This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University of Wellington]On: 22 March 2014, At: 19:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian EnglishesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

A Survey of English Language TeachingTrends and Practices in Southeast AsiaWilly A. Renandyaa, Lim Wai Leeb, Cedric Leong Kai Wahc &George M. Jacobsd

a Raffles Girls’ Sec School 20 Anderson Road Singapore 259978,Singapore E-mail:b SEAMEO RELC 30 Orange Grove Road Singapore 258352,Singapore Fax : +65-734-2753 E-mail:c Wah 801 Woodlands St. 81 #06–117 Singapore 73081, SingaporeE-mail:d SEAMEO RELC 30 Orange Grove Singapore 258352, SingaporeFax: +65-734-2753 E-mail:Published online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Willy A. Renandya, Lim Wai Lee, Cedric Leong Kai Wah & George M. Jacobs(1999) A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia, AsianEnglishes, 2:1, 37-65, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.1999.10801018

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.1999.10801018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices

in Southeast Asia

Willy A. RENANDYA, LIM Wai Lee

Cedric LEONG Kai Wah, George M. JACOBS

ABSTRACT: This study investigated the extent to which English language teaching inAsia had undergone important changes, in particular with regards to teaching andassessment practices. A sample of 212 English teachers from 10 Asian countriesparticipated in the study by responding to a set of questionnaire items designed to elicitinformation about their instructional and assessment practices. Analysis of theseteachers’ responses indicated that while Asian English teachers were moving towardmore communicative, learner-centred approaches to teaching, their assessment practicesremained somewhat traditional. Possible reasons for the lack of greater change towardmore communicative teaching and assessment are discussed, and suggestions forpromoting further changes are offered.

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate current trends in English languageteaching (ELT) in Asia. We were interested to know the extent to which ELT inAsia had undergone important changes, in particular with regards to teaching andassessment practices. We wanted to learn if Asian English teachers’ instructionaland assessment practices were in keeping with current conceptions of languageteaching and assessment as described in the professional literature of appliedlinguistics (e.g., Brown 1994; Genesee & Upshur 1996; Ellis 1994, Larsen-Freeman& Long 1991; Tudor 1996).

We begin with a brief literature review on developments in education and ELT,stressing the differences between the old and the new paradigms. We then presentthe results of our study in which we asked teachers to respond to a set of questionsdesigned to obtain information about their instructional and assessment practices.

1.1. Paradigm Shift in Education

Buzz words in general education these days include constructivism, learner-centredness, metacognition, cooperative learning, and process-oriented instruction.These terms have come to be seen with increasing frequency in the educationalliterature, marking the emergence a new paradigm of teaching which is significantlydifferent from the old paradigm (e.g., Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989). This newparadigm is supported by years of research into the nature of knowledge and how

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

this knowledge is best learned. We now know, for example, that students mustactively construct, discover and transform information if they are going to make ittheir own (Johnson & Johnson 1994; Leinhardt 1992). A key step in thisconstruction process is for students to link this to-be-learned information to theirexisting background knowledge (Kuhara-Kojima & Hatano 1991; Pressley et al.1992). We also know that the students’ learning can be greatly facilitated when newinformation is presented in a meaningful situation (Ausubel 1963), and within acooperative context (Jacobs 1998; Johnson & Johnson 1994; Palincsar, Brown &Martin 1987). In the area of assessment, there is also a growing consensus thatknowledge is best assessed in holistic and realistic contexts, rather than indisconnected artificial contexts, hence the increasing use of more authentic – alsoknown as alternative, non-traditional, or continuous – assessment procedures(Hamayan 1995).

The following highlights show some of the important differences betweentraditional and current thinkings in education (adapted from the Hawaii StateDepartment of Education 1991).

1.2. Paradigm Shift in ELT

The field of English as a second or foreign language has also witnessed dramaticchanges in the past 40 or 50 years. A quick survey of the literature will reveal that aparadigm shift has occurred (e.g., Hymes 1972; Larsen-Freeman 1998; Richards &Rodgers 1986; Widdowson 1978). In the 1960s, a new approach to teaching,

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

38

Traditional Paradigm

1. Student as passive recipient 2. Emphasis on parts3. Isolated knowledge and skills4. Emphasis on teaching5. Teacher as information giver6. Learning as an individual activity7. Only teacher-directed learning8. Emphasis on product9. One answer, one way, correctness

10. Tests that test

Current Paradigm

1. Student as active constructor of meaning2. Emphasis on the whole3. Integrated knowledge and skills4. Emphasis on learning5. Teacher as co-learner and facilitator6. Learning also as a social activity7. Also student-directed learning8. Emphasis on process9. Open-ended, non-routine, multiple

solutions10. Tests that also teach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

known as communicative language teaching, began to emerge to challenge thedominant trend in language teaching. This new approach grew out of dissatisfactionwith the primarily code-based view of language teaching found in such approachesas the grammar translation and audiolingual methods. In the code-based view,language is seen as a system of grammatical patterns which students have to masterregardless of their goals of learning. In contrast, communicative language teachingviews language as a system for expressing meaning and for communication.Richards and Rodgers (1986:71) summarised the major features of thecommunicative view of language as follows:

1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.2. The primary function language is for interaction and communication.3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.

