The analysis of the methodological approaches of Polish

The analysis of the methodological approaches of Polish EFL secondary school
teachers
Dr. Monika Badecka-Kozikowska
University of Gdansk
[email protected]
Despite a variety of methods and techniques accepted under a common label of eclecticism in
TEFL, Communicative Language Teaching (Widdowson 1978; Littlewood 1981) together
with elements of the cognitive method and the humanistic approach (Stevick 1994), being at
the same time the components of the learner-centered approach (Nunan 1990), are
recommended in the teaching of English in Polish secondary schools. The urge for the
communicative-cognitive-humanistic methodology not only results from today’s views on
teaching foreign languages but is also reinforced by the guidelines for the Polish national
curriculum (MEN 2005) and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(WCODN 2003) which laid foundations for the reform of the schooling system in Poland. The
reform brought about the introduction of external examinations, among them matura, a final
secondary school examination, whose English part tests candidates’ communicative language
abilities. In view of the author’s extensive critical analysis of methodological assumptions as
presented in her doctoral dissertation and supported in the bibliography below, and also in
accordance with the guidelines of the Polish Ministry of Education - a study examining how
EFL secondary school teachers teach and what factors affect their teaching was carried out in
the schools of Gdańsk, Gdynia and Sopot. The study was based on quantitative research in
which 498 secondary school students filled in a questionnaire of 22 questions referring to 16
elements, also called tools, of their teachers’ methodological ‘workshop’. The most important
elements which stand for the term are as follows: contextualized and inductive presentation of
new language (new vocabulary and structures); meaningful structured communicative
practice of the newly presented language, free communicative language practice, use of pair
and group work for genuine language use; teaching techniques and activities such as
information gap, problem solving, debate and discussion, role-play, mini-drama, project work,
simulation (Jones 1992) — for inspiring genuine communication (Hedge 2000); creating
opportunities for students’ individual and social growth; adequate procedures for improving
students’ receptive skills; organizing and teaching genre writing in accordance with the final
examination requirements; and designing and administering doable achievement tests
(McNamara 2000). It was assumed that in order for a teacher to employ fully the tools of the
purely methodological nature s/he needs to fulfill conditions such as: having communicative
competence of English (1971) which has currency in real life outside the classroom (Wajnryb
1993); using the English language in class most of the time; creating opportunities for
students’ growth (La Forge 1983); establishing good rapport with them and inspiring them to
ask questions and notify the teacher of their learning difficulties; planning interesting lessons
which ensure variety and arouse students’ interest; and guaranteeing a balance of the four
skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. The research which was implemented for a
period of 15 months, from September 2004 to November 2006, resulted in an analysis from
which somewhat pessimistic conclusions were drawn.
1
Method
Quantitative research based on a questionnaire administered at Polish secondary schools. 489
students answered 22 questions about 16 elements of their teachers' approach to teaching
EFL. By means of crossing the students’ answers to the questionnaire’s selected questions 12
hypotheses about the correlation of some methodological elements of the teachers’ EFL
approaches were tested. The hypotheses were verified for three criteria: teachers’
education/qualifications; type of school they work for; teaching experience. The aim of the
research was to answer the following main research questions:
1. How do Polish EFL teachers teach English? What teaching techniques do they use?
What is/are their methodological approach/es?
2. How do factors such as their education/qualifications; type of school they work for;
their teaching experience affect their teaching approach?
12 hypotheses verified by means of Pearson’s test:
1. Inductive contextualized presentation of new language performed in English (called the
ICE principle) correlates with intensive oral controlled practice of the newly introduced
language.
2. Inductive contextualized presentation of new language conducted in English (the ICE
principle) correlates with the use of free communicative practice in pairs and groups (without
the teacher’s intervention).
3. Teachers who employ the ICE principle also use the technique of project work in their
classes.
4. Teachers who employ the ICE principle use drama in their classes as well.
5. Teachers who employ the ICE principle create opportunities for their students to take part
in class debates
6. Teachers who employ the ICE principle also use role play for practising useful structures
in a situational context.
7. The use of the ICE principle correlates with the use of the technique of simulation.
8. The use of pair and group work correlates with carrying out problem-solving tasks and
gaining non-linguistic (apart from linguistic) knowledge by the students in class.
9. The teacher’s mobility in the classroom correlates with: the students’ sense of the teacher
getting along with the students, the teacher knowing how the learning proceeds in class, and
the students’ conviction that lessons are modified when necessary.
