Data from SRIs and interviews

The findings on instructional approaches from the Adapted COLT Observation Scheme were mostly echoed in the data from SRIs and interviews. This section will present perceptions on instructional approaches from all participants, first from the Chinese EFL teacher participant and her EFL Chinese student participants in the Chinese EFL context, then from the New Zealand ESL teacher participant and her ESL Chinese student participants in the New Zealand ESL context. In this study, all the participants and data collection techniques are coded as followings.

CNT --- the Chinese EFL teacher participant CNS --- Chinese EFL student participants

NZT --- the New Zealand ESL teacher participant NZS --- New Zealand ESL student participants SRI --- the stimulated recall interview

Int --- the interview 1 --- Videotaped Lesson 1 2 --- Videotaped Lesson 2

126 3 --- Videotaped Lesson 3

p --- page

For example, the code of [CNT, SRI2, p. 4] refers to a comment made by the Chinese EFL teacher participant during the stimulated recall interview on videotaped Lesson Two in the Chinese EFL context and see the comment at page 4 of transcripts. The coding of [NZS4, Int3, p. 1] means that the comment was made by the fourth Chinese ESL student participant in New Zealand during an interview on videotaped Lesson Three in the Chinese EFL context and see the comment at page 1 of transcripts.

The data from the SRI show that many Chinese EFL student participants tended to have a positive opinion of teacher-centred instruction and thought that teacher lecturing or teacher-centred instruction was a good way to explain a text in a language classroom in China.

I think it is good to have a lecture like this [teacher’s lecturing and students’ sitting and taking notes].

[CNS1, 2, 3, 5, 8, SRI]

They explained that because their texts were very complicated with a lot of abstract concepts, teacher-centred instruction could help them to have a full understanding of texts and could improve their English language level.

It is very difficult to explain this text which has a lot of abstract concepts, very complicated… And if we had to explain the text, I don’t think we wouldn’t able to do it by ourselves… I think in this way [teacher-centred lecture] we can understand [a text] better.

[CNS1, SRI1, p. 4]

The teacher can explain some difficult language points which we cannot understand.

[CNS3, SRI1, p. 4]

We think the lecturing teaching style is better suited to text explanation.

127 [CNS2, SRI1, p. 5]

I think it is better for the teacher to explain a text. Different lessons have different styles. The first two parts of a lesson focus on speaking. Those are Part A and Part B which give us opportunities to practise our speaking English. As far as a text is concerned, our teacher would explain whatever we cannot understand ourselves.

Our teacher normally would ignore the parts we already understood.

[CNS2, SRI1, p. 5]

However, there were also some negative comments from some EFL Chinese student participants on the issue of teacher-centred instruction,

I don’t like the scenario that teachers alone speak all the time, while letting students hanging aside and taking notes. It’s very boring.

[CNS7, SRI2, p. 8]

From the first day we entered this university, our Intensive Reading Course has been taught in this way of lecturing, which is boring.

[CNS1, SRI1, p. 4]

While watching the lessons videotaped in the Chinese EFL context during the process of interviews, the New Zealand ESL teacher participant commented many times that Chinese English language teaching is still teacher-centred.

…According to the videos I have watched, it means teaching approaching in China is till more teacher-centred than student-centred.

[NZT, Int1, p. 3, 7; Int2, p. 5]

The data drawn from the interviews from the Chinese ESL student participants in the New Zealand ESL context also reveal that English teaching in China was still teacher-centred. After watching lessons videotaped in the Chinese EFL context, one of the

128 New Zealand Chinese ESL student participants commented that the Chinese EFL students were still knowledge receivers with teacher-centred lecturing.

I think in China, the class is teacher-oriented and students don’t participate in the session but receive knowledge very passively.

[NZS4, Int1, p. 7]

Another New Zealand Chinese student regarded the teacher-centred lecture as pressured.

The teacher was too serious… Studying in this situation is very pressured, isn’t it?

No one talks and everyone keeps his/her head down and takes notes. The teacher is the only one who talks.

[NZS1, Int1, p. 6]

This comment was supported by other Chinese student participants in the New Zealand ESL context.

The teacher kept talking all the time with easy words only. This does absolutely no help to build up students’ vocabularies or enrich their knowledge about that topic.

