Communication strategies of non-native speaker novice science teachers in second language science classrooms
Introduction
Current practices in teacher training programmes tend to emphasize content-area knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and general education courses. This emphasis is understandable, as several research studies have found that lack of content-area or subject knowledge can be a barrier against better content subject teaching (see Halim and Meerah, 2002; van Leuvan, 1997). Nevertheless teacher training programmes which ignore teachers' oral instructional language needs, particularly where the medium of instruction is the second language, might be inadequate. This is because language is needed to reformulate thought processes (Vygotsky, 1978), allowing meaning to be conveyed and created (Marton and Tsui, 2004). In short, communication, particularly in the form of teachers' oral language, which takes place in a pedagogic context, is at the heart of teaching and learning. This suggests that being good in a particular subject matter, for instance, mathematics or science, does not equate to being good at teaching them (Ozgun-Koca and Sen, 2006) as effective language in which to impart the knowledge is also an important element.
The inclusion of language training in teacher training programmes is not only contentious, but also fraught with an array of other issues, particularly what language competencies to include. In English language teacher education, regardless of whether the teacher trainee is a native speaker (henceforth NS or NSs) or non-native speaker (henceforth NNS or NNSs), the general consensus is for the novice teachers to be equipped with knowledge about the language, and proficiency in the language (Davies, 2002). In fact, Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) went so far as to suggest that the success of students' language education is very much dependent on well trained teachers who are native or native-like speakers. Being native or native-like has the implication of having NSs' communicative competence. The most notable communicative competence framework is the one proposed by Canale and Swain (1980) involving three competency areas, namely, grammatical, strategic, and sociolinguistic competence, which Canale (1983) further refined to include discourse competence.
However, the view of whether the same English language competency expectations should be applied to NNS teachers using English as a second language (L2), as a medium of instruction in mainstream classrooms is debatable. Alptekin (2002) for one argues that training NNS to attain native like communicative competence is a massive undertaking which might not be achievable. Thus, perhaps a more realistic approach would be the one advocated by Hoekje and Williams (1992) who suggest that a more realistic expectation is for NNS teachers to attain L2 proficiency levels which reflect both the role of the NNS as teachers and the context in which the L2 is used, namely in the classroom. Amongst the four communicative competence components, strategic competence comprising communication strategies (henceforth CS or CSs) is arguably the most urgent to be included in NNS teachers' L2 language training. As pointed out by Dörnyei and Thurrell (1991), lack of strategic competence would result in an inability to carry out any communicative intent despite having adequate grammatical competence. Hoekje and Williams (1992) although of the view that the training of NNS teachers should include all four communicative competence elements, argued that the question of the relative importance of each of the communicative elements, and the relationship between one element to another element remains a point of contention. They further suggest that although the use of communication strategies may not improve NNS teachers' linguistic competence, “…there may be gains in teaching effectiveness.” (p. 259).
Thus, primarily due to the short duration of time allocated for teacher training programmes, and in light of the arguments that CSs may contribute to NNS teachers' L2 oral instructional language repertoire, this study intends to describe, analyse, and interpret CSs employed by NNS novice science teachers (NNS-NvSTs) in teaching science in English (henceforth referred to as L2 science classroom). Results of the investigation could act as baseline information in formalising and profiling effective NNS teachers' CSs features which could help facilitate students' understanding in L2 mainstream classroom in general, and L2 science classrooms in particular.
Section snippets
Definition and classification of communication strategies
Use of communication strategies by NNS learners has been extensively studied over the years. This proliferation has resulted in various definitions, identification methods and classifications of CSs. Earlier definitions tend to associate the use of CSs with some element of conscious planning (see Faerch and Kasper, 1983) in order to solve L2 related problems (see Faerch and Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1977). Later ones include notions of unconscious CS use (see Bialystok, 1990), not only for the
Research questions
The following research questions are addressed by this study:
- a)
What communication strategies do NNS novice science teachers employ in the L2 science classroom?
- b)
What are the NNS novice science teachers' and the NNS students' perceptions on the meanings and uses of communication strategies?
Design
This study is concerned with NNS-NvSTs' use of CSs in the context of the Malaysian science classroom. In this context, although the language of communication utilised by both teachers and learners in the national schools in Malaysia is Bahasa Malaysia (L1), the medium of instruction in some science classrooms is English (L2). This situation has given rise to the term L2 science classroom adopted in this study. This study was part of a larger study which employed discourse analysis, a
Results
Results of the study are presented in three subsections: i) types of CSs, ii) frequency of CSs, and iii) NNS-NvSTs' and students' perceptions on the meanings and uses of CSs.
Discussion
NNS-NvSTs were found to employ nine CS in their oral instructional language, six of which have been associated with CSs employed by teachers in oral discourse in the classroom, while three have been more closely associated with CSs employed by English language learners' (ELLs) in interlanguage communication. CSs involved in the former group include prosody, code mixing, checking, self repetition, other repetition, and other repair. Studies which had investigated these CSs in teachers' oral
Conclusion
In some respect, oral discourse occurring in the L2 science classroom is no different from that of other classrooms. This is evident from the NNS-NvSTs' employment of CSs which are very similar to the ones occurring in other classrooms as identified by numerous classroom discourse studies. This suggests NNS-NvSTs' ability to project common traits of the teacher persona. Nevertheless, there was also evidence to indicate that several of the CSs employed displayed features manifesting the
References (41)
Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT
ELT J.
(2002)- Barreiro, A.M. (2008). Make it Simple with Paraphrases: Automated Paraphrasing for Authoring Aids and Machine...
Communication Strategies: a Psychological Analysis of Second-Language Use
(1990)- et al.
Perspective and proficiency in L2 referential communication
Stud. Second Lang. Acquis.
(1987) From communicative competence to communicative language Pedagogy
- et al.
Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing
Appl. Linguist.
(1980) Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
(2006)Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the F-move
ELT J.
(2002)The social component of language teacher education
- et al.
Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research