Also in the 1960s, behaviourism, then the dominant learning theory, was beingreplaced by cognitivism (Richards & Rodgers 1986). According to the cognitivistview of learning, language learners were seen as actively constructing knowledgeusing whatever mental faculty they had available. It was the learners’ responsibilityto discover the rules that allowed people to use the language creatively. Laterdevelopments which saw learners not only as cognitive beings, but also as affectiveand social beings, as well as strategy users (Larsen-Freeman 1998) paved the wayfor a view of learning which acknowledged the key roles that learners play in thelearning process. This view of learning has been termed learner-centredness(Nunan 1988; Tudor 1996). As a consequence of this, learner-centredmethodologies, which take into account learners’ needs, goals, interests, learningstyles and strategies, are common features in many of today’s ELT classrooms.

Central to the notion of learner-centredness is the idea that one of the mostimportant goals of learning is to help students become autonomous learners(Dickinson 1992) – learners who can take charge of their own learning regardless ofthe learning context, e.g., in a teacher-fronted classroom, in a group activity, orreading a book alone under a tree. One way to develop learner autonomy is throughinstructional procedures which allow learners to engage in conscious planning,monitoring, and evaluation of their own learning. The bulk of research in the areaof cognitive and metacognitive strategy training is replete with examples of how tohelp students become independent learners (see, for example, Cohen & Weaver1998; Hall & Beggs 1998; Wenden 1997).

In the learner-centred classroom, language teachers assume radically differentroles. They are seen as more of language facilitators, counsellors and collaborators

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

rather than as lesson conductors or knowledge transmitters. Assuming these newroles requires that teachers not view learners as empty vessels ready to be filled withbuckets of knowledge. They should instead invite learners to actively construct andreconstruct knowledge. Thus, the major focus of instruction in the classroom isdirected towards the learners themselves, not the lessons, the texts or the syllabus.In short, teachers are moving away from teaching lessons to teaching learners(Freeman in press).

Parallel developments in the area of second language assessment have also beendocumented. Authentic forms of assessment, such as portfolios, interviews,journals, and self/peer-assessment have become increasingly common in ESLclassrooms (Penaflorida 1998). These forms of assessment, unlike traditionalforms, e.g., multiple choice tests, are more student-centred in that, in addition tobeing an assessment tool, they “give students a sense of involvement in, controlover, and enthusiasm for learning” (Genesee & Upshur 1996: 116). Also, authenticassessment procedures provide teachers with useful information that can form thebasis for improving their instructional plans and practices. In other words, authenticassessment can bring positive washback effects on teaching (Hamayan 1995).Below is a summary of the main differences between the traditional and the newparadigms in ELT (Larsen-Freeman 1998; Genesee & Upshur 1996; Nunan 1988;Richards & Rodgers 1986; Tudor 1996).

1.3. Research Questions

Our research was inspired by two earlier studies that looked at dominant ELTpractices in two different countries. The first study, by Richards, Tung, and Ng(1992), investigated the culture of teaching in the context of ELT in Hong Kong.

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

40

Traditional Paradigm

1. Focus on language2. Teacher-centred3. Isolated skills4. Focus on accuracy5. Discrete point tests 6. Traditional tests (e.g., multiple

choice)7. Emphasis on product8. Individual learning

Current Paradigm

1. Focus on communication2. Learner-centred3. Integrated skills4. Focus on fluency5. Also holistic tests6. Also authentic assessment (e.g.,

portfolios)7. Emphasis on process8. Also cooperative learningD

ownl

oade

d by

[V

icto

ria

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ellin

gton

] at

19:

03 2

2 M

arch

201

4

The second study, by Ridwan, Renandya and Lie (1996), closely followed thedesign of the first study, but was done with English teachers in Indonesia. Bothstudies provided valuable information regarding what teachers believed to beimportant factors in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language. Ourpresent study was broader in scope, as it included a sample of English teachers fromten different countries, nine of which are in Southeast Asia (Brunei Darussalam,Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand andVietnam), and one in Northeast Asia (People’s Republic of China).

The following questions guided our study:

1. What is Asian English language teachers’ preferred teaching methodology?2. What are their perceptions regarding・the role of teachers in the classrooms?・the role of pre-course needs assessment?・the characteristics of good teachers and good learners?・the causes of learners’ failure to reach a high level of English proficiency?

3. What are the functions of traditional and non-traditional modes of assessment?4. Do EFL and ESL teachers hold the same or different views with respect to the

first three questions above?

Answers to numbers 1-3 above would enable us to get an idea of these Asianteachers’ views regarding their teaching (#1 and #2) and assessment (#3) practices.Responses to #4 would allow us to analyse the differences between EFL and ESLteachers with respect to their teaching and assessment practices.

The results of this study are expected to provide useful information that willallow language practitioners as well as teacher training institutions in the region toidentify areas for further investigation and analysis. We now describe themethodology of our study.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

A sample comprising a total of 212 teachers from 10 Asian countriesparticipated in the survey. All of these teachers were natives of their countries.Table 1 presents the breakdown of the participants by country.

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Table 1: Participants by Country

Sixty-five percent of the participants were female and 35% were male. Most ofthem (91.5%) worked at publicly funded institutions. They taught at the primary(12.4%), secondary (56.2%), and tertiary (31.4%) levels of education. The majority(59.8%) had a BA in language education as their highest degree, with the restholding certificates (10.5%), diplomas (13.4%), MA degree (5.7%), and doctorates(.5%). Ten percent of the participants had degrees other than in language education.The respondents varied greatly in terms of the length of their teaching experience.The mean and median years of teaching experience were 11.6 and 10, respectively,with a standard deviation of 7.95 for the mean.