10. The correctness of the procedure for developing receptive skills such as listening and
reading correlates with the students’ positive opinion as to the clarity of the teacher’s
instructions.
2
11. Creating opportunities for students to express what their problems and difficulties in
learning are, correlates with their feeling that the teacher gets along with them, knows the
situation in class, and modifies lessons when necessary.
12. The students’ courage to express themselves in English in class correlates with the way
their mistakes/errors are corrected, which means the students are not interrupted while
speaking and are allowed to correct themselves.
Here is a sample table showing the results of hypotheses testing for hypotheses 1-3 for 3
categories of teachers: English philology graduates, teacher training college graduates, and
teachers briefly retrained for the profession (other).
Table 9 Hypotheses testing (1–3.)
education/qualifications
Degree of correlation according to Pearson’s test
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1
(zasada ISAP a intensywna praktyka
kontrolowana. Struktur) (inductive pr.
of new lang. in context & intensive
controlled practice
Confirmation (% )
Crossed questions
/answers
English
philology
Teacher
training college
Other
All
0.000
0.001
0.028
0.001
B2/B3
Zaleznosc istotnasignificant
Zaleznosc
istotnasignificant
Zaleznosc
istotnasignificant
Zaleznosc istotna-significant
B2b/B3a
78.9%
86.4%
44%
79%
0.026
0.192
0.207
0.029
Hypothesis 2
(zasada
ISAP
a
praca
w
parach/grupach) (inductive presentation
of new lang. in context & pair/group
work
B2/B4
Zaleznosc istotnasignificant
Zaleznosc
nieistotnainsignificant
Zaleznosc
nieistotnainsignificant
Zaleznosc istotna-significant
Confirmation (% )
B2b/B4a
72.3%
–
–
67%
0.508
0.261
0..908
0.449
Hypothesis 3
(zasada ISAP a project work) (inductive
presentation of new lang. in context &
project work
B2/B14
Zaleznosc
nieistotnainsignificant
Zaleznosc
nieistotnainsignificant
Zaleznosc
nieistotnainsignificant
Zaleznosc
Nieistotna-insignificant
Confirmation (% )
B2b/B14a
–
–
–
–
Expected Outcomes
1. In view of today’s methodology of TEFL as recognized in the bibliography provided below,
the Polish EFL teachers of secondary schools : — insufficiently employ the communicative
techniques; — tend to overuse traditional techniques such as: deductive language
presentations deprived of context and carried out in Polish (68.5%); translation (60.6%);
reading aloud (56.2%), and manipulative grammar exercises in teacher-fronted classes; — do
not encourage students to tell them about difficulties they have in learning; — are well liked
3
by their students, and their teaching techniques are regarded as interesting despite their
traditional character. 2. Factors such as: — the teachers’ education/qualifications; — the type
of school the teachers work in; — the length of teaching experience; only to some extent
contribute to the quality of teaching. The differences in the teachers’ use of the elements of
the established model of the methodological workshop are greatest between those teachers
who graduated from a university English philology department or a teacher training college,
and those who after graduating from a different university department were only briefly
retrained to be able to teach English in a secondary school. Generally, English philology
graduates, teachers with the longest teaching experience and those working in secondary
comprehensive schools (called liceum ogólnokształcące) methodologically slightly exceed
graduates of teacher training colleges, teachers who have shorter teaching experience and
those who work in vocational schools (called technikum). This means that the latter group’s
methodological approach is less integrated in the use of the communicative teaching
techniques. However, less experienced teachers more often employ particular communicative
techniques but their methodological approach lacks consistency and integration. The category
of teachers who became EFL teachers after being briefly retrained for the profession, as
compared with the other categories of teachers, is characterized by much lower teaching
standards and the use of more traditional teaching techniques.
The details of the study providing the data of testing 12 hypotheses about the correlation of
particular elements of the methodological approach of Polish EFL teachers for three criteria
depending on the teachers’ education/qualifications, type of school, and teaching experience are due to be published in a Polish book by the author of the study. It is called Siedem
grzechow głównych nauczycieli językow obcych (The Seven Deadly Sins of Foreign Language
Teachers. ) Wydawnictwo Fraszka Edukacyjna. Warszawa. 2008
References
Acklam, R. 1994. “The role of the coursebook”. Practical English Teaching 14/3. Allwright,
R.L. 1988. Observation in the Language Classroom. London and New York: Longman.
Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. 1997. Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L.F.
