ESL Classroom: Learners’ Perceptions (An academic paper)

 

ESL Classroom: Learners’ Perceptions

 

Abstract

In a banking system where the teacher is the depositor and learner is the depository, the learners’ role and his needs are designed by teachers based on popular beliefs and canonical methodologies. Any learning involves two parties and the perceptions of both the parties needs to be taken into consideration to achieve the objective of the course. In a multi-cultural ESL classroom it’s challenging to have a uniform set of perceptions because the problems and solutions are intersectional in nature. This paper aims to look at the learners’ perceptions in an intersectional ESL classroom and find some commonality in the problems in learning a language.

Keywords: ESL Classroom, Learner centered pedagogy, ESL student

 

Introduction

            English as Second language (ESL) is the use of English by speakers with different native languages. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) unlike the mother tongue mostly is acquired by methods rather than instinct. In this crucial juncture in learning a language it is the classroom that acts as the mother’s lap where learners’ acquire/learn the second language. ESL students constitute only a half or quarter in native English speaking countries whereas the Indian English medium classrooms are ESL classrooms in absolute. Several methodologies competed to claim to have the best approaches for teaching or learning a language but no methodology is absolute.

Any teaching methodology/pedagogy is born out of the error correction of the existing methodologies and mapping neoteric methods. The method and the approaches should fulfil both the financer (teacher) and the stakeholder (learner). ESL classrooms are majorly multi-cultural and the researchers yielding a competitive methodology have many intersectional elements. To map a new method, the perception of the ESL learners should occupy the first place but unfortunately, that has been ignored in the mapping process. Even the reasons why Learners’ perception is given less heed also has intersectional answers.

The Scope

            The need or the necessity of Learners’ perception in designing a curriculum would be more important to devise the scope of the area. Learner beliefs may influence teachers' classroom activities (Borg, 2003; Burgess & Etherington, 2002), and unrealistic beliefs or misconceptions about language learning can impede the learning process (Sawir, 2002). Learner beliefs, which have been described as learners’ meta-cognitive knowledge about learning (Wenden, 1999), have, in general, received less attention than teacher beliefs.  In this banking system of education where the teacher is a depositor and the student is depository the learners’ perception has been titular in designing the curriculum. Allwright (1984) says that “very many teachers seem to find it difficult to accept their learners as people with a positive contribution to make to the instructional process” (p.167), and Rudduck (1991) refers to ignoring learners’ views as “our blind spot. Mori (1999) found those language learners' beliefs about general learning and language learning more specifically were independent constructs.    

            NCERT Position paper says, “The level of introduction of English is now a matter of political response to people’s aspirations rather than an academic or feasibility issue”. Though the prime source of ignition may be political, English has been acquired by the learners’ objectives which are diverse; career, Research, Job, Language proficiency, etc,. In such a Classroom, the individual perceptions and beliefs needs to be addressed with a learner-friendly curriculum which brings solution to many mutual problems of the different group or different problems in a mutual group in learning a language. 

            We cannot completely portray Teachers as the reasons for the curriculum  The hidden message in technical conceptions of teacher education is that teachers are merely implementers of instructional systems; there is no room for teacher questions, decisions, or the generation of knowledge. Teachers complain skill development being preferred to Critical questioning and problem solving. Technical conceptions serve to de-skill many teachers because they were never taught to make instructional decisions or directed toward viewing decision making as an integral part of their role (Ginsburg, 1988). The main tool for accountability is the standardized test. And although standardized tests are not necessarily linked to what is actually taught, test scores are used to rank, reward, or most often punish students, teachers, and schools. Teachers have been pressured to teach to the test. So, mending the curriculum is dealing with a two edged sword where the beliefs and perceptions of both have to taken into regard but that should second the scrutiny and it is this group which should be given space in scrutinising the learners’ belief to mend the curriculum

