TESOL International Journal

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Volume 14 Issue 1.1 2019 ISSN 2094-3938

Published by the TESOL International Journal
http://www.tesol-international-journal.com

© English Language Education Publishing

Brisbane Australia

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of English Language Education Publishing.
No unauthorized photocopying

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of English Language Education Publishing.

Chief Editor: Dr. Xinghua Liu

ISSN. 2094-3938
 TESOL International Journal
Chief Editor
Xinghua Liu
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

Associate Editors
Hanh thi Nguyen Dean Jorgensen
Hawaii Pacifc University, USA Gachon University, South Korea
Joseph P. Vitta Khadijeh Jafari
Queen’s University Belfast, UK Islamic Azad University of Gorgan, Iran

Editorial Board
Ai, Haiyang - University of Cincinnati, USA Lee, Sook Hee - Charles Sturt University, Australia
Anderson, Tim - University of British Columbia, Canada Li, Chili - Hubei University of Technology, China
Arabmofrad, Ali - Golestan University, Iran Li, Liang - Jilin Normal University, China
Batziakas, Bill - Queen Mary University of London, UK Li, Yiying - Wenzao Ursuline University, Taiwan
Behfrouz, Behnam - University of Buraimi, Oman Lo, Yu-Chih - National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taiwan
Bigdeli, Rouhollah Askari - Yasouj University, Iran Nguyen, Ha Thi - Monash University, Australia
Bretaña – Tan, Ma Joji - University of the Philippines, Niu, Ruiying - Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
Philippines

Çakir, İsmail - Erciyes University, Turkey O'Brien, Lynda - University of Nottingham Ningbo, China Rozells,

Chang, Tzu-shan - Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, Diane Judith - Sookmyung Women’s University, S. Korea
Taiwan

Choi, Jayoung - Georgia State University, USA Salem, Ashraf Atta Mohamed Safein - Sadat Academy for
Management Sciences, Egypt

Chuenchaichon, Yutthasak - Naresuan University, Thailand Sultana, Shahin - B. S. Abdur Rahman University, India
Chung, Edsoulla - University of Cambridge, UK Ta, Thanh Binh - Monash University, Australia
Cutrone, Pino - Nagasaki University, Japan Tran-Dang, Khanh-Linh - Monash University, Australia
Dang, Doan-Trang Thi - Monash University, Australia Ulla, Mark B. - Mindanao State University, Philippines
Deng, Jun - Central South University, China Witte, Maria Martinez - Auburn University, USA
Derakhshan, Ali - Golestan University, Iran Wu, Chiu-hui - Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, Taiwan
Dodigovic, Marina - American University of Armenia, Armenia Yan, Yanxia - Xinhua University, China
Farsani,Mohammad Amini - Kharazmi University, Iran Yu, Jiying - Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Floris, Flora Debora - Petra Christian University, Indonesia Zhang, Lidong - Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Hos, Rabia - Zirve University, Turkey Zhang, Xinling - Shanghai University, China
Ji, Xiaoling - Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China Zhao, Peiling - Central South University, China
Jiang, Xuan - St. Thomas University, USA Zhao, Zhongbao - Hunan Institute of Science and Technology,
China
Kambara, Hitomi - University of Oklahoma, USA
Khajavi, Yaser - Shiraz university, Iran
Foreword from the editor

This issue of TESOL International Journal contains six papers. In the first paper,
Gui Bao conducted a study to examining EFL learners’ initial vocabulary learning
through reading sentences and performing tasks related to target words. It was found
that out of four tasks, two involving input (matching and choice) and two output
(definition and combining), the definition task outperformed the others for EFL
vocabulary knowledge acquisition.

In the second paper, Pino Cutrone studied 23 Japanese EFL learners’

listenership behaviors by examining the effects of variables such as L2 proficiency,
extraversion, and willingness to communicate. Data from video recordings of
intercultural dyadic conversations in English between a Japanese EFL learner and a
native English speaker with questionnaires and language proficiency tests revealed a
great deal of individual variation regarding listenership behaviours and factors such as
the specific contexts of each conversation, the personality of the participants, and
other peripheral variables such as participants’ moods at the time of the conversations
seemed to play a part in their oral output.

Zhenjie Weng, Jingyi Zhu, and Grace J. Y. Kim systematically reviewed

classroom-based empirical studies on language teacher agency within
ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts. Chosen studies were scrutinized for theoretical
frameworks, contexts, methodologies, major findings, methodological and ethical
issues, as well as implications. They found that overall teacher agency still remains
under-examined in ESL/EFL/bilingual language education contexts and suggested
that data collection methods, such as playback sessions, surveys, mapping, collecting
artifacts, and focus groups can be used to triangulate data analysis from different
angles in future studies.

In the fourth paper, with data from stimulated recall activities, written
observations, and interviews, Maria Eleftheriou examined tutors’ and tutees’
experiences of the effectiveness of directive and non-directive strategies of instruction
in a writing center context at a Middle East university. It was found that while tutors
and tutees find directive approaches useful for lower order concerns, both tutors and
tutees prefer non-directive approaches when addressing higher order concerns.
Mohammad Nabi Karimi, Ebrahim Zangani, and Nahid Fallah investigated

the allocation of attention to meaning and form simultaneously in reading

comprehension in the foreign language among monolingual and bilingual learners of
English in Iran. The study did not find significant difference between bilingual and
monolingual learners regarding the level of processing of the targeted lexical form as
far as the subject of attention to meaning and form is concerned. However, the results
indicated that deeper processing is associated with better reading comprehension.

Enisa Mede and Şenel Yalçın explored self-reported beliefs of experienced and
novice instructors about using adaptation strategies in intermediate English classes of
a preparatory program in Turkey. Data collected from reflective essays, lesson plans,
and semi-structured interviews showed that both novice and experienced instructors
shared highly positive beliefs about the implementation of adaptation strategies in
their courses. It was also found that the adaptive decisions of the participating
instructors were closely related to their students, tasks, context, time, and their own
beliefs.

Such is the brief overview of the six papers in this issue. If you are actively
engaged in research or have done research related to English language education,
please do not hesitate to contact us about the possibility of publishing with TESOL
International Journal. Apart from individual paper submissions, we also welcome
proposals for special issues.

Xinghua (Kevin) Liu

School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Email: [email protected]
 Contents

Comparing Input and Output Tasks in EFL Learners‘ Vocabulary Acquisition 1-12
Gui Bao

Profiling Performances of L2 Listenership: Examining The Effects of 13-36

Individual Differences in The Japanese EFL Context
Pino Cutrone

English Language Teacher Agency in Classroom-based Empirical Studies: A 37-61

Research Synthesis
Zhenjie Weng
Jingyi Zhu
Grace J. Y. Kim

Multilingual, Middle-Eastern Students‘ Varied Responses to Directive and 62-78

Non-directive Strategies in Peer Tutoring
Maria Eleftheriou

Differential Allocation of Attention to Meaning and Form in Reading 79-90

Comprehension for Monolingual and Bilingual Learners of English
Mohammad Nabi Karimi
Ebrahim Zangani
Nahid Fallah

Utilizing Textbook Adaptation Strategies: Experiences and Challenges of 91-104

Novice and Experienced EFL Instructors
Enisa Mede
Şenel Yalçın
 1

Comparing Input and Output Tasks in EFL Learners‘ Vocabulary

Acquisition

Gui Bao 1

Nanjing Tech University, China

Abstract
Task-based vocabulary learning has recently attracted lots of attention in the field of second
language (L2) vocabulary acquisition. This article compares the effects of input and output tasks
on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners‘ acquisition of vocabulary knowledge. Four
intact classes of EFL learners were randomly assigned to one of four tasks of learning 18 target
words through sentence reading exercises, i.e., matching, definition, choice, and combining.
The definition task was found to be more effective than the other tasks in EFL vocabulary
knowledge, irrespective of EFL proficiency. At each level of EFL proficiency, the matching and
combining tasks performed equally well. The choice task had a small advantage over the
matching and combining tasks at the learners‘ low EFL proficiency level, but not at the
intermediate or high EFL proficiency level. Differential processing and division of attention may
well affect task effectiveness.

Keywords: input task, output task, EFL vocabulary knowledge, differential processing, division
of attention

Introduction
It is generally acknowledged that second language (L2) reading with related word-focused tasks
(i.e., reading plus) is more conducive to vocabulary acquisition than L2 reading without such
tasks (i.e., reading only) (Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Wesche &
Paribakt, 2000). Word-focused tasks through reading arouse the learners‘ attention to new
words, thereby increasing the chances that the words will be retained. Such attention may not be
necessarily evoked during a ―reading only‖ task, whose purpose is to gain an overall
understanding of the text (Hill & Laufer, 2003, p. 90). L2 researchers and teachers have
developed a variety of tasks to ascertain whether some tasks are more effective than others in
improving vocabulary knowledge (Barcroft, 2002; Golonka et al., 2015; Huang & Lin, 2014; Joe,
1998). One important question arising from this line of research is how to theorize task
effectiveness. Of most recent theoretical interest is the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH)
(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).
The ILH accrues from Laufer and Hulstijn‘s (2001) concern for the failure of the levels of
processing (LOP) framework to provide clear definitions of notions like ―depth of processing‖
and ―degree of elaboration‖ (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975), and for the
possible effects of human and social-cultural factors like motivation on information processing.
According to the ILH, the construct of involvement is defined as consisting of three concrete
task-related components, i.e., need (motivational dimension), search and evaluation (cognitive
or information processing dimensions). The involvement load is thus determined by the
presence and strength of each component. The ILH predicts that, the greater the task-induced
involvement loads, the more likely the word will be learned. A number of researchers (e.g.,
Folse, 2006; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008) designed various L2 vocabulary learning
tasks to test the ILH. Nevertheless, the hypothesis was supported only partially, suggesting that
task effectiveness is not always revealed by the involvement load a task generates.
One of the crucial issues is the dependence of task effectiveness on the input- or output-
orientation. The ILH hypothesizes that word retention is contingent upon nothing but

E-mail: [email protected]. School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Nanjing Tech

University, No. 30, South Puzhu Road, Pukou District, Nanjing 211816, China.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 2

the involvement load a task generates, be it input- or output-oriented. This suggests that input
and output tasks would be equally effective if they generated identical involvement loads.
Although numerous studies have addressed the ILH, no due attention has been paid to this
suggestion. Accordingly, the current study seeks to examine the effects of several input and
output tasks with the same involvement loads on English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
vocabulary learning.

Background Literature
The ILH focuses essentially on semantic spread (i.e., the degree to which semantic information
is enriched in processing new words), ascribing the learner‘s retention of hitherto unfamiliar L2
words (or vocabulary items) to the synergism of the three components of task-induced
involvement, i.e., need (N), search (S), and evaluation (E). According to Laufer and Hulstijn
(2001), ―need‖ is a drive to meet the task demands; it may be absent (-N) when the task is not
relevant to the new words, or may have a moderate presence (+N) if it is imposed by an external
agent, for instance, if L2 reading comprehension questions are relevant to the new words
glossed in the text, or even a strong presence (++N) if it is intrinsically motivated by the learner
per se, for instance, in a composition where the learner decides to consult a bilingual dictionary
for the unknown equivalents of certain L1 concepts. ―Search‖ is an attempt to find the form or
meaning of an unknown word; it may be either absent (-S) if this attempt is not made, or present
(+S) if it is. ―Evaluation‖ involves a decision about the meaning or usage of a new word. It may
be absent (-E) when the task is not relevant to the new words, or may have a moderate presence
(+E) when the task entails recognition of differences among words (as in a fill-in task), or among
several senses of a word in the specific context, or even a strong presence (++E) when the task
entails the use of a new word in an original text. The involvement load is thus operationalized as
the involvement index, with the absence of a component marked as 0, moderate presence as 1,
and strong presence as 2. The ILH assumes that each component of involvement carries equal
weight in relation to word retention, and that the involvement indexes can be simply added to
represent the degree of overall involvement.
Most empirical research regarding the ILH has been conducted through learning words in
reading passages or single sentences. In both sizes of context, however, mixed evidence is found
for the ILH.
The first mixed evidence was derived from Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), who compared
three tasks through passage reading: reading [+N, -S, -E], reading plus fill-in [+N, -S, +E], and
composition writing [+N, -S, ++E]. The writing task was found to produce significantly better
retention of the target word meanings than both the reading and reading plus fill-in tasks in two
experiments, whereas the reading plus fill-in task resulted in better retention than the reading
task in one experiment but not in the other, thus largely but not fully supporting the ILH. The
majority of follow-up studies also lent partial support to the ILH (in passage contexts: Eckerth &
Tavakoli, 2012; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2011; in sentence
contexts: Bao, 2015; Folse, 2006; Webb, 2005; Webb & Kagimoto, 2009), with those in full
support of the ILH being in the minority (e.g., in passage contexts: Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Min,
2008; in sentence contexts and on overall word recall: Pichette, de Serres, & Lafontaine, 2012).
Among the factors affecting word retention are time and type of vocabulary knowledge
measurement (e.g., Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Webb, 2005), word encounter frequency or
retrieval frequency (e.g., Eckerth & Tavakoli, 2012; Folse, 2006; Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat,
2011), task design (e.g., Eckerth & Tavakoli, 2012; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008), and word
characteristics (e.g., Pichette, de Serres, & Lafontaine, 2012).
To summarize, previous empirical studies regarding the ILH either involved comparing
input and output tasks with different involvement loads (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Webb,
2005), or output tasks inducing identical or different loads (e.g., Bao, 2015; Folse, 2006; Kim,
2008). An interesting question is, would the input- and output-oriented tasks be equally effective
for L2 vocabulary learning if the task-induced involvement loads were identical? Although the
ILH predicts that higher task-induced involvement will lead to better retention of an unknown
word, regardless of whether the task is input- or output-oriented (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p.
20), it is possible that input and output tasks, which entail two qualitatively different modes of

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 3

processing, may contribute to L2 vocabulary learning in ways unpredicted by the ILH.

Therefore, the problem of concern is how the input and output tasks compare in L2 vocabulary
learning if the task-induced involvement loads are held constant.
Another question of pedagogical interest is whether task effectiveness regarding vocabulary
learning is related to L2 learner factors like L2 proficiency. If the positive effect of a task as
compared to another task persists across L2 proficiency levels, this task would apply to the
normal classroom setting where a regular class consists of L2 learners with mixed L2 proficiency
levels. In one of the two experiments on English as a Second Language (ESL) learners with two
levels of ESL proficiency, Kim (2008) compared two tasks, which were hypothesized to have
the same level of task-induced involvement (composition writing (+N, -S, ++E), sentence writing
(+N, -S, ++E)). In initial word learning, there was neither a significant main effect for either task
type or ESL proficiency nor a significant two-way interaction. However, it remains to be found
whether the independence of task effectiveness from language proficiency is generalizable to
tasks other than composition writing and sentence writing.
Thus, this study addressed the following two questions:
1. How does task type (i.e., matching, choice, definition, combining) affect EFL learners‘
vocabulary knowledge?
2. Do the task type effects on EFL learners‘ vocabulary knowledge vary with EFL learners‘
proficiency?

Method
Research Design
This study was an examination of how word-focused tasks would affect EFL learners‘ initial
word learning, employing a pretest-posttest experimental design. Task type, a between-subjects
factor, had four levels, consisting of two input tasks (i.e., matching and choice) and two output
tasks (i.e., definition and combining). These tasks were assumed to have identical involvement
loads, but differed in the input-output orientation, presence of a target word, or both (see the
Input and output tasks section). Initial word learning was measured by an immediate posttest of
EFL learners‘ passive recall and use of the newly learned target words. Unlike the posttest,
however, the pretest was a test of EFL proficiency. The whole experiment was conducted in
class. During the experiment, all classes were asked to do the same sentence reading exercises
involving the target words, but to complete a different word-focused task assigned to them
within the allocated time limits. A short time after task completion, all the classes were asked to
take the test of the target words.
Allocating different time limits to different tasks was due to the relationship between a task
and task time. That is, all else being equal, tasks of different types tend to require different
lengths of time to complete. Like a number of previous studies (Folse, 2006; Hulstijn & Laufer,
2001; Keating, 2008), this study considered task time to be an internal part of a task.

Participants
The participants were 167 first year intermediate EFL learners from different non-English
specialties at one Chinese university. They are mostly female (151 females vs. 16 males), and
their ages ranged from 16 to 22 years old (M = 18.51, SD = 0.86). These participants had
learned English at school for at least six years before they went to university. They had to
continue to learn English as a compulsory course at university for the first two years. They were
taught English in one of the four randomly assigned intact classes for 4 hr per week.
Each intact class was randomly assigned to one of the four vocabulary learning tasks. One
month before the experiment, all four classes of EFL learners took an EFL proficiency test with
a full score of 100. The descriptive statistics for their EFL proficiency are displayed in Table 1,
including sample size (n), mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and Shapiro-Wilk Test.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 4

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for EFL proficiency across task type
Shapiro-Wilk Test
n M SD
W p
Matching 42 67.39 12.14 0.93* 0.018
Choice 44 67.14 12.09 0.92** 0.004
Definition 44 66.67 7.96 0.91** 0.002
Combining 37 67.91 7.93 0.98 0.701
* and ** indicate significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

As Table 1 indicates, all four groups had similar EFL proficiency scores when they took the
test one month previously. For the combining task, the data are approximately normally
distributed, w = 0.98, p > 0.05, but for the other tasks, the assumption of normality was violated,
p < 0.05 or 0.01. Levene's test found that the assumption of homogeneity of variances among
the groups was violated, F (3,163) = 2.97, p = 0.033 < 0.05.
A robust ANOVA using 20% trimmed means (X¯) 1and 20% Winsorized variances (s2 ) 2

t w

found no statistically significant difference, Ft (3, 55) = 0.15, p = 0.928 > 0.05, so the four groups
were considered equivalent in EFL proficiency.

Target Words and Sentence Reading Exercises

The participants in this study were at the same EFL proficiency level as those in Bao (2015), so
the same 18 target words used in his study were also used in this study. These target words
consisted of an equal number of nouns, verbs and adjectives. The nouns were accessory, bristle,
cabaret, fracture, gimmick, palette, the verbs allege, haunt, mumble, scrub, shudder, strangle,
and the adjectives candid, cavalier, devious, egalitarian, erratic, malign.
EFL reading exercises, serving as language input, comprised 18 semantically disconnected
reading sentences, each of which involved a target word. These sentences were the same as in
Bao (2015). The reading sentences were randomly divided into three sets of six sentences each.
Immediately after each reading sentence, the gloss of a target word was given in the brackets,
including its L1 (Mandarin Chinese) translations, part of speech and inflection. Below each
reading sentence was a 4-point self-report scale (1= not understood, 2 = partially understood, 3
= largely understood, 4 = totally understood). The purpose of the scale was to encourage the
participants to read each sentence carefully lest they should jump to the input or output task
assigned to them.

Input and Output Tasks

In both the matching and definition tasks, several definitions/descriptions as one of the three
sets were presented on the right, and on the left were the target words or the blanks to be filled
in with the target words. The matching task was input-oriented, while the definition task output-
oriented. The participants on the matching task were instructed to draw a line linking each target
word to one definition/description. The purpose of giving more definitions/descriptions than the
target words was to reduce reliance on guessing. The definition task omitted the distracters used
in the matching task, and replaced the target words with blanks. The participants on this task
were asked to fill in each blank with the target word matching each definition/description.

For both the choice and combining tasks, the 18 sentences were evenly divided into three
sets of six sentences each. Each sentence was segmented into five word strings. In both tasks, the
participants were asked to rearrange the word strings into a grammatically correct sentence. The
choice task was input-oriented while the combining task output-oriented. In the choice task, the
word strings, numbered 1 to 5, were randomly presented in each item stem, followed by four
sequences numbered A to D for the participants to choose from, but only one sequence was
grammatically correct. In the combining task, however, the numbers 1 to 5 in each item stem
were omitted, and the adjacent word strings were separated with semicolons. The participants
were asked to write down the correct sentence order in the line below the item.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 5

All the tasks induced moderate need (+N), since the need was imposed by the task
instructions. They demanded no search for the target words (-S), since the glosses of these
words were given. Both the matching and definition tasks induced moderate evaluation (+), as
evaluation ―entails recognizing differences between words‖ (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 544).
Both the choice and combining tasks also induced moderate evaluation (+), as evaluation
entailed comparing word strings and deciding how the target word or word string combined with
others into a given sentence or text rather than requiring a decision as to ―how additional words
will combine with the new word in an original (as opposed to given) sentence or text‖ (ibid., p.
544). Therefore, all the tasks in this study were assigned an involvement load index of 2.