For the purpose of this study, participants from Cambodia, China, Indonesia,Laos, Thailand and Vietnam were considered EFL teachers and those from Brunei,Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore were regarded as ESL teachers. The maincriterion for separating these two groups of countries was the amount of Englishused in these countries.

2.2. Materials

A questionnaire (Appendix 1) comprising a combination of both closed- andopen-ended question formats was used. The questionnaire had two parts: Part Iasked respondents for some basic biographical data; Part II sought to find out how

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

42

14.213.712.310.810.4

9.49.47.16.66.1

30292623222020151413

SingaporeIndonesiaVietnamThailandMalaysiaBruneiChinaLaosCambodiaPhilippines

Country

TOTAL 212 100

Number Percent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

the respondents characterised their teaching and testing practices and what theirmotivations behind these practices were. Some of the questions in the questionnairewere adapted from Richards, Tung and Ng (1992) and Ridwan, Renandya and Lie(1996).

Items in Part I asked respondents to state their country of residence, sex, highestacademic or professional qualifications, teaching experience, type of educationalinstitution they taught, and the educational level of their students. Items in Part IIasked respondents to describe their teaching approaches and teaching styles; whatthey considered to be the qualities of a good teacher in general and the main role ofthe English language teacher in particular; the extent to which they had carried outneeds assessments among their students; the extent to which their teaching wasdetermined by classroom tests and national examinations; the kinds of tests theyusually used and the primary functions of these tests; the extent to which they hadincluded authentic (alternative) assessment procedures in their instruction; and whatthey considered to be the learning behaviours of a good language learner, as well asthe factors that contributed to learners’ failure to reach a high level of proficiency inEnglish. Some of the items provided respondents with a list of options to choosefrom; others required respondents to evaluate items on a likert-type scale. For eachitem, a space was provided for respondents to write their comments.

2.3. Procedure

The survey was conducted between November 1997 and February 1998.Participants were first informed about the purpose of the study and then asked to fillout the questionnaire as honestly as possible. We administered the questionnaireourselves to those who resided in Singapore and those who happened to be studyingat RELC, Singapore. We asked colleagues and former students to help us collectdata from those residing in other countries.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Teaching Styles and Approaches

When asked about their teaching approaches or methods (Item 2.1), very few(12%) respondents said that they adopted a purely structural or a completelycommunicative approach. On a scale of 1 to 10, (1 being completely structural and10 being completely communicative in approach) most respondents (71%) clusteredaround the midpoint, leaning towards the communicative end (5 – 8), indicating that

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

most used a mixture of the two approaches with a tendency to favour morecommunicative activities (Figure 1).

The respondents’ answers to the question of whether or not their teaching tendedto be teacher-centred or learner-centred (Item 2.4) showed a reported trend towardsmore learner-centredness. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being teacher-centred and 10being learner-centred), 72% of the respondents lay on points 5 – 8 (Figure 2).

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

44

Figure 1: Teaching Method

Figure 2: Teaching Style

1 = Structural 10 = Communicative

1 = Teacher-Centered 10 = Learner-Centered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

3.2. Needs Assessment

What types of needs assessment did teachers carry out (Item 2.5)? As shown inTable 2, teachers carried out needs analysis to find out about learners’ goals andobjectives (55.1%), interests (54.3%), communicative needs (50.5%), preferredactivities (49.3%), and learning styles (39%). Interestingly, more ESL than EFLteachers were keen on finding out the students’ learning styles and preferredactivities in the classroom. On the other hand, fewer teachers in the ESL situationwere interested in identifying the goals and learning objectives of the students

Table 2: Needs Assessment (%)

3.3. Teachers’ Views on the Qualities of a Good Teacher

Asked about what they considered to be three qualities of a good teacher (Item2.2), the majority of the teachers were of the opinion that a good teacher should beable to motivate students (65.1%). The other qualities that they felt were importantin a good language teacher were helping students become more autonomouslearners (46.7%), being well versed in the subject (40.6%), being well-organised(37.3%), being willing to learn and experiment (34.9%), being able to diagnosestudents’ weaknesses (33%), being proficient in the language (22.2 %), beinghardworking (10.4%), and making sure that students got enough assignments(9.0%). Table 3 presents a summary of teachers’ view regarding the characteristicsof a good teacher.

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

45

TypeEFL

(n=120)ESL

(n=80)Total

(N=200)

Goals and objectivesInterestsCommunicative needsPreferred activitiesLearning styles

60.855.252.042.733.9

46.452.948.258.846.4

55.154.350.549.339.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Table 3: Qualities of Good Language Teachers (%)

3.4. Teachers’ Views of Their Roles

What did teachers in this study think were their main roles as English teachers(Item 2.3)? As displayed in Table 4, most respondents saw their primary role as thatof knowledge disseminator (85.3%), and provider of learning experiences for theirstudents (81.5%). Both EFL and ESL teachers also saw themselves as student-centred teachers, helping students to discover effective strategies of learning(83.9%) and assisting students to become self directed learners (79.7%). Acting asa model of correct language use was seen as an important role by 70.5% of theteachers. Correcting errors and teaching grammar rules were considered importantby about 50%. A somewhat smaller percentage (39.2%) saw themselves in thetraditional roles of directing and controlling learning.

