium, including reviewing the abstracts and papers, providing logistic support, and chairing the presentation sessions. We would also like to thank all the Symposium participants who made this Symposium an enjoyable and successful event. In particular, we are grateful to our supportive colleagues at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, who have made valuable contributions to the continuous development of academic collaboration between the Department of English at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Tsinghua University.

CONTRIBUTORS

Po-Kai Chang ([email protected]) is currently a PhD student in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. His research interests include second language acquisition, language anxiety, and discourse analysis. Wanqing Cheng ([email protected]) is now teaching English at Honam University in Kwangju, the Republic of Korea. She is especially interested in curriculum and textbook development, classroom assessment, and interdisciplinary English education. Alister Cumming ([email protected]) is Professor and Head of the Centre for Educational Research on Languages and Literacies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. His research and teaching focus on writing in second languages, language assessment, and curriculum evaluation, particularly for English as a second or international language. Aaron Doyle ([email protected]) teaches English for Academic Purposes courses at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. He is an American with degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA. He has taught and conducted research in China, Australia, and the United States. Fangyuan Du ([email protected]) is a lecturer in the College of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Fudan University, China. Her main research interest lies in foreign language listening and vocabulary. Byron Gong ([email protected]) obtained his PhD in 1996 at Lancaster University, England. He is currently an Associate Professor at the English Department of Soochow University, Taiwan. He has over 20 years’ experience of teaching English at universities, and his main academic interest and research projects are concerned with large-scale standardised English language testing.

xiv

Contributors

Nancy Songdan Guo ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in the Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research interests include systemic functional linguistics, language education, and multisemiotic studies. She has years of tertiary-level teaching experience and has engaged with various projects on language education in both Beijing and Hong Kong. Qian Han ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the School of Foreign Languages, Dalian University of Technology, China. She specializes in translation studies and translation teaching studies. Her current research focuses on cognitive investigation of science and technology students’ translation process and translation course design for non-English majors. Yushi Han ([email protected]) has a bachelor’s degree from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, China. She is currently working on her master’s degree in applied linguistics in the same department. Jason Man-Bo Ho ([email protected]) is a Lecturer at the Community College of the City University of Hong Kong. He was educated in Hong Kong and has taught in the Hong Kong secondary and sub-degree systems for ten years. He is currently a doctoral student in Education at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include identity, critical literacy, and critical theory. Mingfang Jia ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of English at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, China. His major research interests include EFL teaching and learning and EFL writing. Antony John Kunnan ([email protected]) is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is an author and editor of many books on language assessment, including The Companion to Language Assessment (Routledge, 2014). He was the founding editor of Language Assessment Quarterly (2003-2013) and President of the International Language Testing Association (2004). Lan Li ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor at the Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Linguists (UK). She has MPhil and PhD degrees in

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities

xv

applied linguistics from the University of Exeter. Her research interests and publications cover lexicology, metaphor studies, lexicography, professional communication, computer mediated communication, corpus linguistics, and sociolinguistics. Zhongmei Li ([email protected]) is a Lecturer in the School of Foreign Languages, Dalian Polytechnic University, China. She has experienced the reform in college English teaching in China and has been actively exploring and practicing the web-based English autonomous learning model with her colleagues. She has written articles to introduce the new model. Meihua Liu ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of English at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, China. Her research interests include second/foreign language teaching and learning, reticence and anxiety, language attitudes and motivation, and second language writing. Min Liu ([email protected]) received her PhD from the Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She is currently a lecturer in the School of English Studies, Xi’an International Studies University. Her research interests include language assessment and evaluation, test validation, impact of large-scale testing, English for academic purposes, and EFL teaching and learning. Zhongshe Lu ([email protected]) completed her PhD at the University of Nottingham, England. She has taught a variety of courses in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, since 1986 and was promoted a full professor in 1999. Her research interests include applied linguistics and stylistics. Vincent B. Y. Ooi ([email protected]) works at the Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. His teaching and research interests include Asian discourses in English, corpus linguistics, lexicology, and the language of the Internet (computermediated communication). Ooi’s website is http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellooiby/. Mingwei Pan ([email protected]) is currently a Research Associate at the Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He has a PhD in applied linguistics from Shanghai International Studies

xvi

Contributors

University and was a Fulbright Junior Scholar at the Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2012-2013). His research interests include language assessment, corpus linguistics, and educational measurement. David D. Qian ([email protected]) is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of English, Director of the PolyU-Tsinghua U Centre for Language Sciences at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Co-President of the Asian Association for Language Assessment. He teaches courses in language testing, classroom-based assessment, psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, and research methodology for applied language sciences. He has published extensively in the areas of standardised English language testing, teacher-based assessment, corpus linguistics, discourse and communication in professional and academic contexts, and ESL/EFL vocabulary learning and measurement. As a Principal Investigator, he has directed over 20 research projects funded respectively by the Educational Testing Service, USA, Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Language Training and Testing Center, Taiwan, and Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Jin Qian ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in Dalian University of Technology, China. She has been engaged in EFL education for more than two decades. As a graduate advisor, she has guided her students in carrying out their studies in applied linguistics and educational psychology. At present, she is an academic visitor to Durham University in the United Kingdom. Kate Rogers ([email protected]) was educated in Canada and is currently a Lecturer at the Community College of the City University of Hong Kong. Over the past 20 years she has taught in three Hong Kong community college programs and in the tertiary sector (community colleges and universities) in Ontario, Canada. She has several creative publications (poetry and creative non-fiction) and has authored a paper on using Chinese literature for engaging Hong Kong students of English. Andrew Sewell ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. He has been involved with language teaching, language testing, and teacher training in various countries and regions including China, South Korea, and Macau.

Teaching and Learning English in East Asian Universities

xvii

Glenn Toh ([email protected]) holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Curtin University of Technology, Australia. He has taught English for Academic Purposes in Auckland, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and now at the Department of Comparative Cultures, Tamagawa University in Tokyo, Japan. He maintains a keen interest in EAP and matters concerning language, ideology and power. Mary Tabarsi Tsang ([email protected]) is a Senior Lecturer in the Community College of the City University of Hong Kong, where she is the Programme Leader for the Associate of Arts degree in Communication and Public Relations. Her research gravitates towards issues involving the improvement of reading skills among second language learners of English. Gehui Wang ([email protected]) is a Lecturer of English at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, China. Her major research interests include EFL teaching and learning and EFL writing. Yijing Wang ([email protected]) is Professor of English and an MA Supervisor in the School of Foreign Languages, Dalian University of Technology (DUT), China. She has been working in the field of English teaching and applied linguistic for more than three decades. Her major research interest lies in the socio-cultural contexts of foreign language learning and teaching. Dora Wong ([email protected]) is a Language Instructor at the Department of English, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research interests include online peer learning, writing in English as a second language, language arts in TESOL, and translation studies in English and Chinese. Li Xu ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the School of Foreign Languages of Dalian University of Technology, China. She has been teaching and researching tertiary level English education since 1990. Her main research field is applied linguistics, and she has published more than 10 papers in language education in different journals in China and abroad. Rui Xu ([email protected]) is a Lecturer of Linguistics at Jinggangshan University, China. She received her PhD in Language Testing and Assessment from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,

xviii

Contributors

China. Her current research interests include interlanguage pragmatics testing, classroom assessment, and dyslexia identification and assessment. Song Zhu ([email protected]) holds an MA in Pedagogy. She is currently a Lecturer in the Foreign Languages Department, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, China. Her major research interests are language teaching, digital writing, learning strategies, and learner autonomy. Yan Zhu ([email protected]) is a PhD student at Shanghai International Studies University, China. She has seven years’ language teaching experience at the tertiary level in China and has participated in several state-level and district-level research projects. Her major research interests include autonomous language learning, EFL classroom instruction, and language curriculum innovation.

SECTION 1: ASSESSING LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE

CHAPTER ONE LINKING ASSESSMENT TO CURRICULA, TEACHING, AND LEARNING IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION ALISTER CUMMING

How should curricula, assessment, and learning be related in programs of language education? I describe four alternative approaches that have emerged, been widely discussed, and variously developed in recent decades: (a) proficiency tests, (b) curriculum standards, (c) diagnostic and self-assessments, and (c) dynamic assessment. Each approach represents a relatively distinct option, arising from unique conceptual bases, asserting certain kinds of authority, using specific technologies, and with differing values, implications, and limitations. In educational practices the approaches often converge, and their combinations may even be necessary to achieve effective instruction and program organisation. For these reasons, educators need to distinguish the respective values, functions, and limitations of each approach so as to avoid confusing them when making particular policy and pedagogical decisions. Keywords: assessment, curriculum, teaching, learning, language education

Introduction A primary focus of language educators round the world in recent decades has involved efforts to relate assessments systematically, effectively, and productively to curricula, teaching, and learning. These efforts have been evident in almost every language program locally, regionally, and internationally as well as among professional associations

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

3

and government agencies responsible for language education. The present chapter builds on and refines ideas about these efforts that I reviewed in Cumming (2009), but here I distinguish and analyse four alternative, competing approaches that have emerged to link assessments to language curricula, teaching, and learning: (a) proficiency tests, (b) curriculum standards, (c) diagnostic and self-assessments, and (c) dynamic assessment. Each of these four approaches offers an alternative conceptual basis, asserting certain kinds of authority, using specific technologies, and with differing values, implications, and limitations. Everyone working in language education makes use of and experiences all of these approaches routinely because they necessarily combine and interrelate in most pedagogical circumstances, though to greater or lesser extents and with greater or lesser visibility. Indeed, in some situations of language education, assessment practices may develop almost organically and harmoniously from the pedagogical practices of experienced teachers (e.g., Rea-Dickins, 2001), the efforts of exemplary school administrators and staff (Darling-Hammond, Ancess & Falk, 1995), or rational processes of curriculum planning (e.g., Brown, 2008). However, in most situations of language education internationally there is a less easy or compatible relationship between assessment, curricula, teaching, and learning—as signaled in recent theories and publications arguing that uses of language assessment need to be justified carefully and evaluated critically (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher, 2010; Shohamy, 2001). Given the powerful authority that formal tests or curriculum standards can exert over language teaching and learning, I sense that educators need to recognise, distinguish, and sometimes even challenge the respective values, functions, and limitations of each approach to linking assessments with language curricula, teaching and learning so that the guiding logic of each approach is not confused when making decisions about language program policies and practices.

Proficiency Tests Language proficiency tests have long exerted a primary, often even domineering, influence over language curricula, teaching, and learning, particularly where such tests are used for high-stakes purposes. Such purposes span a wide range of consequential situations internationally, including selection into programs of higher education (Chapelle, Enright & Jamieson, 2008; Weir & Milanovic, 2003), certification for professional

4

Chapter One

licensure (O’Neil, Buckendahl, Plake, & Taylor, 2007; Coniam & Falvey, 2007), confirmation of qualifications to complete formal schooling (Cheng, 2005; Cheng, Klinger & Zheng, 2007; Huhta, Kalaja, & Pitkanen-Huhta, 2006), and eligibility for educational programs to receive continued funding (Harper, Platt, Naranjo & Boynton, 2007; Rivera & Collum, 2006).

Conceptual Bases, Authority, and Technologies Common, fundamental principles and conventions of language test design, administration, and use were established progressively over the past century in North America and Europe then adopted and emulated in most other societies internationally such that they now form a core basis for policies in schools and higher education in most countries (Spolsky, 1995). The theoretical and methodological sophistication of research to validate high-stakes language proficiency tests has increased greatly in past decades, particularly for tests such as TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or IELTS (International Language Testing System), which dominate the international markets for assessing English proficiency for admissions to English-medium university programs (Cumming, 2007, 2013; Stoynoff, 2009). Similar expectations for test quality and validation research apply, as well, to the many national or state tests of language abilities that are used for selection and certification decisions around the world. The design, validation, and uses of language proficiency tests follow concepts of psychometrics. Human abilities can be measured through standardised instruments and procedures, upon which the performance of individuals can be charted as a normal distribution on an established scale of relevant abilities (ascertained by prior research, content definitions, and field testing as well as prior administrations of the same test). An individual’s score on the test is scaled in relation to all others who have taken the test, assuming that the test is valid in assessing what it claims to assess (and not other, irrelevant factors), and that each version and administration of the test is equivalent. Institutions using information from the test then establish minimum cut-scores on the test to represent the standards of abilities expected for decisions about selection or certification (Cizek, 2001). The content and tasks on language proficiency tests are intended to be independent of any particular curriculum or educational program. Scores

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

5

and scales for proficiency tests are established through research on populations in societies at large (i.e., normal distributions) and pre-testing of items in prior administrations of the test rather than as assessments of achievement through any specific program of study. If proficiency tests were oriented to any specific curriculum, then their results would be biased and unfair (to people who had not experienced that curriculum), and the logic of the test as a representation of language abilities generally would be compromised. For this reason, independent agencies (e.g., Educational Testing Service, Cambridge Examinations Syndicate, or national or state ministries) develop and administer most large-scale language assessments so as be at arm’s length from the providers of educational services.

Implications and Limitations Assumptions that proficiency tests are valid and are independent from particular curricula make them useful for high-stakes decisions such as admissions to competitive programs or certification to perform certain kinds of work. From an educational perspective, however, the primary implication is that proficiency tests are wholly separate from any curriculum. No links to curricula or teaching are expected. Relationships to learning are presumed to occur “naturally” in society or through personal experience. Moreover, this assumption puts a premium on extensive, high quality research to provide strong justifications and continuing evidence for the validity of language proficiency tests (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Cumming, 2013; Purpura, 2008). A second implication about the nature of language proficiency tests is that they only provide general information about people’s language abilities. Proficiency tests are not sufficiently precise or attuned to provide information about students’ achievements in any particular educational program (except perhaps after periods of years rather than months). Indeed, the scores from any test fluctuate slightly (usually about 10% on the best tests) between administrations and versions of a test, as indicated by the SEM (standard error of measurement) reported for each well-established test. Thirdly, to establish how to interpret and use scores from a language proficiency test, educational institutions are obliged to set (and monitor) their own standards or cut-scores related to their particular educational purpose and context, because these educational interpretations and uses

6

Chapter One

are not supposed to be associated with the nature of a proficiency test itself (Cizek, 2001; O’Neil, Buckendahl, Plake, & Taylor, 2007). A related complication is that for most decision-making purposes, institutions want proficiency tests to involve comprehensive assessments of language abilities, demonstrating that test takers can read, write, comprehend, and speak a language proficiently, but in practice, decision makers such as university registrars or immigration officers only can reasonably use single scores from proficiency tests. So there is a conflict between the broad extent of information about a person’s language abilities elicited on a proficiency test and the limited extent of information that is, ultimately, needed to make decisions from scores on that test. This conflict about the extent of information on language proficiency tests relates to a fourth implication. Language proficiency tests necessarily provide a minimal sampling of people’s abilities—not only for the reason that people can only perform competently without undue fatigue in test contexts for several hours but also for the efficiency of test design and administration in order to help ensure equivalence across different versions of a test as well as to keep the costs of development, administration, and scoring reasonable. Correspondingly, the items and tasks on language proficiency tests are simple, brief, and in highly conventional genres. As a consequence, language proficiency tests tend to under-represent, or at least minimally represent, the constructs that they intend to assess. Proficiency tests administered within a few hours and at reasonable financial costs can never be expected to represent fully the domains of communication that language and human interaction entail nor all those that might be taught or studied in a particular educational program. Two related implications follow from the minimal representation of language abilities that are feasible on a proficiency test. One is that the types of items, tasks and content tend to be quite general and so are easily coached, leading teachers and students to practice these limited representations rather than to develop a fuller range of language abilities. This consequence is widely disparaged as negative washback on teaching and learning (Bailey, 1996; Hillocks, 2002). The second, related implication is that differing and conflicting cultures and values about assessment have emerged among language educators: One culture, primarily the responsibility of institutional administrators, is concerned with proficiency tests, and the other culture, primarily the responsibility of practicing educators, is concerned with formative assessments in classroom contexts, and there is limited communication or consensus

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

7

between the two (Hamp-Lyons, 2007; Leung & Lewkowicz, 2006; ReaDickins, 2007).

Curriculum Standards The recent decades’ movement to specify standards for language curricula arose out of increased demands for accountability and standardisation in education generally, first within large educational programs, by stipulating the intended outcomes of language programs with the aims of clarifying these for all stakeholders, and then to evaluate the effectiveness of programs in achieving the intended aims (Brindley, 1998, 2000; Linn, 2000). On a broader scale, the formulation of standard terms, benchmarks, or attainment levels across educational programs and countries has had the purpose of facilitating the international and intra-national mobility of people to seek higher education, employment, or economic opportunities in reference to common standards for accreditation as well as for language professionals to exchange information and resources and to promote desired behaviours in language learning and teaching, such as communicative competence and cross-cultural understanding (Council of Europe, 2001; TESOL, 1998, 2001; Trim, 1998).

Conceptual Bases, Authority, and Technologies There is general recognition that all stakeholders in education— teachers, learners, program administrators, families, employers, government funders—benefit from increased clarification about the goals and processes of education. To this end, the development of language abilities are, at least in a general sense, somewhat predictable, and experienced language educators can, given resources and opportunities for collaboration, reach a consensus on the conventional progressions of language development as well as criteria to judge that they have been achieved. The development of curriculum standards, both in local jurisdictions and internationally, have thus followed models of consensus building and cooperation among language professionals (Mckay, 2007; Mckay, Coppari, Cumming, Graves, Lopriore & Short, 2001). In turn, these frameworks arising from professional consensus have been instantiated into educational policies as curriculum standards by government agencies and by professional associations, and then further by professional training and textbooks.

8

Chapter One

Implications and Limitations No doubt educators, students, and other stakeholders benefit from knowing, deliberating, appreciating common goals, expectations, and trajectories for language learning (Cumming, 2001a; Nunan, 2007; Johnstone, 2000; Trim, 1998). Moreover, what has become the conventional nature of curriculum standards—formulated as descriptive criteria about learners’ competencies or performances at increasing levels of language proficiency—can be usefully informed, supported, and complemented by criterion-referenced approaches to assessment (Brown & Hudson, 2002; Lynch & Davidson, 1994; North, 2000). Nonetheless, numerous limitations have emerged in the implementation of curriculum standards. Foremost is the recognition that frameworks such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001) are just that: “frameworks” and “common points” of professional reference. They are not assessment instruments nor actual curricula for particular programs, learner populations, or educational purposes. Considerable interpretation, adaptation, and program development are needed to form such frameworks into curricula. Moreover, none of the existing major language proficiency tests have been designed on the basis of particular curriculum standards, nor perhaps should they logically be (as suggested above), nor are they intended to be measures of achievement in reference to particular curricula. So there is inevitably a disjuncture between the norm-referenced constructs informing language proficiency tests and the expectations of local educators and curricula based on principles of criterion-referencing (Council of Europe, 2009; Fulcher, 2009; Lee, 2008; Moore, 2005). Attempting to resolve these disjunctures confront the incommensurability of the consensus-based approach to developing curriculum standards and the empirical, psychometric science of proficiency testing. The validity of curriculum standards is compromised by the lack of empirical research to support their assumptions about sequences or qualities of language learning. Further, related limitations arise from the general nature of curriculum standards. The terminology, criteria, and sequencing available to distinguish learners’ proficiency levels are inevitably broad and imprecise, producing variations in teachers’ judgments and difficulties in aligning assessments (Brindley, 2000; Cumming, 2001a). Speaking and writing abilities can be observed in classroom tasks, but learners’ reading and listening comprehension are difficult to assess without formal instruments or self-reports. In turn, curriculum standards apply more readily to

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

9

educational programs with general rather than specific purposes, thereby reducing curriculum expectations to common or vaguely defined norms (rather than addressing variability systematically or promoting excellence), and students’ normative language behaviours and textbook directives tend to become the primary focus for teachers rather than other such fundamental aspects of curricula as the conditions, qualities, or opportunities for learning (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver & Thwaite, 2001; Byrnes, 2007; Canagarajah, 2005, 2006; Cumming, 2001b; Davison, 2004; Gipps & J. Cumming, 2005; Lee, 2008; Hornberger, 2003; Murray, 2008; Wall & Horak, 2008). All of these limitations inherent in curriculum standards have pointed toward the major, continuing investments in teachers’ professional development required to implement curriculum standards effectively, as evidenced by major projects in Australia (Brindley, 2000; Murray, 2008), the U.S. (Short, Gomez, Cloud, Katz, Gottlieb & Malone, 2000), and the past few years’ focus on “empowering language professionals” in projects organised through the European Centre for Modern Languages (e.g., Piccardo et al., 2012).