            Since, we cannot discuss the perceptions of all the methodologies, for the sake of our research let’s divide the language acquisition instruction into two types – one is form focussed and the other is meaning focussed. Meaning-focused instruction is based on the assumption that, like first language (LI) acquisition, L2 acquisition occurs unconsciously and implicitly. The theorists believe that there is little or no benefit in directing learners’ attention to form and its proponents argue that exposure to comprehensible input is sufficient for L2 learning and that grammar will take care of itself. Only the availability of comprehensible input and  low affective filter in the learner are necessary for language learning.  Any overt attention to linguistic form is unnecessary, and any corrective feedback is ineffective (e.g., Krashen, 1981; Newmark &: Reibel).   Counterevidence to the effectiveness of purely meaning-focused instruction has been raised, particularly by the research in Canadian (e.g., Swain, 1985) immersion programs, which suggests that even after many years of exposure to the target language (TL), L2 learners' production is still grammatically inaccurate.  

            The “Form-focused instruction” is an umbrella term. It was coined by Spada and consists of two broad types: focus-on-forms (FONFS) and focus-on-form (FONF). Long (1996) agreed with Krashen with focus – on – form that the overriding focus of L2 classes should be on meaning but he acknowledged the need for some focus on grammar. It should occur spontaneously in reaction to learners’ needs, be brief, and preferably implicit.  The FonFs alternative advocates a proactive approach to grammar and is often associated with traditional grammar-based L2 instruction, where the typical sequence of instruction is presentation of rules of preselected grammatical structures, followed by drills and then some controlled practice in the use of these structures. By these methods we can find out that the major considerations of language learning is about learning through grammar or without a grammar and we shall bring two important surveys in which learners’ opinions are recorded abou the same

BALLI Studies & MSU survey

            Interest in L2 learner beliefs was stimulated by Horwitz's (1988) creation of the well-known Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) questionnaire, which triggered the so- called "BALLI studies". Howritz opines that Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules. Results from the BALLI studies (e.g., Peacock, 2001; Samimy & Lee, 1997) seem to suggest that most learners agree with this statement. Of the students, 90% thought it imperative to be corrected while speaking in class, whereas only 34% of the teachers thought this to be so, showing some discrepancies between student and teacher beliefs about oral error correction. Despite the discord between teachers and students regarding oral correction, around 90% of teachers and students agreed that errors should be explicitly corrected in written work. Bang (1999) found that most students felt that oral correction was necessary for language learning, but they disagreed on when and how it should be done. Thus, although students may believe that error correction is essential for language learning, there is no consensus on how this error correction should be implemented.

            Like BALLI studies, the researchers here in a questionnaire survey was conducted at Michigan State University (MSU) by Shawn Loewen, Shaofeng Li, Fei, Amy Thompson, Kimi Nakatsukasa, Seongmee Ahnand Xiaoqing Chen (2015) focussed on learners perceptions particularly from the BALLI studies’ results i.e., on Error Correction and Grammar. Majority of the Foreign language learners opined about grammar learning as complicated, but very interesting (Arabic) but English language learners blow up the opinion that they don't like memorizing grammars, to be given a list of grammar rules and then memorizing them. The interesting thing to say that learners are aware an mature is that despite the difficulties in learning English they feel that it is basic for academic success.

            ESL learners were less convinced about the need for grammar instruction and error correction and were more enthusiastic about improving communicative skills than were foreign language learners. English learners were living in an English-speaking context, they were more likely to have more opportunities for communicating in the TL, and for this reason, they may have placed a higher priority on such communication rather than on grammar instruction.  Error correction was viewed separately, and somewhat negatively, by the participants. It is interesting to note that learners viewed error correction and grammar instruction as distinct categories, whereas researchers might view error correction as a type of focus on form and, thus, a type of grammatical focus (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1996) It is almost clear by this that the learners’ pay no heed to the theoretical approaches that are drafted to distinguish between form and communication in a diversified ESL classroom. In Gardener’s socio-education model of SLA argues that language attitudes (to the target language group, to the target language, to learning the language, and to the language learning situation) determine the level of motivation, which in turn leads to various linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes as a result of acquiring language in formal and informal contexts. So, ending up with a distinct method would suffice nothing.