The two categories of teachers were, however, somewhat divided in theiropinion with regards to their role in helping students to pass examinations. MoreESL teachers (72.3%) than EFL teachers (53.2%) saw themselves in this role. EFLteachers were less inclined to see themselves as providers of a model of correctlanguage usage than their ESL counterparts (63.5% against 81%). At the sametime, ESL teachers were more concerned about their roles as error correctors(60.7%) than EFL teachers; only 42.1% of the latter saw their roles as such.

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

46

EFL(n=127)

ESL(n=85)

Total(n=212)

Item

Able to motivate studentsHelp students become autonomousKnow his/her subject matter wellWell-organisedWilling to experimentAble to diagnose students’ weaknessesProficient in EnglishHardworkingGive enough assignments

59.849.637.041.729.126.829.113.4

7.1

72.942.445.930.643.542.411.85.97.1

65.146.740.637.334.933.022.210.4

9.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

TABLE 4: ROLES OF TEACHERS BY STATUS (%)

3.5. Teachers’ Views on the Characteristics of a Good Language Learner

As shown in Table 5, many teachers (64%) felt that good learners (Item 2.11)were those who were able to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning. Theywere also of the opinion that those who were active and spoke up in class (55.7%)were good language learners. Consistent with this, 49.1% of the respondents feltthat those who were not afraid of making mistakes also made good languagelearners. More respondents from the EFL context (50.4%) compared to 35% fromthe ESL context felt that the willingness to interact with other students made adifference in language learning. Conversely, more ESL teachers (54.1%) felt that amotivated learner made a good language learner compared to 29.9% of the EFLteachers.

The numbers of respondents who thought that good learners were those whofollowed instructions in class and those who completed class assignments werequite small—11.3% and 5.7%, respectively. This suggests that the old paradigm hasrelatively little support among teachers in our study.

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

47

Role EFL(n=126)

EFL(n=85)

Total(N=211)

Pass on knowledge to studentsHelp students discover good strategiesProvide useful learning experiencesHelp students become self-directedModel correct language useHelp students pass examsCorrect learners’ errorsGive rules about English Direct and control learning

82.583.376.281.963.553.242.148.042.1

89.484.789.476.581.072.360.751.234.9

85.383.981.579.770.560.849.549.339.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Table 5: Qualities of Good Language Learners (%)

3.6. Reasons for Learners’ Failure

Table 6 summarises what teachers thought to be factors that contributed tolearners’ failure to acquire high proficiency in English (Item 2.12). Lack ofopportunity to use the language in real life was perceived to be the main factor.Interestingly, more ESL teachers (64.7%) felt this way compared to the EFLteachers (52%) when the reverse should have been the case. Other reasons whichrespondents considered important were lack of effort (40.1%), fear to make errors(36.8%), inefficient learning strategies (35.4%), unfavourable attitude towards thelanguage (32.1%), and inability to plan, monitor and evaluate learning (30.2%). It iscomforting to note that only a very small percentage of the respondents attributedfailure to learn English to low IQ (11.3%) or lack of talent (5.7%).

Table 6: Reasons for Learners’ Failure (%)

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

48

EFL(n=127)

ESL(n=85)

Total(N=212)

52.040.938.635.427.630.7

22.016.7

8.79.4

Item

64.738.834.135.338.829.4

16.510.615.3

0

57.140.136.835.432.130.2

19.816.011.35.7

Not enough opportunity to use the languageLack of effortFear to make errorsInefficient learning strategiesUnfavourable attitude towards the languageUnable to plan, monitor and evaluate own

learningFrequent absences from classLack of attention in classBelow normal IQNo talent

EFL(n=127)

Able to plan, monitor and evaluatetheir own learning

Active and speak outNot afraid of making mistakesInteract with other studentsMotivatedAsk a lot of questionsFollow teachers’ instructionsComplete class assignments

ESL(n=85)

Total(N=212)

61.4

59.848.850.429.913.415.0

7.9

Item

67.1

49.449.435.354.121.2

5.92.4

64.0

55.749.144.339.616.511.34.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

3.7. Traditional Assessment Procedures

Figures 1 and 2 suggest that teachers in Asian countries generally favour a morecommunicative approach to teaching and learning the English language. Apertinent question to ask, then, is whether the assessment procedures they usesupport their communicative, learner-centred classrooms, or, instead, constrain whatthe teachers hope to achieve through their teaching. This question becomes evenmore pertinent considering that the teachers indicated on Items 2.6 and 2.7 that howthey taught was largely determined by the classroom tests and nationalexaminations that their students sat for. As shown in Figures 3 and 4 teachers’instruction was to a large extent determined by classroom tests (55.2%) and nationalexaminations (62%). This was true for both ESL as well as EFL teachers.

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

49

Figure 3: Role of Test

No/Small Extent Some Extent Large/Very LargeExtent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Given the extent to which tests and examinations held sway over what theteachers did in their language classrooms, an important question is, therefore, “Whatsorts of tests and examinations did these teachers use in their classroom (Item 2.8)?”Their responses were instructive: in descending order, multiple-choice questions(63.7%), fill in the blank (44.8%), essay (43.9%), cloze (36.3%), matching (25.5%),composition (24.1%), true/false (20.3%), interview (19.8%), dictation (9%). It isinteresting to note that EFL and ESL teachers differed markedly in their use of thesetests, with the former more frequently employing the more discreet type of tests(e.g., multiple choice, fill in the blanks, matching) and the latter more likely to usethe more holistic type of tests (e.g., essay, cloze, composition), as displayed in Table7.