Diagnostic and Self-Assessments Alongside the development of curriculum standards and language proficiency tests in recent decades have been efforts to bolster the responsibilities, teaching approaches, and resources for learners to assume increased responsibilities for and control over their own language learning. From a pedagogical perspective, diagnostic assessments aim to realise, on the one hand, the fundamental pedagogical principle, established long ago by John Dewey, that students have unique, individual needs and capacities and, on the other hand, the findings from research showing that individual differences of various kinds abound in second language acquisition (e.g., Dornyei, 2009). People have unique motivations for learning languages, based on personal and cultural histories, aims, and aspirations. The skill or craft of teaching is to realise, support, and inspire these potentials. From a learning perspective, second languages are obviously one ability that humans can develop effectively outside of formal education, promoting the importance of independent, “good” strategies for language learning (e.g., Oscarson, 1978).

10

Chapter One

Conceptual Bases, Authority, and Technologies Alderson (2005) produced an extensive argument for the need to develop increased techniques, methods, and technologies for language assessment to serve diagnostic purposes, pointing out how poorly developed this aspect of language assessment remains. Alderson’s analyses were based on his collaborative experiences preparing DIALANG, a web-based self-assessment system for 14 commonly learned European languages in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/about). This one project stands out as exemplary alongside related curriculum initiatives such as the European language portfolio or passport (Little, 2005). However, other resources and rationales to support or theorise diagnostic or self-assessment in language educators are distinctly limited and disparate. There are a few edited collections (Ekbatani & Pierson, 2000), research syntheses (Ross, 1998), and exploratory inquiries about classroom practices (Colby-Kelly & Turner, 2007), into cognitivediagnostic applications from formal tests (Jang, 2009), and initiatives to increase the information value of formal writing tests for teaching purposes (Knoch, 2009). Theories of goal-directed, self-regulated learning offer considerable promise, but likewise remain at a preliminary stage of development for language learning (Cumming, 2006). Inquiry into pedagogical practices for formative responses to students’ writing in second languages is perhaps the only area where research has been prolific, but the contextual variables are so enormous as to defy the formulation of general educational principles (Ferris, 2003; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Leki, Cumming & Silva, 2008).

Implications and Limitations The very idea of diagnostic and self-assessment implies that teaching and learning are individually focused, personally relevant, differentiated, variable, and achievement oriented—rather than uniform as in curriculum standards or proficiency tests. These humanistic values are no doubt cherished and developed by many language teachers around the world, albeit in diverse ways (e.g., as demonstrated by Li, 1996 in reference to teachers of writing in the U.S. and China). Language teachers and learners alike, moreover, vary considerably in their abilities and capacities to

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

11

assess learning (Edelenbos & Kubanek-German, 2004). Systems for diagnostic and self-assessments are definitely one area where research and development are sorely needed in language education.

Dynamic Assessment Like diagnostic and self-assessment, dynamic assessment offers a substantial and compelling challenge to conventions of proficiency testing and curriculum standards in education, but dynamic assessment distinguishes itself by its bases in socio-cultural learning theory. The fundamental premise of dynamic assessment is that learning, teaching, and assessment are integrally and inherently integrated processes, which should not be separated, as is conventionally done by educational institutions and promoted in longstanding models of curriculum organisation (e.g., Tyler, 1949).

Conceptual Bases, Authority, and Technologies The value of dynamic assessment for language education has been put forward in various publications in recent years, outlining its grounding in Vygotskian, socio-cultural theories of learning (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Leung, 2007; Poehner, 2008; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). Teaching, learning, and assessment necessarily interact in and through the formation of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), representing the difference between what a learner can, and cannot do, with assistance from instructors and more capable learners. These relationships are, according to the theory and case study analyses, how learning occurs: Higher mental functions (such as language and literacy) are internalised through interactions between novices and experts. Importantly, assessment that occurs through the interactions between learners and more capable others in a ZPD is presumed to indicate people’s capacities for development better than independent performance because it shows “the [individual’s] immediate future and his dynamic developmental state” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 86).

Implications and Limitations Dynamic assessment makes the radical assertion that teaching, learning, and assessment are fundamentally interrelated, and that their value for language development resides in maintaining and fostering that

12

Chapter One

continuing, integral interrelationship. Teaching, learning, and assessment are wholly dependent on, and realised through, local contexts and qualities of interactions. Logically, therefore, curricula and tests can only be standardised in a very general sense. Proficiency tests may indicate the results of students’ learning but not their capacities or potential for development. Separating assessments into formal tests, teaching into classroom lectures, and learning into individual studying reduces the value of their integrated nature and so may even be counter-productive or misleading. The challenge that arises for mass education, however, concerns how to organise learning, teaching, and assessment so it is feasible for them to occur together when class sizes are large and demands on teachers’ time and resources are many. Observations and analyses of dynamic assessment typically involve case studies of tutoring or other one-on-one interactions between teachers and learners or peer group interactions. That is where a ZPD is most visible. However, if the learning theory is right, then language and literacy learning must occur in large classes as well, as Freedman and Delp (2007) have observed.

Summary and Implications The purpose of this analysis has been to distinguish four alternative approaches to linking assessment, teaching, and learning in language programs by identifying their respective conceptual bases, values, and limitations. In most educational practices, all four approaches probably occur in tandem, so my intention is not to argue that one is inherently preferable over the other. For example, in assigning final grades to students for language courses, instructors are obliged to consider the proficiency levels of individuals, the fulfillment of curriculum standards, the achievement of individual needs and goals, and the development and efforts made through teaching, learning, and interactions. My intention, however, is that language educators should when using these approaches also recognise and not confuse their respective technologies, values, and authority.

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

13

References Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency. London: Continuum. Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.) (2002). English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, K. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(2), 257-279. Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470-501. Brindley, G. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning programmes: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15(1), 45-85. Brindley, G. (Ed.) (2000). Studies in immigrant English language assessment: Vol. 1. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University. Brown, J. D. (2008). Testing-context analysis: Assessment is just another part of language curriculum development. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(4), 275-312. Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byrnes, H. (Ed.) (2007). Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 641-685. Canagarajah, S. (Ed.) (2005) Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229-242. Chapelle, C., Enright, M., & Jamieson, J. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). New York, NY: Routledge. Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14

Chapter One

Cheng, L., Klinger, D., & Zheng, Y. (2007). The challenges of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test for second language students. Language Testing, 24(2), 185-208. Cizek, B. (Ed.) (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colby-Kelly, C., & Turner, C. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level. In A. Cumming & M. Laurier (Eds.), Language assessment [Special issue]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 7-36. Coniam, D., & Falvey, P. (2007). High-stakes testing and assessment: English language teacher benchmarking. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part one (pp. 456-471). New York, NY: Springer. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). A manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Cumming, A. (2001a). The difficulty of standards, for example in second language writing. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 209-229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. —. (2001b). ESL/EFL instructors’ practices for writing assessment: Specific or general purposes? Language Testing, 18(2), 207-224. —. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL learners and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —. (2007). New directions in testing English language proficiency for university entrance. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Vol. 1 (pp. 473-486). New York, NY: Springer. —. (2009). Language assessment in education: Tests, curricula, and teaching. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Language policy and language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 90-100. —. (2013). Validation of language assessments. In C. Chapelle (Vol. Ed. & Series Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics: Assessment and evaluation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781405198431 Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

15

Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of classroom-based assessment: Teacher assessment practices in senior secondary English. Language Testing, 21(3), 304-334. Dornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek-German, A. (2004). Teacher assessment: The concept of ‘diagnostic competence’. Language Testing, 21(2), 259-283. Ekbatani, G., & Pierson, H. (Eds.) (2000). Learner-directed assessment in ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freedman, S. W., & Delp, V. (2007). Conceptualizing a whole-class learning space: A grand dialogic zone. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 259-268. Fulcher, G. (2009). Test use and political philosophy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 3-20. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education. Gipps, C., & Cumming, J. J. (2005). Assessing literacies. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy: Vol. 2 (pp. 695-713). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2007). The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and alternatives. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part one (pp. 487-504). New York, NY: Springer. Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C., & Boynton, S. (2007). Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 642-651. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing tests control learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hornberger, N. (Ed.) (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Huhta, A., Kalaja, P., & Pitkanen-Huhta, A. (2006). The discursive construction of a high-stakes test: The many faces of a test-taker. Language Testing, 23(3), 326-350. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.

16

Chapter One

Jang, E. E. (2009). Demystifying a Q-matrix for making diagnostic inferences about L2 reading skills. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 210-238. Johnstone, R. (2000). Context-sensitive assessment of modern languages in primary (elementary) and early secondary education: Scotland and the European experience. Language Testing, 17(2), 123-143. Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy (Vol. Ed.) & N. Hornberger (Series Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 273-284). New York, NY: Springer. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second-language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge. Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278. Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums: Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 211-234. Li, X-M. (1996). “Good writing” in cross-cultural context. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16. Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321-336. Lynch, B., & Davidson, F. (1994). Criterion-reference test development: Linking curricula, teachers, and tests. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 727743. McKay, P. (2007). The standards movement and ELT for school-aged learners: Cross national perspectives. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part one (pp. 439-456). New York, NY: Springer. Mckay, P. Coppari, P., Cumming, A., Graves, K., Lopriore, L., & Short, D. (2001). Language standards: An international perspective. Parts 1 & 2. TESOL Matters, 11(2), 1-4; (3), 11-15.

Linking Assessment to Curricula, Teaching, and Learning

17

Moore, H. (2005). Telling what is real: Competing views in assessing ESL development. Linguistics and Education, 8(2), 189-228. Murray, D. (Ed.) (2008). Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second language teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Nunan, D. (2007). Standards-based approaches to the evaluation of ESL instruction. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part one (pp. 421-438). New York, NY: Springer. O’Neil, T., Buckendahl, C., Plake, B., & Taylor, L. (2007). Recommending a nursing-specific passing standard for the IELTS examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(4), 295-317. Oscarson, M. (1978). Approaches to self assessment in foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Piccardo, E. et al. (2012). Pathways through assessing, learning, and teaching in the CEFR. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages. Poehner, M. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33-56). London: Equinox. Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. Purpura, J. (2008). Assessing communicative language ability: Models and their components. In E. Shohamy (Vol. Ed.) & N. Hornberger (Series Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 53-68). New York, NY: Springer. Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429-462. —. (2007). Classroom-based assessment: Possibilities and pitfalls. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part one (pp. 505-520). New York, NY: Springer. Rivera, C., & Collum, E. (Eds.). (2006). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners: A national perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A metaanalysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1-20.

18

Chapter One

Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Short, D., Gomez, E., Cloud, N., Katz, A., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2000). Training others to use the ESL standards: A professional development manual. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stoynoff, S. (2009). Recent developments in language assessment and the case of four large-scale test of ESOL ability. Language Teaching 42(1), 1-40. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (1998). Managing the assessment process: A framework for measuring student attainment of the ESL standards. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based assessment. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Trim, J. (1998). European perspectives on modern language learning: Contributions to the Modern Languages Project of the Council of Europe. Language Teaching, 31(2), 206-217. Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). (R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton, Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum. Wall, D., & Horak, T. (2008). The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in central and eastern Europe: Phase 2, coping with change. TOEFL Monograph MS 34. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Weir, C., & Milanovic, M. (2003). Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in English examination: 1913-2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER TWO INVESTIGATING THE LEGITIMACY OF DECISIONS BASED ON CET-4 SCORES: APPLYING AN ASSESSMENT USE ARGUMENT APPROACH MIN LIU AND DAVID D. QIAN

The College English Test Band Four (CET-4) is a large-scale and high-stakes English language test in mainland China. The test aims to provide an objective evaluation of students’ overall English proficiency and to positively impact the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) at the tertiary level in China (Jin 2005, 2006, 2008; Jin & Yang 2006; Yang & Weir 1998). A large-scale test tends to serve multiple purposes, and its test scores may trigger high-stakes decisions (Shohamy, 2001). In reality, CET-4 scores have been referred to by various groups of stakeholders to make decisions, some of which go beyond the intended purposes of the test. With an increasing concern about test use and consequences, the present study draws on the structure and rationale of Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) assessment use argument and endeavors to investigate major types of decisions made on CET-4 scores and factors underlying these decisions from perspectives of educational values and institutional regulations within the context of Chinese culture. Backing is collected from questionnaires and interviews to support the articulated decision claim and the related warrants. The study also implies that for any decision that is made, decisionmakers or test users are held accountable to provide backing to justify their test uses. Keywords: CET-4, assessment use argument, score-based decisions

20

Chapter Two

Introduction The past two decades have witnessed more research efforts shifting from test validity to test use and its consequences. In Messick’s seminal article published in 1989, validity is defined as a unitary and multifaceted concept, in which social dimensions of an assessment such as value implications and social consequences were incorporated to enhance our understanding of construct validity. Inspired by Messick’s concept of consequential validity there has been an upsurge of research interest in investigating the consequences of test uses since the 1990s. In particular, a large number of recent studies have investigated the washback effects of high-stakes tests (e.g., Alderson & Hamp-Lyons, 1996; Alderson & Wall, 1993; Andrews, 2004; Cheng, 1997). However, while these studies have broadened and deepened our understanding of washback as a concept and a complex social and educational mechanism, they have nevertheless separated washback from test validity in their conceptualisation. On the other hand, other studies have made theoretical and empirical attempts to link validity to test uses, consequences, fairness, and ethical considerations (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Hamp-Lyons, 1997; Kunnan, 2004; Lynch, 2001; Shohamy, 2001). However, according to Bachman (2005), while their studies “enlarged our perspective beyond Messick’s unitary validity model, these researchers provided lists of important but essentially unrelated qualities, and they failed to establish an explicit and coherent linkage among those qualities or between validity and test use” (p. 7). More recently, the argument-based approach has been elaborated on as an approach to validation. Kane (2001, 2002, 2004, 2006) developed a notion of interpretative argument in which four types of inferences, scoring, generalisation, extrapolation and utilisation, are established linking the observed performances to interpretations and further extended to decisions. The prominence in Kane’s framework is the utilisation inference advancing the interpretative argument from target score to scorebased decisions, encompassing facets of relevance, values and consequences, all of which Messick had proposed in his progressive validity matrix. Kane (2002) also distinguished two types of inferences (semantic and policy) and two related types of interpretations (descriptive and decisionbased). The policy inference and decision-based interpretation address the qualities of interpretation by taking into account contexts of using the test. Evidently, by introducing decision into the inferences, the interpretative argument entails the issue of consequence. Later on Kane discussed in greater detail score-based decisions as an inference. According to Kane

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

21

(2012), most high-stakes testing programs employ decision rules in which cut scores play a major role. More specifically, a performance standard should be defined first with verbal description of the competence level that test takers are expected to reach. Then standard-setting methods can be employed to identify a cut score that corresponds to the performance standard. While Kane’s interpretative argument addresses a concern for consequences and spells out the decision rule, Kane failed to specify a method to investigate test use and consequences. Bachman (2005) extended Kane’s method to develop a validity argument to include a second, parallel utilisation argument into which test use and consequences are embedded. This, along with the validity argument, constitutes an assessment use argument (AUA). Drawing on Toulmin’s (2003) argument model and Messick’s (1989) unitary and multifaceted validity framework, an AUA offers an overarching logic structure and a conceptual guidance for an explicit and coherent linkage from test scores and score-based interpretations, to test use (decisions) and consequences of test use (Bachman, 2005; Bachman & Palmer, 2010). An AUA not only guides the development and use of a test, but also provides a basis for test developers and decision makers to be held accountable to those who will be affected by the use of the assessment and the decisions that are made on it. The structure of an AUA is derived from Toulmin’s model, including elements of data, claims, warrants, backing and rebuttals. Data can be a test taker’s performance or assessment tasks. Claims are statements about the inferences to be made on the basis of data and the qualities of those inferences. Warrants are general statements that help support the qualities of claims. Backing consists of the evidence needed to support warrants, which comes from a variety of sources, including documents, regulations, legal requirements, theory, prior research or experience, etc. Rebuttals are statements about possible alternatives to the outcomes or to the qualities that are stated in the claims (Bachman, 2005; Bachman & Palmer, 2010). The above review indicates that language testers have addressed the issue of test use and its consequences from different perspectives. Some concentrated on washback of a test in instructional setting. Some extended the context of test use to the social dimension, and related it to issues of fairness and ethics. Some drew on the argument-based approach to link test validity to test consequences. This article focuses in particular on the score-based decision inference, which has been under-examined in previous research but can serve as a critical connection between scorebased interpretations and test consequences. Thus far, there has been a death of research on test use by drawing on the structure and rationale of

22

Chapter Two

an AUA. This study thus endeavors to make an attempt to examine the decision inference within the scenario of China’s nationwide CET-4.

Context of the Present Study The College English Test (CET) is a nationwide standardised test in mainland China, which is co-organised by the National College English Testing Committee (NCETC) and the Higher Education Department, Ministry of Education. The CET is a test battery, consisting of the CET-4, the CET-6, and their corresponding CET Spoken English test (CET-SET). Both the CET-4 and the CET-6 are administered biannually, in January and in June. The present study is targeted at the CET-4 in that it is a compulsory test for non-English majors at the tertiary level in China, who are expected to acquire English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, writing and translation after their completion of English compulsory courses in foundation years at university. The CET-6 is optional and only students with CET-4 scores beyond 425 are eligible for taking it. According to Jin (2006, 2010), Chairperson of the NCETC, the CET has attracted increasing numbers of test takers over the past two decades and has become the world’s largest EFL test. In recent years the annual CET candidature has shown a steady increase, soaring to a record number of 12 million in 2006 and 12.5 million in 2007 (Jin, 2010). Since its inception in 1987, the CET-4 has been employed as an assessment tool to serve the implementation of the uniform College English Teaching Syllabus and to examine whether university students have met the requirements specified in the Teaching Syllabus. Hence, the intended purposes of the CET-4 are to provide an objective evaluation of a student’s overall English proficiency and positively impact college English teaching and learning in China (Jin 2005, 2006, 2008; Jin & Yang 2006; Yang & Weir 1998).1 However, this test in reality is used for more than its intended purposes. The results of the test are often referred to when administrators make decisions on graduation, employment, and even on issuing residence permits in major cities such as Beijing and Shanghai (Jin, 2005, 2008, 2010). These life-changing decisions also label the CET4 as a high-stakes test. Any large-scale and high-stakes test, in reality, tends to be used for multiple purposes. Different groups of test users may refer to its scores in 1 In China the term college refers broadly to the university level and does not refer to any specific type of tertiary instution.

