web view6 out of 11 teachers (54, 54%) have been teaching english less ... refused to use any french...

CHAPTER THREE

FINDINGS

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter Findings and RecommendationsThree

Chapter Three: Findings and Recommendations

3.1 Introduction

This chapter reports the findings from several data collected in this study including

the students and teachers’ questionnaires. The results are presented in two principal

sections relatively proper to divergence in terms of data. The first and the second sections

report those data taken from both the students and the teachers’ questionnaires. It is hoped

that the data found in this investigation will provide foundation for discussing the research

questions under concern.

3.2 Data Analysis and Discussion of the Findings

Following the grouping of the item questions in the different parts of both the students and teachers’ questionnaires, I shall now proceed to the analysis of the results obtained in each section and discuss the main findings. This will be done by analyzing data both quantitatively and qualitatively1. On the basis of the graphs below, I obtained statistical data which give us various percentages of the findings that will hopefully serve to identify problems (the HOW and the WHY) and suggest probable answers.

Data will be analyzed in two directions with major themes: difficulties stemming from human factors (teachers and students), and difficulties stemming from non-human factors. In short, the major findings will be presented and discussed in the coming sections.

1 I chose to adopt both a qualitative and a quantitative methodology because there has been a shift away from adopting only quantitative methodologies in educational research towards qualitative methodologies, According to Kervin et al. (2005 : 35): “Educational research was initially dominated by quantitative research designs because this was believed to be the superior form for gaining knowledge … Dissatisfaction with the quantitative approach arose in the latter part of the twentieth century because the kinds of questions that were relevant in school settings weren’t adequately answered by quantitative means. As a result, in recent years, there has been an increase in qualitative studies that allow insight into these complex educational settings.” Patton (1990:14) explains the role of the researcher in qualitative paradigms; he stipulates that, in qualitative inquiry, “the researcher is the instrument”.


3.3. Non-Appreciated BE Speaking Practices

3.3. 1. Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors

STUD Q1: Provide three reasons which make you and/or your teacher the only driver of an ineffective BE oral course?

Answers were grouped according to the most important themes provided by the

informants2

Total Respondents: 72Answers Number Percentage

Diff

icul

ties

Stem

min

g fr

om T

each

ers

a. Limited teachers’ experience 13 18,05%b. Low teachers’ Training and

Communicative competence38 52,77%

c. Lack of focus on teaching oral BE

68 94,44%

d. Teacher’s manners and reactions are not suitable

53 73,61 %

e. Teachers’ time to correcting mistakes is not enough

61 84,72%

f. Teacher talk is more important than interaction

68 94,44%

g. Teachers use a high level structures and vocabulary in both GE and BE

39 54,16%

h. Teachers /Students relationship 45 62,5%

Diff

icul

ties

Stem

min

g fr

om

Stud

ents a. Low Students’ participation

during BE course activities64 88,88%

Table 3.1: Teachers and Students’ Inappropriate Practices

2 Each theme has been, then, investigated from the eye of the learner and/or the teacher.


3.3. 1.1 Rubric 1: Teachers’ Experience

TEA Q1: How long have you been teaching Business English?


a. Less than 3 years 6 54,54%b. Between 3 and 5 years 3 27,27%c. More than 5 years 2 18,18%

BE Teachers Experience

Less than 3 yearsBetween 3 and 5 yearsMore than 5 years

Graph 3.1: Experience with Teaching BE

According to the data collected in Graph 3.1, 6 out of 11 teachers (54, 54%) have

been teaching English less than 3 years, 27, 27% have an experience of teaching between

3 and 5 years. The rest (18, 18%) have been teaching for more than 5 years. It is

concluded that more than half of the teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences

have been teaching BE less than 3 years, which is very significant in terms of their

language adjustment and experience in teaching speaking to BE students.

This is also indicative of less specialized educational qualifications. The master

degree at the department of English (University of Oran) is traditionally a linguistics


based program and studies in BE are not included in the MA and BA English programs at

the department of English. Therefore, most BE teachers at the department of commercial

sciences did not receive specialized education in the area of their practice. This can be

explained as a lack of opportunities at both local and International levels.

In fact, ELT conferences and workshops are rare events in Algerian universities;

and at international level, most Algerian BE teachers cannot afford attending ELT events

because of financial reasons. For those who can afford it, lack of interest in BE or ELT

events can be seen as the major driving factor to the lack of training.

3.3. 1.2 Rubric 2: Teachers’ Training

TEA Q2: What is your last degree?


a. BA (License) 5 45,45%b. MA (Magister/Master) 6 54,54%c. Ph. D (Doctorate) 0 0%

BE Teachers' Degrees

BA (License)MA (Magister/Master)Ph. D (Doctorate)

Graph 3.2: BE Teachers’ Degrees


The above graph provides data about the BE teachers educational qualifications.