Vocabulary Knowledge Test Instrument

The vocabulary knowledge test instrument was an immediate posttest of the target words. It was
adapted from Min‘s (2008) 4-point version of the five-point Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS),
which was developed by Paribakht and Wesche (1997). Min (2008) used the unknown/known
word dichotomy to distinguish the first two statements (the unknown word category; Categories I
and II) from the second two statements (the known word category; Categories III and IV).
According to Paribakht and Wesche (1997), the first two categories were focused on form and
meaning recognition (in a self-report form), whereas the last two were intended to measure
meaning recall and comprehension (in a production task). This study employed Categories III
and IV to measure the leaner‘s demonstrable vocabulary knowledge of each target word.
For the participants‘ understanding, the test instructions were given in Mandarin Chinese,
their native language. The participants were presented with a list of the target words and
instructed to indicate their levels of knowledge for each. For Category III, the participants were
asked to write down the English definition or Chinese equivalent of each target word. Those
who could complete Category III should proceed to Category IV, where they had to write a
meaningful sentence with each target word.

Procedures
One week before the experiment, the researcher trained four EFL teachers on how to handle
the materials, and answered questions about the instructions. The experiment was carried out
during the regular class periods. Since the teaching schedules were not exactly the same, each
teacher was allowed to administer the experiment in their own class sessions on a separate day
of the same week.
Different time limits were set for each task (i.e., each vocabulary learning task plus sentence
reading exercises). Following Bao (2015), the time limits of 15 and 30 min were set for the
definition and combining tasks, respectively. Since the matching and definition tasks were
similar in design format, and so were the choice and combining tasks, the matching and choice
tasks were given the same time limits as the definition and combining tasks, respectively.
At the beginning of the experiment, all the participants were instructed to do the reading
exercises first, followed by the assigned word-focused tasks. While performing the vocabulary
learning tasks, the participants were allowed to refer to the reading materials for better
understanding of the target words. 10 min after the teachers collected all the materials, the
participants were unexpectedly given a 20-min posttest of the target words. All the test papers
were collected by the teachers when the time was up.

Scoring and Data Analyses

This study dichotomized each participant‘s responses to Categories III and IV. For Category III,
a score of 1 was awarded for a correct synonym or translation of the target word, but a score of 0
for no attempted response or an incorrect synonym or translation. No penalty was given for the
wrong Chinese characters in the translation or replacing the correct Chinese characters with
Chinese phonetic symbols as long as the correct meaning could be reasonably guessed.
Regarding Category IV, a score of 1 was awarded if both the meaning and grammatical usage of
the target word were correct in the sentence, regardless of errors elsewhere in the sentence, but a
score of 0 was given otherwise.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 6

Two experienced EFL teachers were trained to rate the participants‘ Categories III and IV
for each target word independently. The inter-rater agreement was 100%, as all disagreements
were discussed between the two teachers until consensus was reached. Each participant‘s
vocabulary knowledge was represented by the cumulative scores of Categories III and IV.
To address the first research question, one robust one-way ANOVA was conducted on
EFL vocabulary knowledge with task type as the between-subjects factor, followed by six post
hoc linear contrasts (Hochberg‘s method was used to control the family-wise error rate). To
address the second research question, one robust ANCOVA was conducted on EFL 3

vocabulary knowledge to test the task type effects at each of three design points of EFL
proficiency (covariate). R 3.5.1 was run for all data analyses. All functions for robust estimates
came from Wilcox (2017). The statistical significance level was set at α = 0.05. One robust
explanatory measure of effect size, called dR, was used. Under normality and homogeneity, d =
0.20, 0.50 and 0.80 represent small, medium and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988).
In this study, this criterion for the magnitudes of effect sizes was followed, and a medium effect
size or beyond was deemed important.

Results
Task Type and EFL Vocabulary Knowledge
This section graphically compares the input and output tasks in vocabulary learning. Figure 1
displays the data patterns of EFL vocabulary knowledge for each task.

Figure 1
Violin plots of vocabulary knowledge vs. task type

Figure 1 consitsts of four violin plots, i.e., kernel density plots superimposed in a mirror-
image fashion over boxplots. Here, the boxes range from the lower to the upper quartile, the
solid black line and the diamond in each box represent the median and mean respectively, and
the black dots are outliers. Several features are discernible in this figure. To start with, the data
distribution for each task is basically unimodal and right-skewed to a different extent.
Furthermore, the data distribution for each task is somewhat platykurtic, especially for the
definition task. Thirdly, one outlier is present for both the choice and combining tasks, but not
for the other tasks. Finally, a comparison of the means and medians shows that the definition
task perfroms remarkably better that the other three taks, which perform almost equally well.

Effects of Task Type on EFL Vocabulary Knowledge

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the vocabulary knowledge data, including sample
size (n), 20% trimmed mean (X¯) , 20% Winsorized variance (s2 ), and 95% CI.
t w

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 7

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for EFL vocabulary knowledge across task type
n ¯ Xt
s2w 95% CI
Matching 42 6.31 10.65 4.58–8.04
Choice 44 7 14.37 5.05–8.95
Definition 44 15.18 29.03 12.40–17.96
Combining 37 6.83 13.93 4.71–8.95

As Table 2 shows, the definition task fares best in vocabulary learning, and its 95% CI of the
trimmed mean does not overlap with any other task‘s, suggesting a significant difference
between the definition and any of the other tasks. Much overlap in 95% CIs suggests no
significant difference among the matching, choice and combining tasks.
A one-way robust ANOVA found that task type had a statistically significant effect on EFL
vocabulary knowledge, Ft (3, 55.32) = 12.37, p < 0.001. Table 3 reports the results of each linear
contrast.

Table 3
Tests of task differences in EFL vocabulary knowledge
ψ

^ p p.crit dR
Matching-Choice -0.69 0.579 0.017 0.13
Matching-Definition -8.87 +
< 0.001 0.013 1.27
Matching-Combining -0.52 0.697 0.025 0.10
Choice-Definition -8.18 +
< 0.001 0.010 1.13
Choice-Combining 0.17 0.887 0.050 0.03
Definition-Combining 8.35+
< 0.001 0.008 1.14
ψ^ indicates a trimmed mean difference; p.crit refers to the critical value for a
test of significance; + indicates significance at the specified critical p value.

As Table 3 indicates, all the differences between the definition task and any of the other
tasks reach statistical significance, with very large effect sizes. All the differences among the
matching, choice and combining tasks fail to reach statistical significance, with very small effect
sizes.

Effects of Task Type on EFL Vocabulary Knowledge at Different Levels of EFL Proficiency
The previous section did not examine whether the task type effects were independent of EFL
proficiency. In this section, a robust ANCOVA was conducted to examine the task type effects
at each of the three EFL proficiency design points. These design points were 61.75, 69.25 and
74.71, representing the low, intermediate and high EFL proficiency level, respectively. Table 4
presents the results of the tests of task differences in EFL vocabulary knowledge at each design
point.
Table 4
Tests of Task Differences in EFL Vocabulary Knowledge at Each EFL Proficiency Design
Point ψ

Design ni vs. nj ^ p p.crit dR

point
61.75 23 vs.19 -2.85 0.197 0.025 0.41
Matching-Choice 69.25 30 vs.33 -0.70 0.661 0.025 0.12
74.71 29 vs.30 0.90 0.497 0.017 0.19
61.75 23 vs.10 -9.63 +
0.000 0.010 1.55
Matching-Definition 69.25 30 vs.30 -8.28 +
< 0.001 0.01 1.36
74.71 29 vs.22 -9.41 +
< 0.001 0.013 1.41
61.75 23 vs. 21 0.46 0.792 0.050 0.08
Matching-Combining 69.25 30 vs.27 0.09 0.918 0.050 0.02
74.71 29 vs.22 0.88 0.550 0.025 0.17

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 8

61.75 19 vs. 10 -6.78 +

0.029 0.013 0.82
Choice-Definition 69.25 33 vs.30 -7.58 +
0.0005 0.013 1.07
74.71 30 vs.22 -10.31 < 0.001
+
0.010 1.55
61.75 19 vs. 21 3.31 0.138 0.017 0.46
Choice-Combining 69.25 33 vs.27 0.79 0.618 0.017 0.12
74.71 30 vs.22 -0.02 0.985 0.050 0.01
61.75 10 vs. 21 10.09 +
0.000 0.008 1.55
Definition-Combinin 69.25 30 vs.27 8.37 +
< 0.001 0.008 1.25
g 74.71 22 vs.22 10.29 +
< 0.001 0.008 1.44
ψ^ indicates a trimmed mean difference; p.crit refers to the critical value for a test of
significance; + indicates significance at the specified critical p value.

As Table 4 indicates, at each EFL proficiency level, the definition task outperforms all the
other tasks significantly, with a large or very large effect size. No significant difference was found
among the matching, choice and combining tasks at each EFL proficiency level. Nevertheless, at
the low EFL proficiency level (design point = 61.75), given the observed low to medium-sized
and medium-sized effect sizes, the small advantage of the choice task over the matching and
combining tasks should be taken note of.

Discussion
This study investigated the task type effects on EFL learners‘ vocabulary knowledge, followed
by examination of whether such effects were independent of EFL proficiency. Of the four types
of task investigated, the definition task was found to outperform all the other tasks in promoting
EFL vocabulary knowledge, and the matching, choice and combining tasks performed equally
well. When EFL proficiency was considered, the definition task was also found to outperform
all the other tasks at each level of EFL proficiency, and the matching and combining tasks
showed no difference, irrespective of EFL proficiency. The choice task had an advantage over
the matching and combining tasks at the low level of EFL proficiency, but not at the
intermediate or high level of EFL proficiency. The task type effects are largely independent of
EFL proficiency, a finding similar to Kim (2008). It seems that, once low-proficiency EFL
learners have reached a level of proficiency sufficient to allow them to complete common
vocabulary-focused tasks, it is possible for them to benefit from the tasks as equally or nearly
equally as high-proficiency EFL learners. It should be noted, however, that the EFL learners in
this study were at the same grade level, and their differences in EFL proficiency might not be as
large as they appeared. Thus, it would be of great interest to examine whether the present
findings would still hold across a wider range of proficiency levels.
With regard to the ILH, only partial support was provided, since all the four tasks were not
equally effective in promoting vocabulary knowledge. The task type effects allow for
explanations other than the ILH. In what follows, the effects are explained mainly in terms of
differential processing and division of attention.

Differential Processing
The word exposure frequency effect, evidenced by some studies (e.g., Eckerth & Tavakoli,
2012; Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2011) may partly account for the present findings. Take for
example the comparison between the definition and combining tasks. The definition task
increased the frequency at which each target word was encountered and evaluated, thus
reinforcing the form-meaning connection in the learner‘s mental lexicon. Such frequent
encounters of the target words could not be expected to occur in the combining task, where
target words were given individually, and no comparisons between them were needed. The
word exposure frequency effect might also account for the small advantage of the choice task
over the matching or combining task when the learners were compared at the low EFL
proficiency level. The choice task, where the target word appeared in each of the four options,
might offer the learners multiple exposures to the target word. Compared to the learners at the
intermediate or high EFL proficiency level, those at the low EFL proficiency level were more
likely to repeatedly compare the four options concerning the target word in order to make a

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 9

correct choice. Consequently, multiple exposures to the target word might have increased the
learners‘ chances of knowing the word.
Perhaps more importantly, the superiority of the definition task over the other tasks was
due to more retrieval or mental effort. The learners doing the definition task had to infer a
conceptually familiar L1 word equivalent corresponding to each definition/description, and
then return to the reading exercises to find the target word whose actual L1 equivalent was the
same as or similar to the inferred one. In order to ensure the form-meaning correspondence,
the learners might have compared and evaluated the target words and the
definitions/descriptions repeatedly. The forced output facilitated the definition task learners‘
access to the target word forms. The mental effort demanded by inferring and forced
production might have greatly strengthened the form-meaning connection. This also explains
Wesche and Paribakht‘s (2000) finding that interpretation of form-meaning relationships in the
definition task induced more mental effort than recognition of form-meaning relationships in
the matching task.
In the final analysis, differential processing could probably account for task effectiveness for
vocabulary learning. Unlike the other tasks, the definition task could induce both elaborate
structural (i.e., orthographic) and elaborate semantic processing of the target words. Although
the matching task provided the same rich contextual cues as did the definition task, the learners
on the matching task might have found no need to infer the target words, which had already
been given. Even though the matching task learners might compare or evaluate the different
target words and their corresponding definitions/descriptions, such comparisons or evaluations
did not warrant the same semantic elaboration as did the definition task. A similar case is made
for the choice and combining tasks. Like the matching task, these two tasks did not require
effortful retrieval but recognition of the target words. The comparison between the definition
and the other tasks reveals the importance of both structural and semantic processing in
vocabulary learning.

Division of Attention
One may still wonder why the combining task was not more effective for vocabulary learning
than the choice task. Intuitively, it appears reasonable to anticipate that the combining task
would perform better than the choice task, not only because the former took longer than the
latter, but also because the former was a recognition task, whereas the latter was a production
one. More time on task does not necessarily lead to better retention of the target words,
however. For instance, Craik and Tulving (1975) compared reaction time among three levels of
processing, i.e., questions concerning type-script (structural level), rhyme questions (phonemic
level), and sentence questions (semantic level), finding that slow responses were recognized little
better than fast responses at each level of processing. In the same vein, Hill and Laufer (2003)
found that task effectiveness could be attributed to task type rather than time on task. In the
current study, the choice and combining tasks proved to be more complex than the matching
task or perhaps even the definition task, because the learners doing these tasks, especially those
doing the combining task, had to understand the meanings of all word strings and analyze the
syntactic relations among them so as to rearrange the word strings into a proper sentence.
However, like time on task, task complexity does not necessarily contribute to better word
retention, either. For example, Joe (1998) found that an experimental task, where the adult L2
learners received explicit instruction on generative tactics and retold the passage without the aid
of the text, did not perform better in word retention than a comparison task, where the learners
did not receive explicit instruction but had the text available to them while retelling, although
the experimental task was expected to outperform the comparison task. The increased task
demands and higher learning burden imposed on the experimental group may have led to their
failure to outscore the comparison group (Joe, 1998, p. 373).
In this study, although processing the target word was intended to be the primary activity,
and unscrambling word strings into a proper sentence the secondary activity, the choice and
combining tasks, especially the combining task, were so demanding (e.g., in terms of syntactic
knowledge) that the learners might have diverted their attention to the secondary activity,
resulting in shallower encoding of the target word processed in the primary activity. Still possibly,

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 10

various requirements dictated by the combining task depleted the learners‘ attentional resources,
and this in turn led to faint memories of the new words which could possibly have been
processed elaborately. This may explain why the combining task had no advantage over the
matching or choice task. It should be noted that, though, the participants in this study were not
advanced EFL learners, and their syntactic competence was not developed fully. Equipped with
more syntactic competence, EFL learners doing the combining task would have been less likely
to divert much attention to those requirements not directly related to the target words, and thus
might have memorized the target words better, since the sentence context could have
consolidated the form-meaning connection, or even the word usage, a claim that remains to be
verified.

Conclusion
This study examined EFL learners‘ initial vocabulary learning through reading sentences and
performing tasks related to the target words. Four tasks, involving two input (matching and
choice) and two output tasks (definition and combining), were compared in EFL vocabulary
knowledge acquisition. The definition task outperformed all the other tasks across EFL
proficiency levels. The matching and combining tasks performed equally well, regardless of
EFL proficiency. The choice task gained a small advantage over the matching and combining
tasks when the learners were at the low level of EFL proficiency, but this advantage disappeared
when the learners arrived at the intermediate or high EFL proficiency level.
This study contributes to a better understanding of what characteristics of a word-focused
task determine its effectiveness for word retention. Differential processing may well account for
the superiority of the definition task over the other tasks in retention of new words, suggesting
the importance of both structural and semantic processing. Thus, in order for the ILH to better
explain or predict task effectiveness, the notion of evaluation may need to be extended to cover
both structural and semantic elaboration instead of the latter only. Division of attention was
another probably important factor affecting word retention, since the task demands could direct
or divert the learners‘ attention to the new words. Therefore, although all vocabulary learning
tasks can be labeled as ―word-focused‖, it does not follow that they would induce the same
amount of learners‘ attention to new words. Divided attention, which depends on the task
requirements and complexity, would probably reduce word retention even if the new words
were once processed more deeply or elaborately.
These findings have potential implications for EFL vocabulary instruction. EFL teachers
should keep in mind that neither more task time nor a more complex task is necessarily
beneficial for vocabulary learning, since word retention depends much more on what kind of
processing the task elicits and how much of the learners‘ attention the task directs to the new
words. They are advised to design tasks which can induce access to both word form and
meaning to help the learners consolidate the form-meaning connection. EFL teachers should
also be aware that, at the initial stages of EFL vocabulary learning, attention to the structural
properties of a new word may be of vital importance, since EFL vocabulary acquisition
―typically does not involve learning new concepts while learning new word forms‖, as is true of
L1 vocabulary acquisition (Barcroft, 2002, p. 356). Specifically, in designing vocabulary learning
tasks with identical involvement loads, EFL teachers are encouraged to employ tasks like the
definition task more frequently than those like the matching task if the primary pedagogical goal
is to improve vocabulary learning. When the learners are just beginning to encode new EFL
words, tasks like the combining task is not recommended, for those tasks may exhaust learners‘
processing and attentional resources which could otherwise be employed to process new word
forms. If improving EFL learners' syntactic ability is the main pedagogical goal, however, tasks
like the choice or combining task might be in order, with acquisition of new words being a by-
product. For learners with low EFL proficiency, the choice task seems preferable to the
combining task in contributing to vocabulary learning.

Notes
1 The 20% trimmed mean is computed by first removing 20% of the smallest
and largest sample values and then averaging what remains.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 11

2 The 20% Winsorized variance is the variance of the 20% Winsorized values, which
are derived by pulling the smallest 20% of the sample observations up to the
smallest value not trimmed, and the largest 20% of the sample observations down
to the largest value not trimmed.
3 A robust ANCOVA picks points (design points) on x (covariate), and then compares
the 20% trimmed y (dependent variable) means for all independent groups, based on the y
values for each group corresponding to the x values in the neighborhood of each design x
point. A robust ANCOVA allows nonnormality, heteroscedasticity, and even curved
regression lines. The Benjamini-Hochberg method was used to control the family-wise error
rate at each design point. See Wilcox (2017) for more information.

Acknowledgments
This article was supported by Jiangsu Social Science Foundation (Grant No. 18YYB013). I
appreciated the anonymous reviewers' insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier
version of this manuscript.

References
Bao, G. (2015). Task type effects on English as a Foreign Language learners' acquisition of
receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 53, 84-95.
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language
Learning, 52(2), 323-363.
Bird, S. (2012). Expert knowledge, distinctiveness, and levels of processing in language learning.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 665-689.
Brown, T. S., & Perry, F. L. Jr. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL
vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 655-670.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in
episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of
word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language
Teaching Research, 16(2), 227-252.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 word retention. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Silbert, N., Kramasz, D., Blake, C., & Buckwalter, T. (2015). The role
of context and cognitive effort in vocabulary learning: A study of intermediate-level learners
of Arabic. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 19-39.
Huang, L.-L., &. Lin, C.- C. (2014). Three approaches to glossing and their effects on
vocabulary learning. System, 44, 127-136.
Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in
incidental vocabulary acquisition. IRAL, 41, 87-106.
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis
in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text–based tasks promoting generation have on incidental
vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 357-377.
Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The
involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task–induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning:
A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task–induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 12

Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task
type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 391-411.
Min, H. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary
enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73-115.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174-200). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pichette, F., de Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2012). Sentence reading and writing for second
language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 66-82.
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning methods
with beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 228-243.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading
and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and
meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 55-77.
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakt, T. S. (2000). Reading–based exercises in second language vocabulary
learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 196–213.
Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (4th ed.). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier.

About the Author

Gui Bao, PhD, is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, China.
His research interests cover second language research methodology, second language vocabulary
acquisition and applied statistics for linguistics.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 13

Profiling Performances of L2 Listenership: Examining The Effects of

Individual Differences in The Japanese EFL Context
Pino Cutrone 2

Nagasaki University, Japan

Abstract
This paper describes a study designed to profile performances of L2 listenership. The writer examines
the listenership behavior of 23 Japanese EFL learners, who were all freshmen students at a national
university in Japan (16 females and 5 males) at the time the study was conducted, in an attempt to identify
some of the features associated with different levels of performance concerning listenership behavior.
Specifically, this study sought to identify some of the common characteristics of Japanese EFL
participants who exhibited competent backchannel behavior compared to those who did not.
Assessments involved having each student participate in an intercultural conversation, complete a
questionnaire, and be interviewed. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods were used to
investigate the relationships between variables (i.e., whether various performances in sub-categories of
listenership are interrelated, as well as how individual performances in sub-categories of listenership may
be related to L2 proficiency, personality dimensions, willingness to communicate, etc.). Besides helping
to provide researchers with a more detailed description of the dynamics of listenership/backchannel
behavior, the results of this study will have practical implications for Japanese EFL practitioners.
Key Words: listenership, backchannel behavior, Japanese EFL context, individual differences,
pragmatics

Introduction
This paper attempts to piece together a profile of successful versus non-successful learners
where listenership/backchannel behavior is concerned. The first step is to provide a clear and
concise definition of what a backchannel is. While several different definitions of the term exist
in the research literature (see Fujimoto, 2007 for a list of 24), backchannels can be understood
in general terms as ―the brief verbal and nonverbal responses and/or reactions that a listener
gives to the primary speaker when the primary speaker is speaking‖ (Cutrone, 2011, p. 53). To
understand what this means, it is necessary for readers to also be familiar with the notion of
turn taking in conversations. Thus, when one person is taking a turn at speaking in the
conversation, they are considered the primary speaker, and their talk is the main channel of
communication. The listener is then considered the non-primary speaker and their utterances
during the primary speaker‘s turn are backchannels, which in turn serve to provide short cues
to notify the primary speaker that the non-primary speaker is listening. In other words, the
primary speaker is the one that is carrying conversation and driving it forward (i.e., has the floor
and on topic), while a non-primary speaker (i.e., listener) is the one that is reacting to what the
primary speaker is saying. Example I illustrates this difference:

I. Carrie: In some high schools in America, they offer Japanese.

Akie: Uhum.