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

23

making decisions beyond its intended purposes. A single standardised test score may trigger an automatic decision on admission, promotion, placement or graduation. Such decisions may have detrimental effects on test takers because the use of test results can create winners and losers, successes and failures, rejections and acceptances (Madaus, 1990; Shohamy, 2001). In spite of the enormous contributions the CET-4 has made to improving college English teaching and learning, meeting social needs for talents, and achieving social recognition and social benefits (Wu, 2005; Yang &Weir, 1998), a wide range of unintended uses have emerged at the same time. Much of the criticism is induced from misusing students’ CET-4 performances as a prerequisite for the bachelor’s degree, an edge in job hunting, a criterion for evaluating a teacher’s teaching, and so forth. Because of this, the CET-4 has become the most debated and controversial English language test in China (Cheng, 2008). In view of the varied views on implementation of the CET-4 and much criticism on both its test design and test uses, the NCETC has made concerted efforts to improve the test. In 2006 the test underwent its largest reform with significant changes on the listening component, incorporation of more constructed response items, and adoption of a new score reporting system. This recent reform can be regarded as “a response to the pressing social need for college and university graduates with stronger communicative competence in English” (Jin & Yang, 2006, p. 21) as well as a measure to mitigate the perceived negative washback of the CET-4. According to Bachman (1990), the most fundamental and prevalent use of language tests is to provide information for making decisions, which include decisions about individuals and decisions about programs. These decisions in turn have consequences for individual test takers, programs, instructors, organisations, or societies that will be affected by the use of assessment and the decisions made (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). It is noteworthy that for a test used for multiple purposes, its validity is likely to be jeopardised and accountability of test designers and test users tends to cause controversy. In order to address the related concerns, the present study aims to investigate the following questions: (1) What major types of decisions have been made on CET-4 scores? (2) What are the factors underlying these decisions? (3) What evidence has been provided or is needed to support and justify any decision made on test scores?

24

Chapter Two

Based on the generic template illustrated in Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) AUA framework, the decision claim for the CET-4 is articulated below: Decision claim: The multiple decisions made on CET-4 scores reflect the current educational and societal values—the relevant university regulations and common practices of local university community—and are equitable for all the affected stakeholders.

The warrants to be articulated in support of the claim are pertinent to value-sensitivity and equitability, which are not presented herein but to be discussed in the subsequent findings part. According to Bachman and Palmer (2010), an AUA consists of two steps: Following the first step to articulate the related claim, warrants, or rebuttals, backing or evidence is to be collected in the second step.

Method Participants Participants in this study included questionnaire respondents and interviewees. The respondents to the student questionnaire were from three sampled universities (U1, U2, and U3) in Xi’an. U1 is a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary university while the other two (U2 and U3) are science-oriented universities. Among them U3 is a top-tier university and enjoys the nationwide fame. Participants from U1 and U2 were sophomores. They took the CET-4 after they had finished one and half a years’ English foundation study. Those from U3 were permitted by their university to take the test at the end of their freshman year since students enrolled in this university were supposed to have a better command of English. The three universities were sampled mainly due to some of their varied policies and practices pertaining to the CET-4. The interview participants were selected from the questionnaire respondents. Twenty students with different English proficiency levels were recruited for the interviews. In order to have a more accurate understanding of universities’ policies and reasons underpinning their practices with regard to the CET-4, three EFL program administrators of the sampled universities were also invited for individual interviews.

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

25

Research Data Three types of data were collected and analysed in this study: questionnaire, interview, and policy documents. The questionnaire mainly addressed students’ attitudes to score-based decisions and test preparation. Items were designed on a 5-point Likert scale of agreement or degree, along with a few multiple choice items. Interview questions for students were similar to the questionnaire themes, while questions for administrators were designed to explore the universities’ policies and reasons underpinning their practices related to the implementation of CET-4 in their respective universities. Documents collected in this study included the College English Curriculum Requirements, the CET-4 Syllabus, publications from the CET-4 administrators and designers, and relevant information from the CET official website.

Procedures Student respondents completed the questionnaire within one week after they took the CET-4. Altogether 580 questionnaires were distributed to students during class time, and 549 of them were returned. After data screening, 541questionnaires were kept as valid. The valid response rate is 93.3%. Questionnaire data were inputted into SPSS for analysis. All the interviews were conducted in Chinese. The focus group interviews for students were audio-recorded, but the program administrators from the three universities only permitted note-taking in their individual interviews. Since the major purpose of the interviews was to clarify the obscure points and to confirm or reject some findings from questionnaire surveys, the recorded interviews were not transcribed. All the recordings and notes were carefully examined, but only relevant, revealing information was translated to English and quoted.

Findings and Discussions Major Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores The related CET-4 score-based decisions generally fall into three layers: nationwide decisions made by the NCETC, institutional decisions made by EFL program administrators, and decisions made by employers at the social dimensional layer. Since this study is situated within the

26

Chapter Two

instructional setting, the use of CET-4 scores for employment decision will not be probed into here. The major types of decisions made by the NCETC and by sampled universities are discussed below. Decisions made by the NCETC Since 2005, the NCETC has adopted a new score reporting system, which is based on an overall score range from 220 to 710, with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 70. The traditional cut-off lines for “pass” and “distinction” were abolished. Instead new cut scores are established as thresholds for test takers’ obtaining the Score Report Form (SRF), and taking the CET-4 SET and the CET-6. More specifically, test takers with scores beyond 220 will be awarded a SRF displaying both profile scores from each component and a composite score. Test takers with scores beyond 425 are qualified for taking the CET-6, and those with scores beyond 550 are entitled to take the CET-4 Spoken English Test (SET). As discussed earlier, the major criticism on the CET-4 stemmed from misusing its certificate as one of the prerequisites for graduation or employment decision. The decision made by the NCETC to abandon the practice to issue test takers with the CET-4 certificate was to discontinue the overemphasis of the test results. Reforming the score reporting system was a measure to mitigate negative washback of the CET-4. Just as Jin (2008) indicates, the new score reporting system is more used as “a purposeful approach to encourage the use of CET for EFL teaching and learning purposes and avoid putting undue pressure on the test and its designers” (p. 8). This approach to some extent has achieved the intended purpose of encouraging rational use of test scores. Some universities no longer link CET-4 performances to the issuance of academic degrees, while others which still retain this requirement have somewhat loosened the policy by flexibly setting the cut-off score based on the teaching and learning situations in their own universities. Students’ attitudes to the score-based decisions made by the NCETC were explored by the questionnaire and focus group interviews. Students were asked to evaluate on a 5-point Likert of agreement whether the new CET-4 SRF can better reflect their English proficiency than the traditional certificate. The mean score of 2.88 indicated their uncertain attitude. When this question was further brought up in the group interviews, some students commented that:

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

27

The Score Report Form can help us diagnose our strengths and weaknesses with particular reference to the four language skills. But we feel a little bit confused at the 220-710 score scale since we were tested by a 100-point test paper. What we are quite clear is the cut-off line 425 means we can get our academic degree. (Group 1, June 6, 2010)

Considering the major reason to change the score reporting system is to reduce the social pressure put on the test, it is interesting to note what some students have said: Compared with the traditional certificate which indicates only pass or failure, the new SRF actually exerts more pressure on us. In the job market, potential employers can immediately evaluate our English proficiency by score differences. (Group 3, June 7, 2010)

A coin has two sides. In spite of causing heavy pressure, the new score reporting system discourages students from aiming at a narrow pass or stopping learning English once they passed the cut-off line. Just as one respondent explained: We need to make more efforts to improve scores if we want to impress employers and gain career edge by means of our English proficiency. In addition, we need to improve the four language skills rather than counting on our advantage at one skill to compensate lower scores of other skills because you never know which skill is more needed or valued in your future workplace, listening or writing, or whatever. (Group 3, June 7, 2010)

With regard to the cut-off score for taking the CET-4 SET, strong dissatisfaction can be perceived: The cut-off line (550) is so high that only a few students in my class were eligible to take it. Most of us had no opportunity to check our oral English. We don’t know why they set such a high cut-off score. (Group 2, June 6, 2010)

Another respondent echoed the discontent:

28

Chapter Two It’s unfair because my oral English is better than my reading ability. If I get the chance to take the oral test, I’m able to get a desirable grade. (Group 2, June 6, 2010)

Similar opinion was expressed by questionnaire respondents. Half of them (62.4%) advocated that the CET-4 SET should be open to all the test takers, and an overwhelming majority of students (80.5%) agreed and strongly agreed that if the SET was compulsory, they would spend more time and efforts on improving their oral English. Decisions made at the institutional level However, not all the universities show quick and positive responses to the NCETC’s reform in the score reporting system. Some universities still keep their institutional practice of setting a cut score of 425 as one of the prerequisites of conferring the Bachelor’s Degree. In addition, other uses of CET-4 scores are also observed. The following part summarises institutional decisions made by the EFL program administrators from three universities. To some extent, these cases reflect some typical practices in universities in Xi’an. First, the three sampled universities all tie CET-4 scores with the graduation decision that only students with scores beyond 425 can get their bachelor’s degrees. As many as 86.9% of surveyed students admitted that their universities imposed such a requirement, which was also confirmed by the three program administrators in their interviews. Second, placement decisions are made based on CET-4 scores in U1. For example, the cut-off score (425) for students to take the CET-6 is used as a threshold to place students into CET-4 or CET-6 preparation courses provided at the middle of the second semester of Year 2. Third, both U1 and U2 use students’ CET-4 overall scores as their score records of English course in the second semester of Year 2, replacing the usual university-administered final English examination. Fourth, decisions to adjust teaching curriculums are made based on the overall performances or passing rate of their university students. In U2 when EFL program administrators found that students’ listening scores were comparatively low, a decision was made to increase the listening course from two class periods to four per week. Meanwhile, they abolished the traditional practice of opening CET-4 test preparation course given the higher CET-4 passing rate in recent years. In U3 all the students are required to take the

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

29

CET-4 at the end of Year 1, and to take a wide range of English elective courses in Year 2 given their almost 100% of accumulated CET-4 passing rate. The aforementioned discussions reveal major types of decision made on CET-4 scores, which provides evidence again that multiple decisions tend to be made on scores of the same assessment. But the argument is whether these decisions can be justified with appropriate backing or evidence to support its uses. To ensure that these decisions can generate positive consequences, value-sensitivity and equitability should be taken into account when decisions are made.

Value-Sensitivity and Equitability of Decisions Warrants on value-sensitivity Warrant A1: Decisions made on CET-4 scores take into account the existing educational and societal values against the background of Chinese testing setting. Backing: No documents or reports from the NCETC or the universities can be traced to address the decisions from perspectives of educational and societal values. Lack of evidence in this aspect may become a rebuttal to challenge the qualities of the decision claim. This study was intended to explore values embedded in test use. The history of examination in China can be traced back to Han dynasty, with tests mainly used to select officials (Spolsky, 1995). This imperial examination system strengthened the utilitarian values of education and the role of examination in changing one’s life (Han & Yang, 2001). Today the Chinese educational culture is still characterised as an examinationoriented system, in which testing retains its important and powerful role (Cheng, 2008; Cheng & Curtis, 2010; Li, 1990; Qi, 2005). Using tests as a gateway of selection, advancement, or competition, and acknowledging examinations as a tool to ensure fairness take a deep root in the inherited influences of the imperial examination system. In terms of the CET-4, decisions on setting cut scores are made not only to check test takers’ English proficiency, determine their eligibility for taking higher levels of tests, but also to provide benchmarks for the potential employers even though the use for employment selection is not what the test is intended for. It is the traditional societal belief that higher test scores tend to bring a person more opportunities, speedier educational

30

Chapter Two

or professional advancement, and even greater success in life, and this belief nurtures the increasing power of a high-stakes test. Thus, the public has accepted the necessity of setting cut scores so that test takers’ competencies can be differentiated. Decisions made on CET-4 scores are also sensitive to educational values. Both the Curriculum Requirements and CET-4 Syllabus specify that one intended purpose of the CET-4 is to promote and positively impact college English teaching and learning. In other words, the test is to serve teaching. In spite of varied views on this function, it has to be admitted that modern education has witnessed a tendency of using largescale and high-stakes tests as a catalyst or a lever for curriculum innovation (Andrews, 2004; Cheng, 2008; Jin, 2006; Qi, 2003). It explains why universities use the test to make institutional policies or adjust teaching curriculums. Warrant A2: Decisions made on CET-4 scores take into account the relevant university regulations and the common practice in the university community. Backing: No evidence can be traced in official documents or institutional regulations to support the decision to link students’ CET-4 scores to their Bachelor’s degree. It thus exists as a hidden policy. Without providing convincing backing to justify these institutional decisions, universities are easily subjected to criticism and even law suits against these score-based decisions. This study attempts to seek answers from interviews conducted with administrators. The three EFL program administrators expressed similar reasons for linking CET-4 scores with gradation decisions. They know some universities in major cities have either cancelled this policy or loosened it by flexibly setting a lower cut score. However, considering all the universities in Xi’an still hold onto this policy, they prefer to keep this long-standing practice at present. Another concern is that they expect the high-stakes of graduation decisions can be used as an impetus to stimulate students to take college English study seriously. Some of their comments are summarised below: The rank of our university has advanced in recent years, which in a large part should be attributed to the improvement of students’ CET-4 performances and their higher passing rate. Thus we cannot afford to risk our reputation by abolishing this requirement. In addition, test preparation

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

31

course is open to help students get higher scores, which is also in response to students’ requirements. (Administrator of U1ˈJune 8, 2010) We insist on this hidden policy so as to discipline students into making more efforts to improve their English proficiency. But given the satisfactory passing rate, we no longer stop the normal teaching for test preparation. Minimizing the influence of “teaching to the test” is our first step to reduce the negative influence of this test. (Administrator of U2ˈJune 11, 2010) The accumulated CET-4 passing rate before students’ graduation can almost reach 100% in our university. Even though we have one month’s test preparation course for the CET-4, our purpose is to familiarise students with the test content and format. The English teaching in our university is not examination oriented. During Year 2 we offer a wide range of English elective courses including literature, poetry, translation and newspaper reading, etc. (Administrator of U3ˈJune 10, 2010)

Some of the comments in the above interviews were evidenced by questionnaire findings. When asked about their attitudes to this graduation decision, 50.8% of students agreed or strongly agreed that linking CET-4 scores to their bachelor’s degree can motivate their English learning. However, 17.6% were uncertain about the test’s influence, while 31.6% showed negative attitude. With regard to test preparation, the vast majority of students (70%) believed that test preparation can to some extent improve their test performances, but only half of those surveyed (56.7%) held that such preparation can actually improve their general English proficiency. It was discovered from both student questionnaires and the administrators’ interviews that some of the institutional decisions seem to have been made in line with students’ needs, and play a stimulating role in motivating students to learn English. However, test influence is like a double-edged sword. A vicious circle is also identified in which the related educational departments evaluate universities by taking into account their students’ CET-4 passing rate, and universities in turn push students to improve their test performances by linking the test results to their academic degrees. This process serves as a case in point to illustrate how a test is used as a powerful tool in a centralised educational system.

32

Chapter Two

Warrants on decisions equitability Warrant B1: The same cut scores are used in making decisions and no other considerations are taken into account. (i) The same cut scores are used by the NCETC as thresholds for students to sit the CET-4 SET, the CET-6, and issue test takers’ score report forms. Backing: Given the far-reaching influence of a large-scale high-stakes test, the interpretations of test scores should be reliable, valid, meaningful, and fair to all the test takers. Cut scores are set to help identify test takers’ proficiency and to make classification or facilitate selection. It must follow accurate and scientific measurement procedures so as to avoid any classification errors. As to the CET-4, students’ test performances are subject to score weighting, IRT equating, adjustment of writing scores, and score normalisation. These statistical procedures have assured the CET scores are comparable and the score interpretation consistent across its different administrations. In addition, scores from every administration of the CET-4 are equated so as to keep the measurement criteria unchanged (Jin, 2006, 2010). Therefore, the NCETC set uniform cut scores for all the stakeholders no matter where and when test candidates take the CET-4. The cut scores have the same meaning for all the test takers as well. For instance, the cut score of 425 means that students with scores beyond 425 have met the requirements set by the national uniform College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) for Band Four students. It follows that they are entitled to take the CET-6. (ii) The same cut score is used by various universities as the threshold for awarding bachelor’s degrees. Backing: As discussed earlier, the three universities set the same cut score (425), which is originally a qualification line to take the CET-6 set by the NCETC, as the threshold for students to get the bachelor’s degree. No other factors were involved in this decision. However, potential rebuttal can be proposed to challenge this warrant. It may be sufficient and relevant to interpret CET-4 scores below 425 as a student’s failure to reach the required English proficiency level set by the CECR. However, it is an insufficient basis on which to make a decision

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

33

that this student has failed in his major studies so that he should not be awarded a bachelor’s degree. Warrant B2: Test takers and other major stakeholders within the university community are fully informed of how the decisions are made and whether decisions are actually made in the way described to them. Backing: Test takers are well informed of these cut-scores since the NCETC has spelled out these score-based decisions and the eligibility to take corresponding tests via the CET-4 Syllabus and the official CET website. What’s more, the website presents the total score and table of percentile comparisons for each test component so that test takers can find their percentile positions and test users can learn about the English proficiency of a particular examinee. For the university’s decision to set the CET-4 scores as a prerequisite for getting the bachelor’s degree, teachers are informed by EFL program administrators, and then tell their students about this policy decision. That explains again why this is a hidden but authoritative policy. All the major groups of stakeholders know the existence of this policy but written description of this regulation cannot be traced. Warrant B3: Test takers have equal opportunities to learn English as required by the CECR and the CET-4 Syllabus. Backing: English has been a compulsory course from the junior middle school on in China. Both college English courses and the CET-4 are designed as compulsory for university students nationwide. The CET-4 is administered to check students’ English proficiency after they finish the foundation study at universities. Thus, an equal opportunity across the nation for university students to learn English and be evaluated by a uniform test can be assured.

Conclusion This study, different from previous studies addressing test use and consequences, drew on the decision claim of Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) AUA to provide a rationale and a guide to organise the whole research. It investigated decisions that were made on CET-4 scores by test developers

34

Chapter Two

(the NCETC) and test users (universities). Instruments of questionnaires and interviews were conducted with main stakeholders, which included test takers and EFL program administrators, with the purpose to collect backing in support of the decision claim. The study put more focus on the score-based decision inference, especially the factors of value and culture implications that play a role in making these decisions than on the washback of the test per se. The study also identified potential rebuttals which can threaten the legitimacy of the decision claim. Just as Messick (1995) commented: “What matters is not only whether the social consequences of test interpretation and use are positive or negative, but how the consequences came about and what determined them” (p. 748). Since these consequences were brought about by decisions administrators made on the assessment, the score-based decision inference has an indispensable connection between interpretation of scores, and the consequences of using the test deserves language testers’ attention. However, the present study does not intend to be simply judgmental of the decisions made at various levels, but rather be informative, aiming to raise awareness of major test user groups so that they will realise that any decision made on test scores and any decision made beyond the stated test purposes should be supported by solid and convincing backing. Finally, both test developers and test users should be held accountable to justifying decisions they have made on test takers.

References Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation course: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115-129. Andrews, S. (2004). Washback and curriculum innovation. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanable, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 1-34.

Investigating the Legitimacy of Decisions Based on CET-4 Scores

35

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence testing? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11(1), 38-54. —. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25(11), 15-37. Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2010). The realities of English language assessment and the Chinese learner in China and beyond. In L. Cheng & A. Curtis (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner. New York, NY: Routledge. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and validity: Ethical concerns. Language Testing, 14(3), 295-303. Han, M., & Yang, X. (2001) Educational assessment in China: Lessons from history and future prospects. Assessment in Education, 8(1), 5-10. Jin, Y. (2005, July). The National College English Test. In L. HampLyons (Chair). Big Tests. Symposium at the annual meeting of the International Association of Applied Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin. —. (2006). On the improvement of test validity and test washback: The CET-4 washback study. Foreign Language World, 6, 65-73. —. (2008). Powerful tests, powerless test designers? Challenges facing the College English Test. CELEA Journal, 31(5), 3-11. —. (2010). The National College English Testing Committee. In L. Cheng & A. Curtis (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner. New York, NY: Routledge. Jin, Y., & Yang, H. (2006). The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 21-36. Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342. —. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 31-41. —. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135-170. —. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp.17-64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.