54, 54% hold the magister or the master degree, 45, 45% hold the bachelor degree, and

none of them hold a PHD. By asking them, informally during the questionnaire

administration, about whether they have local or abroad degrees, all of them argued that

they have local graduation and local magisters and masters’ degrees.

TEA Q3: have you ever gone through a teaching training course on BE?


a. At a national level 3 27,27%b. At an international Level 0 0%c. Both national and international 0 0 %

Total Ters : 110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Both national and internationalAt an international LevelAt a national level

Graph 3.3: BE Received Training

Graph 3.3 shows data about whether or not BE teachers receive professional

training (in the form of conferences and workshops) to update their knowledge and

teaching methods. The results indicate that the vast majority (8 out of 11 teachers) did not

participate to any of these promotional professional experiences either locally or

internationally.


If the data provided in both Graph 3.1 and Graph 3.3 is analysed together, it is

evident to identify that a small percentage of BE teachers have basic BE teaching

competence as well as professional exposure to their domain of practice. This could be

probably attributed to the lack of resources, unavailability of trainings and scientific

updating and promotion; or simply to interest from the part of BE teachers. Yet, it seems

that all these factors contribute to affect BE teaching practices at levels.

These BE teachers are almost new in this subject area and it was not expected that

they would have a long experience in this field. However, this also shows that there is no

professional or academic experience.

3.3.1.3 Rubric 3: Focus on Teaching Oral BE

TEA Q4: Are the oral / aural skills one of your major BE teaching concerns?


a. Yes 2 18,18%b. No 9 81,81%

YESNO

Graph 3.4: Oral Skill as a Major Teaching Concern


Here BE Oral skill is not a priority for BE teachers at the department of

Commercial Sciences. The graph 3.4 indicates that BE teachers do not reserve (81,81% )

much attention to the speaking skill when planning BE courses. Only 2 out of 11 BE

teachers (18, 18%) attempt to make BE speaking activities.

This supports previous research findings which relate to the point that most BE

teachers at the department of commercial sciences are seriously concerned with general

English language proficiency and would devote much of their time to the development of

their students General English proficiency rather than the BE one. This could be seen as

an indicator of BE teachers’ dissatisfaction with their students’ English level and as a

result they are unable to tackle BE speaking activities without focusing and developing

GE speaking competence. However, it could also be their vision of BE teaching where BE

speaking English is not a priority for future Algerian employees who are invited to use

English at workplace.

3.3.1.4 Rubric 4: Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction

TEA Q5: How often do you correct students’ mistakes while they are performing their oral BE tasks?


Never 0 0%Seldom 0 0%Sometimes 1 09,09 %Frequently 10 90, 90 %Other 0 0%


NEVER

SELDOM

SOMETIMES

FREQUENTLY

OTHER

Total respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Graph 3.5: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Teachers’ Views)

STU Q2: How often does your teacher correct students’ mistake while they are performing their oral BE tasks?


Never 0 0%Seldom 9 12,5%Sometimes 59 81,94%Frequently 4 5,55%Other 0 0%


NEVER

SELDOM

SOMETIMES

FREQUENTLY

OTHER

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.6: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Students’ Views)


STUD Q3: What is the reaction of your teacher when you make a lot of/repeated mistakes?


The teacher keeps quiet until the students finish their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on (A)

4 5,55%

The teacher stops them and correct mistakes (B) 59 81,94%

The teacher gets annoyed when students keep making mistakes (C) 9 12,5%

Other (D) 0 0%

A

B

C

D

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.7: Teachers’ reaction to students’ Mistakes (Students’ Views)

It seems that data from graph 3.6 and graph 3.7 are to a great extent contradictory.

Basing on students’ opinion, 81,94% of the students receive , from time to time, mistakes’

correction from the part of their teachers, 12,5% of them receive seldom mistakes’

correction, and the rest ( a very small group : 5,5 %) argue that they are frequently


corrected by their teachers. On the other side, 90, 90 % of teachers confirm active

participation in correcting their students’ mistakes.

In Graph 3.7, teachers’ reaction towards correcting students’ mistakes are

improper. This confirmation of the improper way of correcting mistakes is supported by

results from student question 3 which show that there still exist some teachers who may

show unsatisfaction and even angriness when a student makes a mistake. In addition to

that, some students (5, 55%) argued that very little teachers put students at ease and let

them finish their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on. From these statistical data, it

can be understood that the ways of mistakes’ correction applied by most of the Oral BE

teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences prevented students from speaking

freely in oral BE classes

3.3.1.5 Rubric 5: Teacher’ Talk Time

STUD Q4: How long is your teacher’s talk time?Total Respondents: 72

Answers Number Percentagea. 1/4 course time 0 0%

b. 2/4 course time 13 18,05 %

c. 3/4 course time 59 81,94 %

d. 4/4 course time 0 0%


1/4 course time

2/4 course time

3/4 course time

4/4 course time

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.8: Teacher’ Talk Time

Data from Graph 3.8 clearly shows that much of the BE teachers’ participations in

the learning process exceed ¾ of the course’s allotted time. This confirms that these

teachers are still applying traditional teaching methods where teaching is primarily based

on the teacher’s contribution (a teacher-centeredness approach) and which is originally

used for teaching EGP (grammar-centeredness approach) .