[NZS6, Int2, p. 6]

The class ambience is too boring in China as only the teacher and the presenter got involved while other students are kind of being excluded.

[NZS5, Int2, p. 6]

Other students could be easily distracted from what the teacher or the presenter was talking about.

[NZS8, Int2, p. 6]

129 One of the Chinese ESL student participants pointed out that teacher-centred is the traditional Chinese language teaching method.

This is the traditional Chinese way of language teaching approach.

[NZS5, Int1, p. 9]

As for pair work, there were a few positive opinions but some negative opinions heard from groups of Chinese student participants in the Chinese EFL context. They found pair work was not so helpful in their language learning. During the SRI with Group Three of the Chinese ESL student participants on the third videotaped lesson in China, one of them pointed out:

[Pair work is] not so good. This kind of dialogue made in pairs is just a copy from the textbook dialogue… Besides, as we start off with a new unit, we have no way to completely memorise the text, nor do we have the chance to prepare the dialogue beforehand, so there’s no tacit agreement in such pair work.

[CNS12, SRI3, p. 5]

Some other student participants in the same interviewing group agreed with her and when they were asked by the researcher whether they like this kind of activity they answered together,

No, we don’t like pair work.

[CNSG3, SRI3, p. 5]

During the SRI with the researcher, they further explained the reasons for why they disliked pair work. They indicated that pair work conducted in the Chinese EFL classroom was generally a kind of exercise, modelled on a dialogue from the textbook and there was not sufficient self-expression or self-development involved. Some students, then, would rather study by themselves than do pair-work.

130 No sufficient self-expression is involved in these dialogues. I’d rather study on my own. The dialogue does nothing else good.

[CNS12, SRI3, p. 5]

However, there were some Chinese EFL student participants who did not like pair work activities but thought it was necessary for them to have pair work in order to practise their oral English skills.

[Pair work is] not much helpful. We don’t like class activities of this type. We don’t feel that pair work is so useful. But it is necessary.

[CNSG3, SRI3, p. 5]

Pair work does nothing else good but improves our spoken English.

[CNS12, SRI3, p. 5]

The data above reveal that these Chinese EFL student participants regarded pair work as a necessary task for them, even though they disliked it. However, they still believed that they could obtain communicative ability through this uninteresting activity, which was one of few limited activities for them to practise English in the Chinese EFL classroom.

There was also an interview comment from the participants in the New Zealand ESL context on pair work conducted in the Chinese EFL classroom. When the New Zealand ESL teacher saw a Chinese EFL student sitting alone writing something without discussing with anyone during the pair work in the videotaped lesson, during the interview, she argued that

I would at least get someone to go to sit by her. If there was no other spare person, I’ll put them three into a group. I’ll solve it immediately.

[NZT, Int2, p. 4]

In summary, the data shown above indicate that the three videotaped lessons of IRC in the Chinese EFL context were mainly taught by way of a teacher-centred instructional

131 approach. This is consistent with the comment from the New Zealand ESL teacher participant during the interview. Most of the Chinese EFL student participants reported that they preferred a teacher-centred instructional approach rather than a student-centred one when learning a text because they could understand a text better and more comprehensively. However, a few of the Chinese EFL students and many of the Chinese ESL students felt quite bored when IRC were taught by way of lecturing.

With respect to pair work, most participants commented it was a good activity but some argued that it was uninteresting but necessary for developing their communicative competence. The findings also show that during the interview the New Zealand ESL teacher expressed that she would try her best to let every student practice his/her English in her class. These findings will be discussed in relation to the literature in Chapter Seven.

5.3 Language pedagogy

This section addresses Research Question 1b, to what extent was Focus-on-FormS (FonFS), Focus-on-Meaning (FonM) or the Focus-on-Form (FonF) approach used in the classroom of the Chinese EFL context and how did EFL and ESL teachers and their Chinese students in the two contexts view them. This research question is answered by using data from questionnaires, the Adapted COLT Observation Scheme, SRIs and interviews, whether and how a FonFS (focusing on linguistic knowledge) or FonM (focusing on meaningful communication) or FonF (focusing on linguistic features embedded in meaningful communication) approach was adopted in a Chinese EFL classroom. It also describes the comments of the Chinese EFL and New Zealand ESL participants on this aspect of English teaching and learning in the Chinese EFL classroom.