36

Chapter Two

—. (2012). Validating score interpretations and uses: Messick Lecture, Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge, April 2010. Language Testing, 29(1), 3-17. Kunnan, A. (2004). Test fairness. In M. Milanovic & C. Weir (Eds.), Europe language testing in a global context: Selected papers from the ALTE conference in Barcelona (pp. 27-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, X. (1990). How powerful can a language test be? The MET in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11(5), 393404. Lynch, B. K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351-372. Madaus, G. (1990). Testing as a social technology. The inaugural annual Boise lecture on education and public policy. Boston, MA: Boston College. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp.13-103). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan. —. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5-8. —. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing 13(3), 241-256. Qi, L. (2003). The intended washback of the National Matriculation English Test in China: Intentions and reality. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22(2), 142-173. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Pearson Education. Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured Words: The Development of objective language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wu, Q. (2005). On the revision of the CET. Second news conference of the Ministry of Education. Retrieved February 25, http//: www.moe.edu.cn. Yang, H., & Weir, C.J. (1998). The CET validation study. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

CHAPTER THREE NONVERBAL DELIVERY IN SPEAKING ASSESSMENT: AN MTMM VALIDATION STUDY MINGWEI PAN AND DAVID D. QIAN

Embedding nonverbal delivery into assessment, this study sets out to validate a newly developed rating scale of assessing learners’ spoken English proficiency in group discussion. The rating scale in this study incorporates four dimensions, including nonverbal delivery, and was based on the scoring of a total number of 100 group discussions (N=304) by teacher and peer raters. Under a Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) approach, the validation study follows Widaman’s (1985) framework of alternative model comparison. It is found that, considering the interpretability and consistency with previous studies regarding speaking ability taxonomy, a second-order correlated-trait, uncorrelated-method model not only provides sound goodness-of-fit indices (Ȥ2(28) = 462.796, p=.818; CFI = 1.000; NNFI =1.024; SRMR = .015; RMSEA = .000; 90% C.I. = .000, .060), but also presents divergent validity (ǻȤ2(9) = 403.08, p < .001, ǻCFI = .472) and discriminant validity (ǻȤ2(17) = 425.68, p 90%) are captured by the first five BWLs in Range, whereas the CET6-List extends its 90% coverage to a higher BWL with an uneven rate. At the micro level, however, certain flaws for word list streamlining were detected. One problem was detected from vertical comparisons within each word list, namely, intra-streamlining. The profiling results indicate that the word list intended for secondary school learners contains more words in the higher-level Range frequency lists than those in the lower-level counterparts. This means that supposedly more sophisticated words are included in the observed word list, whereas certain simpler words are absent. Termed in the sense of Input Hypothesis, it can be said that a presumed 1 actually occurs earlier than more comprehensible input (i). Similarly, flaws can also be found in a transition from the SS-List to the CET4-List because a total of 80 words absent from the CET4-List are unexpectedly found in the SS-List. Although these words constitute only a small proportion, its existence may invite concerns. Surprisingly, quite a number of words within this small proportion belong to the semantic category of foodstuff or things related to eating, or to daily life as a whole. This can be partially explained by the possibility that the English learning

394

Chapter Twenty-One

materials, particularly textbooks, at secondary education might be more concerned with daily life. In all likelihood, it might also be that word list compilers across different educational authorities have little collaboration or coordination among themselves in producing streamlined word lists. Another streamlining misfit concerns exclamation items. The reason why such words are excluded from certain higher-level word lists, designed for advanced vocabulary learning, remains to be discovered and needs to be justified. On another front, with regard to whether the CET4- and CET6-Lists are academic, AWL was referred to as a benchmark. With the number of academic words in the CET4- and CET6-Lists profiled, it can be reckoned that these two word lists for university students feature an increasing and comparatively extensive coverage of academic words as intended, though there is still room for improving the academic coverage for both lists. The above discussion brings forth certain considerations in developing EFL word lists across English learning stages. On top of that, streamlining EFL word lists at different levels should be regarded as an important matter of concern, which can be realized by having one highly inclusive unitary word list. In other words, a word list deriving from most prevailing English course books can serve as an “umbrella” list for all stages of learning. Unlike the textbooks used decades ago in China, where both English and Chinese instructions coexisted, currently prevailing English textbooks in China are all written only in English. If these materials across different learning stages are inputted into the same corpus, it is possible to generate a master word list which takes into account such important characteristics as distinctiveness, range and dispersion. Of course, further modifications and fine tuning might be necessary by means of profiling the initial word list against relevant EGP word lists and ESP/EAP word lists as well. After such a unitary word list is fine-tuned, work on lexical grading will be needed. Two considerations should be borne in mind at this stage. One is the expected total number of words for EFL learners of each learning stage and the other is how to streamline the words on the list for their ranges and frequencies as benchmarked against the reference corpora. Naturally, course books have an essential role to play in word grading as they are one of the most direct input sources for learners to learn vocabulary. In addition, the perceptions by learners, teachers as well as native speakers regarding the grading of words should also be considered so that the grading of words can be cross-validated. Simpson-Vlach and Ellis (2010), in developing an Academic Formulas List, also consulted

Profiling Prevailing EFL Word Lists in China

395

teachers’ and learners’ perceptions, which can be regarded as a combination or even a compromise between data-driven outputs and human experience and wisdom. As found in this study, the inclusion of many foodstuff words might be justified by teachers and learners on the basis of themes for English learning at the secondary education.

Conclusion In this study, three word lists used in the Chinese EFL context were evaluated to determine the extent to which they are streamlined and academic. By profiling the observed word lists against the BNC Range BWLs and AWL, it was found that on the whole the observed word lists are basically streamlined both within and across themselves. However, certain flaws regarding the transition from the lower-level word list to the higher-level one were detected. For example, certain words on the secondary school word list are nonetheless not included at the tertiary level lists. The reason can be attributable partly to different foci of textbook contents across different levels of English learning, and partly to a possible lack of communication on the part of word list compilers. As academic words should play a pivotal role in tertiary education, two EFL word lists at this level, which were examined in this study, were found to reflect a relatively satisfactory degree of academicality, even though there is room for improving the academic coverage for both lists since none of them have reached the threshold of 570 families, a standard used by AWL. Finally, based on the research results obtained from this study and ensuing discussions, implications were discussed regarding how EFL word lists can be coherently and rationally developed and cross-validated from multiple perspectives.

References Bogaards, P. (2000). Testing L2 vocabulary knowledge at a high level: The case of the Euralex French Tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 490516. Cai, J. (2012). Reanalysis of the goal of college English teaching in the perspective of globalization. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 264(3), 5-8. Cai, J., & Liao, L. (2010). EAP vs. ESP: The orientation of college English. Foreign Language Teaching, 31(6), 47-50, 73.

396

Chapter Twenty-One

Campion, M., & Elley, W. (1971). An academic vocabulary list. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington. Chapelle, C. 1998. Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research, (pp. 32-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there room for an academic word list for French? In Bogaards, P., & Laufer, B. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing, (pp. 15-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238. —. (2011). The Academic Word List 10 years on: Research and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 355-362. Cronbach, L. J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary testing. Journal of Education Research, 36, 206-217. Engber, C. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139-155. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.) (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frase, L. et al. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL Test of Written English. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Ghadessy, P. (1979). Frequency counts, word lists, and materials preparation: A new approach. English Teaching Forum, 17, 24-27. Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79-100. Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221-240. Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317. Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-696. Hunston, S. (2002). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus (Review). Language Awareness, 11(2), 152-157. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–253.

Profiling Prevailing EFL Word Lists in China

397

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. —. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. Arnaud & H. Boint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics, (pp. 126-132). London: Macmillan. Laufer, B., & Nation, I.S.P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51. Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Essex: Longman. Li, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2010). Profiling the Academic Word List (AWL) in a financial corpus. System, 38, 402-411. Liu, Q. 2010. The national education examinations authority and its English language tests. In Cheng, L., Curtis, A. (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner, (pp. 29-43). New York and London: Routledge. Lynn, R. W. 1973. Preparing word lists: A suggested method. RELC Journal, 4(1), 25-32. Martinez, A. I., Beck, C. S., & Panza, B. C. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 181-198. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. McNeill, B. R. (2006). A Comparative Statistical Assessment of Different Types of Writing by Japanese EFL College Students. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK. Meara, P. M., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex30: An improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System, 28, 19-30. Meara, P. M., & Miralpeix, I. (2007). Vocabulary size estimator. Swansea: Lognostics. Ministry of Education, China. (2003). Secondary school English syllabus requirements. Beijing: People Education Press. —. (2007). College English curriculum requirements. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold. Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 235-256.

398

Chapter Twenty-One

Nation, I.S.P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House. —. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I.S.P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13. Nation, I.S.P., & Heatley, A. (2007). Range. from http://www/vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 9-29. Praninskas, J. (1972). American university word list. London: Longman. Qian, D. D. (1998). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: Assessing its role in adults’ reading comprehension in English as a second language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto. —. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-308. —. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536. Qian, D. D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21(1), 28-52. Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77-89. Read, J. (1988a). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal, 19(2), 12-25. —. (1998b). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In Kunnan, A. (Ed.), Validation in Language Assessment, (pp. 41-60). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. —. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.

Profiling Prevailing EFL Word Lists in China

399

Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools (Version 6). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Vongpumivitch, V., Huang, J., & Chang, Y. (2009). Frequency analysis of the words in the Academic Word List (AWL) and non-AWL content words in applied linguistics research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 253-270. Wang M. K., & Nation, P. (2004). Word meaning in academic English: Homography in the Academic Word List. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 291-314. Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G. (2008). Establishment of a Medical Academic Word List. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 442-458. Ward, J. (2009). A basic engineering English word list for less proficient foundation engineering undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 170-182. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13-39. Xue, G., & Nation, I.S.P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3(2), 215-229. Yang, H. (2012). Reflections on college English teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 44(2), 294-297.

SECTION 5: LEARNING ENGLISH IN EAST ASIAN CONTEXTS

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES IN JAPAN: WHEREFORE AND WHERE TO? GLENN TOH

This chapter examines the challenges faced by teachers of EAP in Japan given prevailing discourses that bear on the appropriation of English in the country. It will be noted in the chapter that English and ELT in Japan are subject to powerful discourses relating to (1) Japanese conceptualisations of Self and Other, (2) the country’s past, and (3) the way it seeks to negotiate and renegotiate its positioning given fast-moving changes in the globalised world. Attention will be given to arguments for the preservation of Japanese culture and language among quarters seeking to advocate a strongly conservative agenda vis-à-vis arguments relating to the role of English in internationalisation that have also become prevalent. The chapter will, as such, examine various (ideologically-bound and ideologically-borne) ways English is discursively constructed as an important language to be learnt, even as detractors in the midst have viewed it as a threat to local culture. These contestations around English are examined alongside current initiatives to have English taught for academic purposes and to have faculty courses taught in English at Japanese universities. The question of (1) Japan’s readiness to have English as a medium of higher education, and (2) implications for teacher and learner subjectivities even as EAP is poised to assume greater importance, will be examined. The matter of how existing beliefs and practices relating to curriculum design, testing and methodology can accommodate an increased emphasis on EAP will be discussed together with future directions for the planning and delivery of EAP courses.

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 403

Keywords: academic English, ideology, discursive practices

Why English in Higher Education in Japan? It may sound far-fetched to draw a link between low birthrates and the teaching of English in Japan. Japan has been experiencing low birthrates since the early part of the 1970’s. These low birthrates have in recent years translated into falling enrolments at universities with many private universities now experiencing a shortfall in student enrolments. This problem has become serious as some lesser known universities are admitting virtually every applicant, heralding the digaku zenyu jidai, translated to mean “era of university entry for every applicant”. The point where the English language has a bearing on the crucial matter of enrolments is where (1) it is thought to be a way of increasing a university’s attractiveness to potential local applicants and their parents who value the so-felt benefits of learning through university courses delivered in English; (2) being an international lingua franca, English is seen as a boon if not a necessity if universities were to attract overseas students to make up for the shortfall of local applicants. At first glance, therefore, the co-optation of English into higher education can be understood as simply something stemming from a financial motive. However, beyond the financial and utilitarian motives, there are deeper dimensions to the issue that are sociocultural, socio-historical, and ideological in nature. This chapter attempts to tease out these deeper dimensions by examining the way Japan has sought to appropriate the English language, which in turn is closely intertwined with Japanese conceptualisations of Self and Other.

English, the Global 30 Project and Matters that Attract Deeper Scrutiny A specific outcome of the bid to increase the number of overseas enrolments is a current initiative that has 13 universities designated as special centers for attracting overseas students. The Internationalisation Hub Consolidation Project, or Global 30 Project as it is commonly called, has seen the Japanese government wanting to attract 300,000 overseas students to Japan by the year 2020 (Rivers, 2010). English has been designated the medium of learning for students entering Japan on this program. Envisaged as a project to attract overseas students, there are no

404

Chapter Twenty-Two

plans to have local students study alongside the overseas students in classes run by the Global 30 Project. The reasons for the selection of English as the language medium of the Global 30 Project, however, deserve further observation. Understanding the role of English in the project will help shed light on the hitherto hidden thoughts and embedded ideologies relating to the way English has been appropriated in the country. At one level, English has been chosen because it is the principal foreign language taught and used in Japan and for its status as global lingua franca. There are however, deeper dimensions to this choice. Several notable indicators hint at such deeper dimensions. First, Global 30 Project recruitment offices have been set up in Russia, Tunisia, India, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Egypt, and India (Rivers, 2010). Apart from India, which was under British colonial rule, none of the rest can be associated with English, not historically nor in relation to education. Second, local Japanese students are not going to be admitted into classes organised under the Global 30 Project as a matter of policy, which means that opportunities for these overseas students to study alongside fellow Japanese students will be non-existent while opportunities for interaction with Japanese students will be appreciably diminished. One might have thought that the project would have been a good opportunity for Japanese students to study in English alongside overseas students to promote intercultural understanding and intellectual exchange. Moreover, it should be noted that English has never been a language of higher education in Japan, where local students receive their entire education in Japanese. Indeed, Hashimoto (2007) reports on how Japan has actively resisted what has been viewed as the hegemony of English, while making concerted efforts to define and preserve Japaneseness. For example, a clear line is drawn between “individualism”, which is viewed as a negative trait associated with westernisation, and the more desirable trait of “individuality”, which characterises Japanese as being considerate individuals existing in harmonious collectivised groups. Indeed, Japan has been thought of as the epitome of prosperity and modernisation without having to succumb to the “ills” of westernisation (Hashimoto, 2007). Alongside this, one can also be reminded of a period in history when selfimposed isolation was part of government policy and where Japan’s only contact with the outside world was through the island of Dejima where foreigners were strictly confined (Seargeant, 2009). It has been argued that, residual from this period, there is a strong tendency to view the world as being made of Japanese and Japan on the one hand, and all other

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 405

foreigners or outsiders in the rest of the world on the other (Seargeant, 2009; Rivers, 2010). In addition, overseas students coming to Japan have all along had to defer and adapt to thinking, learning, and having matters conducted in Japanese, not English or any other language. Korean and Chinese students studying in Japan have traditionally applied themselves to learning the language and adapted to Japanese ways of thinking, teaching, and learning, including receiving their education entirely in Japanese. Some even adopt Japanese versions of their original names while others opt for a complete change of names to blend in with the dominant social landscape. Of late however, the Korean and Chinese students who have regarded Japan as a good place to receive higher education have been bypassing Japanese universities and have headed instead to universities in western countries. On account of this, Japan has been losing potential student enrolments from what had, in the past, been two important sources of foreign students, and more importantly as far as language is concerned, students who have never questioned the dominant position of the Japanese language as a medium. For the Global 30 Project, Japanese has been replaced with English.

The Japanese and Non-Japanese Distinction There is, however, an ideological aspect to the choice of English as the principal language for the Global 30 Project that goes beyond common discourses about the usefulness of English in terms of its global lingua franca status. Rivers (2010) argues that the choice of English is embedded within Japanese conceptualisations of Self and Other as well as conceptualisations of what is Japanese and what is not-Japanese. He argues that the choice of English is actually a way of maintaining an allimportant “us-them distinction”, the masking of a “greater nationalisation intent” and a “continuation of the business-as-usual mentality of ethnolinguistic exclusion” on the part of the Japanese (p. 451).

406

Chapter Twenty-Two Despite the fact that many of the students coming to Japan will be nonnative English speakers, insisting on English-only…courses ultimately allows the Japanese to maintain the “us-them distinction” – i.e. foreigners should speak English and Japanese should speak Japanese, a process which assists in building Japanese national identity. (Rivers, 2010, p. 451)

This distinction is in the same vein as what Hashimoto (2007) observes about the promotion of “internationalisation” in Japan: that “in reality, the promotion of internationalisation is (just) a different way of promoting ‘Japaneseness’” (p. 27). Indeed, with more and more foreigners and migrant workers settling in Japan (Kubota, 2002; Kubota & McKay, 2009), and with the prospect of having students from many cultures and ethnicities, the challenges that come with increased diversity in an environment that has all along been reified as being monolingual and monocultural stand to be immense. Given this challenge, English assumes the role of being the distinguishing factor between what is Japanese and what is foreign, where English is deemed to collocate with the notion of foreignness. In addition, in designating this one sole language to be the badge of foreignness, English becomes a tool for the containment and control of the enormous diversities to be found in the many overseas students who will come from the many different cultures. Hence, for the Japanese, it would only be convenient that English will be the language that everyone categorises as being non-Japanese (i.e. the gaikokujin or foreigners will be identified with it). The irony here is the many of these overseas students will come to Japan out of a genuine interest in Japanese culture and the Japanese language. The fact, however, is that there will be no Japanese students in classes run for the Global 30 Project. Rivers (2010) argues that this is also about minimising contact between Japanese and foreign students. The matter becomes subversive — a term used by Rivers (2010) — when English can be seen as being imposed upon the overseas students coming on the project, which in itself is a form of hegemony and control, from the Japanese end. Japanese students are either spared of or shielded from this subversion. It is ironical that while Japan has been ready to resist English linguistic imperialism (Hashimoto, 2007), it is now equally ready to exploit the language where it is perceived to become useful. In this case, English is foisted on overseas students from non-English speaking countries. While Japanese students will continue to study in Japanese in a business-as-usual fashion (Rivers, 2010), foreigners from Russia, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam will make the shift to English, ironically on

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 407

Japanese soil. The readiness to have English to shore up finances is only to be matched by a readiness to have it uncritically foisted on students who will bring in the finances. There is the factor of Japanese students not being ready with the sort of English that would enable them to be active participants and contributors to class discussions in Global 30 classes. Overseas students making their way to Japan will want to engage in active classroom discussions and apply themselves to serious inquiry. Because these courses are in English, there may be an insufficient critical core of Japanese students who would be able to engage in similar learning and inquiry. Additionally, the Japanese approach to teaching in high schools has all along been teachercentered and students have traditionally been conditioned to comply and conform to narrow conceptualisations of learning and knowledge (Sato, 2004). This, however, further adduces an unpreparedness for universities to introduce English as a medium of higher education in Japan and among Japanese students, adding to the oddity of an initiative like the Global 30 Project since the students therein will be all the more out of place.

Knee Jerk Reaction or Long Term Sustainability? Saying that conducting courses in English and co-opting English into higher education is a “choice” is actually a misnomer. Japan is faced with little or no choice, even as its neighbors in China and Korea have made astute decisions regarding challenges that have come with what Oda (2007) calls “the world in English”. China and Korea have been responding shrewdly and pragmatically to the global spread of English by making room for English in the school and higher education system. Singapore and Hong Kong SAR have taken a similar approach. These places are also significant comparisons because they are, like Japan, actively seeking to attract foreign students and academics into their universities. With such developments in its neighboring countries, Japan has little choice but to devise workable and practicable responses (and policies) with regards to the spread and use of English. There are, however, still palpable forces of resistance against the use of English in academic inquiry. Hino (2009) notes that even in English teaching forums, Japanese English teachers have up until recently been resistant to the use of English when it comes to professional discussions. This resistance attests that even among Japanese educators in ELT, English remains more of a subject of study than a medium for meaningful professional discussion.