In such an approach the teacher mainly focuses on explaining, giving the forms of

grammar structures and providing the meaning of vocabulary and pronunciation accuracy.

As a result of this traditional approach to teaching BE , teachers occupy more class-time

than students; they provide new words, explain grammar structures, give examples, and

forget that their role is to facilitate the learning process not to spoon-feed the learners.


3.3.1.6 Rubric 6: Teachers’ Input

STU Q5: To what extent do you grasp the input provided by your teacher during BE oral courses?


To 100% 0 0%To 75 % 5 12,5%To 50 % 31 5,55%To 25 % 36 81,94%From 0 to 25 % 0 0%

To 100%

To 75 %

To 50 %

To 25 %

From 0 to 25 %

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.9: Teachers’ Input (Students’ Views)


TEA Q6: Do you check understanding during your oral BE courses?


Never 0 0%Seldom 0 0%Sometimes 0 0%Frequently 2 18,18 %Always 9 81,81 %Other 0 0 %

NEVER

SELDOM

SOMETIMES

FREQUENTLY

ALWAYS

OTHER

Total respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Graph 3.10: Checking Understanding of Input during BE Course Time


TEA Q7: To what extent do your students grasp the input you provide during course time?


To 100% 0 0%To 75 % 8 72,72%To 50 % 3 27,27%To 25 % 0 0%From 0 to 25 % 0 0%

To 100%

To 75 %

To 50 %

To 25 %

From 0 to 25 %

Total respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Graph 3.11: Teachers’ Input (Teachers’ Views)

As can be seen from Graph 3.9 a surprisingly great number of students (81, 94%)

argue that they suffer from incomprehensible input during BE oral courses. Graph 3.10

and Graph 3.11, on the other hand, provide contradictory data as to teachers’

responsibility in checking understanding and providing comprehensible input during BE

course time. In fact, 81, 81 % of the teachers argue that they check understanding during

course time and 72, 72% of them assert that they provide comprehensible data to their

students.


This could be seen as one of the inappropriate teacher pedagogical practices. This

describes inconvenient pedagogical situations where students cannot grasp what the

teacher is saying. It is suggested that incomprehensible input can be considered as one of

the major contributing factors to students’ difficulties at classroom level3.

According to Koch & Terrell (1991) 4, learning will occur only when learners acquire

language by understanding input that is a little beyond their current level of competence.

To achieve comprehensible input transmission, teachers are supposed to not only master the

different instances of speech instruction but also make use of the mother tongue from time to

time or when necessary5.

3.3.1.7 Rubric 7: Students’ Low Participation

TEA Q8: Do your students participate actively in the oral BE activities and assignments?


To 100% 0 0%To 75 % 0 0%To 50 % 3 27,27%To 25 % 8 72,72%From 0 to 25 % 0 0%

3 Krashen’s view (1985), learning only takes place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input.4 Referring to the input hypothesis in the Natural Approach5 During an informal interview undertaken during the data collection process some students complained that their teachers used too much English or refused to use any French or Arabic at all which resulted in their incapability to keep up during class.


To 100%

To 75 %

To 50 %

To 25 %

From 0 to 25 %

Total respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Graph 3.12: Students’ Low Participation (Teachers’ Views)

STU Q6: Do you participate actively in the oral BE activities and assignments?


a. Yes 17 23,61%

b. No 5 6,94%

c. Not very much 50 69,44 %

YESNONot very much


Graph 3.13: Students’ Low Participation (Students’ Views)

Data from Graph 3.12 and 3.13 clearly shows that both students (69,44 %) and

teachers (72,72%) assert that students provide very little contribution to the dynamism of

the learning teaching interaction during Oral BE courses.

Unlike reading, writing and listening activities, speaking activities need active

participation of both partners (students and teachers). In order to know more about the

WHY for such reluctance from the part of the students, we asked the informants about the

reasons for such attitude.

STUQ 7: If you answered (No) or (Not very much) in STUQ 6, please provide 3 main reasons that lie behind your attitude

Major themes6:

Informant 67: “ I find it difficult to say a whole idea or a sentence in a foreign

language”

Informant 13: “ I am afraid of making mistakes and loosing face in front of my

classmates and my teacher”

Informant 41: “ I am afraid of being criticized or laughed at by our teacher”

Informant 5: “ I very shy and I do not want to attract the attention of my

classmates ”

Informant 22: “ I find it not necessary to participate because my teacher prefers to

talk and teach only 3 or 4 students she prefers”

Informant 29: “ I sometimes would like to participate, yet, my teacher does not

allow me because of limited talking time ”

6 The formulation of the major themes was rewritten by the researcher because the students’ formulation was written in incorrect English.