Table 7: Test Types (%)

50

EFL(n=127)

ESL(n=85)

Total(N=212)

70.951.235.429.130.715.031.516.513.4

Item

52.935.356.547.117.637.6

3.524.7

7.1

63.744.843.936.325.524.120.319.8

9.0

Multiple ChoiceFill in the BlankEssayClozeMatchingCompositionTrue/FalseInterviewDictation

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

No/Small Extent Some Extent Large/Very LargeExtent

Figure 4: Role of Examinatio

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Asked about the functions of tests (Item 2.9), the participants reported that theyused tests to find out about students’ achievement (79.2%), learning progress(52.8%) and learning difficulties (49.5%). Other functions of test were to motivatestudents (47.6%), to identify areas for re-teaching (43.4%), and to place studentsinto different groups.

3.8. Authentic Assessment Procedures

To what extent do teachers include authentic assessment procedures such asproject work, portfolios, journals, observation? (Item 2.10). As shown in Table 8,some 45% indicated that they assessed their students through observation. About30% of the teachers included project work, interviews, and self-assessmentactivities among the ways they assessed their students. Less frequently usedprocedures were peer assessment (22.8%), journals (22.1%), and portfolios (16.9%).Differences between the ESL and EFL teachers were negligible.

Table 8: Alternative Assessment (%)

4. OVERALL DISCUSSION

In this study, we hoped to get a glimpse of whether a sample of Asian ELTteachers are implementing approaches to teaching and assessment that are consistentwith trends in the field of second language instruction internationally. Beforecommenting on our results, we must first acknowledge the chief deficiencies in ourstudy. The main deficiency is that we relied on self-report questionnaire data withno means of triangulation via the inclusion of other data sources, such as classroomobservations, interviews, lesson plans, and reports from students or administrators.Secondly, we cannot claim that we have a random sample of ELT teachers in the

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

51

ObservationProjectInterviewSelf-assessmentPeer-assessmentLearning logPortfolio

EFL(n=120)

ESL(n=80)

Total(N=200)

Item

43.029.229.533.321.820.019.2

43.029.229.533.321.820.019.2

45.530.429.929.322.822.116.9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

countries in which participants taught.With these deficiencies acknowledged but not discounted, the picture we do find

appears to be one which portrays ELT teachers as having moved toward morecommunicative, learner-centred teaching methods (Items, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,2.11, and 2.12) with less change in assessment techniques (Items 2.8 and 2.10).Why was not there more change in both areas? Several possible reasons arediscussed below.

One reason for the lack of greater change lies in the widely acknowledged factthat change in any type of organisation, educational institutions included, takes timeand requires great amounts of education, effort, persistence, and skill (Fullan 1993).The axiom that we teach the way we were taught holds true, acting like a leg-iron ifwe try to break free of the past. Along the same lines, it is not only the role of theteacher that is rooted in tradition; the traditional role of all authority figures as thosewhom we must silently heed makes it difficult for teachers, students, and parents tosee teachers differently, especially given that many of the countries included in thissurvey only emerged from colonialism within about the past 50 years (Tomlinson1990). Thus, society as a whole is still adjusting to more democratic norms outsideand within classrooms.

Further, change must be systemic (Fullan & Miles 1992), i.e., change in onepart, e.g., teaching, is much more difficult if not accompanied by change in otherparts, e.g., assessment. We saw this in the questionnaire results which showed thepower of assessment to influence teaching and the lack of change in assessment.This problem can scarcely be overstated, as teachers face tremendous pressure tohelp their students produce results on exams which measure discrete point, non-communicative language usage. Nevertheless, it should be noted that advocates(e.g., Krashen 1982) of CLT claim their methods can produce better results even onsuch non-communicative measures.

Materials form another part of the system that needs altering if teaching is tochange. This seems one area where progress has been made. For instance, a look atlanguage teaching materials created by Ministries of Education in Malaysia, thePhilippines, and Singapore shows many CLT activities. Another example comesfrom a study (Jacobs, Crookall & Thiyagarajali 1997) that found significantly moregroup activities and significantly more communicative group activities in ELTcoursebooks published for the international market from 1993-1996 compared tothose published from 1950-1967. Additionally, colleagues in China have told usabout a major new ELT textbook series there that represents a step toward asomewhat less structural approach. However, more changes still need to be made ifmaterials are to support CLT. An additional materials impediment lies in the lack of

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

funds in some of the countries in this study. Indicators of learner-centredness, suchas large libraries of extensive reading materials and self-access centres equippedwith audio and video tape players and computers, require money to which someeducational institutions do not have access, although there may be some waysaround this (Lituanas 1997).

Another factor holding back change is differences in understanding of what thechange entails. Part of the problem here lies in the many views of CLT. One of thebetter-known disputes among advocates of CLT arises over whether all secondlanguage instruction should be aimed at incidental learning (Krashen 1993, 1997) orwhether this incidental learning should be occasionally supplemented by intentionallearning (Schmidt 1990). While these two positions have much more in commonwith each other – both emphasise comprehensible input and downplay intentionallearning – than either does with grammar translation or audio-lingual methodology,the debate can be confusing.