408

Chapter Twenty-Two

In this connection, the situation with English and the Global 30 Project is similar to how Japan also had to re-open Tokyo’s original international airport, Haneda, in 2010 to international flights. Major airports in Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul and Taipei had, with greater foresight, already cornered a huge portion of the very fast-growing tourism and air travel market in East and Southeast Asia, before Japan seriously broached the idea of re-opening Haneda. Even so, while the airport’s buildings and facilities were operational, the airport lacked trained, globally-literate or regionally-literate staff who were able to handle the arrival of international passengers. Before 2010, the only international airport in Tokyo was Narita. Located in the distant Chiba prefecture, Narita is still associated with inaccessibility and inconvenience, and it is not well positioned to tap into the deep pockets of big-spending, globally savvy travellers. The point here is that Japan is playing catch-up to its regional competitors, even with the wooing of foreign students (Klaphake, 2010), with these latest decisions to run courses in English at its universities. Indeed, writers like Rivers, Burgess and Klaphake are right to raise questions about whether current initiatives to introduce English in higher education are not in fact only superficial and/or cosmetic, as fundamentally, there is not going to be any substantial commitment to English for truly academic purposes. It is one thing to launch a project and co-opt English into higher education, but this is far different from allowing English to carry the weight of academic inquiry, meaning making, and critique in a Japanese setting. The former may be cosmetic, but the latter will be very revealing of whether policies to have English in higher education have been sincere and well thought through. After all, a language of the academe should be able to enact, represent, and build on local meanings, subjectivities, and epistemologies. Because English has no roots in Japanese socio-cultural hinterland, academic portals, practices, or histories, the use of English for academic purposes will likely be found to cause reductiveness in meaning and shallowness in conceptualisation, possibly a case of having English for cosmetic purposes. Students might find it inconsistent and contradictory to be studying in English in a sociocultural environment that has a history of resisting the language (Hashimoto, 2007) and where English is co-opted into the university in a Johnny-come-lately fashion without a social-educational hinterland of authenticity. If there is going to be genuine commitment to having English carry the weight of academic pursuit, which indeed must be undertaken for long term sustainability, policies regarding such a commitment cannot be

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 409

founded on knee-jerk reactions to changes in the global scene or changes in Japan’s dynamic East Asian neighborhood. Neither can this action be a matter of sending out correct noises – noises to the effect that English is an important language for international communication or other similar cliches – without fundamental changes to attitude, psyche, worldview, and the way Self and Other are conceptualised. It is going to be difficult for Japan to make use of English for the benefits it is thought to bring in terms of student numbers and, at the same time, settle for lip-service commitments to higher education programs in English. An undertaking such as this has its own ethical dimensions as well, and it should be about educating students and not exploiting them for shortterm gains. As it is, the target of 300,000 overseas students rings of human substitution, where these students are brought in as substitutes (and subsidies) for present shortfalls. Japan has never been a provider of an education in English, let alone a tertiary education. Students themselves might, in different ways, discover a system full of barriers, prejudices (mostly unseen), and inconsistencies, which is firmly steeped in the country’s anti-Western past and present (Hashimoto, 2007; Rivers, 2010). These factors will be the social and cultural backdrop of the education in English that they will be paying for. Foreign students might be faced with instances like library staff with little knowledge of current search and research methods and engines or even of current journals in English, the continued use of non-friendly photocopiers, scanners, keyboards, or office software designed exclusively for the Japanese or the persistence of form filling or other administrative practices (be this in human relations, public relations, or student relations) that are incompatible with higher education in a globalised ethos. Buildings and facilities may be ready to house the students (Klaphake, 2010) but students would also discover that their universities have placed their overseas lecturers and professors on fixedterm, non-renewable contracts while the local ones are either ill-equipped to teach in English or, as described in Rivers (2010), are simply not willing to do so. Foreign academics may also suffer covert or overt discrimination. They might experience a culture enamored of systemic and endemic bullying, be this in the way office space is allocated, or in the way they are kept out of the loop of important information where Japanese may be used as a form of exclusion or to put them at a disadvantage. In many cases, foreign academics suffer because of grey areas that are often found in contracts, be these about salary, sick leave, home leave, or very importantly for academics, conference leave and funding. Unlike in places

410

Chapter Twenty-Two

like Hong Kong, for example, where discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions of employment contracts occur, the English version is deemed to be the final version, there is no such guarantee in Japan. Academics on overseas contracts may end up disadvantaged because of the way Japanese contracts are drawn up and at times reworded or altered midway. The above situations would suggest a case where Japan can plan for appropriate buildings and other infrastructural hardware, but where people, key personnel and key dispositions are not prepared. Given all of these factors, students will eventually call the bluff, when they get to see that what they are experiencing is not like what was originally advertised or purported. Indeed, indications seem to point to the fact that Japanese efforts at border management and resistance against the hegemony of English (Hashimoto, 2007) may have been too effective in the heyday of strong reactions against linguistic imperialism, even as efforts at such resistance may now have to be tampered with moderation, through lack of choice. Japan will have to reposition itself vis-à-vis the hegemony of English and work out a more nuanced variety of resistance (and rightly so) or more astute and current ways of appropriating English.

Ornamentalisation of English and Meaning Reduction A further area of interest when ascertaining the sustainability of English as a language of higher education in Japan is how English has what Seargeant (2009, p. 78) calls an “alternative presence” within Japanese society. This “alternative presence… does not conform in any sense to ideals of universal linguistic communion” (Seargeant, 2009, p. 78). In other words, this aspect of English in Japan is not about the enactment or the making of meaning but more to do with decorative display and/or adornment. One can observe, for instance, how English words are used to adorn advertisements that are otherwise completely in Japanese, and directed specifically to a Japanese audience. Even advertisements put up by universities in Japanese will have some catch-phrases or slogans in English for good measure. Japanese mascots are given English names as are names of Japanese products which could just as well be given Japanese names: Hello Kitty is the name of a popular feline mascot while Nissan, the famous Japanese car maker names its cars Cherry, Sunny, and other

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 411

English names. English used in such a fashion serves a decorative rather than a discursive function. This observation is adduced by the fact that “one of the cultural traits so often identified with Japan is the importance given to surface and appearance…a culture of ritual wrapping, and one in which communication is governed by concepts such as honne and tatemae [one’s truthful intent in contrast to one’s public expression of opinion], and menboku [saving face], where meaning is purposefully divorced from overt expression” (Seargeant, 2009, p. 78). Seargeant (2009) notes that such “an ornamental English in Japan can be seen not as the ignorant or willful misuse of the original language, but rather a strategy of using the language as an expressive tool which need not be dominated by the strictures of core semantic meanings” (p. 78). English is therefore not thought of “as a communicative tool, but unpacked and its component parts reconfigured in unfamiliar contexts” (Seargeant, 2009, p. 78). There is something very unique in the way an original becomes repacked and repackaged before having it reappear in a context quite remote from the original. Repackaged English words become quaint objects of attention in themselves. This is to be coupled with an academic tradition that embraces and values sedate and static conceptualisations of knowledge. Academic “knowledge” equates to factual information and content knowledge. Meaning is reduced to a corpus of facts or verities, rather than viewed as something that is dynamic, dialogic, intertextual, situated in practices, and therefore negotiable. As such, academics take pride in cultivating expertise in works of the classical canon which are cherished for their ornamental value. Long after critical schools have made their case in exposing colonialism, empire, imperialism, and similar ideological projects and strategies, academics still run courses on British and American literature that valorise the works of authors ranging from Edmund Spenser to Mark Twain. The “British culture” or “American culture” is taken invariably as a monolithic body of facts to be studied punctiliously. It is not uncommon for an academic in Japan to want to study “British humor” as a subject, object, or “canonical” field of study. Textbooks present stereotyped and hackneyed representations of life, for example, in Britain. These materials come complete with notes and explanations in Japanese centering around topics like cricket, pubs, beer, festivals like Easter and Christmas, English gardens, and English eccentrics (Harrison, 1990; Dennis, Saito, & Hayagoshi, 1996). These notes and explanations coupled with objective questions and exercises (often in Japanese) give the reader the impression that the information

412

Chapter Twenty-Two

provided is both factual and pre-existent. Similarly, in university tutorials, passages from The Faerie Queene or Mansfield Park are pedantically analysed for what they “mean”. Meaning is fixed, essentialised, and not negotiable. Alongside this, the English curriculum, and even the EAP curriculum, in many Japanese institutions remain very grammar and structure based. The curriculum is not attentive to more social, dialogic, and constructivist approaches which make for more nuanced, cadenced, or otherwise felicitous use of language required for meaning making and expression in the academe. In this connection, it is noted in Cumming (2003) that extended writing, let alone academic writing, is not taught widely in Japan, not even in the first language.

Conclusion The era of Japan’s race against the West is over (Hashimoto, 2007). The Japan of today is not the Japan that wants to beat the West and the rest of the world in the race for economic success and dominion. That race was won more than two decades ago. The challenge, as perceived in Japan today, is a globalisation that is liable to threaten cultural if not national borders. This globalisation has now rather caused Japan to adopt policies that encourage Japanese to look inward to the “frontier within”, the essence of this being that for Japan to succeed, the nation needs to tap on a so-called innate potential of all Japanese people (Hashimoto, 2007). The paradox here is that Japan, while seeking to look inward to the frontiers and potentials within, is having to cope with the challenges of the wide and rapid spread of both IT and English without. Hence, the discourses about English in Japan attest to the struggles that the country is facing and are, in this sense, a veritable outworking of an ongoing internal monolectic of struggle with globalisation, the English language, and the accompanying challenges. That this monolectic reads like a fugue is probably symptomatic of a search for direction, not just with English itself but with things foreign to the Japanese psyche, which are now brought all the nearer through globalisation. Whether it may be English, Spanish, Portuguese, or lately Putonghua, this monolectic, which is characterised by formations of us versus them, Japanese versus foreign polarities, will continue into the near future. Until, and only until, Japan finds a way out of this maze, mixed signals will continue to be sent out from the country – signals that bleat of the importance of English in the academe, but are followed soon enough by confusing or contradictory actions that fail to match these signals. It

English for Academic Purposes in Japan: Wherefore and Where To? 413

will be a case of going one step forward and two steps backward, as far as English in higher education is concerned.

References Burgess, C. (2010, March 23). Higher education: opening up or closing in? Contradictory reform goals could scotch chances of success. The Japan Times [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 1 June 2011 from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20100323zg.html Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualization of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 71-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dennis, I., Saito, K., & Hayagoshi, H. (1997). The Isle of Britain. Tokyo: Asahi Press. Harrison, B. (1990). Cultural Cocktails. (Edited with Notes by A. Sugie & Y. Fukui). Tokyo: Nanundo. Hashimoto, K. (2007). Japan’s language policy and the “lost decade”. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 25-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hino, N. (2009). The teaching of English as an international language in Japan: An answer to the dilemma of indigenous values and global needs in the Expanding Circle. In L. Lim & E.-L. Low (Eds.), Multilingual, globalizing Asia: Implications for policy and education (pp. 101-119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klaphake, J. (2010, March 30). A foreigner-friendly field of dreams? The Japan Times [Electronic Version].ġ Retrieved 21 June 2011 from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20100330zg.html Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13-28). London: Routledge. Kubota, R., & McKay, S. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 593-619. Oda, M. (2007). Globalization or the world in English: Is Japan ready to face the waves? International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 119-126.

414

Chapter Twenty-Two

Rivers, D. (2010). Ideologies of internationalisation and the treatment of diversity within Japanese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(5), 441-454. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2010.511117 Sato, N. (2004). Inside Japanese classrooms: The heart of education. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE COMING TO CHINA TO STUDY ENGLISH: A CASE STUDY IN WHY INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS CHOOSE TO MAJOR IN ENGLISH IN A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY AARON DOYLE

This article investigates why international students come to Chinese universities to pursue a degree in English using Tsinghua University in Beijing as a case study. China is quickly becoming a major destination for international students, and this article builds upon earlier research by looking at China as a host country rather than a source country in the international education market. It uses a mixed method of questionnaire and written reflection to explore the factors that influence international students’ decision to leave their home country, come to China, choose a university, and major in English. Findings show that throughout the decision-making process, from the initial decision to come to China to the selection of a major, the influence of China’s economic growth and global influence is the driving force. This force is relocating families to China from nearby Asian countries and causing parents to want their children to be well-positioned to benefit from China’s growth by learning Chinese and having the connection of a degree from a Chinese university. Majoring in English provides a means to this end and is seen as an additional asset for students’ careers. English teachers and administrators who work with international students in Chinese universities can integrate this motivating force into their classroom activities, program development, and recruitment efforts.

416

Chapter Twenty-Three

Keywords: decision-making, China, international students, higher education, English

Introduction In the summer of 2010, the Chinese Ministry of Education made an ambitious announcement: China would seek to double the number of its foreign university students from the already record-high 240,000 in 2009 to 500,000 by 2020 (Chen, 2010). This focus on international student expansion has created great potential for the English departments of Chinese universities to grow their English major programs. However, in the drive to attract international students, Chinese universities are entering a fiercely competitive market. In Western countries, funding cuts have caused universities to step up their international recruitment to fill budget gaps (Gordon, 2012; Paton, 2010). At the same time, China’s East Asian neighbors, Japan and South Korea, are looking to attract more foreign students due to a declining domestic student population (Lee, 2011; Rubin, 2007). Given the global competition for international students, the recruitment efforts of Chinese university English departments must be guided by an understanding of the factors that inform foreign students’ decision-making processes and identify what would motivate a student to come to China, a non-English speaking country, and major in English. In other words, it is necessary to identify the unique selling point of an English degree from a Chinese university. In addition to recruitment, in order for English departments to build programs that can sustainably attract international students, teachers and administrators must integrate the motivations and aspirations of foreign students into their curriculum and course design. To better understand these factors, this study explores the influences on the university decision-making processes of international students currently majoring in English at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China.

Previous Research Previous research on international student decision-making shows that students’ choices are informed by social, economic, geographic, and political factors that work to push them to look outside their own country and pull them toward a particular host country and institution. Significant “push” factors that cause students to initially search abroad for their

Coming to China to Study English

417

university education include a lack of educational opportunities at home, an intention to work or pursue further study in the host country, and a young person’s general desire to experience another culture (Bodycott, 2009; Llewellyn-Smith & McCabe, 2008; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Shanka, Quintal, & Taylor, 2006). Once the decision is made to study abroad, the “pull” factors that attract students to a particular host country include knowledge of the country, recommendations from friends and family, affordability, environment (e.g., lifestyle and climate), geographical proximity to home, and social links of friends or family in the destination country (Llewellyn-Smith & McCabe, 2008; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Other factors include the ease of visa arrangements, the opportunity for part-time work while studying, and employment opportunities after graduation. Finally, international students choose an overseas university based on a variety factors, such as its reputation, language of instruction, affordability, course variety, marketing efforts, and whether its qualifications are internationally recognised (Cubillo, Sanchez, & Cervino, 2006; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). While previous studies offer valuable insights into international students’ decision-making, they have focused on international students bound for or studying in countries such as the U.K., Australia, and the U.S., or universities in Hong Kong. In these studies, mainland China is a source country that sends students abroad. Given China’s relatively recent emergence as host country, research on the motivations of foreign students coming to Chinese universities is limited. Reports point to such factors as China’s rising economic influence, and a concerted effort by the Chinese government to attract international students with scholarships (Hvistendahl, 2008; Rubin, 2010). However, the focus of these reports has been either on students participating in short term programs, such as a semester or summer term studying Chinese, or on students pursuing a full degree in subjects like economics and management. It intuitively makes sense to come to China to study these subjects, but what would motivate a foreign student to come to China, a non-English speaking country, and major in English? This study uses the “push-pull” model of previous research to investigate the following research questions for the population of international student English majors at Tsinghua University: 1. What are the push factors in students’ home country that cause them to pursue a degree abroad?

418

Chapter Twenty-Three

2. What are the pull factors that attract them to China, their host university, and English?

Methods and Sample The study was carried out between June and September of 2011 using a mixed-method strategy of questionnaires and written reflections. The questionnaire was based on push-pull factors identified in previous studies and asked students to rate using a Likert-style scale the importance of various influences on why they chose not to study in their home country, why they chose China as a host country, why they chose their university, and finally why they chose English as their major. Each section also contained open-ended response areas. The questionnaire was sent via email to all enrolled international undergraduate English majors at Tsinghua University. Ninety-seven responses were received for about a 55% response rate. For a more in-depth and qualitative understanding, a convenience sample of 29 Tsinghua international undergraduate English majors who were in the same English class completed a written reflection responding to the question: Why did you choose to study in China and major in English at Tsinghua University? For both the questionnaire and written reflection, about 92% of the participating students came from South Korea, 5% were from Southeast Asian countries and 4% from elsewhere. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results The following four sections present themes that emerged from both the findings of the questionnaire and the written reflection. For simplicity, the questionnaire’s ranking scale categories of “important” and “very important” have been collapsed into a single percentage and referred to it as simply an “important” influence or factor. Students’ voices from the open-ended comments and written reflections have been included to add depth. Minor grammatical edits to these quotations have been made and do not change the original intent. Due to the small number of non-Korean participants, the nationality of the quoted students is not included to maintain confidentiality.

Coming to China to Study English

419

Why Students Chose to Study Abroad Table 23-1: Influences on Students’ Choice to Study Abroad Influencing factors on students’ decision to study abroad I wanted to improve my future job chances I wanted to experience studying in a different country I wanted to meet new people and make friends Universities abroad are better than in my home country It was hard to get into a good university in my home country I wanted to be independent and live away from home The major I wanted to study wasn’t available in my home country

% (n=93) 95 91 83 69 67 62 19

Note. Percentage indicates the factor was important or very important.

The first significant finding to explain why the students in this study chose to attend university abroad and not in their home country was that most of them had already been living in China for many years prior to university. The great majority (90%) reported having attended high school in China, and more than two-thirds (68%) had lived in China for at least five years. They often reported in the questionnaire’s open-ended responses and in the written reflection that their families had initially moved abroad for work-related reasons: My father's company sent him to work in China. All my family members had to come to China because of my father’s business. We had no other choice.

Their comments often placed the study abroad decision in the distant past: I came to China when I was 13 and I didn’t want to study abroad at all. My father wanted me to study abroad and I was young so I didn’t have any choice.

420

Chapter Twenty-Three

As a result, for many of the students, it was their parents who made the initial decision that caused them to leave their home country and study abroad. Beyond this significant influence, students’ primary reason for studying abroad was that they saw overseas study as being good for their future career. They also wanted the overall experience of studying in a different country, meeting new people, and being independent. Others reported a lack of educational opportunity at home, either because schools abroad were better than in their home country, or because it was difficult to get accepted by a good university at home.

Why Students Chose to Go to University in China The previous section shows that it was parents’ decisions that initially brought many of the students to China when they were young. The following section investigates why these students chose to remain in China to go to university and what attracted other foreign students who had not previously been living in China. First, parents continued to play a large role when it came to their son or daughter’s decision to attend a Chinese university. Most (83%) of the students reported that parents or other family member’s suggestion was an important influence on their choice to go to university in China. Table 23-2: Influences on Students’ Choice to Study in China Influencing factors on students’ decision to study in China Wanted to learn Chinese language Parents’ or other family members’ suggestion A degree from China will be good for my future career Cost of tuition Cost of living Safety and security China is nearby my home country Chinese culture is similar to my home country culture My family or relatives live in China I want to live in China in my future Note. Percentage indicates the factor was important or very important.