Through the above answers, it is suggested that most of the difficulties that

students often encounter in participating to course’ talking time during oral BE classes are

probably classified under the following headings: psychological reasons (Informant 13,

Informant 41, and Informant 5), relational reasons (Informant 22), and pedagogical

reasons (Informant 67 and Informant 29).

3.3. 2. Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human factors

3.3. 2.1. Rubric 1: Teachers/Students’ Relationship

STUQ 8: Do your teachers keep a distance from you during BE oral classes?


YES 59 81,94%NO 13 18,05%

PEDAGOGICAL REASONS RELATIONAL REASONS PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS


YESNO

Graph 3.14: Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Students’ Views)

TEA Q9: Do you keep a distance from your students during your BE oral classes?


YES 9 81,81%NO 2 18,18%

YESNO


Graph 3.15: Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Teachers’ Views)

It is obvious from Graph 3.14 and Graph 3.15 above that more than 80% of the

students and the teachers agree that there is a clear distance between the learner and the

teacher during the learning process. 81, 94% of the students revealed that their teachers

often keep a distance from them during BE oral courses.

As a result, students felt tense and had fewer opportunities to express themselves as

well as to improve their oral ability7. This has led, according to most students, to a distant

teacher-student relationship and to a very unrelaxed and stressful classroom atmosphere.

These data relate two main variables, namely the learning atmosphere versus the

relationship between teachers and students. It is suggested that unfavorable relational

aspects between students and teachers may be devastating and could be a potential source

of difficulty during oral BE course time.

3.3. 2.2. Rubric 2: Teachers’ Communicative Competence

STUQ 9: To what extent is your teacher good at oral BE courses?


To 100% 3 4,16 %To 75 % 10 13,88%To 50 % 53 73,61%To 25 % 6 8,33 %From 0 to 25 % 0 0 %

7 During an informal interview, the student interviewees were asked to reflect and give comments on the teacher-learner relationship in their BE speaking classes; their responses to this question were amazingly consistent. Most of them affirmed that their teachers did not have a close relation with their students. More particularly, Students observed that their teachers viewed themselves as superior to their students: “They were very serious, unfriendly and unhelpful”.


To 100%

To 75 %

To 50 %

To 25 %

From 0 to 25 %

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.16: Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Students’ Views)TEA Q10: To what extent do you feel at ease when delivering Oral BE courses?


To 100% 2 18,18 %To 75 % 2 18,18 %To 50 % 6 54,54 %To 25 % 1 9,09 %From 0 to 25 % 0 0 %

To 100%

To 75 %

To 50 %

To 25 %

From 0 to 25 %

Total respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Graph 3.17: Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Teachers’ Views)


It can be seen from Graph 3.17 that more than half of the teachers (6 out of 11: 54, 54

%) did not feel self-confident enough about teaching BE speaking courses; From Graph

3.16 we can observe that more than half of the students (53 out of 72: 73, 61%) believe that

their teacher is proficient only 50% when it comes to the delivery of oral BE courses. This

lack of confidence from the part of the teachers and students’ awareness of their teachers’

incapacity to conduct various oral communicative situations make us suggest that the

teaching/learning equation is going probably to face problematic issues from relational and

communicative points of views.

In this regard, the teachers’ shortage of self-confidence about teaching speaking BE

can be explained as a lack of English communicative competence. Communicative

competence, according to Hedge (2000) 8, includes not only linguistic competence but also

a range of sociolinguistic and conversational skills that enable the speaker to realize how to

say what to whom, when etc. During an informal interview, teachers were asked about the

problems attached to their English communicative competence. Most of the teachers

admitted that they were deficient in this ability, which constrained their teaching of BE

speaking activities. They argued that Algeria is not a country where English is spoken so

English is a foreign language to both teachers and students. Consequently, not only teachers

but also students lack a language environment to develop their communicative competence,

which prevents them from communicating in English successfully.

3.4. Most Appreciated BE Speaking Practices

3.4.1. Rubric 1: BE Students’ Opinions on Best Teacher Pedagogical Practices in BE

Speaking Courses

8 See also Canale & Swain (1980), Richards, Platt &Weber (1985), Littlewood (1994).


STUQ10: Which of the following BE speaking activities do you enjoy the most?