Let us further pursue this issue of multiple understandings. The authors of thisreport, as lecturers and course members at RELC and in their other teachingexperiences, have worked with language teachers from around Southeast andNortheast Asia. We find their understandings of CLT differ widely. Like theparticipants in this study, most generally have favoured communicative, learner-centred approaches. However, when they explain what they do in their classrooms,it does not always match our definitions – not to mention the existence amongourselves of plural definitions – of CLT. Long and Sato (1983) reported the samephenomenon in a study with ESL teachers in the U.S. in which they found thatteachers who considered themselves CLT advocates, but nevertheless dominatedclassroom talking time. This finding was confirmed by Rollman (1994) who did astudy with foreign language teachers of German in Canada. Although teachers inher study used more language for real communication in the classroom compared totheir peers who were observed about two decades earlier, the amount of teacher talkremained high, accounting for 63.5% of the total classroom talk.

Another important factor impeding change stems from the view among someteachers that what constitutes the internationally endorsed wisdom on SLA may nothold true in their setting (Burnaby & Sun 1989). Disagreeing with this wisdom,coming down as it does from on high via from Ministry of Education curriculumdocuments and course lecturers, may hurt one’s chances for promotion or highgrades. But within the four walls of the classroom these higher-ups are seldom tobe seen. An example of one aspect of setting that we often hear is that the largeclasses found in many Asian countries, with 60+ students not uncommon, makeCLT practices such as group activities harder to control (Nolasco & Arthur 1986),

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

although not impossible (Safnil 1991).Another disagreement with the current paradigm arises because Asian ELT

teachers, even in ESL countries, feel their students receive little English inputoutside of the classroom. Without large quantities of comprehensible input, thelargely inductive, incidental, communication-focused methods of CLT cannot work,some of these teachers argue. Even in Singapore, where English is the medium ofinstruction for all subjects except the first language from the first year of primaryschool, teachers tell us that some of their students, especially those from lessaffluent backgrounds, use little English once they leave the school grounds. Theseteachers conclude that deductive teaching and/or drilling must be done tocompensate. However, we are unaware of any research to support this conclusion.

Movement toward more authentic forms of assessment was reported much lessoften than movement toward other aspects of new paradigms by the participants inthe present study. We found that the majority of the teachers in our study still stickto the traditional forms of assessment. One of the reasons for this is that althoughmany teachers favour communicative language teaching, alternative forms ofassessment, which tend to be more communicative, are more difficult to design andimplement (Bowler & Parminter 1997). Another reason is that the whole area ofalternative assessment seems to be a much more recent development, something notincluded, or barely included, in the curriculum of many teacher educationinstitutions in the region. Even at RELC, which benefits from the best library onELT in the hemisphere and a steady stream of visiting professionals from around theworld, only recently have our testing courses begun to incorporate non-traditional,authentic forms of assessment. Thus, much more education needs to be done in thiscrucial area because, as mentioned above, change must be system-wide to succeed.Fortunately, a good deal of work has been done on authentic assessment in the1990s. Recommended works include Brown (1998), Genesee and Upshur (1996),Hamayan (1995), Penaflorida (1998), Peyton and Reed (1990), and Puhl (1997).

5. CONCLUSION

Teaching is an exciting profession, with new trends expanding our roles andgiving us more insights into how to help our students (Larsen-Freeman 1998).Language teaching offers additional excitement through the ever-changing nature oflanguage and language’s inextricable link to every facet of our lives. While thesenew trends and the changes they embody can sow confusion and breed discontent,we take a more positive view. We see the new paradigms in language teaching asrousing challenges. The results of our survey seem to indicate that this small

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

sample of the Asian ELT profession is responding positively to these challenges.Yet, much more remains to be done. New paradigms become old ones, as our

profession continues to evolve. For instance, a recent book on education (Palmer1998) urges us to go beyond learner-centred approaches toward subject-centredones. Thus, just as learner-centred approaches urge us to help our students becomelife-long learners who take responsibility for planning and overseeing their owncontinuing education, so too must we teachers ever remain learners, seeking greaterunderstanding and the power to implement our ideas.

REFERENCES

Ausubel, D.P. 1963. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York:Grune and Stratton.

Bowler, B. and S. Parminter. 1997. “Continuous Assessment.” English TeachingProfessional 3. 16-18.

Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to LanguagePedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J.D. (ed.) 1998. New Ways of Classroom Assessment. Alexandria, Va.:TESOL.

Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Cultureof Learning.” Educational Research 18. 32-42.

Burnaby, B. and Y. Sun. 1989. “Chinese Teachers’ Views of Western LanguageTeaching: Context Informs Paradigms.” TESOL Quarterly 23. 219-238.

Cohen, A. D., and S.J. Weaver. 1998. “Strategies-Based Instructions for SecondLanguage Learners.” In W. A. Renandya and G. M. Jacobs (eds.), Learners and Language Learning, pp. 1-25. Anthology Series 39. Singapore: SEAMEORegional Language Centre.