1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowen, T. and J. Marks. 1994. Inside Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. Brown, G. and G. Yule.
1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H.D.
1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall. Brown, H.D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning
and Language Teaching. New York: Pearson Education. Brumfit, C.J. 1984. Communicative
Methodology in Language Teaching. The Roles of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Brumfit C.J., Johnson K. (ed.). 1998. The Communicative
Approach to Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carrell, P.L, J.
Devine and E.D. Eskey. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chaudron, C. 1998. Second Language Clasrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coe, N., R. Rycroft and P. Ernest. 1994. Writing
Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, A. 1984. Evaluating and
Selecting EFL Materials. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. Curran, C. A. 1972. Counselling
Learning: A Whole-Person Model for Education. New York: Grune and Stratton. Davies P.
and E. Pearse. 2000. Success in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dean, M.
1993. English Grammar Lessons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dłutek, A. 2002. Program
nauczania języka angielskiego dla liceum ogólnokształcą-cego, liceum profilowanego i
4
technikum. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Szkolne PWN. Doff, A. 1990. Teach English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dubin, F., D. Eskey and W. Grabe. 1986. Teaching
Second Language Reading for Academic Purposes. New York: Addison-Wesley. Dufeu, B.
1994. Teaching Myself. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duff, A. 1998. Translation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Finnocchario, M. and Ch. Brumfit. 1983. The Functional Notional
Approach: From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Flower, L. and J. A.
Hayes. 1981. “The pregnant pause: an inquiry into the nature of planning”. Research in the
Teaching of English 15/3: 229–243. Fried-Booth, D. 2004. Project Work. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Genesee, F. and J.A. Upshur 1998. Classrooom-based Evaluation in Second
Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giedymin, J. 1964. Problemy
za ołżenia rozstrzygnięcia. Studia nad logicznymi podstawami nauk społecznych.
Poznań: PWN. Gower, R. and S. Walters. 1988. Teaching Practice Handbook. Macmilian,
Heinemann. Grant, N. 1987. Making the Most of Your Textbook. London: Longman. Grellet,
F. 1991. Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grellet, F.
1996. Writing for Advanced Learners of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grucza, F. (red.). 1993. Przyczynki do teorii i metodyki kształcenia nauczycieli języ-ków
obcych i tłumaczy w perspektywie wspólnej Europy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego. Guildford, J.P. 1960. Podstawowe metody statystyczne w psychologii i
pedagogice. Warszawa: PWN. Hadfield, J. 1993. Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Harmer, J. 1982. “What is communicative?” ELT Journal 36/3: 164–168.
Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. Harmer, J.
2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow. Essex: Pearson Education
Limited. Heaton, J.B. 1990. Classroom Testing. New York: Longamn. Hedge, T. 2000.
Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hołubowicz, A. 2007. A critique of methodologies popular in Poland . Niepubliko-wany esej
studentki KKNJO, UG. http://www.oke.gda.pl, 02/2007. Arkusze maturalne z języka
angielskiego. Hughes, A. 2000. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Hymes, D. H. 1971. “Competence and Performance in Linguistic Theory”.
[w:] Huxley, R. and E. Ingram (ed.) Language Acquisition: Models and Methods. New York:
Academic Press. Hymes, D.H. 1972. “On communicative competence”. [w:] J.B. Prideand J.
Holmes (red.) Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin: 269–293. James, C. 1998. Errors in
Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley
Longman. Johnson, K. 1982. Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford:
Pergamon. Jones, K. 1982. Simulation and Role-Play. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Jones, L. 1992. Eight Simulations. Participant’s Book. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Johnson, K. and K. Morrow. 1981. Communication in the Classroom.
London: Longman. Jones, L. 1981. Functions of English. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Komorowska, H. 1974. Testy w nauczaniu języków obcych. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Komorowska, H. 1978. Sukces i niepowodzenie w
nauce języka obcego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Komorowska, H.
1982. Metody badań empirycznych w glottodydaktyce. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe. Komorowska, H. 2002. Metodyka Nauczania Języków Obcych. Warszawa:
Fraszka Edukacyjna. Konarzewski, S. 2000. Jak uprawiać badania oświatowe. Metodologia
praktyczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second
Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D.