Nonverbal and non-word vocalizations such as head nods and laughter respectively can be
considered backchannels if they serve a listening function. For instance, in Examples II and III,
it is clear that Akie‘s head nods (shown by the symbol ^) and laughter respectively are reactions
to Carrie‘s statements.

II. Carrie: New York‘s China town is very huge.

Akie: ^^

EMAIL: [email protected], School of Global Humanities and Social Sciences, 1-14

Bunkyo-machi, Nagasaki City, Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan, 852-8521

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 14

III. Carrie: That is so cute because it looks like a grade schooler.

Akie: (Laughter)

Examples used in this paper, such as I, II, and III shown above, have been taken from
authentic conversations produced in this study, as shown in Appendix A. In some cases, the
examples have been modified and/or various aspects of the transcription conventions have
been omitted in order to make them easier to understand. Such examples are used simply to
provide models of backchannel behavior occurring in naturally occurring speech, and, thus,
more in-depth analysis of the issues involved in creating and deciphering of conversational
transcriptions are needed.

Differentiating a Backchannel from a Turn

One of the most difficult issues in identifying a backchannel seems to be in determining
whether a behavior constitutes a backchannel or a separate turn (i.e., a sub-issue is whether to
include longer reactive utterances as backchannels or not). Ergo, it is necessary to be able to
understand and identify specifically what constitutes a turn in this study. In their seminal work,
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) proposed a model for the organisation of turn-taking in
conversations in which they describe a turn to consist of one or more turn-constructional units
(TCUs). According to their model, TCUs can range in size from a single word to clauses filled
with many embedded clauses. Each TCU ends at a transition-relevant-place (TRP), which is
identified as a moment in the conversation at which an exchange of turn is appropriate. TRPs
are signalled by the conversation‘s participants to each other through various contextual cues
such as silence or the end of a question. TRPs are commonly observed in similar
conversational contexts as backchannels (Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki, & Hongyin, 1996;
Cutrone, 2014; Maynard, 1997; White, 1989).
Although Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson‘s (1974) model is useful for understanding the
general set of rules that govern the turn-taking system, it may not be the most suitable for
identifying backchannels in this study, as it does not account for the concept of having the floor
(Edelsky, 1981; Hayashi, 1988). While the definition of a TCU is primarily grammatical, the
concept of having the floor is based on participants‘ sense of who has the floor and is on topic,
as well as the quantity and frequency of their speech. The concept of having the floor does not
seem to fit within the framework of CA in terms of identifying backchannels since a speaker
could continue to hold the floor while non-floor holders ask questions and/or make comments
to drive the floor holder into new directions of conversations. Such questions and comments
would constitute full turns in the field of CA, whereas they would not necessarily do so in terms
of having the floor.
In this study, the writer approaches the observation of listening behavior not only from a
research perspective that relies mainly on providing further descriptions of this phenomenon;
but also, in the context of this study, the writer is concerned with how listening behavior is used
in, and affects, real-world intercultural communication (IC). Hence, as Fujimoto (2007) and
Thonus (2007) have suggested, it may be more practical from such a perspective to consider
backchannels as any listener response that reacts to what the primary speaker has said.
Following O‘Keeffe and Adolphs (2008), the term ‗listener response‘ is used as an umbrella
term to describe any response which reacts to something that the primary speaker has said (p.
74). In the context of this study, backchannels/listener responses would extend beyond what is
meant by the term backchannel in many other studies to also encompass longer utterances
which also act in response to an interlocutor‘s utterance. The rationale for this becomes clear
below, where the framework for assessing listening behavior is detailed. Within this framework,
the writer employs Markel‘s (1975) definition of turn to analyze listener responses in this study:

A speaking turn begins when one interlocutor starts solo talking. For every
speaking turn there is a concurrent listening turn, which is the behaviour of
one or more nontalking interlocutors present. (p. 190)

Hence, in this turn-taking system, the only time that a change in speaking turn occurs is

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 15

when the non-primary speaker begins solo speaking, which is recognized here as some point or
utterance made which serves to actually advance the conversation (i.e., this does not include
short backchannel utterances such as uhuh, mmm and/or I see, which seem only to serve a
listening and reactive function). In instances where simultaneous speech occurs, the primary
speaker continues to have the turn if the primary speaker continues to solo speak after the
simultaneous speech. However, if the non-primary speaker begins solo speaking after the
simultaneous speech, then a change of primary speaker turns would have occurred. Within this
framework, brief questions such as Really? or Is that right?, which are formed in terms of
requests for clarification, are considered backchannels, as they are thought to primarily serve a
listening function. In contrast, a question such as Why did she move? is considered a full
speaking turn because it serves a speaking function in terms of driving the conversation in a new
direction.
Thus, responses to questions are considered full speaking turns and not backchannels.
That is because, unlike responses to questions, backchannels are optional and not required
(Ward & Tsukuhara, 2000). Further, responses to questions, even when they are quite brief
(often due to ellipsis), would also seem to provide new information that helps steer the
conversation forward constituting a change of primary speakership. Finally, researchers must
decide how to deal with utterances found between turns at talk, i.e., would such statements be
recognized as listening reactions or part of a turn at talk? Following the writer‘s previous
analyses (Cutrone, 2005, 2014), utterances were considered listener responses in this study only
when they occurred immediately after the primary speaker stopped talking (within one second)
and were followed by a substantial pause before the next turn at talk started (exceeding one
second). This decision was made because it was felt that such listener responses were produced
in response to the primary speaker‘s utterance, and they occurred before a substantial turn
transitional period started.

Types of Backchannels
Listener responses are recognized to occur as verbal backchannels and/or nonverbal ones.
According to Tottie‘s (1991) oft-used classification, verbal backchannels in this study are
grouped according to three types: simple, compound, and complex. To illustrate this distinction,
it is useful to also understand the difference between a backchannel and a backchannel item. A
simple backchannel such as uhuh is one which has only one backchannel item. A compound
backchannel such as yeah yeah yeah is one in which one backchannel item exists but is repeated
more than once. A complex backchannel such as yeah, I know consists of multiple and varied
backchannel items. Nonverbal backchannels, which can occur both simultaneously and
independently of the three verbal types above, fall within the following categories: simple
accompanied by a head nod(s), compound accompanied by a head nod(s), complex
accompanied by a head nod (s), isolated head nod, multiple head nods, smile, laughter, raised
eyebrows, and two or more nonverbal backchannels occurring simultaneously.
A broader categorical distinction involving listener responses is presented in Stubbe‘s
(1998) feedback continuum (p. 259). At one end of the continuum is listener feedback, which is
brief and minimally supportive, while at the other end is lengthier feedback which conveys a
higher degree of involvement in the conversation. Following this framework, minimal responses
are defined as any simple verbal backchannel (including non-word vocalizations such uhuh or
mm) and/or nonverbal backchannel occurring in isolation. Extended responses, in contrast, are
defined as the lengthier, verbal listener feedback consisting of multiple and varied words as
characterized by complex backchannels, irrespective of nonverbal backchannel
accompaniment.

Functions of Backchannels
The most common function of a backchannel, to allow the primary speaker to continue
speaking, is deeply embedded in navigating the turn-taking system and specifically on the non-
primary speaker forsaking the opportunity to take a primary speaking turn (Schegloff, 1982).
This clearly demonstrates the apparent link between how much (or little) a person speaks with
how frequently (or infrequently) they provide backchannels. Several intercultural

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 16

analyses involving Japanese EFL speakers have shown a relative lack of primary speaker
incipiency in tandem with the frequent use of backchannels, which seems to negatively affect
perceptions across cultures. In addition to the continuer function described above, Maynard
(1997) identifies a few more prominent backchannel functions, such as to show understanding,
agreement, support and empathy, emotion, as well as to include minor additions (see further
explanations and examples of these functions in Cutrone, 2005).

Listenership across Cultures and Targets for Listenership Behavior

The followings sub-sections will identify some of the areas of listenership and put forward some
general targets for Japanese EFL/ESL speakers (JEFLs hereafter) to adhere to in their
intercultural encounters in L2 English. The establishment of such targets was based on two
goals: (1) trying to approximate the conversational patterns and behaviors of fully proficient
speakers of English, and (2) dealing with the issues that Japanese EFL/ESL speakers have been
known to have where listenership behavior is concerned. Therefore, more specifically, this
involves having JEFLs provide minimal backchannels less frequently (especially while one‘s
interlocutor is speaking), with greater variability (but at context-appropriate moments), while
asking questions and taking the primary speakership in the conversation more often, and
initiating conversational repair strategies when they do not understand and/or disagree rather
than feign understanding and agreement. With these targets in mind, it should be noted that
there can exist a great deal of individual differences in listenership behavior within any given
culture or group. Thus, since listenership behaviors are often individualistic and context-driven
(and contain considerable overlap between sub-categories), it does not seem wise to prescribe
quantifiable targets in precise terms. Rather, based on the recorded observations of fully
proficient speakers of English in the literature, which were limited to native English speakers
(NESs hereafter) where listenership behavior was concerned, the targets in the following list
provide practitioners (i.e., teachers and users of the language) with general directions for
assessing various aspects of backchannel behavior.

Target 1: Approximating the Listenership Behavior of Proficient Speakers of

English Overall Frequency
Several studies have reported JEFLs uttering backchannels significantly more than NESs
(Clancy et al., 1996; Crawford, 2003; Cutrone, 2005, 2014; Ike, 2010; Maynard, 1986, 1990,
1997; White, 1989). Depending on the study, JEFLs have been observed to send anywhere
from two to four times as many backchannels as NESs. Although the context of the
conversation will always be the overriding factor as to when they should send backchannels, in
general terms, one goal for JEFLs is to backchannel less and eliminate many of the superfluous,
empathy-building backchannels that they provide in English.

Variability
One of the findings in Cutrone‘s (2005, 2014) previous analyses is that the JEFLs in the
researcher‘s studies tended to rely mainly on minimal backchannels (i.e., short, brief and
repetitive non-word vocalizations, and head nods) in their listener feedback and this was
perceived negatively in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) conversations across cultures. The
NESs in Cutrone‘s studies, comparatively, tended to balance minimal backchannels more
evenly with extended backchannels (i.e., longer backchannels consisting of content words,
phrases, and expressions). Hence, in general terms, another goal is for JEFLs to develop a
more diverse repertoire of backchannels to use in their intercultural encounters in English. In
other words, JEFLs should work towards increasing the number of extended backchannels and
decreasing the number of minimal backchannels they produce. The former objective operates
in tandem with increasing WTC (willingness to communicate), which will be discussed in
Target 2 below.

Discourse Contexts Favoring Backchannels

This category encompasses a term coined by Maynard (1986) used to describe the locales in
the primary speaker‘s speech where backchannels are commonly found and includes primary

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 17

speaker behaviors that seem to attract listener feedback. In several studies, grammatical
completion points (i.e., phrasal and clausal boundaries) and pauses (especially occurring
simultaneously) have been identified as primary discourse contexts favoring backchannels in
English (Cutrone, 2005, 2014; Maynard 1986, 1990, 1997; White, 1989). Several other
discourse contexts including self-adaptors and gesticulation (Duncan & Fiske, 1977), gaze
(Kendon, 1977), and prosodic features (Ward &Tsukuhara, 2000) have also been suggested in
the research literature. This is a difficult category to offer precise targets since backchannels that
are sent in locales other than the ones mentioned above are not necessarily considered
incorrect and their adequacy is largely dependent on the context of the conversation and the
function that the non-primary speaker desires to communicate. Nonetheless, as a general
method of measuring performances, the researcher compares the percentage of backchannels
the participants employed in the opportunities they were provided in primary discourse
contexts such as grammatical completion points and/or pauses.

Simultaneous Talk
At rates similar to those of overall frequency, several studies have shown that, when compared
to NESs, JEFLs tended to send backchannels that co-occur with the primary speaker‘s speech
creating simultaneous talk much more frequently (Cutrone, 2005, 2014; Hayashi, 1998; Lebra,
1976; Maynard, 1997; Mizutani, 1982). In tandem with the general targets of discourse contexts
favoring backchannels presented above (i.e., to send backchannels at grammatical completion
points and/or pauses), the goal for JEFLs here is to generally try to avoid sending backchannels
while their interlocutor is speaking.

Form and Function

Choosing suitable and appropriate linguistic forms to correspond with specific (and desired)
functions of backchannels may have the greatest impact on one‘s communicative effectiveness.
With this in mind, success in this area will be extremely difficult to measure because it is highly
context driven and largely dependent on the individual intentions and feelings of the person
providing the backchannels. Further, success will be very difficult to measure quantitatively, as
there is considerable overlap between forms and functions (see Cutrone, 2010 for a sample
inventory of backchannel forms corresponding to the functional categories presented above).
Here, the writer addresses some of the JEFLs‘ unconventional uses of backchannels in English
such as their tendency to employ continuer, understanding, agreement and/or support, and
empathy type backchannels in situations when they did not understand what their interlocutor
was saying. In tandem with certain aspects of Target 3 below (i.e., initiating conversational
repair strategies), the main goal here is for JEFLs to convey their feelings with appropriate
backchannel forms, and for these intentions to be recognized accordingly by their interlocutors.

Target 2: WTC and Conversational Involvement

In various intercultural analyses, JEFLs‘ reticence and minimal responses have been cited by
NESs as reasons negatively affecting IC (Anderson, 1993; Cutrone, 2005, 2014; Sato, 2008).
Demonstrating how backchannel categories are highly interconnected, this is yet another
category that overlaps with others. That is, if JEFLs make a concerted effort to initiate
conversation more (which is the goal here) they will, in turn, backchannel less (which was one of
the goals stipulated in Target 1 above). Similarly, the goal of providing more extended
backchannels over minimal ones (as stipulated in the variability sub-category of Target 1) would
seem to fit in well with the goal here of speaking more. Lastly, in the same way, the goal of
employing full speaking turns (as touched upon in the form and function sub-category of Target
1 and to be discussed again in Target 3 from a conversational management perspective) instead
of backchannels to get over certain obstacles that come up in a conversation is also in line with
the goal of more conversational involvement. The JEFLs‘ involvement and WTC in
conversations will be measured in three ways in this study: (1) WTC scores (using the widely
used WTC scale designed by McCroskey, 1992, see Appendix B), (2) how much they spoke in
the conversations, and (3) the number of questions they asked their interlocutor.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 18

Target 3: Conversational Micro-Skills

As stated above, one of the goals concerning more effective listenership behavior is for JEFLs
to exhibit a higher degree of WTC and conversational involvement. To this end, JEFLs would
be well advised to make use of conversational management techniques, which refer to the
ability to effectively incorporate the following in conversations: appropriate usage of discourse
markers and listener responses, evaluative comments, return questions, follow-up questions,
new topic initiation, expansion techniques, the ability to ensure comprehension on the part of
the listener, and the ability to initiate repair when there is a potential breakdown. Concerning
the latter (which was introduced in the form and function aspect of Target 1), JEFLs must deal
specifically with their issue of sending unconventional backchannel types (such as continuer,
agreement, and understanding listener responses) when they do not understand what the
interlocutor is saying.

Target 4: Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC)

The final criterion for JEFLs to demonstrate effective listenership behavior involves exhibiting a
certain degree of ICC. According to Spitzberg‘s (2000) well-known model of ICC, the optimal
conditions for successful ICC are provided when knowledge, skills, and motivation are aligned
with meeting the other person‘s expectations regarding appropriateness and effectiveness. Thus,
any instrument seeking to measure appropriate and effective listenership behavior in
intercultural conversations must consider perceptions across cultures. From the perspective of
JEFLs, meeting the expectations of the global ELF community is paramount to achieving
success in this area. To measure this aspect of listenership, this study will use Hecht‘s (1978)
Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (see Appendix C). This is useful in
assessing interlocutors‘ listenership behavior, conversational satisfaction, and perceptions of one
another after conversing.

Research Questions
Research into the area of listenership behavior, particularly concerning individual differences, is
in its infancy and, thus, much remains unknown. Most studies to date have focused primarily on
detailing the patterns of the backchannel output of various groups in terms of frequency and
discourse contexts favoring backchannels, and to a somewhat lesser extent the variability and
backchannels creating simultaneous speech. Presently, very little is known about the
characteristics of both successful and unsuccessful communicators where listenership is
concerned. As the writer mentioned in Target 3 above, the degree of an individual‘s WTC may
affect their conversational performances (and listenership) and is worthy of more in-depth
exploration. Another variable that will be investigated in this study is the
extraversion/introversion dimension of personality. Extraversion is particularly relevant to this
study, as it has traditionally been thought to be at the centre of personality models (Eysenck,
1992), and, similar to the WTC construct, has been shown to affect L2 use (Dewaele &
Furnham, 2000). Further, concerning the four targets for listenership provided above, it is not
known if success or failure in one area will correspond to success or failure in others.
Accordingly, RQ 1 attempts to detail some of the features associated with different levels of
performance concerning listenership behavior.

RQ 1: What are some of the common characteristics pertaining to the JEFLs that
demonstrated competent listenership behavior compared to the JEFLs that did not?

Similar to RQ 1, the objective of RQ 2 is also to contribute to the profile of successful

and unsuccessful learners with regards to listenership behavior. To this end, RQ 2 investigates
L2 proficiency as a moderator variable. Concerning L2 proficiency, researchers such as
Heffernan and Jones (2005) have attempted to use individual differences to create profiles of
successful JEFLs. Concerning pragmalinguistic features of language such as listenership
behavior, it is not yet clear how L2 proficiency affects the learning of such targets. Researchers
in the area of L2 listenership such as Thonus (2007) have surmised that instruction on

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 19

listenership behavior is best begun at intermediate levels; however, to date, this hypothesis has
not been tested. Likewise, there seems to be a general assumption of a strong correlation
between L2 proficiency and successful listenership behavior that requires empirical validation.
Hence, RQ 2 has been formulated.

RQ 2: Do student L2 proficiency levels (according to the TOEFL) correlate to their

levels in listenership behavior?

In short, this study attempts to piece together profiles of performance associated with
listenership behavior by examining the effects of variables such as L2 proficiency, extraversion,
and WTC.

Methodology
Participants
The study included 26 participants. The 21 student participants were all first year students at a
national university in southern Japan (16 females and 5 males), who were enrolled in a faculty
that focuses on the study of global humanities and social sciences and that emphasizes the study
of English. When this study began, participants were on average at an intermediate level of
English proficiency (as reflected by their TOEFL PBT scores), between 18 and 20 years old,
and had studied English for 6.5 years on average (including a collective six years in junior and
senior high school). The students had been enrolled at the university for six months and were
all taking courses related to English study. Additionally, this study included 5 NES participants
to serve in two capacities: two of the participants (1 female and 1 male) served as interlocutors
in the intercultural dyadic conversations and three of the participants (2 female and 1 male)
were involved in assessing the JEFLs‘ performances in the video recorded conversations.
Participating of their free will and understanding the nature of the study, all participants were
given explicit instructions (i.e., verbal and written, in both English and Japanese) regarding this
study and their role in it. To protect the identity of the participants, pseudonyms are used in
this paper.