% (n=90) 93 83 77 70 68 58 52 27 19 14

Coming to China to Study English

421

Second, students believed their career would benefit from having a degree from a Chinese university and from learning Chinese. Most (93%) reported learning Chinese was an important factor in their choice to study in China, and 77% reported “having a degree from China would be good for my future career” was important. Students’ open-ended responses demonstrate this strong career-oriented influence on their choice to attend a Chinese university: I want to work in a trading sector in the future, and China has big market. So, Chinese language is very important for me. China is my neighbor country, so it’ll help my future career if I learn Chinese. China is developing very rapidly; maybe it is better to know about this country for understanding the world economy. A lot of people said China would be the strongest country in the world. It takes much percentage on my decision.

The third major factor that drew students to a university in China was its comparative value. The cost of attending a Chinese university is lower than counterparts elsewhere, and many students reported the cost of tuition (70%) and the cost of living (68%) were important influences on their decision. The importance of the cost factor was also reflected in where students didn’t go. The questionnaire asked, “Was China your first choice for studying overseas?” About half (51%) said it was not. Students’ first choices were often the U.K., the U.S., or Canada, and the most commonly reported reason for not going was cost. Written responses to why they didn’t go to their first-choice country included: [I wanted to go to] USA because I had lived there when I was young and wanted to live there again but could not afford it. China was way cheaper. I wanted to go to London, but the cost was too expensive.

422

Chapter Twenty-Three

How Students Chose Which Chinese University to Attend Table 23-3: Influences on Students’ Choice of University Influencing factors on students’ university choice University’s reputation Graduating from this university will be good for my future career Parents’ or other family members’ advice The university offered the major I was interested in The university's entrance requirements Campus environment looked attractive The university's services and facilities for students The reputation of the English major program Teacher’s advice Information about the university was easy to find Friend’s advice

% (n=90) 92 92 77 77 74 70 68 68 67 52 49

Note. Percentage indicates the factor was important or very important.

The previous section shows that students chose to attend a university in China based to a large extent on parents’ suggestion, career prospects, and cost. The following section looks at how they determined which university to attend in China. By far the most important factor in students’ choice of university was the career benefits of attending a university with a prominent reputation. Tsinghua is one of China’s highest ranking universities, and the majority of students (92%) reported that reputation was an important factor in why they chose it. The same percentage reported that “having a degree from this university will be good for my future career” was important. A typical student explanation for why they chose their university was: It [Tsinghua] is one of the best universities in China and it would offer me many great opportunities.

About 77% of students reported that advice from parents or other family members was an important influence on their university choice. According to the written comments, the reputation of the university and its potential career value were on the minds of parents when advising their son or daughter:

Coming to China to Study English

423

Tsinghua is one of the famous universities and my parents recommended me to enter here. Also, I think the fame of this university will give me a lot of chances to get a job. My mother said, “Tsinghua has produced many great influential scholars such as Zhu Rongji and Hu Jintao, so many companies want students who graduated from this university. If you attend there, you’ll decrease the stress of the employment crisis.”

In addition to reputation and parents’ advice, students chose their university for the practical reason that they were able to get accepted. About 77% of students said that the university’s entrance requirements were an important factor in their university choice. The following comment represents a typical sentiment: The best part was Tsinghua University didn’t require math on the English major entrance exam. I’m very bad at math so it was very suitable for me.

Why Students Chose to Major in English The previous sections have shown why students came to China and how they chose their university. The next section explores the final question of why they chose to major in English. One reason was that they saw English as a useful asset for their future, either in their career or for further study. Many (73%) reported that “being an English major will be good for my future career” was an important influence, and 66% said their aspiration of going to graduate school in an English speaking country was important. Students’ written comments about their choice of English often had a career-oriented theme: I think being an English major can help me to achieve my dream, which is to get a doctorate degree in USA. English is absolutely needed when we find a job. We cannot do anything without English skill. Many companies want employees who are able to speak or write English.

424

Chapter Twenty-Three

Table 23-4: Influences on Students’ Choice to Major in English Influencing factors on students’ decision to major in English I like English Being an English major will be good for my future career I want to go to graduate school in an English speaking country Parents’ or other family members’ advice I’m good at English Teacher’s advice Friend’s advice My relative or friend was already a Tsinghua English major

% (n=86) 73 73 66 54 50 48 32 21

Note. Percentage indicates the factor was important or very important.

Others thought English was a flexible and versatile tool that would enable them to go in multiple directions and take advantage of unforeseen opportunities in the future. The following comments demonstrate this influence: I wanted to do journalism when I was a [high school] senior, but I am too young to choose one exact major because it might not be my way. So I chose the major that can give me more decisions for the future. It gives me more choices to find different jobs.

For others, it was their favourite subject in high school and they simply liked it. Seventy-three percent reported that “I like English” was an important reason why they chose to major in it. Comments on this influence included: The greatest reason why I chose to be an English major is that I like English. It fits me. I wasn’t interested in anything else except English.

Finally, students chose to major in English because it enabled them to be admitted by the university. In China, universities do not admit students as undeclared majors. International undergraduate students take an

Coming to China to Study English

425

entrance exam for the university and rank their choices of major. If their score is high enough, they are offered admission to a major based on their score. The major that gives them an admission offer may or may not be their first choice. But, if they want to attend that university, they must take the major offered to them. The questionnaire asked students if English was their first choice, and about one third said it was not. The following comments represent this group: [My first choice] was business, but my grade was not enough for going into that major. My dream is I want to be a producer at a broadcasting station. So when I applied I chose Journalism as my first major, unfortunately, my score was not high enough.

For other students, they chose English because the university didn’t offer what they were interested in or they felt their choices were somehow restricted through administrative policies. The following comments demonstrate these reasons: [My first choice] was hotel management, but Tsinghua doesn’t have this department. In Tsinghua, there are only four majors in liberal arts that overseas students could choose, so I did like English, but on the other hand I had to choose it.

Consequently, for some international students, either because of exam results or limited choices, majoring in English was a means to an end chosen by default. English was not necessarily their first choice but rather the major through which they could enter the university. It is also important to note that parents did not appear to have as much influence on students’ choice of major compared with their selection of university. Only 54% of reported their parents’ advice was an important influence on their choice of English.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to explore the push and pull factors that inform the decision-making processes of international students majoring in English at Tsinghua University. The results share similarities with

426

Chapter Twenty-Three

previous studies. The reputation of the host university, parental influence, lack of educational opportunity at home, and a desire to experience another culture previously cited as important influences on students’ choices were also found in this study (Bodycott, 2009; Llewellyn-Smith & McCabe, 2008; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Shanka, Quintal, & Taylor, 2006). However, unlike earlier studies (Bodycott, 2009; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002), this study did not find an intention to migrate or pursue further study in the host country to be a significant influence. This could be because prior research has focused on international students bound for or studying in developed countries that have a long history of immigration, such as the United States and Australia. In contrast, the foreign students in this study were attending university in a newly industrialised country, China, which does not have the same history of immigration. Also, unlike Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) and Bodycott (2009), this study did not find friends or alumni to be important factors in students’ decision. This could be because China is a relatively new destination for international students and has not had time to build a foreign alumni base. A final factor in this study that does not appear in previous studies on international student decision-making is that most of these foreign students had lived in their host country, China, from a young age. This finding is a symptom of the underlying cause that helps answer the central question of why international students choose to major in English at a Chinese university. As Hvistendahl (2008) and Rubin (2010) found for short-term Chinese language students along with economics and management majors, the choice appears to be primarily driven by China’s economic growth and growing global influence. However, this study adds to the understanding of the trend by finding that China’s expanding economy has caused foreign families from nearby Asian countries such as South Korea to relocate to China for job-related reasons, and that China’s future prospects have influenced parents’ opinion that learning Chinese and having a connection with China will be good for their son or daughter’s career. The comparatively low cost of studying in China also influences the choice. These factors add up to tip the balance in favour of attending a Chinese university. Once the decision is made to attend a university in China, parents and students pragmatically choose a university based on its overall reputation and its career-influencing potential. What the student studies at the chosen university may be less important than receiving a degree from it. The student takes the school’s entrance exam and receives an offer to be admitted as an English major. For many, this is fine because English was

Coming to China to Study English

427

their first choice and they enjoy it. For others, English was not their first choice and they would rather be in another major, but they accept the English major admission offer in order to attend the chosen university. However, regardless of whether it was their preferred choice or not, students and parents see English as a useful asset for their future career, especially the combination of English, Chinese, and their home country’s language. The following student comment provides a good summary of the overall trend. It captures how parents’ advice, China’s growth, university reputation, future career, and language learning come together in an international students’ decision to major in English at a Chinese university. It’s my parents’ decision that I study at Tsinghua. They believe China will lead the world in the future and they think Tsinghua will give me a good education so that I can do something useful in China or [my home country] using both English and Chinese.

Implications for Teachers and Administrators While this study is limited to one university and one population of students, it has implications for English teachers who are teaching international English majors in other Chinese universities. Teachers need to find out why foreign students choose their university and major, and integrate this motivation into class. According to the results of this study, international students appear to be majoring in English in China based on the career prospects of being a “language bridge” from a globally influential China to their home country and to the world. English teachers can harness this motivation by structuring lessons, activities, and projects that have a more “bridging” focus. For example, students could be assigned research papers on aspects of the relationship between Chinese society and their expatriate community, or between China and their home country. Students could be encouraged to conduct their research and data collection in English, Chinese, and their first language. This would be relevant to their future aspirations and make learning how to write a research paper a more meaningful and engaging process. Teachers should also be aware that some of their international English majors may not necessarily be studying what they are interested in and could lack intrinsic motivation. For these students, teachers can attempt to channel what truly motivates them by assigning projects that allow students to explore their interests while at the same time improving their

428

Chapter Twenty-Three

English skills. In this study, students were attracted to English because it is a versatile tool. Teachers can take advantage of this versatility. English department administrators in China who are looking to recruit international undergraduate students should be aware that parents, perhaps more so than students, are the audience they need to be targeting. In this effort, the university’s reputation is by far the most valuable recruiting tool. If a university does not yet have name recognition, recruiters can instead emphasise the career benefits of being an English major who also speaks Chinese and has an understanding of China. If a university is already highly ranked, administrators should highlight this and take measures to protect the reputations of both their university and their English major program. Also, tracking international student alumni longitudinally and keeping records of their career pathways could be useful recruiting information, along with using alumni themselves as recruiters in their home countries and expatriate communities.

Limitations Several factors must be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, the data collection was carried out in English. Although all the participants had a competent level of English, more nuanced and insightful results could be obtained by collecting data in students’ first language. Second, because the 29 students who completed the written reflection were a non-probability sample, their experiences are not necessarily representative of the entire population. For this reason, the written reflection data is only used to add depth to questionnaire findings in the results section below. Finally, Tsinghua University is not representative of most universities in China. It is considered one of the country’s premier institutions with alumni that include China’s current president Hu Jintao. As a result, Tsinghua has international name recognition that many other Chinese universities have not yet developed. It is necessary to conduct similar studies at a variety of universities throughout the country to get a comprehensive understanding of international students’ reasons for coming to China and majoring in English.

Coming to China to Study English

429

Conclusion The Chinese higher education system is intent on increasing its international student enrollment. Therefore, English departments of universities in China have an opportunity to grow using recruitment efforts and study programs that are informed by the motivations of international students. Such promotion should emphasise a Chinese university’s unique selling point in the competitive international education market. This study shows that throughout international students’ university decision-making process, from the initial choice to come to China to the selection of a major, the influence of China’s economic growth is the driving force. It is relocating families to China and causing parents to want their children to be well- positioned to benefit from China’s growth by learning Chinese and having the connection of a degree from a Chinese university. Majoring in English provides a means to this end and is an additional asset for studentts’ careers. Thus, the unique selling point of an English degree from a Chinese university is not the degree itself but rather China’s current global influence and future prospects. English teachers and administrators who work with international students in Chinese universities can benefit from integrating this into their classroom activities, program development, and recruitment efforts.

References Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination: What mainland Chinese parents and students rate as important. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(3), 349-373. doi: 10.1177/1475240909345818 Chen, J. (2010, September 28). China looks to attract more foreign students. China Daily. Retrieved 20 June 2011 from http://www.china daily.com.cn/china/2010-09/28/content_11355912.htm Cubillo, J. M., Sanchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101-115. doi: 10.1108/09513540610646091 Gordon, L. (2012, April 18). UC admits more foreign, out-of-state students. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 1 May 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/18/local/la-me-uc-admissions20120418

430

Chapter Twenty-Three

Hvistendahl, M. (2008, September 19). China moves up to fifth as importer of students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(4), A1. Lee, J. M. (2011, June 14). English lectures at Korean colleges. Korean Herald. Retrieved 20 June 2011 from http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110614 000559 Llewellyn-Smith, C., & McCabe, V. S. (2008). What is the attraction for exchange students: the host destination or host university? Empirical evidence from a study of an Australian university. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 593- 607. doi: 10.1002/jtr.692 Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Education Management 16(2), 82-90. doi: 10.1108/09513540210418403. Paton, G. (2010, September 8). Cash-strapped universities “turning to foreign students”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 20 June 2011 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7989155/Cashstrapped-universities-turning-to-foreign-students.html Rubin, K. (July/August 2007). Where the students are in East Asia. International Educator, 16(4), 26-35. —. (September/October 2010). The China craze: What’s motivating students? International Educator, 19(5), 40-49. Shanka, T., Quintal, V., & Taylor, R. (2006). Factors influencing international students’ choice of an education destination-a correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 31-46. doi: 10.1300/J050v15n02_02

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND THE TEACHING OF PRONUNCIATION AT TERTIARY LEVEL ANDREW SEWELL

Our increasingly international campuses are one manifestation of the global spread of English. Both on campus and off, it is likely that many interactions in English are taking place without any native speakers of the language being present. The emerging research paradigm of English as a Lingua Franca has called for a corresponding reconceptualisation of English in the world, drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. This paradigm shift, if accepted as such, has significant implications for pedagogy. In the area of pronunciation, for example, it is claimed that teaching and assessment should no longer be based on nativespeaker norms. The aims of this chapter are firstly to introduce English as a Lingua Franca, both as linguistic phenomenon and research paradigm, and secondly to assess the extent to which English as a Lingua Franca can inform the teaching and testing of pronunciation at the tertiary level. The definitions of terms such as “norm”, “model”, “target” and “goal” are examined, and a distinction between “features” and “errors” is proposed. Although the main focus is on pronunciation, there are also possible implications for other syllabus areas, as the nature and importance of linguistic competence is one of the underlying issues. Keywords: English as a Lingua Franca; pronunciation teaching; pronunciation models

432

Chapter Twenty-Four

Introduction While discussions of English language teaching at tertiary level often focus on the important questions of what should be taught and how it should be taught, a question that rarely receives attention is that of the target. What should our students know, or be able to do, at the end of their course of study? From a pragmatic point of view, it may be the case that institutional or national examinations provide the target. But this leaves the deeper issues untouched; if examinations fail to reflect real-world language use, they may fall into disrepute. The washback effects of examinations result in teachers spending time on things that are irrelevant to their students’ future lives, while neglecting things that might be more useful. Of course, deciding what “real-world” language use looks like is difficult, as globalisation leads to various kinds of complexity and unpredictability. One area where there has been empirical research into real-world communication is that of English pronunciation. According to this research, which focused on interactions between non-native speakers, some aspects of existing syllabi and tests may be irrelevant to the communicative needs of learners. The research paradigm of English as a Lingua Franca (see, e.g. Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001) may have an important contribution to make in refining the notion of “targets” for English pronunciation, thus affecting how it is taught and assessed. This chapter has two main aims: first, to introduce English as a Lingua Franca, both as linguistic phenomenon and research approach, and second, to evaluate its potential contribution to English teaching at tertiary level. It will focus on pronunciation, but will also consider the implications for other aspects of language teaching.

English as a Lingua Franca: Background English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is a fast-developing research area within applied linguistics. It focuses on the use of English as a contact language between speakers who do not have English as their mother tongues. One of the earliest definitions of the linguistic dimension of ELF is that of Firth (1996, p. 240), for whom it is “a contact language between people who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture”. Elaborating on the cultural dimension of ELF, Pölzl (2005) employs Homi Bhabha’s (1994) idea of a “third space” to

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

433

characterise ELF users’ emergent patterns of communication. The cultural space of ELF users is not necessarily a projection of their own cultures. Still less does it represent the cultures of native English speakers. Rather, it is conceptualised as a hybrid zone in which participants from different cultures create “new intercultural meanings, practices and identifications” (Pölzl, 2005, p. 112). The English of ELF users is likely to be quite different to the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) orientation of many teaching materials and tests, with their tendency to focus on the linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural norms of native speakers. The question arises, then, of how important ELF actually is as a linguistic phenomenon. Many proponents of ELF use the “numbers argument” to establish the prevalence of ELF and show how native speakers are now in a minority. The three circles of English users (Kachru, 1992) can be used to illustrate the distribution of English users in the world (Figure 23-1, below).

Figure 24-1. Kachru’s (1992) concentric circles of English. Numbers of users from Crystal (1997).

The inner circle countries are those where English is a native language; they are “norm-providing” (Bolton, 2009, p. 249). The outer circle countries are those where English is an official language, and where it is used with some range and depth; hence, they may be in the process of developing their own norms. The expanding circle consists of those

434

Chapter Twenty-Four

countries where English is used as an additional language; they currently draw their norms of use from the inner circle, and are “norm-dependent” (Bolton, 2009). It is interesting to note that, in this diagram, non-native speakers outnumber native speakers. Researchers often further claim that most English interactions take place without native speakers being present (e.g. Beneke, 1991; in Gnutzmann, 2005, p. 116), but there seems to be no empirical evidence for this. The numbers argument can be summarised as follows: if native speakers are absent from most English interactions, there seems to be no reason for native speaker models of language use to dominate teaching and testing. In fact, the numbers argument in favour of ELF is questionable, not only because there is little detailed evidence but also because issues of proficiency and frequency of use complicate the matter (Trudgill, 2005, p. 78). At what stage a “learner” becomes a “user” is uncertain. In addition, the limitations of nation-based models of language use have also been noted (e.g. by Bruthiaux, 2003; Mahboob & Szenes, 2010). It may be the case that high-proficiency users of English in the expanding circle have more in common with high-proficiency users elsewhere than they do with low-proficiency users in their own countries. Partly as a result of Kachru’s concentric circles model and its accompanying discourse of legitimisation, there has been a great deal of interest in describing new varieties of English on their own terms, that is avoiding automatic comparison with native-speaker varieties. But despite the proliferation of such “World Englishes” studies (e.g. Xu, 2010, for Chinese English), we should be wary of making generalisations about non-native and native speakers, and about varieties of English in general, whichever circle they come from. Nevertheless, depending on where we teach, we may find that many of our students end up using English mainly with other non-native speakers. Additionally, even if they work with people from the same linguistic or cultural background, they may still find that English is the main language of communication. This appears to be the case in Hong Kong, for example, where English is the dominant language of written workplace communication among Cantonese speakers (Evans, 2011). Thus, the definition of English as a Lingua Franca can be broadened slightly from that of Firth (1996); it can arguably be applied to situations where speakers do share a common native tongue, but still use English for certain purposes. In any case, Figure 1 shows some aspects of the linguistic landscape or global “linguascape” (Pennycook, 2003) that many of our students will encounter. It would be surprising if this fact did not alter our concept of “target” in English language teaching, in some way.