Dickinson, L. 1992. Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for LanguageLearning. Dublin: Authentik.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Freeman, D. in press. “Changing Teaching: Insights into Individual Development inthe Context of Schools.” In C. Ward and W.A. Renandya (eds.), LanguageTeaching: New Insights for the Language Teacher. Anthology Series 40.Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Fullan, M. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Education Reform. London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. and M. Miles. 1992. “Getting Reform Right: What Works and What

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Doesn’t.” Phi Delta Kappan 73:10. 744-752.Genesee, F. and J.A. Upshur. 1996. Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second

Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hall, D. and E. Beggs. 1998. “Defining Learner Autonomy.” In W. A. Renandya

and G. M. Jacobs (eds.), Learners and Language Learning, pp. 26-39.Anthology Series 39. Singapore: SEAMEO-Regional Language Centre.

Hamayan, E.V. 1995. “Approaches to Alternative Assessment.” Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 15. 212-226.

Hawaii State Department of Education. 1991. Action Plan for ImprovingMathematics, Science, Language Arts, and Social Studies. Honolulu: HawaiiState Department of Education.

Hymes, D. 1972. “On Communicative Competence.” In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Jacobs, G.M. 1998. “Cooperative Learning or Just Grouping Students: TheDifference Makes a Difference.” In W.A. Renandya and G.M. Jacobs (eds.),Learners and Language Learning, pp. 172-193. Anthology Series 39.Singapore: SEAMEO-Regional Language Centre.

Jacobs, G.M., D. Crookal and R. Thiyagarajali. 1997. “The Evolution of GroupActivities in ELT Coursebook.” Folio 4:2. 19-23.

Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1994. Leading the Cooperative School. Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. NewYork: Prentice Hall.

Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood,CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Krashen, S. 1997. “The Comprehension Hypothesis: Recent Evidence.” English Teachers’ Journal 51. 17-29.

Kuhara-Kojima, K., and G. Hatano. 1991. “Contribution of Content Knowledge andLearning Ability to the Learning of Facts.” Journal of Educational Psychology83. 253-263.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and M.H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second LanguageAcquisition Research. London: Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 1998. “Expanding Roles of Learners and Teachers in Learner-Centered Instruction.” In W.A. Renandya and G.M. Jacobs (eds.), Learners andLanguage Learning, pp. 207-226. Anthology Series 39. Singapore: Seameo-Regional Language Centre.

Leinhardt, G. 1992. “What Research on Learning Tells Us about Teaching.” Educational Leadership 49. 20-25.

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Lituanas, P. M. 1997 “Collecting materials for extensive reading.” In G. M. Jacobs, C. Davis, and W. A. Renandya (eds.), Successful Strategies for Extensive Reading, pp. 25-29. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Long, M.H. and C. Sato. 1983. “Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms andFunctions of Teachers’ Questions.” In H.W. Seliger and M.H. Long (eds.), Classroom-Oriented Research on Second Language Acquisition. pp. 268-285. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Nolasco, R. and L. Arthur. 1986. “You Try Doing It with a Class of Forty?” ELTJournal 40. 100-106.

Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palincsar, A.S., A.L. Brown and S.M. Martin. 1987. “Peer Interaction in ReadingComprehension Instruction.” Educational Psychologists 22. 231-253.

Palmer, P.J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of aTeacher’s Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Penaflorida, A.H. 1998. “Non-Traditional Forms of Assessment and Response toStudent Writing: A Step Towards Learner Autonomy.” In W.A. Renandya andG.M. Jacobs (eds.), Learners and Language Learning, pp. 72-88. AnthologySeries 39. Singapore: SEAMEO-Regional Language Centre.

Peyton, J.K. and L. Reed. 1990. Dialogue Journal Writing with Non-Native EnglishSpeakers: A Handbook for Teachers. Alexandria, VA.: TESOL.

Pressley, M. et al. 1992.“Encouraging Mindful Use of Prior Knowledge: Attempting to Construct Explanatory Answers Facilitates Learning.” Educational Psychologist 27. 91-109.

Puhl, C.A. 1997. “Develop, Not Judge: Continuous Assessment in the ESLClassroom.” English Teaching Forum 35. 2-9/15.

Richards, J.C. and T. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in LanguageTeaching: A Description and Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C., P. Tung, and P. Ng. 1992. “The Culture of the English LanguageTeacher: A Hong Kong example.” RELC Journal 23. 81-102.

Ridwan, E.C., W.A. Renandya, and A. Lie. 1996. “On Being Reflective: A Surveyof Teachers of EFL in Indonesia.” Paper presented at the RELC Seminar, Singapore, April 22-24.

Rollman, M. 1994. “The Communicative Language Teaching ‘Revolution’ Tested:A Comparison of Two Classroom Studies: 1976 and 1993.” Foreign LanguageAnnuals 27. 221-239.

Safnil. 1991. “Techniques of Dealing with Large English Classes.” Guidelines 13.82-86.

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Schmidt, R. 1990. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.”Applied Linguistics 11. 129-158.

Tomlinson, B. 1990. “Managing Change in Indonesian High Schools.” ELT Journal44:1. 25-37.

Tudor, I. 1996. Learner-Centredness as Language Education. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Wenden, A. L. 1997. “Designing Learner Training: The Curricular Questions.” InG.M. Jacobs (ed.), Language Classrooms of Tomorrow: Issues and Responses.Anthology Series 38. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

APPENDIX 1

Language Teaching Survey

I. General

1. Country __________________________________________

2. Sex: □ male □ female

3. Course number ____________________________________

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

58

Dear students/colleagues,

The purpose of this survey is to identify current trends in teachingpractices among Asian language teachers. The information you provide in thissurvey will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Data analysis will bedone in terms of averages and percentages, rather than in terms ofindividual responses. Please take the time to fill out every single item inthe questionnaire.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

4. Highest academic/professional qualifications. Please tick one box only.□ A teacher’s certificate in language education□ A diploma in language education□ A bachelor’s degree in language education□ A master’s degree in language education□ A doctorate’s degree in language education□ Others; please specify: ___________________________

5. Number of years of teaching experience _________________

6. The type of school you are teaching in□ public □ private □ other ______________

7. Current position (please include education level of students ? primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.)