Instruments
Three methods of measurement were used in this study: observations, questionnaires, and
language proficiency tests. Observations consisted of the researcher video recording (and
subsequently having NESs observe and assess) intercultural dyadic conversations between a
JEFL and an NES in English. The three questionnaires used in this study were administered
respectively: (1) to gauge how extraverted the JEFLs thought they were, (2) to determine the
extent to which the JEFLs were willing to communicate across cultures in English, and (3) to
assess the levels of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) attained by each JEFL. First,
the researcher administered a Ten Item Personality Inventory, i.e., the TIPI-J (developed by
Oshio, Abe, & Cutrone, 2012, see Appendix D). Since it was thought that
Extraversion/Introversion would have the greatest impact on listenership behavior (and how
much individuals speak), this dimension was the focus of this analysis. Second, in administering
the WTC questionnaire, the researcher used McCroskey‘s (1992) well-known WTC scale (see
Appendix B). McCroskey‘s WTC scale is a 20-item, probability-estimate scale. Eight of the
items are fillers and 12 are scored as part of the scale. Considering the focus of this study, the
sub-scores corresponding to interpersonal communication were used in the assessment of
performances. The third type of questionnaire used in this study included a modified version of
Hecht‘s (1978) widely used Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory. Although this
inventory may at first appear dated, it is still widely used in linguistic research pertaining to both
listening behavior and ICC due to its high degree of reliability and validity when used to
measure interactional satisfaction in actual and recalled conversations (Harrington, 1995).
Consistent with the expectancy principle in Spitzberg‘s (2000) model of ICC, Hecht (1978)
proposed that communication satisfaction depends on the fulfilment of expectations. With this
in mind, the researcher administered this questionnaire to three members of the target
community (i.e., proficient users of ELF, which in this study was limited to NESs). The role of

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 20

this group was to watch each of the 21 video recorded conversations and subsequently provide
impressions of the JEFLs‘ conversational and listenership behavior by filling out the
questionnaire. Lastly, in order to measure overall English proficiency, a paper-based version of
the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) was administered by the university
administration. This test was used because scores were readily available to the researcher, as the
JEFLs‘ university administration uses it monitor students‘ English progress over time.

Data Collection Procedures

Three methods of data collection were used in this study: observations, questionnaires, and
interviews. The observation phase involved the videotaping of intercultural dyadic conversations
between JEFLs and NESs. These conversations took place in a private office at the researcher‘s
work place. The video recording equipment used was a Sony digital video camera, which was
set up unobtrusively in the corner of the room on a tripod. While the conversation was being
video recorded, only the participants were present in the room. Although conversational
prompts were provided by the researcher to help stimulate conversation initially, participants
were encouraged to talk about anything they liked. Following the methods used in the
researcher‘s earlier studies (Cutrone, 2005, 2014), conversations were video recorded for a
period of thirty minutes, of which only the middle three minutes of each conversation were
included as data to be transcribed. Moreover, the WTC and Personality questionnaires were
given to JEFLs directly prior to their participation in the intercultural conversation. Finally,
once all intercultural conversations were completed, the researcher sent digital video copies of
the conversations, with corresponding conversational assessment questionnaires, to the three
NES assessors in this study. The NESs were instructed to watch each three-minute conversation
and to provide their impression as to the adequacy of each JEFL‘s conversational and
listenership behavior by completing the corresponding questionnaire. Further, questionnaires
were administered before the intercultural conversations took place, whereas interviews with the
JEFLs were conducted directly upon completion of their intercultural conversation. Interviews
involved the participants watching a recording of their just completed conversation and
answering questions posed by the researcher. The interviews were semi-structured in that the
interviewer had a general plan for the interviews but did not use a predetermined set of
questions, as some questions were guided by the circumstances in the videotaped conversations
and the responses of the interviewee.

Data Analysis
From a macro perspective, the data derived from the observations and questionnaires will be
examined to inform judgements within the four assessment categories of listenership behavior
described above: approximating listenership behavior of NESs (in the observable areas of
backchannel frequency, variability, discourse contexts, and simultaneous speech),
conversational involvement (via WTC scores and the number of words and questions uttered),
conversational micro-skills (i.e., examining participants reactions in situations of non-
understanding), and ICC (NES observer perceptions of the participants based on their
conversational performances). This involves both quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Concerning the intercultural conversations, the first phase of analyzing data involved a thorough
examination of the transcribed conversations to ascertain whether any patterns and/or
relationships were evident. Desiring to highlight some of the features associated with different
levels of performance concerning listenership behavior, the researcher examines and compares
the performances of individual participants across the sub-categories of listenership.

Results

Observations: Approximating the Listenership Behavior of

NESs Frequency
As stated above, JEFLs who provide fewer backchannels per interlocutor word are thought to
be more in accord with NESs‘ listenership behavior. The JEFLs to backchannel an average of

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 21

less than every 20 interlocutor words were Hanako, Mayumi, Mana, Sae, Keiko, and Kenichi.
Although less frequent backchannelling often correlates to more primary speaker words, that
was not always the case in this study. While Hanako, Mayumi, Mana, and Sae were among the
most talkative JEFLs in this study, producing 97, 113, 165, and 250 words respectively, Keiko
and Kenichi uttered only 12 and 47 words, respectively, in their conversations. On the other end
of the spectrum, the JEFLS who sent backchannels the most frequently were Runa, Sakura, and
Yuka (providing a backchannel every 7.78, 7.2, and 5.88 words respectively). Predictably, Runa
and Sakura were among the least talkative (uttering 30 and 4 words respectively); however,
Yuka, who produced backchannels the most frequently in this study, managed to utter 92 words
as a primary speaker (which was 15 words more than the JEFL average of 77).

Variability
To determine the extent that JEFLs were using diverse and varied responses, the researcher
examined the ratio between minimal and extended responses that each participant provided. As
no JEFL in this study employed more than one extended response (and only four JEFLs
produced one extended backchannel), the results pertaining to this category seem largely
negligible. For instance, it is difficult to say whether Yuka, Momo, and Rika‘s ratios of minimal
to extended backchannels of 25:0, 24:1, and 21:1 respectively are better than Hanako (5:0),
Mayumi (4:0), and Yoshimi‘s (2:0) ratios. These results suggest that students, overall, were quite
weak in this area. Some of the JEFLs who sent backchannels most frequently were, noticeably,
the only ones to produce extended backchannels. Using the Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient test to measure the relationship between variables (see Appendix E), a
significant positive correlation was found between the JEFLs‘ Extraversion scores and the
number of extended backchannels they uttered in the conversations (p<.03). That is, the higher
a participant‘s Extraversion scores were, the more they were likely to produce extended
backchannels. In addition, a significant negative correlation was found between the JEFLs‘
WTC scores and the number of minimal backchannels they produced in the conversations
(p<.05). Hence, the higher the JEFLs‘ WTC scores were, the fewer minimal backchannels they
sent.

Discourse Contexts
For this category, the researcher examined how often JEFLs produced backchannels at clause
final boundaries in their interlocutors‘ speech. Overall, most of the JEFLs did so between 25
and 50 % of the time such opportunities presented themselves. A few exceptions were Yukari,
Yohei, and Taro who produced backchannels at a much higher clip of 71, 63, and 58 % in this
discourse context. This result seems to reflect the fact that Yukari, Yohei, and Taro sent
backchannels more frequently overall (i.e., sent a backchannel every 5.88, 10, and 10.61
interlocutor words respectively). In other categories such as TOEFL scores and number of
words spoken, these JEFLs were near the average. On the other end of the spectrum, one JEFL,
Miki, did not provide a backchannel in any of the 13 opportunities she had in this discourse
context. However, it should also be noted that Miki did not produce any backchannels during
this study. This performance was indicative of Miki‘s below average TOEFL score (447) and
consistent with how she performed in other areas, i.e., Miki was able to produce only 44 words,
most of which were not initiated by her but rather coaxed out by her interlocutor‘s questions.

Simultaneous Speech Backchannels (SSBs)

The average number of SSBs for the JEFL group was 2.2, with SSBs ranging from 0 to 6 among
participants. A few JEFLs such as Nami and Haruna uttered 6 and 5 SSBs respectively. A closer
look at their profiles demonstrates some key differences between them. For instance, Nami‘s
TOEFL score (560) was among the highest in the group (and 65 points higher than the average
score), whereas Haruna‘s TOEFL score (477) was one of the lower ones (18 points below average).
Further, Nami produced roughly twice as many words and backchannels as Haruna (i.e., 91 to 40
words and 20 to 10 backchannels). In contrast, a few JEFLs such as Mana and Miki did not produce
any SSBs, but this appeared to be attributed to the fact that they sent less backchannels overall, as
Mana only produced 2 backchannels overall and Miki did not produce

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 22

any as mentioned above. Unlike Miki, Mana‘s performances in other areas varied, as Mana‘s
TOEFL score of 487 was only slightly below average, and she managed to produce 165 words
in her conversation (which were 89 more words than the average for the group).

Conversational Involvement and Willingness to Communicate

WTC
Taro, Nami, and Hanako‘s WTC scores of 80, 70, and 70 were noticeably higher than the
average (42), whereas Nao, Reiko, and Sachi‘s scores of 3, 0, and 0 were significantly lower.
This was reflected to some degree in their word output and Extraversions scores. Regarding
word output, Taro, Nami, and Hanako were all well above average (76), uttering 89, 91, and 97
words respectively. Conversely, Nao, Reiko, and Sachi were all well below average, uttering 60,
30, and 4 words respectively. On the Extraversion scale, Taro, Nami, and Hanako were all
above average (4.1), scoring 5, 4.5, and 4.5 respectively, while Nao, Reiko, and Sachi were all
below average, scoring 4, 2, and 3.5 respectively. TOEFL scores among the participants with
high WTC scores varied as Nami and Hanko‘s scores of 560 and 523 were above average (495)
but Taro‘s score of 463 was well below. TOEFL scores among the participants with lower
WTC scores varied as well, as Sachi and Nao‘s scores of 497 and 483 were near the average,
whereas Reiko‘s score of 443 was well below.

Word Output
Since the number of words a conversational participant utters in a primary speaker role is
directly linked with how frequently they are in a listener role and, thus, able to send
backchannels, part of the analysis for this sub-category of word output has already been
presented above in the frequency of backchannels sub-category (i.e., in tandem with word
output). Nonetheless, to add to what has been presented thus far, the results of the data analysis
seem to suggest a strong connection between English language proficiency and how much the
JEFLs spoke in the conversations. That is, a significant positive correlation was found between
the JEFLs‘ TOEFL scores and the number of words they uttered in the conversations (p<.023).
This was especially evident in the case of Sae, who scored 593 on the TOEFL (which was more
than 30 points higher than anyone else); Sae uttered 250 words, which was by far the most of
any JEFL (85 more words than anyone else).

Number of Questions
This is another area in which JEFLs were weak across the board. In 21 conversations, only 4
questions were posed, and each question was uttered by a different JEFL. Thus, the results here
are largely negligible. The implications of these findings will be discussed below.

Conversational Repair Ability

Situations of Non-understanding
As stated above, some unconventional uses of the JEFLs‘ backchannels were brought to light,
namely, their tendency to employ continuer, understanding, agreement, and/or support and
empathy type backchannels in situations when they did not understand what their interlocutor
was saying. Using retrospective interview techniques and analysis, the researcher examined the
number of non-understanding situations experienced by the JEFLs in the conversations and
how they reacted to them. First, it is necessary to point out that more proficient JEFLs were less
likely to encounter situations of non-understanding, as a significant negative correlation was
found between the JEFLs‘ TOEFL scores and the number of non-understanding situations they
experienced in the conversations (p<.017). Like the variability sub-category, this appears to be
an area where students did not perform well across the board. That is, in the 39 times they
experienced situations of non-understanding, JEFLs produced unconventional backchannels 38
times (97%). More proficient JEFLs tended to produce less unconventional backchannels, as a
significant negative correlation was found between the JEFLs‘ TOEFL scores and the number
of unconventional backchannels they uttered in the conversations (p<.017). Additionally, a
significant negative correlation was found between the JEFLs‘ Extraversion scores and the
number of unconventional backchannels they uttered in the conversations (p<.018). Ergo, the

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 23

higher participants‘ Extraversion scores were, the fewer unconventional backchannels they
produced.

Repair Ability
The ability to use conversational repair strategies is directly linked to the aforementioned
discussion of the JEFLs‘ tendency to employ unconventional backchannels when they did not
understand what their interlocutor was saying. Rather than feign understanding or agreement in
these situations, JEFLs may choose to convey their true feelings in one of two ways: by
providing a minimal backchannel expression with a rising intonation, or by employing a longer
expression or phrase as a conversational repair strategy. No JEFL in this study was able to
employ a conversational repair strategy (minimal or full-turn repair) in situations of non-
understanding. In fact, the one time that a student did not produce a nonconventional
backchannel in this situation, she just simply remained silent and did not do anything at all. It
was only revealed to the researcher post hoc in the playback interviews that she did not
understand the gist of what her interlocutor was saying.

Intercultural Communicate Competence (ICC)

As discussed above, a fundamental requirement of ICC is for a foreign language speaker to be
seen as a competent conversationalist by members of the target culture. Accordingly, a small
group of NES observers were able to watch each of the 21 video recorded conversations and
subsequently provide impressions of the JEFLs‘ conversational and listenership behavior by
filling out the revised version of Hecht‘s (1978) Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction
Inventory questionnaire (see Appendix C). Subsequently, the researcher calculated (and
averaged) the overall scores (as associated with positive perceptions) of NES observers on this
questionnaire. The three JEFLs to score the highest were Sae, Rika, and Nao (with scores of 90,
89, and 86). Sae and Rika were also among the most proficient in TOEFL (595 and 540
respectively), while Nao‘s score of 483 was slightly below average. Their word output fluctuated
as well, with Sae uttering 250 words, but Rika and Nao producing only 75 and 60 respectively.
In the same way, concerning backchannel frequency, Sae provided a backchannel for every 23
of her interlocutor‘s words, while Nao and Rika did for every 11 and 10 respectively. On the
other end of the spectrum, Miki and Aya‘s scores of 65 and 61 were well below the average of
78. Both produced a minimal number of words, as Aya uttered 60 and Miki uttered 44.
Interestingly, there was notable disparity in their English language proficiency, as Aya‘s score of
533 was well above average on the TOEFL (495), while Miki‘s score of 447 was well below.

Discussion
From the findings analyzed above, some general observations can be made. Addressing RQ 1,
the JEFLs who performed well in one area of the four assessment criteria of listenership
behavior did not necessarily perform well in other areas; however, many of the JEFLs who
performed poorly in one area of the four assessment criteria tended to perform in the same way
in other areas. Although the significance of individual differences has been well documented, it
is also necessary to point out that each sub-skill may have its own unique interface with
individual learners, and, thus, the mastery of one, or even many, of the sub-skills involved in
listenership behavior does not guarantee success in other areas of this highly complex and
multifaceted skill-set. Within single sub-categories, the researcher always discovered exceptions
bucking the general trends, which make it impossible to draw any concrete and comprehensive
conclusions towards definitive profiles of listenership behavior.
Regarding RQ 2, it is not possible to say that English proficiency predicts success in EFL
listenership behavior; however, there appears to be a tenuous link between proficiency and
performance in several of the sub-skills of listenership behavior. Most notably, more proficient
students were generally able to adopt a primary speaker role more often and had fewer
situations of non-understanding, which, in turn, meant producing less unconventional
backchannels. Nonetheless, one of the peripheral findings of this study is that students in
varying levels of proficiency would benefit from instruction on listenership behavior. Across the
board, students collectively were not able to able to produce extended listener responses, pose

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 24

adequate questions, expand upon initial utterances, and use conversational repair strategies and
management techniques.
All three of the NES observers commented on the inability of the JEFL to drive the
conversation forward. The following excerpt provides a typical example of what the NES
observers are referring to:

G
6. John; they are very very near same?// what‘s the main difference//=
^

=umm

G ^ ^ ^
^^^
7. John; i mean price was the same?// price un(.) cost?// same? // near same?//
^ ^^^ ^^^
price uh
same

G
8. Taro; (..)umm(.)program (.)umm program difference//= (..)umm

‖
=uh huh
okay

9. John; do you have some questions for me?//= not really?//

>>>
=umm(.) umm

G
10. John; so did you get the/ get a homestay // did you write letter your homestay

11. John; family?// did they reply?//

^^ >>
yes

In the excerpt above, it is clear that John is driving the conversation forward, while Taro is
merely reacting to what John is saying. In fact, John poses 11 questions, while Taro does not
ask any. As shown on line 9, in an attempt to encourage Taro to take some conversational
responsibility, John even resorts to asking Taro if he has any return questions, which is
probably not considered a natural thing to do in a casual ELF conversation. Taro‘s
performance may owe a great deal to his somewhat lower proficiency in English (i.e., 463
TOEFL); however, it was clear that Taro, like many of the JEFLs, was extremely hesitant and
did not make a great effort to drive the conversation forward. This type of behavior was
consistent with what Cutrone (2014) and Sato (2008) reported of the JEFL participants in their
intercultural analyses. Although the NES interlocutors in these studies generally expected and
accepted that they would have to carry the conversation in their NS-NNS exchanges, they also
admitted that this onus detracted from their conversational satisfaction and enjoyment.

Conclusion
In short, what we have confirmed here is that there is a great deal of individual variation where
listenership is concerned, and output is often influenced to varying degrees by, among other
things, the specific contexts of each conversation, the personality and demeanour of the
participants, and the chemistry between the participants in the dyadic conversations, as well as
seemingly peripheral variables such as the amount of sleep the participants had the night before
and the mood of the participants at the time of the conversations, etc. With this in mind, this

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 25

study has helped identify some areas of listenership that EFL teachers and trainers in Japan can
target for instruction in their classrooms. Specifically, the researcher advocates the teaching of
conversational management techniques, which involves the appropriate usage of discourse
markers and listener responses, evaluative comments, return questions, follow-up questions,
new topic initiation, expansion techniques, the ability to ensure comprehension on the part of
the listener, and the ability to initiate repair when there is a potential breakdown.
Since the so-called rules of conversation are quite different in Japanese than they are
English, the writer suggests a three-pronged teaching approach that first begins by raising
awareness of communication styles across cultures. To raise students‘ consciousness of a
particular feature of communication, teachers can expose their students to sample (chosen or
created) conversations that demonstrate the behavior to be analyzed (e.g. how much
participants spoke, and/or how many questions they posed). Upon observing the sample
conversation, students should be guided through a discussion of what they observed and how
the behaviors in question might be perceived across cultures (i.e., in the above-mentioned
example, students might be able to reach the conclusion that low speaker incipiency and failure
to ask questions to drive the conversation forward, will, at times, negatively affect IC). This
process of deconstruction helps learners understand they might need to adjust some of their
own behavior in order to better adapt to ELF norms.
Thus, the second phase of instruction provides students with a framework for initiating
some changes in their conversational behavior. This would involve the teacher explicitly
demonstrating to learners how they might be able to improve in a particular area. For instance,
concerning the example given above, teachers would help students develop turn-taking and
expansion techniques, as well as strategies that help them pose adequate return and follow-up
questions in conversations. Lastly, in the third phase of instruction the teacher provides students
with practice opportunities and feedback. This can be done by having students participate in
role-plays or conversations in which they focus on applying the new conversational techniques
they learned in the previous phase. The teacher and/or other students should observe the
conversations (live, or if possible, via video playback) and offer constructive feedback.
In conclusion, this study contributes to our understanding of the listenership behavior of
Japanese EFL learners. While there appears to be an association between proficiency level and
performances relative to listenership behavior on some levels, participants also exhibited a great
deal of individual variation in their performances. Follow-up studies could be designed to shed
even more light on individual differences by increasing sample size and incorporating a more
balanced ratio of female to male participants. Regarding the latter, the role of gender
differences in listenership behavior could be examined by utilizing mixed-sex conversations.
Moreover, future research in this vein would do well to investigate diverse groups of EFL
learners and examine how listenership behavior is affected by other factors such as larger group
dynamics, varying conversational registers, interlocutor familiarity, and the topic of the
conversation.