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

435

Norms, Models, Goals and Targets The above warning against generalisation alerts us to the need to carefully define terms such as norms, models, goals, and targets. The first of these terms is particularly complex. Norms can refer to statistical patterns of language use (Brown, 1991) but these patterns are in turn a result of the prevailing normative influences, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, operating within communities at different levels. As they can exert their influence at an unconscious level, individuals may not even be aware of the power of norms in this sense. Norms can also refer to consciously articulated prescriptive views about language, for example in the form of beliefs surrounding “standard” language. In all of the above cases, it is important to remember that languages “do not have norms themselves; it is people who impose norms upon them” (Li, 2010, p. 397). The selection of a pedagogical norm should thus involve careful consideration of linguistic, social, and educational factors. In practice, however, the default norm in much of language teaching is a prestigious “standard” form of either British or American English, and it is this choice that is currently being questioned by ELF research. Before proceeding further, though, it should be noted that in theory, learners are not necessarily expected to reproduce such norms; for this reason, and to distinguish pedagogical norms from the other kinds of norms mentioned above, it is preferable to call them models. A model, as Valdman (1989) observes, is always an abstraction, artificially constructed to direct and simplify the arduous task of language learning. In pronunciation teaching, Rogerson-Revell (2011) defines a model as being “a set of standard pronunciation forms for a particular accent which can be used as a point of reference or guideline” (p. 8). A goal or target, on the other hand, is what the learners are expected to achieve, for example “the level which a learner’s pronunciation aims to reach in order to facilitate effective communication” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 8). Opinions vary as to whether the model needs to be the same as the goal. Brown (1991) notes the potential for confusion caused by differences between models (in the forms of teaching materials and the local teacher’s accent) and students’ actual performance. His recommendation is that the goal for students should be “the educated local pronunciation of the teacher, which is also the model contained in pronunciation materials used in classwork” (p. 40). Leaving aside the model/goal distinction for the time being, it should be clear at this stage that an additional dimension of ELF, is its pedagogical dimension. Many ELF researchers (Jenkins, 2000; Walker,

436

Chapter Twenty-Four

2010) are concerned with the implications of ELF for pedagogy, partly because they link statistical norms of use with pedagogical models, and thus with goals. A common negative argument is that because traditionally-defined RP (Received Pronunciation) is used by an insignificant and shrinking number of people, it should no longer act as a model. However, the corresponding affirmative argument – that ELF norms should influence pedagogy – is more controversial. Later in this chapter I will suggest some guidelines that help to establish whether a norm of pronunciation should affect the choice of models and goals. Before doing so, I will examine some of the language features of ELF.

ELF Pronunciation Features Studies of ELF interaction have been carried out in several contexts, often drawing on extensive corpora (e.g. Seidlhofer, 2001; Mauranen, 2003; Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2010). Regardless of the users’ first language (L1) background, there seem to be certain language features that occur regularly in the data; they are both frequent (in the sense of being used by many speakers) and widespread (in the sense of occurring across different L1 backgrounds). Many of these features will be familiar to language teachers, but what may be unfamiliar is the ELF recommendation that we should regard them as features rather than automatically labeling as errors of any deviations from a British or American prescriptive norm. In his corpus of ASEAN English, Kirkpatrick (2010, p. 73) identifies the following non-standard pronunciation features as being shared by many of the speakers: 1. The omission or simplification of word-final consonant clusters, e.g. “draft” as “draf”. 2. The substitution of voiceless TH (/ș/) with a plosive, usually [t], e.g. “three” ([tri:]). 3. The non-contrastive nature of vowel length, so that minimal pairs such as “bit” and “beat” may sound the same. 4. Pronouncing diphthongs as monophthongs, e.g. “way” ([we:] instead of /weܼ/). 5. Making triphthongs bisyllabic, e.g. “our” ([a‫ݜ‬wȪ] instead of RP /a‫ݜ‬Ȫ/). 6. The use of full vowels where native speakers would usually use a reduced vowel, e.g. “compare” ([k‫ܥ‬m‫ޖ‬peȪ] instead of /kԥm‫ޖ‬peȪ/).

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

437

7. The avoidance of reduced vowels also means there is a tendency towards syllable timing, rather than the stress timing of native-speaker varieties.

Many of these pronunciation features can also be found elsewhere in the world. The prevalence of these features suggests that they may be a result of widely-shared tendencies towards simplification and the avoidance of marked features. The trend towards syllable timing across many varieties of English has often been noted, and has also been claimed as evidence of possible language change in progress (e.g., by Crystal, 1996). But while many of these features are familiar to teachers and other users, the extent to which they are norms – either in a statistical sense, or in the sense of being socially accepted – is an important question for further investigation. It may be that some of these non-standard features are “de facto local norms”, as claimed by Lowenberg (2000, p. 43) in the case of certain non-standard grammatical forms. Others may vary according to the language user (i.e., inter-speaker variation); proficiency level, or communicative experience in English, certainly relates to feature use in many cases. They may also vary according to conditions of language use (i.e., intra-speaker variation), as when certain forms are chosen to express solidarity rather than status The extent to which these norms should influence teaching and assessment is a problem or question of a different kind. One approach to the problem is to see it as a case of tension between global language use, which requires intelligibility, and local language use, which inevitably involves particularity. A resultant solution is to try and identify the features of English which are essential for communication, isolating a “core” around which variation is permitted. This has in fact been performed in the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) research of Jenkins (2000). By researching the English interactions of proficient non-native speakers, Jenkins obtained a list of phonological features which were essential for international intelligibility (here defined as word/utterance recognition, by non-native speakers). The four components of the core are (pp. 131-133): 1. All consonant sounds, with the main exception of the dental fricative or TH sounds (these can be substituted); slight variations in the realisations of consonant sounds are permissible, but not if they cause confusion with other sounds. 2. Initial and medial consonant clusters; final consonant cluster simplification is permissible, but only if it is “appropriate” (Jenkins,

438

Chapter Twenty-Four 2000, p. 132). This means that final clusters can be simplified according to native-speaker patterns, e.g. /t/ or /d/ can be deleted in words like “facts” and “pounds”, or in word sequences like “last week”. 3. Vowel length or quantity differences (such as between “ship” and “sheep”) are important for intelligibility; variations in quality are not. (This appears to mean that pronouncing “pet” with the type of vowel more commonly found in “pat” would be unproblematic.) 4. Nuclear stress is important, in order to separate “thought groups” and focus on important information.

In other words, the absence of these features led to communication difficulties. Anything outside the core can potentially be seen as permitted variation, in that it does not threaten intelligibility. To see how this works in practice, if we compare Kirkpatrick’s list of ASEAN ELF features with the core, it can be seen that most of them would not threaten intelligibility (see Table 24-1, below). Thus five of the seven features listed would not be expected to reduce intelligibility. This is a noteworthy observation in itself; it suggests that many ELF features are not only widespread but are communicatively effective. The only feature that would be expected to reduce intelligibility is the lack of contrast between long and short vowels. The effects of final cluster simplification are difficult to assess, as its occurrence varies according to a number of factors (for example, the morphological status of the cluster). While this comparison suggests that many ELF features are unproblematic, the limitations of an intelligibility-based evaluation should be noted. In fact, the extent to which intelligibility should inform pedagogy is questionable. There are those (e.g. Mufwene, 2001) who think it discriminates against non-standard varieties of English, and others (e.g. Prodromou, 2008, p. 32) who maintain that intelligibility, while being necessary, may not be a sufficient target for all learners of English. We should also bear in mind the limitations of the LFC research itself. Its general findings have received some support, for example from Deterding and Kirkpatrick (2006), but other research suggests that the core is best seen as a tentative guide. Tsuzuki and Nakamura (2007) found that word stress alterations did reduce intelligibility for their Japanese subjects, despite the fact that word stress is not a core feature of the LFC. The requirements for vowel quality need to be clarified; they are sometimes interpreted as meaning that vowel quality is unimportant, but it seems more likely that vowel quality modifications can be tolerated within certain limits. If certain pairs of vowels are merged (for example, if “pen”

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

439

Table 24-1: Evaluation of ASEAN ELF Features (Kirkpatrick, 2010) According to Intelligibility Criteria (Jenkins 2000) Feature of ASEAN ELF Substitution of voiceless TH Pronouncing diphthongs as monophthongs Making triphthongs bisyllabic The use of full vowels where native speakers would usually use a reduced vowel Tendency towards syllabletiming, rather than stress-timing Simplification of word-final consonant clusters

Non-contrastive vowel length

Acceptability according to LFC Intelligibility Criteria Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Acceptable Possibly acceptable, but may interfere with word recognition depending on phonological context (e.g. “wol” for “world”; Kirkpatrick 2010: 74). Not acceptable

and “pan” are pronounced the same), this would seem to increase the chance of intelligibility problems by increasing the number of homophones. Whether this actually causes problems is another matter, and it may be unwise to follow an overly structuralist approach to intelligibility. Even if such features do cause intelligibility problems, the time and trouble required to correct learners’ pronunciation would probably exceed the effort required to deal with momentary misunderstanding, and may not even be successful. Another point worth bearing in mind is that many people who need to develop international intelligibility will do so naturally if they experience situations that require it (Schneider, 2007, p. 315), for example finding themselves in an international workplace. Nevertheless, the underlying principles illustrated by the core are quite straightforward, and can be related to general characteristics of human language (e.g. Hockett’s, 1960, “design features of language”, such as discreteness). They can summarised as follows: The relative contribution of phonological features to intelligibility depends on their information-carrying capacity. As a result:

Chapter Twenty-Four

440

1) Consonants are more important than vowels (as suggested by text messaging). 2) Sounds at the beginnings of words are more important than sounds at the ends of words. Final consonant clusters can often be simplified to some extent, but initial and medial consonant clusters should not be. In addition, certain suprasegmental or prosodic features, particularly nuclear stress, contribute to comprehensibility (the ability to understand the intention behind words and utterances; Smith, 1992).

Implications for Pronunciation Teaching If we accept, with some reservations, the general findings of the LFC, there are potential implications for both the teaching and testing of English pronunciation. The LFC suggests that there is no need to teach certain areas of pronunciation, areas which often appear in syllabi based on native-speaker language use. It may therefore be possible to free up time for more important matters. The following is a list of areas that are typically covered in teaching materials, but which are unimportant for intelligibility (adapted from Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 12): • • • • • • •

The dental fricative or TH sounds. Precise vowel quality. The weak forms of function words such as “of”, “for”, “to”, etc. Connected speech features such as assimilation and linking. Word stress. Pitch movement, e.g. in questions. Stress timing.

The list gives some indication of areas that may not need to be prioritised. As Seidlhofer (2005) notes, these areas “do not need to constitute a focus for production teaching for those learners who intend to use English mainly in international settings” (p. 339). However, and despite the advent of empirical research in the area, we would do well to heed the advice of Bolton and Kwok (1990, p. 170), namely that it may be “dangerous” to offer itemised prescriptions for language teaching. One danger of a list is that it ignores the interrelationships between areas, many of which are not well understood from a theoretical perspective. For

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

441

example, the detection of nuclear stress (a core feature) depends on several factors, among which are pitch and loudness relative to other syllables. If consecutive syllables are stressed equally and given non-distinctive pitch, it may be difficult to detect nuclear stress (and thus to determine the speaker’s focus). Despite the claim that adopting an ELF approach to pronunciation teaching can reduce the size of the task (Jenkins, 2007, p. 27), another observation that must be made is that these areas seem unlikely to form a significant part of most teaching syllabi. Assuming they teach pronunciation at all, do many teachers insist on TH sounds, or expect precise RP (Received Pronunciation) vowel qualities? The LFC is often presented as being an alternative to native-speaker pronunciation models; Jenkins’s (2000) work is subtitled “New models, new norms, new goals”. But in a self-subversive fashion, the core can also be interpreted as suggesting that most of the features of so-called “standard” English phonology are still needed, including those which are difficult and timeconsuming to learn (e.g. vowel length differences, voiced/voiceless consonantal contrasts, and certain phonetic features such as the aspiration of initial plosives). In language testing, an ELF approach means that tests should not automatically penalise non-standard pronunciation features. Test descriptors should not therefore be based on “accent”; it is perfectly possible to have a regional English accent (e.g. a Chinese English accent) and be internationally intelligible. (It is equally possible to have a “native speaker” accent of English and not be internationally intelligible, as many visitors to English-speaking countries quickly realise.) The LFC helps to distinguish between a feature and an error. A provisional definition of the latter, along ELF lines, is “an aspect of pronunciation that reduces intelligibility”. In test descriptors, this distinction is not always made. For example, speakers who are criticised for having a syllable-timed rhythm, with its concomitant lack of reduced vowels, are not necessarily making errors – they are using a variable feature that may actually serve to increase international intelligibility (Deterding, 2010). Before deciding whether to incorporate the findings of ELF research into teaching or testing, practitioners need to carefully evaluate the needs of their learners. For those who expect to study abroad, or use English with native speakers, the notion of “target” may be different again. Pronunciation teaching should also distinguish between reception and production. Familiarity with weak forms may be useful for the former,

442

Chapter Twenty-Four

especially if native speakers are involved, but this should not be expected to become productive competence. More generally, I would suggest that there are two guidelines that can help us to distinguish between features and errors. A local language feature should not be classed as an error, and it should thus become a candidate for pedagogical acceptability, if: x it is used by a majority in the community or region (including highproficiency speakers); and x it does not reduce intelligibility. Note that the stipulation for use “by a majority” deals to some extent with the vexed question of “norms” and their status within a community. Kirkpatrick (2010, p. 103) notes Bamgbose’s (1998, p. 13) questions that help to assess whether a language feature is a norm. In addition to “How many people use it?”, we must also ask “How widely is it used?”, “Who are the people who use it?” and “Is the use accepted?” If a feature is used by speakers at all levels of proficiency then it is probably already being accepted, if only passively in some cases (because it may not be noticed by most people). In addition to these two guidelines, if the “standard” counterpart of such a feature is difficult to learn (and/or teach), this will further increase the strength of the case for acceptance; this additional guideline is in fact one of the causes of the first. For example, in Hong Kong, a prima facie candidate for acceptance is the non-reduction of full vowels in multisyllabic words. With this feature, “official” is pronounced /‫’ܥ‬fi‫ݕ‬l/ with a full vowel in the first styllable, instead of the “standard”/ԥ’fi‫ݕ‬l/ with a schwa /ԥ/. This is commonly heard with speakers at all levels of proficiency, although it may also vary according to factors such as speech rate (as it does with native speakers). It does not appear to interfere with intelligibility, other things being equal, and (as mentioned above) it has been claimed to actually increase intelligibility. Certainly, it may make words easier to recognise by virtue of increasing correspondence with the written form. While students certainly can learn to produce native speakerlike forms, there seems to be little point in expecting them to imitate this aspect of native speaker pronunciation. In terms of implementing an ELF approach, there may be potential conflicts with culturally-based pedagogical beliefs. For example, Chinese learners feel the need for “rapid and constant correction” and “have a low level of tolerance for ambiguity”, according to Kennedy (2002, p. 75).

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

443

Teachers in Chinese contexts may feel uncomfortable with not correcting what they – and their students – regard as “errors”. Learners in general may stereotype non-native accents as being unintelligible, and often hold false beliefs about the superior intelligibility of native speakers. The extent to which these beliefs and preferences should influence classroom practice is beyond the scope of this chapter; for a detailed account of how an ELF approach to pronunciation may be adopted, and for responses to teachers’ and students’ typical objections to it, see Walker (2010).

Conclusion Despite the perception that ELF represents a radical overhaul of English language teaching – Jenkins (2000, p. 235) believes it may represent the “future of English” – the evaluation above suggests that it does not offer much by way of departure from existing syllabi, at least in terms of language forms. It may be that the communicative processes and strategies found in ELF will influence language teaching more. According to Seidlhofer (2007, p. 148), these strategies include drawing on extralinguistic clues, and signalling non-comprehension in a face-saving way. Strategic competence tends to be under-emphasised in a traditional EFL (English as a Foreign Language) syllabus, in favour of linguistic competence (or “grammatical competence”, in Canale & Swain’s (1980) formulation of communicative competence). An ELF approach also encourages a focus on the sociolinguistic and discourse elements of communicative competence. It broadens these concepts, so that “sociolinguistic context” and “audience awareness” include an acknowledgement of the needs of non-native speaker audiences. In this way, it encourages students to “expand their repertoires…of functional varieties operating in different contexts” (Matthiessen, 2011). This echoes Ferguson’s (2009, p. 130) call for “repertoire expansion”, as opposed to “error eradication”. ELF makes us aware of the inherent variability in language, acts as a counter to reified notions of “standard” language, and reduces the tendency to treat every departure from it as an “error” in need of correction. Taking an ELF approach does not mean withholding access to language forms that are perceived as “standard”. In academic writing, for example, there are more constraints on variation. By making students aware of variation, and encouraging them to expand their repertoires, we are also making them more aware of the reasons for variation, including

444

Chapter Twenty-Four

the differences in power that exist between different groups. Adopting the norms of powerful groups may be necessary in many situations, and this requires, among other things, some knowledge of their gatekeeping practices. However, this point does not necessarily mean achieving nativelike language competence. A more realistic target for many students might be “partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do’” (Gee, 2012, p. 178). For example, this approach could simply involve avoiding the “errors” that are penalised by examiners, without becoming demotivated by aiming for an impossible target. An ELF approach, therefore, has the potential to increase the confidence of both non-native teachers and students. One of ELF’s main contributions to the teaching and learning of English is to make us question our ideas of “correctness” and “appropriateness”. Leung (2005) encourages us to think more flexibly about these aspects of language: Through the adoption of different sets of intellectual sensitivities and sensibilities...we can begin to de-reify culture-, context- and time-bound notions of linguistic correctness, social and cultural appropriateness. (p.139)

However, it is equally important to avoid the mistake of reifying ELF; it is not a new or emerging variety of English in itself, but rather a way of looking at English from a more international, interactional and situated perspective. There is no need to set up a dichotomy or opposition between ELF and other forms or varieties of English. Adopting an ELF-inspired approach does not mean abandoning existing syllabi or methods, but rather allows us to review them for their relevance and appropriateness.

References Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1-14. Beneke, J. (1991). Englisch als Lingua Franca oder als Medium interkultureller Kommunikation. In R. Grebing (Ed.), Grenzenloses Sprachenlernen: Festschrift für Reinhold Freudenstein (pp. 54-66). Berlin: Cornelsen. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

445

Bolton, K. (2009). World Englishes today. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp. 289-312). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., & Kwok, H. (1990). The dynamics of the Hong Kong accent: Social identity and sociolinguistic description. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 1(1), 147-172. Brown, A. (1991). Pronunciation models. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 159178. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Crystal, D. (1996). The past, present and future of English rhythm. Speak Out!, 18, 8-13. —. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deterding, D. (2010). Norms for pronunciation in Southeast Asia. World Englishes, 29(3), 364-377. Deterding, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes, 25(3-4), 391-409. Evans, S. (2011). Hong Kong English and the professional world. World Englishes, 30(3), 293-316. Ferguson, G. (2009). Issues in researching English as a Lingua Franca: A conceptual inquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 117-135. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Abingdon, England: Routledge. Gnutzmann, C. (2005). ‘Standard English’ and ‘World Standard English’: Linguistic and pedagogical considerations. In C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann (Eds.), The globalisation of English and the English language classroom (pp. 107-118). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 8896. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

446

Chapter Twenty-Four

—. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 48-74). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Mythunderstandings about adult Chinese learners. In J. Cribbin & P. Kennedy (Eds.), Lifelong learning in action: Hong Kong practitioners’ perspectives (pp. 71-92). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119-144. Li, W. (2010). The nature of linguistic norms and their relevance to multilingual development. In M. Cruz-Ferreira (Ed.), Multilingual Norms (pp. 397-404). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lowenberg. P. (2000). Non-native varieties and issues of fairness in testing English as a world language. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 43-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahboob, A., & Szenes, E. (2010). Construing meaning in World Englishes. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes (pp. 580-598). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Matthiessen, C. (2011, October). Learning English, learning through English and learning about English as L2 at tertiary level: Expanding the multilingual meaning potential throughout one’s course of study. Keynote address presented at the 7th International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 513-527. Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 513-533. Pölzl, U. (2005). Exploring the third space: Negotiating culture in English as a Lingua Franca. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, Austria.