Total Respondents: 72

Answers Number Percentagea. Games 72 100%

b. Vocabulary Learning 72 100%

c. Role Play 67 93.05%

d. Completing Dialogues 61 84,72%

e. Questions and Answers Exchanges 47 65,27%

f. Problem Solving 38 52,77%

g. Discussions in Pairs or Groups 38 52.77%

h. Free Discussions 12 16.66%

i. Interviews 16 22.22%

j. Picture Description 7 09,72%

Games

Vocabulary Learning

Role-play

Completing Dialogues

Q & A Exchanges

Problem solving

Discussions in Pairs or Groups

Free Discussions

Interviews

Picture Description

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.18: Students’ Interest in BE speaking activities


The statistics provided in Graph 3.18 reveal that all the students (100%) like games

most, followed by role play (93.05%) because these communicative activities help them to

reduce their stress as well as motivate them to speak. Eighty four percent point seventy

two of the subjects enjoy completing dialogues while (65.27%) found questions and

answers exchanges enjoyable. These activities are easy for teachers to prepare and easy

enough for students to do. Interestingly, the number of the students who approved

problem solving and discussions in pairs or groups was the same (52.77%). The next

preferable activities were free discussion (16.66%), interview (22.22%) and picture

description (09,72%).

Students show a preference towards activities where there is more freedom and

possibilities for group work or team work activities (games, role play, vocabulary

learning…etc.). These activities provide the learner with the possibility to be an active

partner in the teaching learning process and not to be spoon-fed by the teacher. Again the

role of the teacher is emphasized as a facilitator and a mediator not as a protagonist during

the teaching/learning process.

STU Q11: In BE oral expression classes, do you prefer ?

Total Respondents: 72

Answers Number Percentage

a. Individual work 12 16,66%

b. Pair work 56 77,77%

c. Group work 70 97,22%


Individual work

Pair work

Group work

Total respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Graph 3.19: Students’ Interest in Individual versus Team work BE Speaking activities

By referring to Graph 3.19 results, it seems that more than 90 % (97,22%) of the

students prefer working in team , 77,77% of them like to have a partner during BE

speaking activities, and only 16,66% of the students enjoy working alone.

To function successfully during BE oral course time, students show a need for a

partner: be it an individual partner or a team-form partner. The objective is to be

accompanied and supported. This feeling can help learners to explain better their ideas, to

express their feelings in an open and non-threatening way. It will help learners to initiate

conversations and also to listen carefully to others; and perhaps ask questions to clarify

others’ ideas and emotions. It is also going to push learners to interact and reflect on the

activities and interactions of their group and encourage other group members to do so as

well.


3.5 Suggestions and Conclusions

In the light of the results of this investigation, this section draws conclusions from

the multiple findings and tries to shed the light on what it should be integrated and what it

should not be done in a BE Oral course event from the point of view of the student, the

teacher, and the researcher. We will provide some suggestions and acknowledge the

limitations. Some implications for learning and teaching speaking BE are put forward and

suggestions are made for future research within the same field.

From our respondents’ answers to the questionnaires (teachers’ and students’ responses), it is observed that difficulties in teaching and learning the skill of speaking in BE English classes are numerous. Some of the problems are stemming from human factors and others from non-human factors. Here are the main findings of the different rubric questions and some suggestions to alleviate these difficulties. The rubrics summarized in the following table:

Rubrics

Diff

icul

ties

Stem

min

gfr

omH

uman

Fac

tors

Teachers’ ExperienceTeachers’ TrainingFocus on Teaching Oral BEMistakes’ Correction and Manner of CorrectionTeacher’ Talk Time Teachers’ InputStudents’ Low Participation

Diff

icul

ties

Stem

min

gfr

omN

on-H

uman

Fa

ctor

s

Teachers/Students’ Relationship Communicative Competence

Table 3.2 : Rubrics Findings’ Summary


3.5.1 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors

3.5.1.1 Teachers’ Experience & Training

Teachers’ experience, their lack of specialized knowledge and their deficiency in

terms of competence (mainly strategic and sociolinguistic) is handicapping the learning

process. Many would agree that teachers who have had more preparation for teaching are

more confident and successful with students than those who have had little or none. Yet, it

is rather important to stress the fact that there should be some distinction between theory

and practice. Language teaching clearly asks for both of them yet, the lion share should be

reserved to practice and experience which give meaning to theory. Brumfit (1983) argued

that the teacher training slogan should be: 'We teach teaching, not about teaching’.

Brumfit (1983) argues that the ideal for theoretical studies is that they should be closely

associated with practice: thinking and talking about what we are doing while we are doing

it.

Suggestions

An important contribution to any teaching/ learning process is the development of

teachers’ abilities through planning their education and training. The teacher training

and education should cover and examine the perspectives of learners who bring diverse

experiences and frames of reference to the classroom.

Distance learning or Virtual learning is an excellent method of providing education

and training for teachers. This method is fruitful as teachers need flexibility to contend

with their professional and personal priorities. Language teachers should also be trained

the way they are expected to teach their students i.e. by taking into consideration the pros

and cons of the teaching environment and the nature of the learning population.