References
Anderson, F. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don't stick up. In P.
Wadden (ed.), A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities (pp.
101-110). New York: Oxford University Press.
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Hongyin, T. (1996). The conversational use of
reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 355-
387.
Crawford, W. (2003). Back-channel transfer in cross-cultural second language conversation: Do
native Japanese transfer more than native English speakers? Journal of Kitakyushu
National College of Technology, 36(1), 155-163.
Cutrone, P. (2005). A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-
British dyads. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication,
24(1), 237-274.
Cutrone, P. (2010). The backchannel norms of native English speakers: A target for Japanese
L2 English learners. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 2(1),

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 26

28-37.
Cutrone, P. (2011). Towards the learning of listener responses in the Japanese EFL context.
PhD Dissertation, University of Reading, Reading.
Cutrone, P. (2014). A cross-cultural examination of the backchannel behavior of Japanese and
Americans: Considerations for Japanese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(1),
83-120.
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of
second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(1), 355-365.
Duncan, S., & Donald, F. (1977). Face to face interaction: Research, methods, and theory.
Hillsdale: Erlabaum.
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society, 10(1), 383-421.
Eysenck, H. (1992). A hundred years of personality research, from Heymans to modern times.
Houten: Bohn, Staeu Van Loghum.
Fujimoto, D. T. (2007). Listener responses in interaction: A case for abandoning the term,
backchannel. Journal of Osaka Jogakuin College, 37(1), 35-54.
Harrington, N. G. (1995). The effects of college students‘ alcohol resistance strategies. Health
Communication, 7(4), 371-391.
Hayashi, R. (1988). Simultaneous talk - from the perspective of floor management of English
and Japanese speakers. World Englishes, 7(3), 269-288.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication
satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4(3), 253-264.
Heffernan, Neil & John Jones. 2005. Top-notch students: Study skills for Japanese university
students. Tokyo: MacMillan Language House.
Ike, S. (2010). Backchannel: A feature of Japanese English. In A. M. Stoke (ed.), The Japan
Association for Language Teachers (JALT) 2009 conference proceedings (pp. 205-215).
Tokyo: JALT.
Kendon, A. (1977). Some functions of gaze-direction in two-person conversation. In A.
Kendon (ed.), Studies in the behavior of social interaction pp. 13-51). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.
Markel, N. (1975). Coverbal behavior associated with conversation turns. In A. Kendon, R. M.
Harris & M. R. Key (eds.), Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction (pp.
189-197). The Hague: Mouton.
Maynard, S. K. (1986). On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation.
Linguistics, 24(6), 1079-1108.
Maynard, S. K. (1990). Conversation management in contrast: Listener responses in Japanese
and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 397-412.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English
conversation: A case of listener response. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching (IRAL), 35(1), 37-60.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of willingness to communicate scale.
Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25.
Mizutani, N. (1982). The listener‘s responses in Japanese conversation. Sociolinguistics News-
letter, 13(1): 33-38.
O‘Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus,
context and variational pragmatics. In A. Barron & K. Schneider (Eds.), Variational
pragmatics (pp. 69-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oshio, A., Abe, S., & Cutrone, P. (2012). Development, reliability, and validity of the Japanese
version of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). Japanese Journal of Personality,
21(1), 40-52.
Sacks, H. E., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simple systematics in the organization
of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(1), 696-735.
Sato, Y. (2008). Oral communication problems and strategies of Japanese university EFL
learners. PhD Dissertation, University of Reading, Reading.
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ―UH-HUH‖

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 27

and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.), Georgetown
University roundtable on language and linguistics, analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.
71-93). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. Samovar
& R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader, 2 edition (pp. 7-24).
nd

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Stubbe, M. (1998). Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal
feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 257-289.
Thonus, T. (2007). Listener responses as a pragmatic source for learners of English.
CATESOL Journal, 19(1), 132-145.
Tottie, G. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of
backchannels. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in
honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 254-271). London: Longman.
Ward, N., & Tsukahara, W. (2000). Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in
English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1177-1207.
White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language
in Society, 18(1), 59-76.

About the Author

Pino Cutrone has been teaching in Japan for twenty years and is currently an Associate
Professor at Nagasaki University. He received his PhD in Applied Linguistics from the
University of Reading and has published widely in his field. His research interests include
intercultural pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and EFL pedagogy.

Appendices

Appendix A
Transcription Conventions
 Listener responses are shown in italics below the primary speaker‘s talk at the point they
occurred in the talk.

 To protect the identity of the participants, pseudonyms are used in the speaker labels on
 the left side of each transcribed line.
 To not confuse readers with the colons that are used for a different purpose described
 below, the speaker labels will be followed by a semi colon.
 To further preserve anonymity, pseudographs (i.e., notations in parentheses) will be used in
instances where participants‘ private information such as name, address and/or telephone
 number has been uttered in the conversation.
 Numbers in parentheses indicate elapsed time in hundredths of seconds of pauses
occurring in the conversations. Parentheses with a dot (.) indicates a micropause and/or
hesitation under .5 seconds. Pauses are timed using transcription software in this study
(Praat Version 5.0.18).

 The equal sign ―=‖ indicates latching - i.e., no interval between the end of a prior piece of
talk and the start of a next piece of talk.

 The beginnings of simultaneous speech utterances are marked by placing a left bracket at
each of the points of overlap, and placing the overlapping talk directly beneath the talk it
overlaps.
 Right-hand brackets indicate the point at which two simultaneous utterances end.

Metatranscription is shown as follows:

 Empty parentheses ( ) indicates that part of the transcription which is unintelligible.

 Words between parentheses indicate the transcribers‘ conjecture at the words or utterances

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 28

in the conversation that they are not completely certain of.

 Words between double parentheses may indicate comments and/or features of the audio
materials other than actual verbalization.
 L stands for laughter.

 Other than apostrophes, which are used to show contraction between words, punctuation
symbols in these transcriptions are not used as regular English punctuation markers
indicating grammatical category. While other, non-regular, grammatical functions are
shown by symbols such as slashes and double slashes, other punctuation symbols such as
question marks and colons are used to indicate prosodic features in these transcriptions.

Nonverbal behavior is shown by the symbols indicated below.

 h stands for audible breathing. ^ stands for vertical head movement (head nod). > stands
for horizontal head movement (head shake). S stands for smile. ‖ indicates that eyebrows
 are raised. G indicates body or hand gestures.
 In cases where nonverbal behavior occurs concurrently with speech, symbols are placed
directly above the speech it co-occurs with (instances where two types of nonverbal
behavior occur simultaneously are shown by underlining them both). Nonverbal behavior
that is continuous and occurs for a period longer than 2 seconds will be noted by signaling
the beginning and the end of the behavior in parentheses where it occurs in the
conversation. N.B. The parentheses containing the symbols below are solely used for
separation purposes to make them easily identifiable in the specific examples below.
Parentheses will not be used in this manner in the transcriptions as they have other specific
functions, which have been outlined above.

 A slash ( / ) marks the grammatical completion point of an internal clausal boundary (i.e., a
 clause which is continuative).
 Two slashes side by side ( // ) mark the grammatical completion point of a final clause
boundary (i.e., a clause which terminative). N.B. A final clause boundary is one that makes
complete sense (i.e., fully meaningful) and could end the utterance there. In contrast, an
internal clause is one in which the meaning is not complete, and there is a requirement for
the utterance to go on in order for the meaning to be complete.

 A question mark ( ? ) at the end of a word and/or utterance indicates a clear rising vocal
pitch or intonation (i.e., one that is clearly heard, and is shown to rise by at least 600 Hz
using Praat software).

 An inverted question mark ( ¿ ) at the end of a word and/or utterance indicates a clear
falling pitch or intonation (i.e., one that is clearly heard and is shown to fall by at least 600
 Hz using Praat software).
 A colon ( : ) as in the word ―ye:s‖ indicates the stretching of the sound it follows (i.e., only
marked in cases where the stretching was extended greater than .5 seconds).
  A hyphen at the end of an uncompleted word indicates the disfluency of a truncated word.
For instance, if the word ―bird‖ were truncated, it may be transcribed as ―bir-‖.

 A part of a word and/or phrase containing CAPITAL letters indicates that it has been said
with increased volume and/or more emphatically than the rest of the phrase (i.e., only
marked when the highest point of the stressed part of speech was greater than 10 decibels
 the lowest part of the surrounding parts of speech).
 The underscore sign ( _ ) indicates that the talk it precedes is low in volume.

 ( ~ ) indicates that the talk which follows is consistent with the person‘s regular voice and
tone. This symbol is to be used after low volume talk to indicate the point in which the
volume rises back to normal. When a pause occurs after the low volume talk and the talk
that follows returns to normal, this symbol will not be shown.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 29

Transcription of Conversation

>
1. Taro; _mmm ~ no i've, (.) i've never (.75)

G G
2. Gary; oh now i remember his name// kevin smith// (.) my mistake//(.)

3. Taro; [kev]in smith i i heard his name// (.) his (.)

[( )]

^
4. Gary; he's a very good director// and [writer]// (.) (.)

[uhum] oh really

5. Gary; and he appears in (.54) uu many of his movies/ as [ silent ] bob// (.)

[(uhum)]

6. Gary; who (.75) whose quirk. is he he doesn't speak// (.54)

((G begins))
7. Gary; [except] maybe once// in the whole movie// (.)

^
_ [(uhum)]

((G ends))
^
8. Gary; [otherwise, he's, pan]tomiming// (.97) = m (.)

[ (ooohh yeah) ] oh really? =

G
9. Taro; how how long is (.51) is the movie// (.)

10. Gary; (uu it) (.) depends// let's see// (.67) clerks (.) they had a few

G
11. Gary; appearances// (.67)ahh but (.) silent bob never spoke in that one// (.)

12. Gary; i, remember// right// = (.)but he did speak uu in their next movie//

= mhm

13. Gary; which [ was (uu) ] mall rats// (.) (.61)

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 30

^^
[mhm yeah] _mall ra-

((G begins))
14. Gary; uu (.99) (wha-) which is a (1.02) ahh let's see// mall rats was a: (.59)

15. Gary; term/ used for (.) aaa (.80) u people/ who hang out in the mall//

((G ends))
16. Gary; but (.)[ never] actually (.) aa [ buy ] anything// (.)
^ ^
[(mhm)] [yeah]

17. Gary; [it was] just sort of a place for them/ to (.) [hang out]// and (.88)

^ ^
[(mm)] [ (mmm) ]

18. Gary; uuu (.) it was sort of a derogatory term// used for them//
^

19. Gary; [by] (.)some of the shop keepers. =

^ ^
[ (mhm) ] = yeah

20. Gary; (.67) uu in particular ben affleck. (.)

21. Gary; i forget (.) what the name of his character was// but he was (.54)

22. Gary; uuu the bad guy// for the most part// = = uu in that movie//

= oh really_Lh =

((G begins))
23. Gary; uu (3.37) uuu bob uu (.) u silent bob (.) = aaa (1.39) _ Lh (.59)
^
uhum =

((G ends))
24. Gary; uu Lh it appears. that he used the force// aa = (.)

= force

G
25. Gary; did you ever see star [ wars ]// (.) (1.02) aa (.)

G "
[power]? (mm)? AAaa =

((G begins))
26. Gary; star wars where they (.70) aaa (.)

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 31

^
27. Taro; yeah star wars i (.)

((G ends))
28. Gary; which which of the star wars movies have you seen// (.)

S
29. Taro; aaa (1.29) _ what is that// uu maybe (episodes) th- (.) (three) // i (.)

30. Taro; maybe i (.) three// ( ) (2.25)

((G begins))
31. Gary; you know when a jedi, uu (.) reaches their arm out// and then something

((G ends))
32. Gary; (.)flies into it// (.) [and then] they catch it// (.75)

^
[ uhum ]

33. Gary; but = (.51) but let's say they dropped your [life ( )]/
S
= AAa (1.37) aa [( Lh )]

((G begins))
34. Gary; their [life saver]// = [and then] (.) they reach for it// =
[( _Lh )] h ( ) = [ yeah ]

35. Gary; [and] then the life saver flies to them// (.51)

= h Lh [Lh]

((G ends))
36. Gary; [( )] seeing something/ like that// (1.26)

[ AAaa ]

37. Taro; maybe i (.) i, (.) ss (.67) saw that// (.) maybe (.67)

38. Gary; uuu (.) star wars is¿ (.) uuu (.) a big part of popular culture//
^ ^

((G begins))
39. Gary; in a[merica]// = aaa (2.06) and u kevin smith (the) (.54)
^
[uhum] (.) yeah =

((G ends))
40. Gary; [ he ] he's, no exception// he, uu (.)greatly enjoys the: star [(wa-)]
^^
[( )] [uhum]

41. Gary; star wars mythology// (.62) [uu and incor]porates it//
^^

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 32

[ oh yeah ]

42. Gary; a:t? least a few times// in aa (.) his movies// (.) (.83) aa in (.72)
uhum

((G begins))
43. Gary; that uu in mall rats _u (.) _he would ~ he needed to get uu (.91)

((G continues))
44. Gary; aaaa a video// ( ) (.) a videotape that was …

Appendix B
WTC Questionnaire
DIRECTIONS: Below are twenty situations in which a person might choose to communicate
or not to communicate in English. Presume that the person in each situation does not speak
Japanese but can speak English. Also, presume you have completely free choice. Indicate the
percentage of times you would choose to communicate in each type of situation. Indicate in the
space at the left what percent of the time you would choose to communicate.

0 = never, 100 = always

_____ 1. *Talk with a service station attendant.

_____ 2. *Talk with a physician.
_____ 3. Present a talk to a group of strangers.
_____ 4. Talk with an acquaintance while standing in line.
_____ 5. *Talk with a salesperson in a store.
_____ 6. Talk in a large meeting of friends.
_____ 7. *Talk with a police officer.
_____ 8. Talk in a small group of strangers.
_____ 9. Talk with a friend while standing in line.
_____ 10. *Talk with a waiter/waitress in a restaurant.
_____ 11. Talk in a large meeting of acquaintances.
_____ 12. Talk with a stranger while standing in line.
_____ 13 *Talk with a secretary.
_____ 14. Present a talk to a group of friends.
_____ 15. Talk in a small group of acquaintances.
_____ 16. *Talk with a garbage collector.
_____ 17. Talk in a large meeting of strangers.
_____ 18. *Talk with a spouse (or girl/boy friend).
_____ 19. Talk in a small group of friends.
_____ 20. Present a talk to a group of acquaintances.

N.B. JEFLs were provided with Japanese explanations. Further, the asterisk (*) marking the
filler items above, as well as the scoring table below, were not included on the questionnaires
the JEFLs completed.

SCORING: The WTC permits computation of one total score and seven sub-scores. The sub-
scores relate to willingness to communicate in each of four common communication contexts
and with three types of audiences. To compute your scores, merely add your scores for each
item and divide by the number indicated below.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 33

Sub-score Desired Scoring Formula

Group discussion Add scores for items 8,15, and 19; then divide by 3.
Meetings Add scores for items 6, 11, and 17; then divide by 3.
Interpersonal conversations Add scores for items 4,9, and 12; then divide by 3.
Public speaking Add scores for items 3, 14, and 20; then divide by 3.
Stranger Add scores for items 3, 8, 12, and 17; then divide by 4.
Acquaintance Add scores for items 4, 11, 15, and 20; then divide by 4.
Friend Add scores for items 6, 9, 14, and 19; then divide by 4.
To compute the total WTC scores, add the sub-scores for stranger, acquaintance, and friend.
Then divide by 3.

Appendix C
Conversational Satisfation Questionnaire (for NES Assessors)
Date: _________________ Name: ___________________ Key: 1 = Yes
7 = No

Please score the sentences below based on how often you thought they generally occurred in the
conversation. Based on the key shown above, circle the number that best corresponds to your
opinion.

1. The Japanese person let his/her partner know that the partner was communicating effectively.
………………………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. The Japanese person showed his/her partner that they understood what their partner said.
…………………………………………………….…...……..1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The Japanese person showed that they were listening attentively to what their partner said.
………………………………………...………...………..……1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. The Japanese participant expressed a lot of interest in what their partner had to say.
………………………………………………………………...1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. The conversation went smoothly……………………….…....1 2 3 4 5

6 7

6. The Japanese encouraged his/her partner to continue talking.1 2 3 4 5

6 7

7. The feelings that the Japanese person expressed by means of listening feedback during the
conversation seemed authentic (i.e., they conveyed what they were truly feeling and not just
agreeing and/or pretending to understand for the sake of harmony and/or to keep the
conversation going smoothly)…………………………………………………...…1 2 3 4
5 6 7

8. The Japanese person seemed impatient……………….……1 2 3 4 5

6 7

9. The Japanese person seemed cold and unfriendly……….…..1 2 3 4 5

6 7

10. The Japanese person was polite…………...............................1 2 3 4 5

6 7

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 34

11. The Japanese person appeared warm and friendly……...…1 2 3 4 5

6 7

12. The Japanese person was impolite……………….................1 2 3 4 5

6 7

13. The Japanese person appeared interested and concerned….1 2 3 4 5

6 7

14. The Japanese person interrupted their partner at times….…1 2 3 4 5

6 7

15. The Japanese person seemed to want to avoid speaking……1 2 3 4 5

6 7

16. When the Japanese person did not understand something, they were able to clearly convey
this to their conversational partner with their listening feedback……...…….1 2 3
4 5 6 7

17. The Japanese person‘s listening behavior seemed inadequate in some ways.1. 2 3 4
5 6 7

If you answered ―yes‖ (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) to question 17, please explain how and/or why you think
their listening behavior seemed inadequate.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________

18. Any other comments and/or observations regarding the Japanese participant‘s behavior in
the conversation.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Appendix D
Personality Questionnaire
Name（名前）:_____________________Date（記入日）: _________

Questionnaire 質問紙

Following the scale below, please write a number next to each statement below to indicate the
degree to which you agree or disagree with that statement.
◯ 1 から 10 まてのことはかあなた自身にとのくらい当てはまるかについて，下の枠
内の 1 から 7 ま ての数字のうちもっとも適切なものを括弧内に入れてくたさい。文
章全体を総合的に見て，自分にとれたけ当てはまるかを評価してくたさい。

Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither agree Agree a Agree Agree

Strongly moderately a little nor disagree little moderately strongly
（全く違う （あまり （ 少 し 違 （どちらでも （少しそう （まあまあそ （強くそ

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 35

と思う そうだとは うと思う） ない） 思う） う思う） う思う）

1 思わない） 3 4 5 6 7
2

I see myself as… (私は自分自身のことを...)

1. _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.(活発て，外向的たと思う)

2. _____ Critical, quarrelsome.( に もち も ど 起 しやすいと思う)

3. _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.(しっかりしていて 自分に厳しいと思う)

4. _____ Anxious, easily upset.( て う やすいと思う)

5. _____ Open to new experiences, complex.( しい とか で 変わっ 考 もつと思

う)

6. _____ Reserved, quiet.( か て となしいと思う)

7. _____ Sympathetic, warm.( に つかう や しい ど思う)

8. _____ Disorganized, careless.( らしなく うっかりしていると思う)

9. _____ Calm, emotionally stable.( て 分か 定していると思う)

10. _____ Conventional, uncreative.( に な ど思う)

Appendix E
Correlational Analyses
Key explaining dependent variables in order presented below: Total Words, Frequency
(number of backchannels per interlocutor word), Number of Questions, MinBack (percentage
of backchannels constituted by minimal backchannels), ExtBack (percentage of backchannels
constituted by extended backchannels), BCs@FCBs (percentage of clause final boundaries
attracting backchannels), SSBs (simultaneous speech backchannels), NONU (number of non-
understanding situations), UNCONV (percentage of non-understanding situations constituted
by unconventional backchannels), MinRep (percentage of non-understanding situations
constituted by minimal backchannel as repair strategies), and FullRep (percentage of non-
understanding situations constituted by Full-turn repair strategies).

TOEFL WTC Extraversion

Total Words Correlation .495 .168 .274

Coefficient .023* .465 .229
Sig. (2-tailed)

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 36

BC/IL word Correlation -.054 .101 .209

Coefficient .815 .665 .364
Sig. (2-tailed)
Questions Correlation .059 -.050 .334
Coefficient .798 .831 .139
Sig. (2-tailed)
MinBCs Correlation .021 -.433 .022
Coefficient .930 .05* .924
Sig. (2-tailed)
Extended Correlation .041 -.140 .475
BCs Coefficient .861 .544 .030*
Sig. (2-tailed)
BC@FCBs Correlation .203 .128 .258
Coefficient .379 .581 .259
Sig. (2-tailed)
SSBCs Correlation .119 -.133 -.036
Coefficient .606 .565 .876
Sig. (2-tailed)
NONU Correlation -.513 -.259 -.428
Coefficient .017* .256 .053
Sig. (2-tailed)
UNCONV Correlation -.490 -.271 -.511
Coefficient .024* .235 .018*-
Sig. (2-tailed)
MinRep Correlation N/A N/A N/A
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
FullRep Correlation N/A N/A N/A
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 37

English Language Teacher Agency in Classroom-based Empirical Studies:

A Research Synthesis

Zhenjie Weng 3

Jingyi Zhu
Grace J. Y. Kim
Ohio State University, USA

Abstract
This research synthesis analyzes a selection of classroom-based empirical studies on language
teacher agency within ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts. Comprehensive analyses of the selected research
center on several respects: theoretical frameworks, contexts, methodologies, major findings,
methodological and ethical issues as well as implications. In doing this, this paper aims to present
ESL/EFL/bilingual teachers‘ roles as legitimate and agentive actors in their contexts of work, to offer
pedagogical implications for teachers and teacher educators, to better inform researchers of current
literature and future research directions, and to support possible collaborations among different
educational stakeholders.
Keywords: research synthesis, classroom-based empirical studies, English language teacher agency,
ESL, EFL, bilingual

Introduction
A growing body of empirical studies centers on ―teacher agency‖ in language education in recent years
(e.g., Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017; Kang, 2017; Nguyen & Bui, 2016). Teacher agency has been
theorized regarding the activities teachers do in schools (Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2013) as an
―important dimension of teachers‘ professionalism‖ in response to curriculum or institutional changes
(Biesta, Priestley, & Robinson, 2015, p. 625). Moreover, Priestley, Edwards, Priestley, and Miller (2012)
state that teacher agency is ―largely about repertoires for maneuver, or the possibilities for different forms
of action available to teachers at particular points in time‖ (p. 211). Drawing upon previous scholarship,
the current investigation aligns with the notion that teacher agency could be mediated within specific
sociocultural contexts (Lasky, 2005), and within this framework, teachers have ―the socially constituted
capacity to act‖ on educational changes (Barker, 2008, p. 234).
Although the concept of agency has attracted attention in the education literature in recent
years, teacher agency still remains understudied in the field of language education, particularly in
classroom-based ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts. Among the limited research, a relatively large amount
of studies have engaged in discussions of factors that affect teacher agency, such as teacher belief and
perceptions (Shabir, 2017; Tang, Lee, & Chun, 2012) and social environment (Meierdirk, 2018).
Little attention, however, has been paid to document teachers‘ enactment of change situated in
language classrooms. In response to this, this study employs research synthesis as theoretical
framework to offer major insights from the studies on teacher agency and identify literature gaps in
the field for further research. Research synthesis, a ―relatively sparse but rapidly growing literature‖
(Suri & Clarke, 2009, p. 397), is a ―contemporary framework for reviewing‖ (Norris & Ortega, 2007,
p. 806) that investigates and evaluates ―past findings in a systematic fashion, always explicating the
methodology followed in the review so as to enable replication by other reviewers‖ (Ortega, 2015, p.
225). To do so, research syntheses pay attention to relevant theories, critically analyze, and ―attempt
to identify central issues for future research‖ (Cooper & Hedges, 2009, p. 6). This research synthesis
takes the epistemological stance of interpretivist that recognizes ―the inevitable subjectivity in a
synthesist‘s interpretive constructions‖ (Suri, 2013, p. 897) and attempts to identify the ―plausible
patterns‖ (Suri, 2013, p. 897) of teacher agency research across different empirical studies.
Guided by the framework, this synthesis aims to present ESL/EFL/bilingual teachers‘ roles as
legitimate and agentive actors in their contexts of work, to offer pedagogical implications for teachers
and teacher educators, to better inform researchers of current literature and future research
directions, and to support possible collaborations among different educational stakeholders. In
order to realize this, we attempt to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the

Email: [email protected]; Address: 1945 N. High St.,138, Columbus OH 43210

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 38

nature—concerning theoretical frameworks, contexts, and methodologies—of language teacher

agency research in ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts up to 2018? (2) What are the major findings,
methodological and ethical issues, and implications discussed in the selected articles? (3) What are
the future directions for research, teacher education, and professional development drawing upon
the existing scholarship in teacher agency?