1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Hemel Hampstead,
Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International. La Forge, P.G. 1983. Counselling and Culture in
Second language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lange, G. (ed.). 2002. Professional
Development Course. TIE-CLIL. Milan: M.I.U.R. Direzione Regionale della Lombardia.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
5
University Press. Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publications.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Lynch, T. 1996. Communication in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Mc Namara, T. 2000. Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maley, A. and A. Duff. 1991. Drama Techniques in Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Marsh, D. and G. Lange.(ed.). 2000. Using Languages to Learn
and Learning to Use Languages. Iyvsakyla, Finnland: University of Iyvsaskyla. Masiarz, A.
2005. Niepublikowana praca licencjacka. Gdańsk: KKNJO UG. Medgyes P. and A. Malderez
(ed.) 1996. Changing Perspectives in Teacher Education. The European Language Classroom.
Oxford: Heinemann. MEN. 2000. Reforma systemu edukacji. Szkolnictwo ponadgimnazjalne.
Materiały do dyskusji. Projekt. Warszawa. MEN (DKOS-5002-41/05). 2005. Program
nauczania języka angielskiego dla Liceum Ogólnokształcącego, Liceum Profilowanego i
Technikum. Kurs kontynuacyjny. Moskovitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign
Language Class. Rowley, Mass. Newbury House. Munby, J. 1978 Communicative Syllabus
Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Niemierko, B. 1999. Pomiar wyników
kształcenia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne S.A. Nunan, D. 1990. The
Learner Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. 1991.
Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Hernel Hampstead: Prentice Hall
International. Nunan, D. 1997. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nuttal, Ch.
1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Oxford: Heinemann. Petrovitz, W.
1993. “The role of context in the presentation of grammar.” ELT Journal 5/3: 201–207.
Pfeiffer, W. 2001. Nauka języków obcych. Od praktyki do praktyki. Poznań: Wagros. Pica, T.
and C. Doughty. 1985. The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7/2: 233248. Pieter, J. 1965. Metodologia pracy
naukowej. Katowice: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Katowicach. Pilch, T. 1995. Zasady
badań pedagogicznych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Żak, Raimes, A. 1983. Techniques in
Teaching Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J.C. 1998. The Context of
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., and D. Nunan
(ed.). 1990 Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers T.S. 1992. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and Ch. Lockhart. 1996. Reflective
Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. 1987. Grammar Games. Cognitive, Affective and Drama Activities for
Language Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rivers, W. and M. Temperley.
1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rivers, W. 1989. Communicating Naturally in a Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Rivers, W. 1990. Speaking in Many Tongues. Essays in Foreign Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, W. E. 1987. Second
Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman. Savignon, S. 1983.
Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley. Scrivener, J. 1994. Learning Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. Sherman, J. 1994.
Feedback. Essential Writing Skills for Intermediate Students. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Skehan, P. 1996. “A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction”. Applied Linguistics 17/1: 38–62. Stasiak, H. 1992. Wybrane psychodydaktyczne uwarunkowania
uczenia się i naucza-nia języków obcych. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo UG. Stevick, E. W. 1976.
Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Stevick, E. W. 1980.
Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Stevick, E. W. 1994.
Humanism in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tomlinson, B. (ed.)
1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
6
Press. Underwood, M. 1990. Teaching Listening. London and New York: Longman. Ur, P.
1981. Discussions That Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ur, P. 1996. A Course
in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ur, P.
1999. A Course in Language Teaching. Trainee Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Van Ek, J.A. and L.G. Alexander. 1975. Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon
Press. Wajnryb, R. 1993. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Wallace, M.J. 1995: Training Foreign Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Weir, C. 1993. Understanding and Developing Language Tests. London:
Prentice Hall International Ltd. Weir, C. and J. Roberts . 1994. Evaluation in ELT. Oxford:
Blackwell. Wenzel, R. 2001. The Education of a Language Teacher. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. White, R.V. and V. Arndt. 1991. Process Writing. London:
Longman Pearson Education. Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as
Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, E. 1984. Reading in the
Language Classroom. London and Basingstoke: Macmillian. Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional
Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. 1990. Teaching English Through
English. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Widdowson, H.G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woodward, T. 1997. Models and Metaphors in Language
Teacher Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, T. 1987. Roles of
Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wydawnictwa Centralnego Ośrodka
Doskonalenia Nauczycieli. 2003. Re-dakcja czasopisma Języki Obce w Szkole. Europejski
system opisu kształcenia języko-wego, Warszawa. Wysocka, M. 2003. Profesjonalizm w
nauczaniu języków obcych. Katowice: Wydaw-nictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. Zawadzka,
E. 2004. Nauczyciele języków obcych w dobie przemian. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza
IMPULS.
7