3.5.1.2 Focus on Teaching Oral BE


Findings support the fact that most BE teachers at the department of commercial

sciences focus in their BE course on developing general English language proficiency

rather than the BE one. This is seen as an indicator of BE teachers’ dissatisfaction with

their students’ English level and as a result they are unable to tackle BE speaking

activities without focusing and developing GE speaking competence. However, it could

also be their vision of BE teaching where BE speaking English is not a priority for future

Algerian employees who are invited to use English at workplace. Some students argued

that speaking BE is not or will not be necessary in their job, referring to the Algerian

context. Others further added that using BE in Algeria and the demand for BE oral

communication with foreigners (BE experts and professionals) is very scarce.

During an informal interview, teachers complained about the teaching time. They

argued that they are working around the clock to finish the syllabus on time. They added

that in the department of Commercial Sciences, the time devoted to BE lessons in each

semester is limited to 14 sessions of 1 hour and a half each week. This actually puts a

great pressure on the teachers, and pushes them to abandon many teaching activities

because of time constraints.

Suggestions

Many would understand teachers’ choice as to the teaching of an important amount

of EGP during an ESP course (ESP). It is very significant to acknowledge the role EGP is

playing during ESP courses; Yet, this could be devastating if the teacher is unable to

management the EGP versus the ESP contents in an identified ESP business learning

environment. We believe that balancing both EGP and ESP contents with a more focus on

ESP would bring about better results. We suggest also that the choice should be governed

by a need analysis perspective: EAP and ESP programs should not be developed without

conducting a systematic needs analysis from both the students’ and teachers ’ points of

views.

3.5.1.3 Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction


It seems that mistakes’ correction and the way students’ mistakes are being

corrected by their teachers is a problematic issue. In fact, we need to acknowledge that

teachers’ feedback on students’ oral performance is very significant because it might serve

not only to let them know how well they are performing their English but also to increase

their eagerness to learn and be motivated. It is relevant, at this stage to pinpoint how much

error correction is indispensable for effective teaching and learning. What remains

challenging, in such situations, is to highlight the importance of the manner of correction

in motivating or demotivating learners. A good case of a demotivating learning

environment would happen when a teacher is showing unsatisfaction and/or angriness

when a student makes a mistake. Some of them may go to blame his/her students on

minor and major mistake and sometimes make use of condemning words to punish them.

As a response to a teacher rude manner of correcting mistakes, students may feel

embarrassed, confused, ashamed, less self-confident, and easily inhibited9. If teachers

keep doing so, they cannot enhance students’ communicative ability. On the contrary,

they may construct students’ fear of making oral mistakes

Suggestions

A number of researchers have related students’ feeling embarrassed, confused,

ashamed, less self-confident etc to a state of anxiety. Language anxiety is becoming a hot

topic in didactics because it is an important area of research for teachers, researchers and

practitioners. This state of learning a language with anxiety (feeling anxious towards the

use of a particular language) can have profound consequences on the language learning

process. Teachers are invited to provide significantly an enjoyable, relaxed, and free-of-

anxiety learning environment through (as a matter of example) :

avoiding speaking activities or Teachers’ actions or reactions which may cause

students to be nervous or uncomfortable;

Reduce anxiety through a variety of activities (use of games, role play, videos…

etc.)

9 According to students’ answers depicted during an informal interview undertaken with students.


Adapt a tolerant attitude towards students’ errors (consider mistakes as part of the

natural process of language learning)

Avoid correcting every single mistake.

Adapt a respectful, not direct and intrusive manner of mistake treatment10.

Select the right timing to correct students’ errors (preferably at the end of their

speech)

3.5.1.4 Teacher’ Talk Time

In this rubric, teachers’ participations in the learning process exceed ¾ of the

course’s allotted time. In such a context, the teacher plays the role of an information

provider rather than a facilitator or a partner. Consequently, students are not given space

for interaction and exchange to develop their oral performance ability and self-confidence.

We have evidence on the point that there are many learners who have rich vocabulary,

know most rules of grammar and, yet they are so bad in tests because they are unable to

practice and produce language in context.

Suggestions

Students need to receive better preparation during BE oral classes through focusing

on providing pedagogical support which make them able to communicate in and out of

work. We cannot deny that during oral courses it is important to give a share to

developing linguistic rules and competence (grammar and vocabulary) but not the lion

share11.

More time planning is required in the case of the present research population. In

fact, teachers and students complained about having time limit to plan varied activities

and little chance to participate.

To develop students’ communicative competence, it is very prominent to understand

that heterogeneous classes and large classes pose a problem to teachers and teaching. In a

10 According to Young (1991), one way to provide feedback without much anxiety and inhibition is to model students’ responses.11 Teachers need to adopt the communicative approach of teaching, not the traditional grammar-translation one.


multilevel class, it is prevalent to observe that low English proficiency students are

unwilling to have cooperation or open conversations with high English proficiency level.

In a large class, on the other hand, teachers are unable to satisfy the needs of all students

because it is difficult to find content which is sharply-focused enough for all members of

the class. Teachers are much challenged in such circumstances because the more students a

class has, the more difficult it is for the teacher to control class activities. It is not possible

for teachers to allow overlapping or simultaneous talk. It is also not possible for teachers to

give each student attention and to be sure that they are all engaged in the oral activities

task especially the extroverted and low proficient students.