English as a Lingua Franca and the Teaching of Pronunciation

447

Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. London: Continuum. Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158. —. (2005). English as a Lingua Franca. ELT Journal, 59 (4), 339-341. —. (2007). Common property: English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Vol. 1 (pp. 137-152). New York, NY: Springer. Smith, L. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 75-90). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Trudgill, P. (2005). Native speaker segmental phonological models and the English Lingua Franca Core. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 77-98). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Tsuzuki, M., & Nakamura, S. (2007). Intelligibility assessment of Japanese accents: A phonological study of science major students’ English. In T. Hoffmann & L. Siebers (Eds.), World Englishes – Problems, properties and prospects (pp. 239-261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valdman, A. (1989). Classroom foreign language learning and language variation: the notion of pedagogical norms. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 261-277). New York, NY: Plenum. Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Xu, Z. (2010). Chinese English: Features and implications. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE NEVER FORGOTTEN: POETRY IN THE HONG KONG LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE CLASSROOM KATE ROGERS AND JASON MAN-BO HO

An English-language literature course which features the work of Chinese poets who write in English can help associate degree students engage with the language in a new manner. Through the reading of poetry by those writers and the composition of their own poems, students in the course enter into a dialogue with the language and through that process, begin to change their educational habitus. The use of work by Chinese poets in English helps to activate students’ cultural schemata and their sense of agency. They construct their own language identity while engaging with English in a fresh manner. Keywords: poetry, habitus, schemata, dialogics, language identity

Introduction Using poetry in a literature and language course helps students engage with English in an authentic manner. Studying the English language poetry of Chinese poets can help them reflect on their relationships with English, literature, and their own identities in the bilingual context of Hong Kong. In this chapter we argue for the use of the works of Chinese poets, who use English as their medium of expression, because it is a particularly powerful way to motivate Hong Kong associate degree students. For such students, who have struggled with English to varying degrees, the use of English-language poetry by Chinese writers is key. We use English poetry

Never Forgotten

449

by Chinese writers to bridge the divide between English and Chinese (Mahoney, 1990). This chapter argues that reading and responding to English-language poetry by Chinese poets can help Hong Kong associate degree students begin to transform their relationship with English and their personal and cultural identities. It is particularly relevant to young Hong Kong adults because language can be an expression of identity in Hong Kong (Lin & Luk, 2005).

Literature Review Poetry from the literary canon could be seen to exclude Hong Kong Chinese learners (L2) of English. But by replacing the canon with Englishlanguage poetry by Chinese poets we can engage students in a dialogue with English in which they use their cultural schemata and cultural capital. The familiar cultural context makes literature accessible to those students (Mahoney, 1990) and helps them engage with English as a language, and with issues of cultural and personal identity. As ESL readers, associate degree students in Hong Kong do not have the schemata to process canonical literary texts. That means that the study of such literature could have the negative effect of excluding those students from the learning process. (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Widdowson, 1975) An assumption can also be made that literature, especially from the British literary canon, is the preserve of an elite and will not foster students’ engagement with the English language. According to Lin and Luke (2006): The colonial storyline underlying TESOL thus produces and constructs the linguistic and cultural norms of the West as benchmarks against which all ESL/EFL learners are measured and found forever lacking (p. 68).

Although they do not specifically reference the British literary canon, Lin and Luke (2006) would likely see it as an extension of the “colonial storyline” when used in a language course. In fact, works from the canon were used almost exclusively in the reading and literature course, “Critical Reading Skills through Literature”—the basis for this chapter—before it was revamped by co-author Kate Rogers in 2007, at the request of the Head of the Division of Language Studies, Community College of City University.

450

Chapter Twenty-Five

Lin and Luk (2005) also argue that, “a neocolonial, complex capitalist modern regime of culture…seems to have almost stripped [students] of any possibility of constructing a valuable, legitimate, successful self with other non-English based cultural resources…” (pp. 82-83). Therefore, we believe that the use of English-language poetry by Chinese poets may empower students by acknowledging their cultural resources. The idea of teaching literary texts by Chinese authors who write in English is not popular in Hong Kong but it is not new in the Hong Kong context. There is some evidence of how effective it can be in getting students to engage with English. Lecturer Dino Mahoney’s long experience in the Hong Kong language classroom inspired him to write: When Asian students read Asian English literature, they are able to engage in a dialogue with their own cultures. Through this dialogue they are able to reflect upon their own society and their own lives…the focus is very much more upon a relevant, dynamic, and potentially transforming dialogue between reader and text. The issues raised in Asian-English literature are often living issues for the Asian reader (Mahoney, 1990, para. 2).

A dialogue between ESL student readers and the authors they study makes learning a more active process. Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1984, 1986) theory of dialogics (or dialogue/dialogism) is highly relevant to the pedagogy of the language arts classroom as discussed by various researchers in a collection on Bakhtinian concepts in second and foreign language education (Hall, Vitanova, & Marchenkova, 2005). In Bakhtin’s view, language is the means for the dialogue between the listener (or reader), the text, their own selves as the speaker (or writer), as he made this point in his essay “The Problem of Speech Genres”: “When the listener perceives and understands the meaning of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it. He either agrees or disagrees with it, augments it, applies it, prepares for its execution and so on” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 68). Through this dialogue, in Bakhtin’s view, we also construct own identity: Dialogue … is the action itself. It is not a means for revealing, for bringing to the surface the ready-made character of a person: no, in dialogue a person not only shows himself outwardly, but he becomes for the first time what he is. (1984, p. 252)

Never Forgotten

451

Reading and writing poetry in the language classroom creates a kind of social activity in which learners are in a dialogue with texts and the English language. Lin and Luk (2005) describe Bakhtin’s “theory of language as dialogic interaction” as support for, “the potential liberative power of human agency and local creativity” (p. 78). Additionally, they argue that “insights from Bakhtin can help English language teachers to reflexively analyse and understand the ideological nature of their own teaching practices” and change their teaching styles to create a dialogue with students (p. 74). In an interview conducted with Eddie Tay about English-language learning and teaching practices in Hong Kong, he emphasised the importance of students making English their own language. In response to the question, “Do you think poetry can change students’ relationship with English?” Tay replied: I think so. You know, I’ve been introduced to Singaporean and Malaysian poets and you know—English is part of what we do. We can lay claim to it and we can make use of it. It’s not like we have to aspire to a certain kind of standard—it’s not that. Bring it into our own space, into our own background. So this is the relationship. That’s creative in itself: laying claim to the language. I think that is the most important thing one can do: saying this is my language. (Tay, interview, September 7, 2011)

Tay is advocating the student dialogue with English, supported by Lin and Luk (2005)—but in this case through poetry. In fact, in his literature classes at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Tay uses poems by Tang Dynasty poets in Chinese and has students translate them into English. He suggests students should not translate directly or literally, but rather, use the original poems as the “seeds of inspiration”. He says he tells his students, “Think of yourselves as creating a dialogue….engaging in a discourse.” (Tay, interview, September 7, 2011) This chapter is based on our experience in teaching the course “Critical Reading Skills through Literature”, which has been offered to associate degree students at a local community college in Hong Kong for several years. The course, the basis for this chapter, helps students to engage in a dialogue with English and in the process, reshape their educational habitus, as coined by Pierre Bourdieu (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002). Through taking the above mentioned course, the students develop their own, new dialogue with studying English. When applying their cultural schemata, Hong Kong Chinese associate degree students begin a kind of

Chapter Twenty-Five

452

dialogue with literary texts written by Chinese writers in English. They apply their schemata, or their cultural understanding of Hong Kong, their Chinese identity, and their educational expectations of learning English, and begin to respond to texts. Through the study of Chinese poets who write in English, students can begin to adapt the relationships and expectations, or habitus they have developed in their language learning context. In fact, the habitus of students has evolved during the literature course “Critical Reading Skills through Literature”. That process has been facilitated by their response to texts by English language Chinese literary writers and students’ use of the pre-existing schemata which they have for the cultural context of those texts. By studying the English language through the English literary works of Chinese writers, the students change their relationship with English.

Context of the Study Our study focused on the course “Critical Reading Skills through Literature” in Semester A, 2008, offered to associate degree students by the Division of Language Studies, Community College of City University. The students who were interviewed came from the Bilingual Communication Studies Program (Chinese and English cohort). Around the eighth week of the one-semester course, students read the works of three Hong Kong based Chinese poets who write in English: Eddie Tay, Yuen Che-hung, and Zheng Danyi. This happened after they were introduced to the concept of free verse poetry and had been given an introduction to trends in English-language poetry since the late 19th century. An example of one poem studied in the course, “Never Forgotten”, by Hong Kong poet and professor, Eddie Tay follows. It shows a Chinese writer drawing on his cultural schemata, which are familiar to local Chinese students. They can personally relate to the poem. (Although other poems which have been studied in the course are also referenced by students, they will not be excerpted in this chapter.) Never Forgotten Sometimes, at night, along a pavement, someone will drag a garbage bag.

Never Forgotten

453

Walking past Hondas, Volvos and Toyotas parked in slots, for a father, mother, tragic son or daughter, handfuls of folded ingots. Here, there, by the road, between pavement grills, on footpaths by the drain, are three dirty cups, roast meat, a plate of fruit, joss sticks. In older neighbourhoods, someone will understand and chase away a sniffing dog. (Tay, 2005, p. 47)

In a pre-reading activity, designed to activate schemata, students were asked about road-side shrines in Hong Kong. (This poem is set in Singapore, but the shrines are similar.) They were asked to describe the shrines and why they thought that people make them. The students were also asked what people leave at the shrines. The vocabulary words: offerings, tragic, ingots and joss sticks were explained. Then students were asked to summarise and paraphrase the poem in pairs. Finally, they shared their summaries with the class. Through the process of reading and responding to this poem, students could make a bridge between a familiar cultural context – and the fact that slowly, younger generations like their own, are forgetting the meaning of such shrines – and English. To create an effective, and not an elitist, exclusionary experience for students in an associate degree program, the literature they read to learn English must draw on their existing experience and schemata. As Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) note: The implicit cultural content knowledge presupposed by a text interacts with the reader’s own cultural background knowledge of content to make texts whose content is based on one’s own culture easier to read and understand than syntactically and rhetorically equivalent texts based on a less familiar, more distant culture. (p. 561)

454

Chapter Twenty-Five

After reading English-language poetry by Chinese writers, in the tenth week, students were asked to write their own poem about their loves and hates. In the case of one student poet interviewed here, there is evidence that her cultural schemata were activated and that was demonstrated in her poem. Our assumption is that identity is constructed, not fixed by the social structure, and developed through agency. It is negotiable and usually “a site of struggle” (Norton, 2000, p. 127; Pavlenko, 2002, p. 283). Our assumption has led us to adopt Michel Foucault’s framework for four components of ethics in understanding identity, as interpreted by Clarke (2009, p. 191): 1) The ethical substance: concerns what defines their learner identity. 2) A mode of subjection: refers to what sources of discursive authority influence learners’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. 3) The self-practice: concerns the techniques and practices learners use to shape identity. 4) The telos: refers to the ultimate goal, endpoint or purpose of the language learner.

Methodology Interviews were done with students to collect comments on their English learning experience and with Eddie Tay, whose poetry the students studied. The student interviews were conducted by Jason Man-bo Ho to avoid conflict of interest because Kate Rogers taught the students. In addition, she had a connection with them through their student poetry reading and her role in the English-language writing community in Hong Kong. Jason and Kate interviewed Eddie Tay together; Kate knows Eddie Tay as a friend and fellow writer. The aforementioned interview with Eddie Tay and interviews with two students (Kammy and Yoyo) from the course explored the questions of student engagement with English, and their engagement with literature. The possible effects of using English language poetry by Chinese poets on student identity are also explored in this chapter.

Discussion Our argument and assumptions are based on the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel Foucault. We used Foucault’s 4-axis

Never Forgotten

455

ethics model (see also Clarke, 2009) as an analytical tool to analyse the student interviews. We found that the poetry reading and writing tasks seem to have impacted the first two aspects of the four-axis model, while the last two may need further exploration and development. The following is our analysis of the impact of the poetry experience on student poets.

Ethical Substance Both Kammy and Yoyo stated that poetry was a new kind of text for them. At first, Kammy was frustrated when she had to learn to read English-language poetry by Chinese poets, which she described as “difficult” because it was something she had never been exposed to (Kammy, interview, August 4, 2011). Likewise, Yoyo found it “frustrating” when she first had to learn about poetry and she described poetry as an “abstract” way to express one’s feelings, which are also “difficult for readers to understand” (Yoyo, interview, October 1, 2011). To both of them, poetry was not part of them as ESL learners. It was not included in their cultural capital. They had never learnt about it, not to mention written it. But by introducing English-language poetry by Chinese writers, and asking the students to write about their loves and hates (an expression of their identity), the “Critical Reading Skills through Literature” course seems to have established a dialogue between the learners and poetry. It did so by “breaking the wall” between them. Untitled by Yoyo (original syntax remains) What I love about sunflower is its sunrise. What I hate about rose is its sharp teeth. What I love about typhoon is its symphony. What I hate about ice is its callousness. What I love about Psychology is its mirror. What I hate about Mathematics is its labyrinth. What I love about money is its authority. What I hate about time is its limitation. What I love about friends is their giggle. What I hate about love is its tears.

456

Chapter Twenty-Five What I love about experience is their vitamins. What I hate about memories is their lightning. What I love about my life is its puzzle.

The fact that the Chinese poets wrote the poems in English sent a powerful message to the students. Kammy repeatedly emphasised this point when she said that if those poets could do it, it meant she, as a Chinese, could do it as well. To her, writing poetry no longer seemed such a daunting task because of the role models in front of her. The poetry assignment aimed at encouraging them to make a statement about themselves, or to paraphrase Bakhtin’s (1981) term, “to author their other language self” in their non-native language, English. Students could then use their cultural capital to claim their identity in English. Yoyo’s comments make a loud statement in her poem. Through the writing of her poem, Yoyo has expressed her own voice and identity. Meaningful personal references include those to the joy of friends and the pain of heartbreak while her perspective on education is expressed through references to psychology and mathematics. Finally, significant local references to a typhoon and the power of money show Yoyo to be a person of Hong Kong. In fact, Yoyo was one of four student poets in the CCCU course “Critical Reading Skills through Literature” who was invited by organisers of the Hong Kong Literary Festival to recite their unpublished poems before the launch of the poetry anthology, Not A Muse, on March 15, 2009. Lin and Luk (2005) make a good point when they contend that, “for one to really accept, acquire and own a language or discourse, it has to become an internally persuasive discourse, hybridised and populated with one’s own voices, styles, meanings and intentions” (pp. 93-94). When poetry was something alien to the students, they did not feel they were part of it. But when they were given a chance to “hybridise and populate” a language, they could invest in the language their “voices, styles, meanings and intentions” by using their cultural capital to write and speak. This process seems to have especially been the case for Yoyo.

A Mode of Subjection Understandably, academic results have been the greatest priority for many students. As Kammy expressed in the interview: “If I see improvement in academic results, I will consider it as a success. If I find

Never Forgotten

457

out that I have more passion and interest in a subject, maybe some writing is appreciated by teachers” (Interview, August 4, 2011). This comment shows that the teacher figure is also a source of authority to her. But the poetry experience, once again, seems to have proved that by empowering the students to embrace their cultural capital and putting the teacher aside in their learning experience, something different happened. Commenting on her poetry assignment and poetry reading at the Man Hong Kong Literary Festival, Kammy rejoiced: Writing a poem and presenting in front of those literary people is an honor already because they are real poets and we were just students scribbling down something to present to them. But they are real poets having their published works! We just followed someone and write our poems but we could share their same stage with them (interview, August 4, 2011).1

Presenting her poem to a group of poets was a proud experience to Kammy. The recognition by the “writing” community is a proof of “language in use” by the student among the language users, which, in our case, are a real community of local English-speakers in Hong Kong. Another common theme between the two student poets is their improved confidence in their English proficiency. The poetry presentation was a highlight to their English learning experience, as shown in Yoyo and Kammy’s comments: Yoyo: I found that my English was not that poor because I could present my poem. It boosted my confidence because I could present it in front of the poets… There’s some positive impact on my self-confidence, since being able to present my poem was a kind of progress to me (interview, October 1, 2011). Kammy: I have more confidence in both reading and writing poetry. After finishing the assignment [her poem, which was presented later at the Hong Kong Literary Festival], I think I can write poetry. Maybe it’s not that difficult (interview, August 4, 2011).

From their testimonies, we can see that the poetry experience served to have created a space for students to develop their agency to make English their language (no longer the Second Language in capital letters). The students’ engagement in the poetry writing experience fostered their 1

All spoken interviews with Kammy and Yoyo have been translated by the authors from Cantonese into English.

458

Chapter Twenty-Five

creative process and transcended “their subject positions”. They authored their identities, or what Bakhtin called, their “speaking selves” (Vitanowa, 2005, p. 166). They changed from people who were less empowered with personal self-expression in English into people who re-defined or reauthored their language identities.

The Self-Practices Due to the limited length of the “Critical Reading Skills through Literature” course and the time spent on poetry writing, we regret that the poetry experience could not cause much change to the actual language habits of the students. Their comments on their improved confidence do not show any significant change to their language practice after the course was over. The absence of a long-lasting impact on their language practice is understandable. However, what it implies may be that language identity is not something that springs from nothing and it takes time to cultivate. A few weeks of poetry reading and writing may not cause any obvious change to students’ language practice. Language teaching and learning takes time.

The Telos One encouraging comment from Yoyo shows us an impact on her possible telos. Asked what effect the poetry experience had on her, she said, at the end of her interview: “It seems to me that one day I can be like them [Asian poets writing in English]. I mean one day but I don’t know when it would happen. If I make efforts, I can be one of them” (Yoyo, interview, October 1, 2011). Perhaps this is a seed language educators can aspire to plant in every language user. Poetry should not be forgotten.

Conclusion We have found that our students’ poetry experience helped them “lay claim to English” as their own language (Tay, interview, September 7, 2011). One student poet in particular has demonstrated her process of making English her own language in the poem she wrote for the course, “Critical Reading Skills through Literature”. Her comments about Tay’s

Never Forgotten

459

poem during an interview with the authors reveal some of its impact on her. Associate degree students are different in their language issues and needs because fewer have attended EMI schools, unlike Eddie Tay’s students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is harder to foster the development of a practice of writing poetry in the AD students because their habitus and cultural capital are quite different. However, we have given a new sense of power to the AD students by making use of their cultural schemata to lay claim to English in themselves through the study of Chinese poets who compose in English. We set out to argue that reading and responding to English-language poetry by Chinese poets can help Hong Kong associate degree students transform their relationship with English and their personal and cultural identities. Our interviewees’ comments reflect how their English-learning habitus changed through their experience with poetry in the course “Critical Reading Skills through Literature”. However, more research can be done into poetry in the language classroom and its impact on identity transformation.

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Doestoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). “Speech genres” and other late essays (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Eds., V. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573. Clarke, M. (2009). The ethico-politics of teacher identity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(2), 185-200. doi:10.1111/j.14695812.2008.00420.x Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (2005). Introduction: Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning (pp. 1-8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

460

Chapter Twenty-Five

Lin, A., & Luk, J. (2005). Local creativity in the face of global domination: Insights of Bakhtin for teaching English for dialogic communication. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning (pp. 77-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lin, A., & Luke, A. (2006). Coloniality, postcoloniality and TESOL…Can a spider weave its way out of the web it is being woven into just as it weaves? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 3(2-3), 65-73. Mahoney, D. (1990, April). Asian voices in English: Asian-English literature in the ESL curriculum. Paper presented at the Asian Voices in English conference at the University of Hong Kong. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman. Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 277-302). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Savidou, C. (2004). An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(12), 1-5. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/ Tay, E. (2005). A lover’s soliloquy. Hong Kong: Sixth Finger Press. Vitanova, G. (2005). Authoring the self in a non-native language: A dialogic approach to agency and subjectivity. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning (pp. 149-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage Publications.