__________________________________________________

II. Teaching

1. How would you describe your teaching approaches/methods? Please tick theappropriate box.

1 10Structural Communicative

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. What do you think the qualities of a good teacher are? (Please tick up to threeoptions.)

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

□ Make sure students get enough assignments□ Be well-organized□ Be able to motivate students□ Be able to diagnose students’ weaknesses□ Help students become autonomous learners□ Be hardworking□ Be proficient in English□ Be willing to experiment and learn□ Know his/her subject matter well

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. What do you think your main role is as a teacher of the English language?Please indicate your response by circling a number, according to the followingkey.

1 I strongly agree2 I agree3 I neither agree nor disagree4 I disagree5 I strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5 To pass on knowledge and language skills to my students1 2 3 4 5 To help my students discover effective strategies of learning1 2 3 4 5 To provide a model of correct language usage1 2 3 4 5 To help my students pass examinations1 2 3 4 5 To direct and control learning1 2 3 4 5 To help my students become self-directed learners1 2 3 4 5 To correct learners’ errors1 2 3 4 5 To provide useful learning experiences1 2 3 4 5 To give rules and explanations about English

Others; please specify: ________________________________

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

4. How would describe your teaching style? Please tick the appropriate box.

1 10Learner-centered Teacher-centered

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. As a classroom teacher, to what extent do you think you have carried out thefollowing needs assessment. Please indicate your response by circling a number,according to the following key.

1 To a very large extent2 To a large extent3 To some extent4 To a small extent5 To no extent (not at all)

1 2 3 4 5 Assessing learners’ communicative needs1 2 3 4 5 Assessing learners’ learning styles and strategies1 2 3 4 5 Finding out learners’ interests1 2 3 4 5 Finding out learners’ preferred activities in the classroom1 2 3 4 5 Finding out learners’ goals and objectives of learning

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. To what extent is your teaching determined by classroom tests? (Please tick one

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

option only.)

□ To a very large extent□ To a large extent□ To some extent□ To a small extent□ To no extent (not at all)

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. To what extent is your teaching determined by national examinations? (Pleasetick one option only).

□ To a very large extent□ To a large extent□ To some extent□ To a small extent□ To no extent (not at all)

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. What kind of tests do you usually use in your classroom? (Please tick up to threeoptions.)

□ Multiple choice□ Matching□ Fill in the blank□ Cloze test

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

□ True/false□ Essay questions□ Dictation□ Oral interview□ Composition test□ Others; please specify ____________________

9. What do you think the primary functions of tests are in your English program?(Please tick up to three options).

□ To assess students’ learning difficulty□ To place students into different groups□ To motivate students□ To identify areas for re-teaching□ To find out how much students have learned□ To assess students’ weekly or monthly progress

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. To what extent do you include the following alternative assessment proceduresin your teaching? Please indicate your response by circling a number, accordingto the following key.

1 To a very large extent2 To a large extent3 To some extent4 To a small extent5 To no extent (not at all)

1 2 3 4 5 Projects1 2 3 4 5 Portfolio1 2 3 4 5 Self-assessment questionnaires

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

1 2 3 4 5 Peer assessment questionnaires1 2 3 4 5 Interviews1 2 3 4 5 Observation1 2 3 4 5 Learning logs/journals

Comment:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. In your opinion, what is a good language learner? (Please tick up to threeoptions.)

□ A learner who asks a lot of questions□ A learner who can plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning□ A learner who interacts with other students□ A learner who is not afraid of making mistakes□ A learner who is motivated□ A learner who follows teachers’ instructions□ A learner who completes class assignment□ A learner who is active and speaks out□ Others; please specify: ________________________

12. Which of the following contribute to learners’ failure to learn English? (Pleasetick up to three options.)

□ Inefficient learning strategy□ Below normal IQ□ No talent□ Frequent absences from class□ Fear to make errors□ Not enough opportunity to use the language in real life□ Unfavorable attitude towards the target language□ Inability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning□ Lack of attention in class

Asian Englishes, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014

□ Lack of effort□ Others; please specify ___________________________

Willy A. RENANDYASEAMEO RELC30 Orange Grove RoadSingapore 258352, Singapore

Fax : +65-734-2753E-mail: willyr@pacific.net.sg

LIM Wai LeeRaffles Girls’ Sec School20 Anderson RoadSingapore 259978, Singapore

E-mail: chewej@mbox4.singnet.com.sg

Cedric LEONG Kai Wah801 Woodlands St. 81 #06-117Singapore 73081, Singapore

E-mail cleong@pacific.net.sg

George M. JACOBSSEAMEO RELC30 Orange GroveSingapore 258352, Singapore

Fax: +65-734-2753E-mail: gmjacobs@pacific.net.sg

A Survey of English Language Teaching Trends and Practices in Southeast Asia

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 1

9:03

22

Mar

ch 2

014