To make things work better, we suggest a placement test entry for BE classes during

master levels where students will be directed to more or less homogenous classes to enjoy

equity at both the teaching and learning levels. We also propose a 20 students-class

number so that teachers and students can enjoy a good classroom management.

Time constraint during BE oral courses is stressing and challenging both teachers

and learners because it requires extra efforts from the part of the teachers and make

students learn little. It also leads to a methodology problem because teachers usually are

overloaded and reluctant to such teaching environments. It is suggested, at this stage, to

plan class timing for conversation classes in BE English to provide sufficient and

adequate time for teachers to plan varied speaking activities and enough interactional

space for learners to enjoy cooperation, share and exchange.

3.5.1.5 Teachers’ Input

Students showed unsatisfaction towards the type of input they receive during BE

oral courses. A great majority asserted that they are, in most cases, incapable of

understanding what the teacher is saying. Krashen (1985) argues that learning only takes

place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input. Referring to the input

hypothesis in the Natural Approach, on the other hand, Koch & Terrell (1991) propose

that learning will occur only when learners acquire language by understanding input that is

a little beyond their current level of competence.


Suggestions

It is suggested that it is preponderant for any successful teaching process to ensure

the comprehensible input transmission that is just beyond the actual level of students. This

could be achieved through turning, according to Van Patten (1996) and Skehan (1998)

INPUT into INTAKE.

In Van Patten (1996) and Skehan (1998)’s terms, to turn input into intake students

need not only to understand but control the attention they attach to particular parts of the

input they hear and understand. For instance, Teachers should draw attention towards

relevant cues and parts in the input, so that it is not only meaning but form that students

are able to perceive (Van Patten, 1996). It is suggested that teachers can use a number of

communication strategies like for example:

Talking clearly and slowly;

Using repetition, word Coinage, Literal translation, Language Switching,

Using samples, charts, pictures, gestures and body language,

Using the mother tongue when necessary,

Ensure interactivity,

Memorisation,

Using well-formed Clauses

Using Shorter Clauses

Using Less complex Clauses

Teachers can also transmit comprensible input through visual aids. This can

involve use:

Using authentic material

Drawing,

Pictures,

Video projection

Written material (magazines, books, flyers…etc.)


3.5.1.6 Students’ Low Participation

There is strong evidence for the importance of participating in class (Lyons, 1989;

Petress, 2006; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Cohen (1991: 699) argues that participation is a way

to bring

“…students actively into the educational process’’ and to

assist in ‘‘enhancing our teaching and bringing life to the

classroom”.

When students engage in the communication process through participation, they

will become motivated, learn better, and become better critical thinkers (Junn, 1994;

Crone, 1997; Garside, 1996; Daggett, 1997; Garard, Hunt, Lippert, & Paynton, 1998;

Weaver & Qi, 2005; Kuh & Umbach, 2004). The more they participate, the less

memorization they do, and the more they engage in higher levels of thinking, including

interpretation, analysis, and synthesis (Smith, 1977).

Through the interview results, it is suggested that most of the difficulties that

students often encounter in participating to course’ talking time during oral BE classes are

classified under the following headings:

Psychological Reasons

Students …

are afraid of making mistakes and loosing face in front of their classmates and the

teacher

are afraid of being criticized or laughed at by the teacher

Relational Reasons :

Students …

Are very shy and they do not want to attract the attention of their classmates


find it not necessary to participate because the teacher prefers to talk and teach

only 3 or 4 students he/she prefers

Pedagogical Reasons

Students …

like to participate, yet, the teacher does not allow them because of limited talking

time

Suggestions

It is suggested that it is high time to forget about past educational experiences and

traditional classes and to reserve much importance to the psychological and relational

aspects during the teaching learning process. In the process of learning speaking, students

often encounter the risk of saying out things that may be wrong, stupid and

incomprehensible. At those times, they tend to be anxious because they do not want to be

judged by other learners. Additionally, in many different parts of Algeria, teachers and

learners insist on marks and success neglecting the pedagogical, relational and

psychological sides of the matter. Students had also formed the habit of sitting in class and

listening quietly to teachers without any interference or engagement.

Teachers should favour working in team work and make students comfortable

with autonomous learning and situations where the teacher is not an authority figure12 to

avoid psychological and relational learning constraints.

Personal traits can be identified as causing reluctance in BE oral courses. Teachers

should also avoid showing preference towards a particular student or a group of students.

12 According to Breen and Candlin (1980), the teacher has three main roles in a speaking class. The first is to act as a facilitator of the communicative process, the second is to act as a participant, and the third is to act as an observer


Feeling unestimated or unliked 13 by the teacher could have a devastating impact on

willingness and motivation towards the course and the group dynamism. All students

should feel that they are the essential partners of the teacher.