Literature Review on Teacher Agency in ESL/EFL/Bilingual contexts

In the context of language education, ―learner agency‖ has been more frequently studied than
―teacher agency;‖ however, the importance of which has been acknowledged (Biesta et al., 2015),
particularly in the past two years (2017 and 2018). A cursory review of current literature reveals that
language teacher agency, discussed in ESL/ EFL/ bilingual contexts, has been associated with other
concepts, including beliefs (e.g., Ollerhead & Burn, 2016), autonomy (e.g., Hoang & Truong, 2016),
identity (e.g., Dantas-Whitney, Clemente, & Higgins, 2012; Kayi-Aydar, 2015a), emotion (e.g.,
Benesch, 2018), language use in bilingual spaces (e.g., Henderson, 2017), (de)motivation (e.g., Song
& Kim, 2016), and language policy (e.g., Hamid & Nguyen, 2016). Before proceeding to the
discussion of differences among ESL/EFL/bilingualism on teacher agency, we first clarify that the
distinction of language teaching and learning between ESL and EFL is not completely
straightforward as Shin (2018) clearly states that ―the often made distinction between [ESL] and
[EFL] is blurred for an increasing number of transnational migrants who cross and re-cross national
boundaries‖ (p. 27, emphasis is in the original). Although this is true, research on teacher agency in
ESL and EFL contexts shows different tendencies, scrupulously discussed in the next section.
Related to ESL education is bilingual education, referring to learning contexts that involve two
languages, oftentimes educating emergent bilinguals who are linguistically diverse (García, 2009;
Palmer & Martínez, 2013; Wong, Athanases, & Banes, 2017). Commonly found program designs of
bilingual education include dual language or immersion programs, in which two target languages are
used in learning various content areas with the purpose of learners becoming bilingual, biliterate,
and bicultural. Due to its dealing with linguistically and culturally diverse learners, bilingual contexts
pose unique challenges and demands to teachers and teacher education. This synthesis focuses on
the studies that are conducted in bilingual contexts and including English as one of the two
languages.
In literature, studies on teacher agency in ESL contexts are much fewer than relevant studies in
EFL contexts. Based upon extant literature, possible differences between EFL and ESL contexts
reside in student population and constructs associated with teacher agency, including teacher roles or
identities. We found studies on ESL teacher agency in contexts of Australia and the United States.
For example, Ollerhead and Burns (2016) report two ESL teachers‘ response to policies in
Australian adult ESL literacy classroom in which most students were refugees from Africa or Asia.
The study explores the interaction of teacher roles, beliefs, and teaching approaches to uncover how
those factors influence their exercise of agency. Besides, it is found that teachers‘ agency was affected
by their own backgrounds and the institutional culture where the ―one size fits all‖ policy
compromised teaching efficiency (Ollerhead & Burns, 2016, p. 113). Furthermore, studies on
teacher agency in ESL contexts also include teacher candidates. For example, Kayi-Aydar (2015a)
investigates a teacher candidate‘s negotiation between her identity and her agency across time and
space.
In addition to the aforementioned aspects, K-12 ESL teaching as language support for students
who have limited English abilities is not part of mainstream education or academic discipline in
most ESL contexts, such as the US, U.K., and Canada (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). In US contexts, for
instance, pullout, push-in, and co-teaching models are mostly implemented in ESL. In a full pull-out
model, a designated amount of time is given to ESL teachers or specialists to help English learners
with explicit instruction each week; yet, push-in and co-teaching models require collaboration
between ESL and grade-level teachers in their planning and instruction (Ovando & Combs, 2012).
With this being said, ESL teachers are found marginalized, ignored, and invisible in schools.
However, certain studies (e.g., Trickett et al., 2012) also demonstrate that despite the marginalized
status, teachers counteracted the marginalization that they and their students experienced, became
advocates of educational equality, interacted with content teachers, and built up relationship with
administrators to influence class placements of their students.
In EFL contexts, teachers‘ exercise of their agency in the implementation of macro-level
language education policies in local contexts has started to receive important consideration (e.g.,
Bouchard, 2016; Glasgow, 2016; Talalakina & Stukal, 2016). In many Asian countries—like China,

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 39

Japan, Malaysia, and South Korea—a global trend is that English was introduced earlier in
curriculum and adopted as a medium of (higher) education (Hamid & Nguyen, 2016, pp. 26-27).
That said, teachers have to prepare students for traditional examinations, easily resulting in test-
driven approaches; yet at the same time, teachers need to provide students communicative resources
to facilitate their participation in the globalized world, which entails Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT). Hamid and Nguyen (2016) report that ―it cannot be taken as a given that teachers
will embrace the policy whole-heartedly and work towards policy goals. They may resist the policy in
a covert manner if policy intentions do not reflect their interests, beliefs and realities‖ (p. 31). Under
the tension, teachers‘ agentive action in policy implementation might be compromised by a series of
factors, including teachers‘ communicative proficiency, pedagogical skills, their responsibility for
students‘ performance on designated tests, institutional support, teacher professional development,
teachers‘ interpretation of those policies, and other social pressures from parents and media.

In Ng and Boucher-Yip‘s (2016) edited book, several chapters address this phenomenon in
EFL contexts. For example, in Hoang and Truong‘s (2016) chapter, in order to facilitate Vietnam‘s
socio-economic development, the government aimed to profoundly improve English abilities of
young graduates from all educational levels. Nevertheless, the pressure of restandardization which
jeopardized many teachers‘ job security, the lack of power as well as professional and geographical
constraints crippled the participant‘s agency to resist or mitigate the policies. In another chapter,
Osman and Ahn (2016) explore a less studied context—a private university in Kazakhstan—to
uncover English language teachers‘ response to the changes in light of new policies which aimed at
the modernity and internationalization of its education. They report that the existence of local
teaching teams, within which the teacher interviewees can interpret new changes to their colleagues
and implement those changes, allowed the teachers‘ voice to be heard and exercise their agency;
however, for the policies initiated outside of the teaching teams, there was less space for negotiation.
The common theme across the aforementioned literature is that language policies in EFL contexts
were related to the countries‘ socio-economic development. Those top-down policies were
developed without participation of the teachers who were the agents, and factors like institutional
contexts, teacher identity, power, and realities of local conditions have created a web of complex
relationships for English language teachers to initiate their agency.
A recent trend of US bilingual education is a move towards additive bilingualism (Flores, 2001;
García, 2009; Hopkins, 2013; Lambert, 1975; Palmer & Martínez, 2013; Ruiz, 1984; Wong et al.,
2017). Additive bilingual programs are connected to language ideologies (Henderson, 2017; Palmer,
2011) that affirm ―language as a resource‖ rather than ―language as a problem‖ (Ruiz, 1984). Dual
language programs are complex and dynamic, experiencing many tensions stemming from language
hegemony in creating equitable learning opportunities to help students become bilingual, biliterate,
and bicultural (Babino & Stewart, 2018; Henderson, 2017; Palmer, 2010, 2011). Bilingual teachers
also face various challenges such as accountability demands and high-stakes testing in their efforts to
connect with their students through culturally relevant pedagogy (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2012; Babino
& Stewart, 2018; Wills & Sandholts, 2009; Wong et al., 2017) and linguistically responsive pedagogy
(Lucas & Villegas, 2011).
In reviewing the spaces that teachers assert agency for bilingual children, Palmer and Martínez
(2013) underscore the fact that teachers ―acknowledge these constraints and honor the tremendous efforts
sometimes required of teachers to provide authentic learning opportunities to bilingual children in
school‖ (p. 270). Therefore, there is an increasing need for ―critical orientation toward the challenge of
educating bilingual students in the United States‖ (Palmer & Martínez, 2013, p. 274).
Moreover, Bartolomé (2004) argues that teachers and educators who work in multilingual contexts
need political and ideological clarity to ―interrogate potentially harmful ideologies‖ (p. 98) for
teaching is ―not an apolitical undertaking‖ (p. 115).
Studies on teacher agency in bilingual contexts explore teachers as language policy makers
(Henderson, 2017). Bilingual and dual language teachers achieve ―varying degrees of agency‖
(Babino & Stewart, 2018, p. 274) based on their contextual experiences (Edwards, 2015). Dubetz
and de Jong (2011) reviewed 30 research articles on bilingual teacher agency, and a common thread
among their definitions of agency is a critical lens and a social justice orientation as a call to create
equity for those who have been marginalized. In defining agency, they put an emphasis on ―acting
on behalf of others and encompass[es] individual and collective efforts to shape public policy in
ways that ensure that individuals are treated equitably and have access to needed resources‖ (Dubetz
& de Jong, 2011, p. 251). Thus, teacher agency in bilingual contexts presents complexity on

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 40

decision-making related to language policy implementation based on their language ideologies.

Methodology
Data Collection
The process of article selection was not linear but iterative and constantly refined, and the entire
selection process was comprised of three major rounds. The first round started in March 2018, and
then we met every month until April 2019 for data collection and analysis. In the first round of
selection, we used the guiding keywords—―teacher agency,‖ ―language,‖ and ―classroom research‖—
and manually searched the literature in Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, and
ERIC. 53 articles were found relevant to the study, including journal articles and book chapters. In
the second major round of selection, we undertook a focused selection procedure following the
criteria:
1. ―Teacher agency‖ and/or ―agency‖ mentioned in ―Abstract‖ or ―Research Questions‖
2. ―Teacher agency‖ in the analysis
3. Classroom-based research
4. Empirical studies
5. Peer-reviewed journal articles
6. ESL/EFL/bilingual (bilingual when English is the target language) contexts

In the last round of selection, additional sources were identified from the lists of references in the
selected articles during the initial stages of review process. We excluded several articles that were
originally included because they do not emphasize ―teacher agency‖ in classroom practices (e.g.,
Benesch, 2018; Dantas-Whitney et al., 2012; Hamid, Zhu, & Baldauf, 2014; Kayi-Aydar, 2015a). As
a result, the article selection result was narrowed down to 32 articles. Among the 32 studies, 18 of
them were published in 2018, followed by five studies published in 2017. Three studies were
published respectively in 2015 and 2016. One source was published in 2009, 2010, and 2012
respectively. This indicates that research on teacher agency has only received attention recently.
More detailed information about the focus of the studies and their research questions are presented
in Appendix A.

Data Analysis
Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. When selecting and filtering articles, we also
analyzed different components of the selected articles. Once we completed the collection of the 32
articles, we started intensive and systematic data analysis, using both top-down and bottom-up coding
systems. According to the research questions we broached, we listed different categories, including
theoretical frameworks, contexts, methodologies, methodological challenges, ethical issues, major
findings, and implications (Appendix B). This coding system was generated through top-down
process to focus on certain aspects of each article. During the process of sorting out different
components of each article, we further added and revised (sub)categories that emerged after we read
each article. For example, originally we only listed context regarding national settings. After reading
each article, we became more specific about the context to not only include national settings but also
K-12 as well as rural/urban settings. Upon completion, we arranged several meetings to
collaboratively analyze the data and discuss findings. During these meetings, we talked through what
we had found and commented for further revision.

Findings
In this section, we mainly focus on answering the first two research questions, namely, (1) What is
the nature—concerning theoretical frameworks, contexts, and methodologies—of language teacher
agency research in ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts up to 2018? and (2) What are the major findings,
methodological and ethical issues, and implications discussed in the selected articles?

RQ1: What is the nature—concerning theoretical frameworks, contexts, and methodologies—of

language teacher agency research in ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts up to 2018?

Theoretical Frameworks
A variety of theoretical frameworks and concepts have been applied to the study of teacher agency.
Two essential themes have emerged among the 32 studies. First is that in most studies, the concept

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 41

of agency is employed to conceptualize teacher agency. For example, in Glas‟ (2016) study,
literature on agency is reviewed first and then followed by the discussion on teacher agency. According to
Glas (2016), agency, drawing upon sociocultural theory, is “mediated through psychological
(and material) tools that were acquired culturally, through human interaction” and in relation to
teacher agency, “the mediational means refer to their repertoire of motivational strategies, their
teaching materials, or other tools that help them engage their students” (p. 444). Ilieva and
Ravindran (2018) point out that agency is enabled only through the complex interplay among various
affordances and constraints emergent in daily practices, and teachers‟ agentive action is
performed in micro-level of activity and constrained by their social-professional environment (pp. 8-9).
Second, among the 32 studies, sociocultural theories and ecological perspectives are the two
dominant theoretical stances in the analysis of teacher agency, in addition to “a number of
perspectives including Bakhtinian, poststructural, ecological, and postcolonial thought” (Ilieva &
Ravindran, 2018, p. 8) and positional theory. Concerning sociocultural theory, Feryok (2012) brings up
that what distinguishes different branches of sociocultural theory is “how mediation is
conceptualized” (p. 97). For example, Huyen Phan and Hamid (2017), relying on Cross‟
(2009) policy-as-tool within an activity system, claim that their freedom was constrained by factors like
time, resource, and other social factors, even though the lack of implementation schemes granted the
teachers freedom to develop their own teaching techniques (pp. 43-44). Newcomer and Collier (2015)
perceive agency as a sociocultural concept defined by Barker (2008). Through the lens, agency is
explored to understand how values, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences can affect a teacher‟s act
within various contexts (Newcomer & Collier, 2015, p. 163). Feryok (2012), taking Leontiev‟s
(1981) activity theory which addresses the gap between personal meaning and social reality (p.
96), considers how social forces and roles of personal experiences influence a language teacher to
develop a sense of agency (p. 95). Activity theory is also applied in studies by Yang (2018) as well as Yang
and Clark (2018) to analyze teachers‟ action within social and historical context of certain activity
system and illustrate the interrelationship between belief, agency, and action.
Ecological perspective is evident in several articles (e.g., Glas, 2016; Haneda & Sherman, 2018;
Hirver & Whitehead, 2018; Ilieva & Ravindran, 2018; Leal & Crookes, 2018; Mifsud & Vella, 2018;
Vitanova, 2018). In current literature, although agency has been conceptualized as variable, capacity, or
phenomenon/doing (Haneda & Sherman, 2018; Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015) in ecological
perspective, agency as phenomenon or doing is more widely adopted in the exploration of internal and
external factors on teachers‟ enactment of agency. For instance, Glas (2016) explores both
internal and external constraints such as teachers‟ knowledge, family background, classroom
dynamics, teachers‟ lesson plans and materials, professional support, and more in shaping,
enabling and limiting teacher agency. Vitanova (2018) argues that “agency [in ecological perspective] is
more of a relational phenomenon and is both positioned within an environment that is occupied by other
individuals and is marked by temporality” (p. 28). In other words, an individual‟s degree of agency
relies on situational contexts and different temporal frames. In the study, Vitanova (2018) explores
how gender and race as identity social markers shape not only teachers‟ personal
experiences but also their interactions with others and mediate their emerging professional agency.

Contexts
The contexts where these studies were conducted present a diverse picture. Among the 32 studies,
14 situated their investigations in EFL contexts with 11 focusing on participants from South and East
Asia (e.g., Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017 in Vietnam; Ishihara, Carroll, Mahler, & Russo, 2018 in
Japan; Kang, 2017 in South Korea; Liyanage, Bartlett, Walker, & Guo, 2015 in China) and one
from Western Asia (Feryok, 2012 in Soviet Armenia). Studies that are set in other continents are
Glas (2016) in Chile and Tutunis and Hacifazlioglu (2018) in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, 10
other studies are ESL classroom-based research in English-speaking countries. It is noteworthy that
seven of these studies were conducted in the US (e.g., Christiansen, Du, Fang, & Hirvela, 2018; Leal
& Crookes, 2018; Newcomer & Collier, 2015) whereas the other ones were located in Australia
(Ollerhead, 2010), New Zealand (White, 2018), and Canada (Ilieva & Ravindran, 2018)
respectively. Also included in the current investigation are another eight studies centering around
bilingual contexts/dual language programs mostly in the US (e.g., Palmer, Henderson, Wall, Z iga,
& Berthelsen, 2016; Ray, 2009; Wong et al., 2017) with only one exception that is situated in Malta
(Misfud & Vella, 2018).
In addition, participants in the identified research include non-native speakers (e.g., Kang, 2017;
Nguyen & Bui, 2016) as well as American-born teachers (e.g., Feryok, 2012; Ray, 2009). With

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 42

regards to years of teaching in the aforementioned contexts, it ranges from limited teaching
experience (e.g., three months in Newcomer & Collier, 2015; little or no teaching experience in
Illieva & Ravindran, 2018) to more than 30 years (e.g., Feryok, 2012). Among the selected studies, a
majority of the studies specify that the teachers had received certain training of second language
teaching by the time of research or were receiving training in teacher preparation programs by the
time of data collection (e.g., Varghese & Snyder, 2018).
The school settings also vary across the selected empirical studies. In the dual
language/bilingual contexts, most research is administered in kindergarten, preschool, elementary,
and secondary classrooms (e.g., Babino & Stewart, 2018; Ray, 2009; Varghese & Snyder, 2018).
Among these studies, Newcomer and Collier (2015), however, recruited participants both from
second to eighth grade and universities. In the ESL contexts, five studies were conducted in
university settings, such as a community college in Leal and Crookes (2018), a vocational training
college in Ollerhead (2010), and tertiary institutions in Miller and Gkonou (2018). In contrast, some
studies in the dual language/bilingual cluster conducted their research in elementary schools (e.g.,
Colegrove & Zú ñ iga, 2018; Haneda & Sherman, 2018; Kayi-Aydar, 2015b). Note that some studies
did not specify the school settings but highlighted the demographics of the language learners in their
studies. For instance, in White (2018), even though it is unclear as to what school context in which
this study is situated, it identifies that the student group is comprised of immigrant /refugee learners
of English. In the EFL contexts, nearly half of the studies were conducted in elementary and
secondary schools (e.g., Hiver & Whitehead, 2018; Ishihara et al., 2018; Kang, 2017; Palmer et al.,
2016) whereas the other half are college-based (e.g., Feryok, 2012; Tao & Gao, 2017; Yang, 2018;
Yang & Clarke, 2018; Zhang, 2018). In addition, Liyanage et al. (2015) examine both secondary
school and college settings in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region in China. The geographic
environments where these schools are located are mixed, such as urban district (Ray, 2009), remote
mountainous area with many ethnic minority groups in Vietnam (Nguyen & Bui, 2016), outskirts of
a major Australian city (Ollerhead, 2010), and a suburban context (Zhang, 2018). Note that a few
studies highlight the economic and cultural dimensions of the settings, such as the marginalized
communities in Colegrove and Zuniga (2018), the disadvantaged Istanbul neighborhoods in Tutunis
and Hacifazlioglu (2018), and the high-performance school setting in Ray (2009). Finally, a few
studies conduct research in multiple school settings (Liyanage et al., 2015; Newcomer & Collier,
2015; Nguyen & Bui, 2016; Palmer et al., 2016).

