Having a nice accent, or being intelligible?

Having a nice accent, or being intelligible?

As English is used globally, the particular varieties of English emerge in different parts of the world (Bamgose, 2001).

Although American and British English are said to be the preferred standard varieties of English (Matsuda, 2002), a fact is that the international variety of English is actually non-existent (Kachru, 2012).

Accommodating "the localized form of English" (Bolton, 2012, p.1) is thus vital.

One major reason is because today, English is mostly learned (Kirkpatrick, 2003) and spoken (Kachru, 2012) by non-native speakers living either in the outer or expanding circles (for the concentric circle model of WE see Kachru, 1992).

With different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, they use their localized Englishes to communicate across countries, as an illustration, there are Indian farmers importing the harvesting machinery from Japan, German professors teaching at universities in Indonesia, Chinese football players attending football training in Brazil, and so forth.

Of course, this raises another concern. But attention is no longer focused exclusively on which accent is more superior, and the like. Instead, how and to what degree can they understand each other messages?

The issue of intelligibility is thus becoming evident (see Nelson, 2018; Smith & Nelson, 1985).

To your knowledge, what factors determine the intelligibility of the localized Englishes?

References

Bamgbose, A. (2001). World Englishes and globalization. World Englishes, 20(3), 357–363. doi:10.1111/1467-971x.t01-1-00220 

Bolton, K. (2012). Varieties of World Englishes. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1260

Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1). doi:10.1017/s0261444800006583

Kachru, B. B. (2012). World Englishes: Overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1349

Matsuda, A. (2002). "International understanding" through teaching world Englishes. World Englishes, 21(3), 436–440. doi:10.1111/1467-971x.00262

Kirkpatrick, A. (2003). English as an ASEAN Lingua Franca: Implications for Research and Language Teaching. Asian Englishes, 6(2), 82–91. doi:10.1080/13488678.2003.10801120

Nelson, C. L. (2012). Intelligibility in World Englishes. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0550

Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333–342. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971x.1985.tb00423.x 

@kukuh dwi pamuji

Read More

A short look at a study on Extensive Reading by A. Mikami

A review of a study on ER by A Mikami

A Review

Mikami, A. (2017), Students' Attitudes Toward Extensive Reading in the Japanese EFL Context. TESOL Journal, 8, 471-488. doi:10.1002/tesj.283

A great deal of research has proved the benefits of extensive reading (ER) in developing students’ L2 proficiency. The primacy of ER in helping students to develop their L2 proficiency has been reported widely. But its integration in the school curriculum has rarely been initiated due to several practical reasons.

A study conducted by Mikami (2017) casts a light on the views and attitudes of EFL students toward implementation of ER in EFL classroom settings. The article is appeared in one of the top tier outlets in the field of TESOL (Wiley-Blackwell), which currently belongs to Q1 journals with H Index = 5 (www.scimagojr.com).

The study is inspired by a lack of concern on the practical implementation of ER in today’s EFL pedagogical settings. It is an irony when something good both conceptually and empirically does not get translated into practical implementations. Explained in the study are several reasons why ER does not gain its popularity including the limitation of classroom time in the school-curricula and the inadequacy of ER resources. Since most of the voices are expressed by teachers, the study tries to delve into the students’ attitudes toward ER and their motivation in doing ER in the classroom contexts.

Using a questionnaire survey, the study involved 141 university students in Japan. They were purposively selected through the maximum variation sampling (nonprobability sampling). What is interested in the study is that the author only employs six simple questions (no more than a half of the paper page); three questions each for quantitative and qualitative data. Using descriptive statistics and Miles and Huberman’s (1994) framework of qualitative content analysis, the data were analysed to unpack the three questions posed.

Findings of the study inform that the majority of the participants have no experiences of practicing ER previously. The amount of time spent reading English books outside their textbooks is relatively limited. But there are more students wanting to read more English books. Among 114 students, the percentages of students who express their negative feelings toward ER are relatively similar to those expressing positive feelings, 45.93% and 40.74% respectively.

Mikami’s (2017) study has successfully brought an interesting issue in the area of EFL pedagogies, garnering an insight into an ER practice from the perspective of the students. Collecting the data simply using six questions might be inadequate by some expecting richer data. However, if the readers are careful, some weaknesses of the research have been addressed by the author at the near end of the article.

Despite a need for improvement, the arrangement of ideas is clear and the presentation of data is easy to follow. It is not surprising that such simple-looking study appears at one of the well-respected journals in the area of TESOL. But more importantly, it is necessary to take into account the pedagogical implications of this study. To gain larger benefits from ER, supporting the incorporation of its practice in the EFL curricula is of vital importance.

@kukuh dwi pamuji

Read More

Learner autonomy and the use of technology

Learner autonomy and the use of technology 

Learner autonomy has been widely discussed in the area of both second and language classroom (e.g., Thomson, 1998; Luke, 2006; Humphreys & Wyatt, 2013; Kormos & Csizer; 2013). Its positive advantages have been revealed by several recent studies. It is said that promoting learner autonomy could widen learners’ opportunities to learn beyond the classroom (Kormos & Csizer, 2013) and enhance their motivation (Dickinson, 1995).

Defined as "the ability to charge of one’s own learning" (Holec, 1981, p.3 cited in Benson, 2007), learner autonomy is not a novel concept in second and foreign language pedagogies. It is often described as a freedom (Benson, 2007) for learners to self-direct their learning (Trebbi, 2008) with an emphasis on their personal goals and strategies (Little, 1999). To be autonomous, learners should be able to recognize what they are doing, set their own goals of learning, employ their own strategies, monitor their progress, and self-assess their learning (Dickinson, 1995).

In today’s EFL classrooms, learner autonomy could be promoted through engaging the recent technology. Today’s technology enables learners to access resources easily wherever and whenever they want (Reinders, 2018). It also helps them in monitoring and supporting each other’s learning (Reinders, 2018). To see more on the benefits of using technology to promote learner autonomy, the following studies are worth of looking at (see Luke, 2006; Bhattacharya & Chauhan, 2010; Eneau & Develotte, 2012)

References

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40 doi:10.1017/S0261444806003958

Bhattacharya, A., & Chauhan, K. (2010). Augmenting learner autonomy through blogging. ELT Journal, 64(4), 376–384. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq002 

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00005-5

Eneau, J., & Develotte, C. (2012). Working together online to enhance learner autonomy: Analysis of learners’ perceptions of their online learning experience. ReCALL, 24(01), 3–19.doi:10.1017/s0958344011000267

Humphreys, G., & Wyatt, M. (2013). Helping Vietnamese university learners to become more autonomous. ELT Journal, 68(1), 52–63. doi:10.1093/elt/cct056

Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2013). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275–299.doi:10.1002/tesq.129

Little, D. (1999). Learner autonomy is more than a western cultural construct. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning:  Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 11-18). Frankfrut, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH

Luke, C. L. (2006). Fostering learner autonomy in a technology-enhanced, inquiry-based foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 39(1), 71–86.doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02250.x

Reinders, H. (2018). Technology and autonomy. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–5.doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0433

Thomson, C. K. (1998). Junior teacher internship: Promoting cooperative interaction and learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 569–583.doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb00600.x

Trebbi, T. (2008). Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy?  Classroom innovation and language teacher education. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 33-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

@kukuh dwi pamuji

Read More