We believe that motivation14 could be a driving force for a better and less

constrained teaching environment. Instrumental motivation15, in the case of BE oral

courses, should be the answer for teachers who wish to plan BE oral courses because it is

the one which is making students learn BE as an instrument for their professional success

and promotion.

Intrinsic motivation16, rather than the extrinsic one, is much needed because it

develops the desire to engage in an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some

separable consequences (for example evaluation or marks) 17.

3.5.2 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human Factors

3.5.2.1 Teachers/Students’ Relationship

Data revealed that BE students affirmed that their teachers did not have a close

relationship with them. This has led, according to most students, to a distant teacher-

student relationship and to a very unrelaxed and stressful classroom atmosphere.

Suggestions

13 As claimed by Ellis (1999), the extroverted people are more willing to interact with others while the introverted and shy ones prefer to be quiet and listen to others.14 Motivation, according to Gardner ( 1985: 10) refers to “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes towards learning the language”15 Littlewood (1990) makes a distinction between “integrative” and “instrumental” motivation. “A learner with integrative motivation has a genuine interest in the second language community. He wants to learn their language in order to communicate with them more satisfactorily and to gain closer contact with them and their culture”; whereas a learner with instrumental motivation “is more interested in how the second language can be a useful instrument towards furthering other goals, such as gaining a necessary qualification or improving employment prospects”.16 Motivation may be termed “extrinsic” if the purposes of the language study arise from external stimuli while the intrinsic motivation is often understood as the learner’s natural interest (Fisher, 1990).17See Ryan & Deci (2000)


It is suggested that unfavorable relational aspects and authority distance between

students and teachers could be a potential source of threat for any Teaching learning

environment. Partnership should reign18: students and teachers willingness to become

partners and to communicate openly with one another brings about a harmonious climate

and an effective learning process.

In the Interview, students were asked to reflect on the personality types of teachers

they wish to have and who may bring about an enjoyable and adequate classroom climate.

These were their descriptions:

Teachers who are friendly

Teachers who are considerate

Teachers who are funny

Teachers who are tolerant

Teachers who are sympathetic

Teachers who are patient

Teachers who like to play games with us and become a partner

Teachers who do not discriminate between students

In general, it is preferable to avoid authority distance which leads, in most situations, to a tense classroom atmosphere

3.5.2.2 Teachers’ Communicative Competence

We decided to integrate Teachers’ Communicative Competence as a non human

factor because we believe that communicative competence, in this context, is to a great

extent to exposure to a native speaking context. Most of the teachers admitted that they

were deficient in this ability because Algerian is not a country where English is spoken. As

a result, teachers lack a language environment where to develop their communicative

competence.

18 Ryan & Deci (2000) consider that regular open communication, in which group members share their thoughts, ideas, and feelings, is a must for successful group work. Unspoken assumptions and issues can be very destructive to productive group functioning.


Suggestions

We suggest that teachers should look at the bright side and be optimistic. Not all

teachers of English worldwide are natives or have got the possibility to receive training or

visit English native countries. Scholars argue that a teacher is a builder: they can build

their communicative competence through integrating the virtual world and making use of

its magnificent and varied resources. An ideal teacher definition refers probably to the one

who build his knowledge on research and a needs analysis approach NOT on the one who

possesses the linguistic competence. It is also proposed that the University of Oran should

organize training courses on teaching BE English in light of the Communicative Approach

from time to time and offer external training in countries where English is used as a first

language.

3.5.3 Participants’ suggestions for reducing the difficulties in learning BE speaking

As to students’ preferences, BE teachers should insist on developing oral activities which favour PAIR or TEAM WORK through the following students’ most enjoyed learning material:

Games Vocabulary Learning Role Play Completing Dialogues Questions and Answers Exchanges Problem Solving Interviews

3.6 Chapter Summary

In this research work, it was interesting to discover that human and non-human

factors are the driving force behind deficiencies at the oral level when it comes to discuss


this issue in a business English context. Most of the teachers are characterized by

inappropriate pedagogical practices such as too much talking time, unsuitable mistake

correction, incomprehensible input and too distant teacher-learner relationship. These data

were exploited from the students’ opinions. Also, many teachers themselves admitted that

they were deficient in English communicative competence.

Students were also at the heart of the problem because of their low motivation for

learning English and particularly speaking Business English, low level of English

proficiency and negative personal traits. Some other external factors like large and

multilevel English classes, time constraints could also seen as major hindrances to

teaching speaking BE.

It is suggested that teachers have to improve their English communicative ability, and provide BE oral activities which can help promote interactivity and partnership through activities, tasks and assignments such as games, vocabulary learning, role play, completing dialogues, questions and answers exchanges…etc. It is also suggested that teachers should create a better English learning environment and introduce more interactive and communicative activities during BE speaking courses.

web view6 out of 11 teachers (54, 54%) have been teaching english less ... refused to use any french...

Documents