Methodologies
Research Design
In terms of research design, all the selected studies pursue qualitative inquiries. 25 studies further
identify the types of qualitative study. Specifically, 16 of them are qualitative case studies, while five
of them are qualitative ethnographic studies (e.g., Nguyen & Bui, 2016; Palmer et al., 2016;
Varghese & Snyder, 2018) and three studies use narrative inquiry (Ishihara et al., 2018; Liyanage et
al., 2015; Vitanova, 2018). Two studies (Kang, 2017; Tutunis & Hacifazlioglu, 2018) are qualitative
study in nature but also utilize quantitative approach in data analysis. For example, Kang (2017)
utilizes both interview transcripts and classroom observations to analyze his data, but he also
employs quantitative approach ―to determine whether the students‘ learning outcomes in classes
where the LP [language play] was constructed were significantly better than those in classes where LP
was not constructed‖ (p. 88). Mifsud and Vella‘s (2018) study is the only ethnography in research
design which is different from qualitative ethnographic study in terms of the ―degrees of orientation
to theories from anthropology‖ (Heath & Street, 2008, p. 121).

Data Collection Method

Regarding data collection methods used in the selected 32 studies, 25 studies are multi-method in
nature, which should be considered as a positive feature as researchers can triangulate their data in
different ways to enhance the validity of their studies. Interview is the most common strategy,
appeared in 30 studies (in most cases an open-ended, semi-structured format); several studies also
mention the language used in interviews (e.g., Feryok, 2012 in English; Glas, 2016 in Spanish;
Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017 and Nguyen & Bui, 2016 in Vietnamese). Second most common
strategy is classroom observation (n=17), followed by artifacts/documents (e.g., course syllabi, class
handouts, students‘ assignments, curricula vitae, lesson plans, and posts) (n=7), and focus group
discussion (n=6). Both field-notes, taken beyond classroom contexts, and survey are used in five
studies. Informal conversations, written or digital narratives, journal entries and other (including

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 43

meeting or portfolios) are used in fewer than five research studies. Another point worth mentioning
is that although various methods are used in the studies, not all of the studies clarify how and why
interviews, classroom observations, and other methods are selected. Some excellent examples (e.g.,
Babino & Stewart, 2018; Ilieva & Ravindran, 2018) show how this can be achieved.
Most studies used one-on-one oral interviews with their participants to understand their
decision-making process and factors influencing their decisions, which in turn is relevant to their
exertion of agency. In Feryok‟s (2012) study, except for oral interviews, he also used
semi-structured email interviews although how email interviews were conducted was not explained
in the study. Six studies used interviews alone as their data collection method (Glas, 2016; Ishihara
et al., 2018; Liyanage et al., 2015; Newcomer & Collier, 2015; Ray, 2009; Venegas-Weber, 2018). In
Liyanage et al.‟s (2015) study, eight teacher participants were interviewed individually for
around 30 to 45 minutes. The interview questions are about those teachers‟ “(1)
experiences of English testing; (2) perceptions of how testing was impacting on them
professionally and personally as they dealt with demands of the examination-oriented education
system; and (3) beliefs about what effective teachers do” (Liyanage et al., 2015, p. 255).
In Nguyen and Bui‟s (2016) study, although data were collected and analyzed from both
interviews and classroom observations for its larger study, mainly interview data were used for this
study. As the authors point out, a variety of topics were explored in interview, including:
participants‟ views on the current English LPs [language policies], curriculum, and teacher training,
along with students‟ performance; their own proposals for new or modified policies; their
understanding and application of a linguistically and culturally responsive teaching approach; the role
of the English language in the province; the roles of students‟ native languages and
Vietnamese; and the influence of English on students‟ lives, education, and
socio-economic opportunities. (Nguyen & Bui, 2016, p. 92)
Salient in these studies is that reflective interviews were used to probe and understand
teachers‟ experiences and decisions they made.
Another finding is that in some studies situated in EFL contexts, interviews were conducted in
participants‟ first languages, and later, interview transcriptions were translated into English. For
example, in Kang‟s (2017) study, “the transcriptions were in Korean, translated into English
for reporting” and “[a] professional Korean-English translator confirmed the translations done by the
researcher” (p. 87). Similarly, in the study by Huyen Phan and Hamid (2017), the interviews with
university English teachers were conducted in Vietnamese, indicating that original interview transcripts
were in Vietnamese; nonetheless, the researchers did not clarify how they confirmed their English
translations. In other studies, also in EFL contexts, like Liyanage et al. (2015) in China and Feryok
(2012) in Armenia, interviews were in English for reasons including participants‟ advanced
English proficiency and researcher-participant not sharing the same first language.
The next popular method used in this body of literature is classroom observations.
Nevertheless, compared to relatively richer information about interview data, less information is
provided about classroom observations. In many studies, classroom observations are mentioned as
part of data collection; nonetheless, details on this data collection method vary across the selected
articles. For example, in Ollerhead‟s (2010) study, classroom observation as a method of
data collection was not discussed. Kang (2017) provides a brief introduction about classroom
observations with respect to its frequency, “[o]bservations of the classroom were made
eight times, once biweekly” (p. 87). More details were not found. An exception is Huyen
Phan and Hamid (2017), which is straightforward about the purpose of classroom observations and
provides detailed descriptions regarding types of data collected in observations, “[d]ata
were gathered on the physical setting of the classes, the people being observed, and teaching and
learning activities including the resources, pedagogic styles, curricula and their
organisation...These data were descriptive fieldnotes” (p. 45). In analysis, the researchers
incorporated data from both interview and classroom observations to support their argument.
Other methods such as survey, documents, focus group discussion, and more are used to
collect supplementary data. For example, in Palmer et al.‟s (2016) study, the researchers also
observed Dual Language Bilingual Education (DLBE) and State of Texas Assessments of Academic
Readiness (STAAR) related trainings. Through participating in the training along with the teachers, the
researchers understood better on the resources teachers received and the potential pressures imposed on
them (Palmer et al., 2016, p. 397). A very interesting data collection approach is introduced in
Colegrove and iga‟s (2018) study in which the researchers used a multivocal, video-cued
ethnographic method. Using this method, the researchers experienced several phases of

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 44

data collection. First, they had to record videos of their interest; second, they had to edit the video
or several videos into a short film around 20 or 30 minutes with subtitles; third, the film was shown
to multiple participants, including their teacher participant, students, and parents from the research
site to collect interview data. Last, the researchers showed the video to participants from various
external sites through focus group interviews. The benefit of this method lies in its involvement with
different stakeholders whereas for researchers who are not familiar with technology, it might be a
challenge.

Data Analysis
Regarding data analysis in those selected studies, a large portion of the studies emphasizes the
iterative and comparative nature of data analysis in a qualitative fashion. To name a few, Feryok
(2012) constantly compared the collected data related to the research topic. The author specifies
that salient information was identified and (re)organized (p. 99). Nguyen and Bui (2016) emphasize
a recursive process that sought patterns, themes, and categories that emerged from data. Similarly,
Liyanage et al. (2015) united ―recurring ideas and experiences‖ (p. 256) and repeatedly examined
the interview components. Newcomer and Collier (2015) dealt with their data sets both individually
and collaboratively. Likewise, Huyen Phan and Hamid (2017) state that the data analysis focused on
the (re)interpretation and practice of learner autonomy in the English Language classrooms of the
four English lectures (p. 46). Babino and Stewart (2018) utilized ―constant comparative method‖ to
examine each concept which led to emerging themes. Also, Zhang (2018) dealt with the transcribed
texts repeatedly until preliminary codes were ready.
With regards to the procedures of data analysis, most studies conducted data collection and
analysis simultaneously and followed an inductive and interpretive process for analyzing data while
some mentioned the inclusion of deductive components (e.g., Venegas, 2018). Thematic analysis
with coding and memos is a prominent technique used by the selected studies for data analysis (e.g.,
Ilieva & Ravindran, 2018; Ishihara et al., 2018; Li & De Costa, 2017; Liyanage et al., 2015; Mifsud &
Vella, 2018; Newcomer & Collier, 2015; Palmer et al., 2016; Tao & Gao, 2017; Varghese & Snyder,
2018; Wong et al., 2017). In particular, Newcomer and Collier (2015) identified and refined
patterns and themes as local theory that revealed the constraints faced by teachers while exercising
agency (p. 166). Palmer et al. (2016) and Liyanage et al. (2015) specify that their studies included a
deductive process. Palmer et. al. (2016) analyzed each school‘s data set thematically and explored
―(dis)confirming evidence‖ (p. 398) during the identification of possible themes. Liyanage et al.
(2015) uncovered recurring themes and meanwhile checked if the evidence fits the themes well.
Notably, conceptual or theoretical frameworks were used in several studies to assist the process
of data analysis. For instance, Babino and Stewart (2018) employed theoretical propositions (Yin,
2013, cited in Babino & Stewart, 2018, p. 280) and grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, cited
in Babino & Stewart, 2018, p. 280) for guiding their analytic procedures. For another, using activity
theory as theoretical framework, Yang and Clark (2018) and Yang (2018) scrutinized the interactions
of different activity systems. Similarly, Ray (2009) employed template analysis with a priori themes
drawing from Bandura‘s (1989) notion of human agency (p. 126), which allowed the researcher to
compare data under a framework.
Discourse analysis is also another analytic tool that appears across several studies (e.g.,
Christiansen et al., 2018; Colegrove & Zuñ iga, 2018; Glas, 2016; Yang & Clark, 2018). Taking
Christiansen et al. (2018) as an example, the study utilized ―narrative inquiry‖ to uncover
participants‘ nuanced reflections on their agentive work. For another, in White (2018), data was
analyzed relying upon the notion of narrative accounts and stance as ―emergent product‖ through
social interactions (p. 582). Similarly, Leal and Crookes (2018) employed a model of teacher agency
for social justice for guiding the analytic procedures.
It is worth noting that a few studies used data analysis programs to assist their analysis
procedures. For instance, Ray (2009) states that Super Hyper Qual was utilized to analyze a clean
data set (p. 120) for a systematic analysis based on the teacher agency template drawn from its
theoretical framework. Likewise, Kang (2017) indicates that the statistical procedure of the repeated
measurement design was used to determine whether the students‘ learning outcomes in classes
where the LP was constructed were significantly better than those in classes where LP was not
constructed (p. 88). Miller and Gkonou (2018) involved qualitative data management software
Atlas.ti to inspect the data. Additionally, Tutunis and Hacifazliogulu (2018) conducted analysis of
each questionnaire partly from a quantitative analytic tool named Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (p. 111).

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 45

RQ2: What are the major findings, methodological and ethical issues, and implications discussed in
the selected articles?

Major Findings
Through iteratively and comparatively examining the sections of findings in these articles, five
thematic categories emerged. Note that in several studies, findings entail aspects that go beyond the
realm of teacher agency. For instance, in addition to focusing on teacher agency, findings regarding
identity formation are also important in Hiver and Whitehead‘s (2018) research. In the current
investigation, however, only findings that are closely relevant to teacher agency will be addressed.
Also important is that the categories proposed by this synthesis may overlap with each other in the
sense that some studies cover multiple themes. For instance, Zhang (2018) focuses on teachers‘
professional development but the findings are partly generated from teacher reflections. As the
professional development portion appears more prominent, the current investigation decides to
include this article in the category of professional development and agency instead of the teacher
reflection category. The following discussion will provide more details concerning the thematic
categories and highlight exemplar studies conducted in different language contexts.
Among the 32 studies, 11 explore policy constraints and enactment of teacher agency in
classroom practices (e.g., Babino & Stewart, 2018; Haneda & Sherman, 2018; Huyen Phan &
Hamid, 2017). In other words, the participant teachers‘ adjustments and resistance owing to the
constraints of language policies are the major findings in those studies. For instance, in an ESL
context, Ollerhead (2010) reveals that policy conditions constrain one participant teacher‘s ―ability to
act agentively as a teacher‖ (p. 616) while the other teacher has more freedom to make pedagogical
decisions without receiving training and materials concerning the policies. Along with the same line
of research but under a different language context (dual language program), the findings in Babino
and Stewart (2018) reveal that the teacher participants who were pressured by the program climate
that English is considered as the hegemonic language tried to collectively remodel their language
programs in the best interest of their students. Similarly, in Huyen Phan and Hamid (2017) which is
under an EFL setting, the findings uncover that teachers, motivated by their sense of responsibility,
could empower their students by promoting learner autonomy in micro-level classroom practices
under the circumstance of no explicit strategies provided by the macro-level policies.
10 studies focus on factors related to agency and how these factors are translated into classroom
actions (e.g., Colegrove & Zú ñ iga, 2018; Feryok, 2012; Glas, 2016; Kang, 2017). These factors
include previous personal experiences in the sociocultural environment, individual characteristics,
teacher reflections and perceptions, and teacher and student attitudes and motivations. For instance,
Feryok‘s (2012) study shows the personal experiences of the participant, Nune—as a student, a
teacher, and a teacher trainer—deeply influenced her teacher agency and guided her individual
actions in her local EFL context (p. 99). Several studies in this category show interest in the interplay
of teacher reflections (or perceptions) and agentive actions. In a bilingual context, Ray (2009)
examines the characteristics of teacher agency and reveals that teachers‘ sense of agency—such as
mastery and vicarious experience—translates into instructional behaviors as manifestations (p. 128).
Focusing on an ESL context, Colegrove and Zú ñ iga (2018) illustrate that teachers could create
spaces for agentive classroom practices for marginalized students when they are not afraid of failures
in implementing ―dynamic teaching practices‖ (p. 188). In an EFL setting in Japan, Ishihara et al.
(2018) discover that teachers‘ translingual practices (involving Japanese and Japanese cultures) could
be used as a mediational tool to support their ―agentive acts‖ (p. 89) in classrooms.

Discussions in another nine studies are concerned with teacher identity and agency (e.g., Hiver
& Whitehead, 2018; Kayi-Aydar, 2015b; Leal & Crookes, 2018). Most studies have unveiled the
interactive nature of professional identity development and teacher agency. For instance, Kayi-
Aydar‘s (2015b) study, situated in an ESL context, finds that positioning and repositioning identities
play crucial roles in shaping teachers‘ agentive acts in classrooms. In an EFL context, Li and De
Costa (2017) discover that through constructing a teacher identity as someone who focuses on
students‘ knowledge and career needs instead of simply preparing students for tests, teachers are
able to exercise their beliefs and make decisions in classroom practices (p. 281). In a dual language
context, Venegas-Weber (2018) suggests that developing ―linguistic and cultural identities‖
(p. 165) potentially creates spaces for implementing agency in classrooms.
Two studies—Christiansen et al. (2018) and Zhang (2018)—discuss the interactions of
professional development and teacher agency. Specifically, Christiansen et al. (2018) seek to

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 46

investigate the relationship between agency and expertise among graduate teaching assistants who
teach ESL writing courses. The findings illustrate that professional learning community helps to
make strong connections between expertise and teacher agency. Zhang (2018) explores an EFL
distance education teacher‘s agency as a case study and reveals that the teacher copes with the
challenges of professional development in the teaching context by developing academically in
writing.

Methodological and Ethical Issues

Among the articles selected for analysis, almost half of the studies analyzed ( n=15) do not explicitly
mention any ethical or methodological limitation. The challenges and/or limitations mentioned in
the studies are first categorized into ethical or methodological issues. Methodological issues include
challenges or limitations encountered during or posed in relation to data collection, analysis, and
reporting of the findings. Some studies (n=18) do not mention any methodological limitation or
issue. The methodological issues mentioned in the studies are as followings: (1) small sample/data
size or short time period, (2) ―generalizability‖ (Yang & Clark, 2018), (3) limitation due to the type of
data collected (i.e., data consisting of only self-report without any observation), (4) participant
recruitment—recruiting those who showed to be resourceful, (5) limitations of the focus, (6)
constraints in data collection, (7) missing themes that are outside of the theoretical framework, (8)
decontextualization of data while coding, (9) time lag between the time of event and the interviews,
and (10) challenge to report in a coherent and compelling manner ―based only on selected excerpts
from a fairly extensive dataset‖ (Hirver & Whitehead, 2018, p. 5).
One key limitation that affects studies on teacher agency is limited sources of data. The
limitations on size and/or scope of data are mentioned more often than the others; those limitations
relate to issues on generalizability, because the studies involve a relatively small number of
participants or are conducted as a case study. Moreover, most of these studies employed interviews
as a main method of collecting data. For instance, a number of articles (e.g., Babino & Stewart, 2018;
Christiansen et al., 2018; Glas, 2016) collected data only from methods that involve self-reports such
as interviews, focus groups, journal entries, or surveys without observations, and this poses a
challenge that the responses from interviews may not fully portray their agencies as teachers and may
not align with their actual performances. Another methodological limitation identified is from
transcription. Feryok (2012) pinpoints that all transcription involves omission, and especially due to
focusing on content analysis, not many conversational details such as intonation and pauses are
included (p. 98). Most of the limitations stated in the studies are not exclusively applicable to
research on teacher agency; yet these limitations do relate to research on the topic, especially
considering that many of the studies on teacher agency used classroom observation and interviews
for data collection.
Ethical issues are not explicitly mentioned in most (n=29) of these studies. The studies that
mention ethical issues are Feryok (2012), Ilieva and Ravindran (2018), and Kayi-Aydar (2015b). For
instance, Feryok (2012) was an instructor of the participants, which could have affected their
responses. In order to minimize the effect, Feryok (2012) intended to conduct research as a ―private
individual‖ (p. 98), not as how she had been known as the spouse of a Western diplomat. Similarly,
Kayi-Aydar (2015b) had the role of a professor of the participants and, thus, the participants could
have attempted ―to perform particular identities to please‖ (p. 102); to reduce the effect, the research
was conducted after the semester was over. Another related limitation is with the recruitment of the
participants. Ilieva and Ravindran (2018) explicitly state their ―ethical dilemma‖ (p. 16), that the goal
of social justice and equity—the stances that are enacted as a center—is ―unstated in materials inviting
applicants‖ (p. 16) to the program.
Several strategies were employed by the authors to address methodological and ethical issues in
their studies. Kang (2017), Kayi-Aydar (2015b), and Ray (2009) further elaborate the ways they have
exercised with caution. For example, Kang (2017) was extremely careful ―to ensure that the
interviewees would not be influenced to provide answers preferred by him‖ (p. 87). Similarly, Ray
(2009) indicates several times that the researcher was attentive, especially during the data analysis
phase, to ―determine whether themes outside of antecedent/manifestation framework emerged from
the data‖ (p. 126). Other strategies include triangulation (Feryok, 2012) by using three sets of data
collected through different methods (p. 99) and collaboration with a professional translator for
translation of transcripts (Kang, 2017) to address language-related issues.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 47

Implications
Discussions and implications conveyed by the aforementioned studies are multifold, and some
prominent ones are synthesized as follows. First, it is discussed that teacher agency is affected by
varying factors, including time, resources, and other social factors. Navigating among all those factors,
teachers, as change agents of pedagogical reforms, should be empowered while designing,
implementing, and evaluating educational policies (Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017; Liyanage et al.,
2015; Newcomer & Collier, 2015; Nguyen & Bui, 2016; Ollerhead, 2010). This empowerment is
reflected in several ways, such as offering specific policy implementation schemes, providing
necessary professional training and teaching resources, and more importantly getting teachers‘ voices
heard at institutional and departmental levels. These ways of empowering teachers in local contexts
can enable them to better take control of their work and teach towards meaningful pedagogies
(Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017).
It is argued that support from higher levels like school principals or district leadership is one of
the most important factors in enhancing teachers‘ agency (Priestley, 2011), which is also reflected in
the studies. Specifically, Babino and Stewart (2018) imply that administrators may use their own
agency to enact a collective leadership with teachers to create more equitable assessment decisions.
Likewise, Colegrove and Zú ñ iga (2018) suggest that district level should provide space for teachers
to expand their pedagogical repertoire through innovative programs like Project-Based Instruction
(PBI). These suggestions on leaving space for teacher agency from higher levels are further
confirmed by Glas (2016) that ―It is necessary for decision-makers at higher levels to regain trust in
the capacities of the individual teachers, in their abilities to relate to their students‘ contexts and to
find the most appropriate materials, teaching–learning strategies and evaluation procedures‖ (p.
459).
Second, multiple implications from the 32 articles are for teacher education and professional
training. It is suggested that teacher education should provide more relevant courses responsive to
teachers‘ local contexts and help teachers to develop teaching techniques and methods feasible in
their contexts (Kang, 2017; Nguyen & Bui, 2016). Several other studies (e.g., Babino & Stewart,
2018; Christiansen et al., 2018; Haneda & Sherman, 2018) suggest that the knowledge base of
teacher education should be expanded to include the discussion of teacher agency interacting with
other concepts like teacher expertise, teacher roles/identities, and teacher beliefs and to provide
space for preservice teachers to develop agency while engaging in reflection (e.g., Colegrove & Zú ñ
iga , 2018; Glas, 2016; Miller & Gkonou, 2018; Wong et al., 2017; Yang, 2018) and critical
reflection (e.g., Ishihara et al., 2018; Kayi-Aydar, 2015b). This agency-oriented approach to teacher
education should ―guide student teachers to become more aware of their personal resources and
learn to capitalize on them to seize available contextual opportunities‖ (Tao & Gao, 2017, p. 354).
Third, in terms of professional development, Nguyen and Bui (2016) reveal that participants
in their study made their pedagogical changes and take a critical stance as language policy (LP)
implementers because of ―critical conversations‖ and their ―engagement in the discussion on LP
implementation with the researchers and other teachers‖ (p. 101). Therefore, they suggest more
collaborative discussions among teachers within school contexts or a ―third space‖ like ―critical
friend groups‖ and ―mentoring and peer mentoring‖ (p. 101) for ―critical consciousness and work
towards realizing their potential as agents of [transformation]‖ (p. 101). This suggestion echoes what
Palmer et al.(2015) argue in their study that collaborative spaces shape decision-making process (p.
410). Christiansen et al. (2018) propose Professional Learning Community (PLC) which include
both expert and novice teachers to promote bidirectional interaction between agency and expertise
for professional development. Yang (2018) particularly points to in-service EFL teachers‘
professional development in China. Yang (2018) proposes that ―institutions in China should provide
teachers, especially novice teachers, with access to wider professional notions, approaches and
discourses about EFL teaching‖ (p. 50).
Next, future directions for research are also provided. This includes how professional
development promotes dual language teachers‘ agency (Ray, 2009) and how agency is taken among
different stakeholders (Palmer et al., 2016). Several studies (e.g., Kayi-Aydar, 2015b; Tao & Gao,
2017) on the connection between teacher identity and teacher agency comment that more research
should be done on this topic in the context of educational change. Ishihara et al. (2018) discuss that
wider range of teacher experience should be investigated, and Kayi-Aydar (2015b), in particular,
suggest that mentor teachers‘ voice should be heard. A couple of studies, in addition, offer
implications for research design. For example, Glas (2016) indicates that teacher and research
collaboration on action research and large-scale quantitative study to complement qualitative studies

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 48

is needed; Tao and Gao (2017) recommend more longitudinal ethnographic study. Similarly,
Babino and Stewart (2018) and Wong et al. (2017) ask for more exploration of comparative case
study. Some other studies suggest new lens and approach to research (teacher) agency and theorize
teacher agency and teacher identity, like complexity/dynamic systems theory (Hirver & Whitehead,
2018) and new materialism (Hirver & Whitehead, 2018). Last, several studies involving language
policies have indicated the misalignment between school, district, community expectations, and
language policies, which in turn has affected teacher agency. Therefore, more communication with
and coordination from different stakeholders should be established and supported (Huyen Phan &
Hamid, 2017; Palmer et al., 2016).