Observations

            The modern ESL classrooms have been (majority) dominated by worksheets and little instructional interaction, all students suffer at a double disadvantage. They often sit silently in these classrooms while teachers talk, and their language and academic development are therefore impeded.  Typical classroom language follows a pattern where teachers initiate the conversation, students respond, and teachers evaluate the students' responses. This model of classroom language was referred to by Mehan (1979) as IRE (initiate, response, evaluate). The problem with IRE is that it is dominated by teacher talk and its narrow framework does not encourage students to use language to learn.  KNOWN- ANSWER questions in these are in majority in this case too. An instructional method that inculcates reflex in communication has been a petition from the Learners’ side.

            Intelligence has been confined to be a body of experts and this body has been deciding the curriculum.. The Corpora of texts that are selected for ESL classroom mandates the learners’ growth. Jabbour (2001) points out that ‘‘a corpus approach befits teaching second language reading and writing, since both activities are text oriented and make use of words and word combinations, or lexical patterns, within the confines of discourse’’ (p. 294) Tao (2001) observes, of its ‘‘potential to make explicit the more common patterns of language use’’ (p. 116)

But, some texts may not be compatible with the cultural background of a student but it has been an obligation. This cult of expertise in designing a dominant curriculum which aligns to a particular culture may be considered as the hindrance in learning a language

Conclusion

No curriculum can claim to be truly learner - centred unless the learner’s subjective needs and perceptions relating to the processes of learning are taken into account”. It is hard for a diversified ESL classroom to have a significant pedagogy or methodology for teaching language.

Flexibility in the syllabi shall be the best answer to tackle such indifference can be the major findings from the Learners’’ perceptions. Critical thinking and independent learning should be the major takeaway of language learning process. The learners should not be made completely dependent on teachers or worksheets. Signature pedagogy needs to be brought where the students are allowed to draft or take part in making the curriculum where the students should turn depositors in the system and teachers shall mend and evaluate the curriculum amendments made by the student.

Works Consulted

LOEWEN, SHAWN & Li, Shaofeng & FEI, FEI & Thompson, Amy & Nakatsukasa, Kimi & AHN, SEONGMEE & CHEN, XIAOQING. (2009). Second Language Learners' Beliefs About Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern Language Journal. 93. 91 - 104. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x.

Ahmadi, Faezeh & Shafiee, Sajad. (2015). L2 TEACHERSʼ AND LEARNERSʼ BELIEFS ABOUT GRAMMAR. IJLLALW. 9. 245-261.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream Classroom Teachers and ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196. doi:10.2307/3587817

Barkhuizen, G. (1998). Discovering Learners' Perceptions of ESL Classroom Teaching/Learning Activities in a South African Context. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 85-108. doi:10.2307/3587903

Storch, N. (2018). Meaning-Focused Versus Form-Focused Instruction. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (eds J.I. Liontas, T. International Association and M. DelliCarpini). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0690

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.

Horwitz,E.(1988).The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.

Jabbour, G. (2001). Lexis and grammar in second language reading and writing. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Ed.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing connections (pp. 291–308). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

Tao, H. (2001). Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 116–144). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195

Samimy, K., & Lee, Y. (1997). Beliefs about language learning: Perspectives of first-year Chinese learners and their instructors. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 32, 40–60

Bang, Y. (1999). Reactions of EFL students to oral error correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 3, 39–51

Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468).SanDiego,CA:Academic Press.

Newmark, L., & Reibel, D. A. (1968). Necessity and suf- ficiency in language learning. International Review ofAppliedLinguisticsinLanguageTeaching,13,35– 40

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehen- sible output in it development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisi- tion (pp. 235–252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109

Burgess,J.,&Etherington,S.(2002).Focus on grammaticalform:Explicitorimplicit?System,30,433–458.

Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Be- yond the basics. System, 27, 435–441

Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156–171.

Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about theirlearning? Language Learning,49, 377–415.

Ginsburg, M. (1988).Contradictions in teacher education: A critical analysis. Washing- ton, DC: Falmer Press