Discussion and Conclusion

Teacher agency, although has attracted attention in the education literature in recent years, still
remains under-examined in general, even less in ESL/EFL/bilingual language education contexts.
However, the selected literature underscores the importance of teacher agency. Nguyen and Bui
(2016) point out that ―[t]eacher agency is critical to the process of implementing educational changes‖
(p. 89), and Hamid and Nguyen (2016) claim that ―agency is not exactly an exercise of free will;
rather, teachers are in a way, forced to exert themselves if they wanted to help students to meet policy
goals‖ (p. 35). Both statements indicate that teachers are essential mediators between macro and
micro contexts; yet, the collection of articles in this synthesis conveys that more relevant studies
should be conducted and more voices from teachers be heard. Hence, based upon the previous
findings on the existing studies, we offer following future directions for research, teacher education,
and professional development.

Future Directions for Research

To address the aforementioned issue, this research synthesis attempts to provide further directions
for research. Based upon the analyses, several aspects on teacher agency in ESL/EFL/bilingual
contexts can be further studied. First, the focus on current literature has been limited to policy and
implementation, particularly in EFL contexts (e.g., Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017; Nguyen & Bui,
2016) or educational change (e.g., Liyanage et al., 2015). In bilingual contexts, according to Babino
and Stewart (2018), ―most bilingual teacher agency research focuses on the single acts of individual
teachers at the classroom levels‖ (p. 273). Consequently, more studies on different topics in different
contexts can offer insights to other aspects of teacher agency. Second, the range of contexts
examined in those studies could be expanded. It is found that most studies in bilingual contexts have
examined teacher agency in elementary contexts (Kang, 2017; Newcomer & Collier, 2015; Ray,
2009; Palmer et al., 2016), half of the studies in ESL contexts are in university level, and around half
of studies in EFL contexts have investigated in elementary and secondary contexts. Therefore, little
research has been conducted in settings of kindergarten and high schools. In addition, national
contexts beyond Vietnam, China, South Korea, United States, and Australia could be studied for
further comprehension on teacher agency in this globalized age. Moreover, for bilingual education,
California and Texas are the two main contexts in which bilingual education were studied; more
states which provide bilingual education should be explored. This is essential because bilingual
education in different states vary according to state policy, standards, and demographics..
Third, although interviews and classroom observation are useful methods in data collection in
the study of teacher agency, other data collection methods—such as playback sessions, survey,
mapping, collecting artifacts, and focus groups—can be used to triangulate and provide data from
different angles. Fourth, studies (e.g., Babino & Stewart, 2018; Tao & Gao, 2017; Wong et al., 2017)
suggest that different qualitative studies, like longitudinal ethnographic study and comparative case
study, should be welcomed. Except for qualitative research, quantitative data ―might have more
persuasive power to counter educational policies that are currently undermining teacher creativity
and their (sense of) agency‖ (Glas, 2016, p. 459); therefore, quantitative research should be
encouraged as well. Fifth, although the native and nonnative teacher dichotomy in the discussion of
teacher agency in the selected articles is not prevalent, this dichotomy is debated in research on
teacher identity which is a construct closely related to teacher agency; therefore, this dichotomy
should be discussed more in the study of teacher agency. Beyond this identity, other minority
teachers (e.g., Leal & Crookes, 2018 on a queer English language teacher) should gain more
attention. Last, although a variety of theoretical frameworks and analytical approaches have been
drawn upon to study teacher agency, socio-cultural and ecological perspectives are dominant in
research. Hence, more research on other perspectives or the mix of multiple perspectives might be

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 49

able to further contribute to the current literature.

Future Directions for Teacher Education and Professional Development

This research synthesis also offers implications for teacher education and professional development.
First of all, several articles indicate that teacher education and training should take practitioners‘ local
contexts into consideration, facilitate teachers to incorporate theories, concepts, and pedagogies from
global to local contexts (Huyen Phan & Hamid, 2017, p. 52), and help teachers develop teaching
techniques and methods feasible in their contexts (Kang, 2017). Second, Nguyen and Bui‘s (2016)
study reveals the ―mistrust‖ (p. 96) between practitioners and teacher educators due to ―local and
university trainers‘ lack of understanding of multiculturalism, multiple learning styles, and the socio-
economic situations of minority students‖ (p. 96). To ameliorate this mistrust, teacher educators and
teachers should have more communication and understanding of each other‘s working environment.
Third, the selected studies (e.g., Babino & Stewart, 2018; Colegrove & Zú ñ iga, 2018; Glas, 2016)
propose that modern educational system should afford teachers more leeway to enact their agency.
To achieve the goal, all stakeholders (students, teachers, student families, and other higher levels)
who care for humanizing pedagogy should participate in making the changes. For teachers, Leal and
Crookes (2018) suggest that they should ―develop an awareness of the contradictions between their
‗sense of purpose‘ and the educational and social structures in which their work is located‖ (p. 38).

Fourth, several studies (e.g., Feryok, 2012; Newcomer & Collier, 2015; Ollerhead, 2010) are
indicative of the fact that the enactment of teacher agency is dependent on teachers‘ experiences,
ideas, and beliefs. Huyen Phan and Hamid (2017) state that the awareness of their teacher role and
sense of responsibility are essential for students and academic well-being. Therefore, critical
examination and reflection of their background and beliefs in teaching and learning might contribute
to their awareness of teacher‘s role as an agent in classrooms. Fifth, adequate training in teacher
education and professional development programs should be offered to equip and empower
teachers with necessary guidance and support. Last, as language teachers become more
professionalized in their work through exercising agency, the concept of teacher agency should be
included in teacher education as part of teacher knowledge. Also, continued support for teachers
from workplace should be given as agency is shaped by ―social interactions and achieved in
particular situations‖ (Mifsud & Vella, 2018, p. 273). In a word, studies on teacher agency should be
continued in ESL/EFL/bilingual contexts in order to further understand teachers‘ agency and active
participation in diverse educational settings.

References
Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2012). New teachers of color and culturally responsive teaching in
an era of educational accountability: Caught in a double bind. Journal of Educational
Change, 13, 1-39.
Babino, A. (2017). Same program, distinctive development: exploring the biliteracy trajectories of
two dual language schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 69-86.
Babino, A., & Stewart, M. A. (2018). Remodeling dual language programs: Teachers enact agency as
critically conscious language policy makers, Bilingual Research Journal, 41(3), 272-297.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. Translated by H. Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–
1184.
Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bartolomé , L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 97-122.
Benesch, S. (2018). Emotions as agency: Feeling rules, emotion labor, and English language teachers‘
decision-making. System, 79, 60-69.
Biesta, G., Priestely, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 624–640. doi:10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545
Bouchard, J. (2016). Monolingual education in policy discourse and classroom practice: A look into
Japanese junior high school EFL classrooms. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.),
Teacher agency and policy response in English language teaching (pp. 41-57). New York,
NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 50

Christiansen, M. S., Du, Q., Fang, M., & Hirvela, A. (2018). Doctoral students‟ agency as
second language writing teachers: The quest for expertise. System, 79, 19-27.
Colegrove, K., & iga, C. E. (2018). Finding and enacting agency: An elementary E L
teacher‟s perceptions of teaching and learning in the era of standardized testing.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3), 188-202.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In H. Cooper, L. V.
Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp.
3-16). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, R.(2009). A sociocultural framework for language policy and planning. Language Problems &
Language Planning, 33(1), 22–42.
Dantas-Whitney, M., Clemente, A., & Higgins, M. J. (2012). Agency, identity and imagination in an
urban primary school in Southern Mexico. Calidoscó pio, 10(1), 114-124.
Dubetz, N. E., & de Jong, E. J. (2011). Teaching advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research
Journal, 34(3), 248-262.
Edwards, A. (2015). Recognising and realising teachers‟ professional agency. Teachers and
Teaching, 21(6), 779-784.
Feryok, A. (2012). Activity theory and language teacher agency. The Modern Language Journal,
96(1), 95-107.
Fitts, S. (2009). Exploring third space in a dual-language setting: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Latinos and Education, 8(2), 87-104.
Flores, B. B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers‟ beliefs and their relation to self-reported practices.
Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299.
Fullan, M.(1993). Changing forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London: Palmer Press.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21 century: A global perspective. Malden, MA:
st

Wiley/Blackwell.
Glas, K. (2016). Opening up „spaces for manoeuvre‟: English teacher perspectives on learner
motivation. Research Papers in Education, 31(4), 442-461.
doi:10.1080/02671522.2015.1049287
Glasgow, J. P. (2016). Policy, agency and the (non)native teacher: “English classes in English” in
Japan‟s high schools. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.), Teacher agency and policy
response in English language teaching (pp. 58-73). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Hamid, M. O., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2016). Globalization, English language policy, and teacher
agency: Focus on Asia. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 15(1),
26-44.
Hamid, M. O., Zhu, L., & Baldauf, R. B. (2014). Norms and varieties of English and TESOL
teacher agency. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(10). 77-95.
Haneda, M., & Sherman, B. (2018). ESL teachers‟ acting agentively through job crafting.
Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 17(6). 402-415.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2018.1498340
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 152-162.
Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy
Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Henderson, K. I. (2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in
the implementation of dual language bilingual education. Linguistics and Education, 42, 21-
33.
Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. H. K. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and the complex
dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System, 79, 70-80.
Hoang, H., & Truong, L. B. (2016). Teacher agency and autonomy in rural Vietnam. In P. C. L. Ng
& E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.), Teacher agency and policy response in English language
teaching (pp. 188-202). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Hopkins, M. (2013). Building on our teaching assets: The unique pedagogical contributions of
bilingual educators. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 350-370.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 51

Huyen Phan, T.T., & Hamid, M. O. ( 2017). Learner autonomy in foreign language policies in
Vietnamese universities: An exploration of teacher agency from a sociocultural perspective.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(1), 39-56.
Ilieva, R., & Ravindran, A. (2018). Agency in the making: Experiences of international graduates of
a TESOL program. System, 79, 7-18.
Ishihara, N., Carroll, S. K., Mahler, D., & Russo, A. (2018). Finding a niche in teaching English in
Japan: Translingual practice and teacher agency. System, 79, 81- 90.
Kang, D. (2017). The multifaceted ecology of language play in an elementary school EFL classroom.
International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 20(1), 84-101.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015a). Multiple identities, negotiations, and agency across time and space: A
narrative inquiry of a foreign language teacher candidate. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 12(2), 137–160. Retrieved from
http://proxy.lib.ohiostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&
db=eric&AN=EJ1063925&site=ehost-live
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015b). Teacher agency, positioning, and English language learners: Voices of pre-
service classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94-103.
Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang
(Ed.), Education of immigrant students: Issues and answers (pp. 55-83). Toronto, ON:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and
professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(8), 899-916.
Leal, P., & Crookes, G. V. (2018). ―Most of my students kept saying, ‗I never met a gay person‘‖: A
queer English language teacher's agency for social justice. System, 79, 38-48.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.
Li, W., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). Professional survival in a neoliberal age: A case study of an EFL
teacher in China. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(2),
277-291.doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.2.5.277
Liyanage, I., Bartlett, B., Walker, T., & Guo, X. (2015). Assessment policies, curricular directives,
and teacher agency: Quandaries of EFL teachers in Inner Mongolia. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 251-264.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In
T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for
teacher education (pp. 55-72). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Meierdirk, C. (2018). The impact of the social environment on the student teacher‘s agency.
Teaching Education, 29(1), 33-46.
Mifsud, C. L. & Vella, L. A. (2018). Teacher agency and language mediation in two Maltese
preschool bilingual classrooms. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 31(3), 272-288.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldañ a, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Miller, E. R., & Gkonou, G. (2018). Language teacher agency, emotion labor and emotional
rewards in tertiary-level English language programs. System, 79, 49-59.
Newcomer, S. N., & Collier, L. C. (2015). Agency in action: How teachers interpret and implement
Arizona‘s 4-hour structured English immersion program. International Multilingual
Research Journal, 9 (3), 159-176. doi:10.1080/19313152.2015.1048179
Ng, P. C. L., & Boucher-Yip, E. F. (2016). Teacher agency and policy response in English language
teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Nguyen, H. M., & Bui, T. (2016). Teachers‘ agency and the enactment of educational reform in
Vietnam. Current Issues In Language Planning, 17(1), 88-105.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or
science. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 805-815.
Ollerhead, S. (2010). Teacher agency and policy response in the adult ESL literacy classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 44(3), 606-618.
Ollerhead, S., & Burns, A. (2016). Teacher agency and policy response in the Australia adult ESL
literacy classroom. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.), Teacher agency and policy
response in English language teaching (pp. 105-119). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 52

from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in
applied linguistics: A practical resource. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Osman, S., & Ahn, E. (2016). Navigating change: Kazakhstani English language teachers‟
response to multiscalar education reforms. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.),
Teacher agency and policy response in English language teaching (pp. 133-147). New York, NY:
Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Ovando, C. J., & Combs, M. C. (2012). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural
contexts (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a
dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94-114.
Palmer, D. (2011). The discourse of transition: Teachers‟ language ideologies within transitional
bilingual education programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 103-122.
Palmer, D., Henderson, K., Wall, D., Z iga, C. E., & Berthelsen, S. (2016). Team teaching among
mixed messages: Implementing two-way dual language bilingual education at third grade in
Texas. Language Policy, 15(4), 393-413.
Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing
teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1).
269-297.
Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of
Educational Change, 12(1), 1–23. doi:10.1007/s10833-010-9140-z

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2013). Teachers as agents of change: Teacher agency and
emerging models of curriculum. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the
curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 187- 206). New York, NY:
Bloomsbury.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015).Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London,
UK: Bloomsbury.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making:
Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214.
Ray, J. M. (2009). A template analysis of teacher agency at an academically successful dual language
school. Journal of Advanced Academic, 21(1), 110-141.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientation in language planning. National Association for Bilingual Education
Journal, 8(2), 15-34.
Shabir, M. (2017). Student-teachers‟ beliefs on the use of L1 in EFL classroom: A global
perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 45-52.
Shin, S. J. (2018). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity, and policy. London, UK:
Routledge Taylor and Francis.
Song, B., & Kim, T. Y. (2016). Teacher (de)motivation from an activity theory perspective: Cases of
two experienced EFL teachers in South Korea. System, 57, 134–145. Retrieved from
http://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=mzh&AN=2017651508&site=ehost-live
Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context and learning: The case of a teacher
reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, 29-52.
doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0201_2.
Suri, H. (2013). Epistemological pluralism in research synthesis methods. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 26(7), 889–911.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.691565
Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a
methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1). 395-430.
Talalakina, E. V., & Stukal, D. (2016) Incorporating academic skills into EFL curriculum: Teacher
agency in response to global mobility challenges. In P. C. L. Ng & E. F. Boucher-Yip (Eds.),
Teacher agency and policy response in English language teaching (pp. 120-132). New York,
NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4626106
Tang, E., Lee, J., & Chun, C. (2012). Development of teaching beliefs and the focus of change in
the process of pre-service ESL teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
37(5), 90-107.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 53

Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 63, 346-355.
Toohey, K. (2007). Autonomy/agency through socio-cultural lenses. In A. Barfield & S. Brown
(Eds.), Reconstructing autonomy in language education. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Trickett, E. J., Rukhotskiy, E., Jeong, A., Oberoi, A., Weinstein, T., & Delgado, Y.(2012). ―The
kids are terrific: It‘s the job that‘s tough‖: The ELL teacher role in an urban context.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 283–292. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.005
Tutunis, B. & Hacifazlioglu, O. (2018). The impact of reflective practices of English language
teachers on the development of a sense of agency. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 6 (10), 107-116.
Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The ―grammar‖ of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453–479. doi:10.2307/1163222
Varghese, M. M., & Snyder, R. (2018). Critically examining the agency and professional identity
development of novice dual language teachers through figured worlds. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3), 145–159. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.ohio-
state.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=eric&AN=EJ1182676&site=ehost-live
Venegas-Weber, P. (2018). Teaching and knowing in ―Nepantla‖: ―I wanted them to realize that,
that 'is' being bilingual.‖ International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3), 160-172.
Vitanova, G. (2018). ―Just treat me as a teacher!‖ Mapping language teacher agency through gender,
race, and professional discourses. System, 79, 28-37.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. Oxford, London: Oxford University Press.
White, C. J. (2018). Agency and emotion in narrative accounts of emergent conflict in an L2
classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 579–598.
Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the
face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114.
Wong, J. W., Athanases, S. Z., & Banes, L. C. (2017). Developing as an agentive bilingual teacher:
Self-reflexive and student learning inquiry as teacher education resources. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–
17.doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1345850
Yang, H. (2018). An analysis of the relationship between Chinese EFL teachers' agency and beliefs
from an activity theory perspective. Asian EFL Journal, 20(3), 32-54. Retrieved from
www.scopus.com
Yang, H., & Clark, M. (2018). Spaces of agency within contextual constraints: A case study of
teacher‘s response to EFL reform in a Chinese university. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 38 (2), 187-201.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zhang, X. (2018). Mitigating suburban English writing teachers‘ constrained professional
development through distance education: One case study. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19 (5), 238-254.

Appendix A
Focus of Studies and Research Questions

Sources Focus of Study Research Questions or

Objectives

Babino & Stewart (2018) Dual Language (DL) teachers enact RQ1: How do DL teachers
agency among different tensions perceive their agency as
[1]as policymakers in the language policy makers in
microsystems of their classrooms to the classroom?
truly accomplish DL programs‘
three-fold goals: bilingualism, RQ2: How do these same
biliteracy, and bicultural DL teachers exhibit a critical

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 54

competence of students and consciousness by

advocate equity for minoritized acknowledging the tensions
students and acting on that
knowledge?

Christiansen, Du, Fang, & Hirvela Three graduate teaching assistants‘ Within a professional
(2018) quest to achieve a desirable level of learning community setting,
expertise in teaching second what is the relationship
language writing became a between agency and
contributing factor in their expertise?
engagement with teacher agency

Colegrove & Zú ñ iga (2018) A first-grade ESL teacher explores How does a first-grade ESL
her agency (and that of her teacher implementing PBI
students) in implementing and examine her teaching
experimenting with project-based approach in a high-stakes
instruction (PBI) in her testing environment? In what
economically, culturally, and ways does a first-grade ESL
linguistically diverse classroom. teacher discover agency and
that of her students while
implementing PBI?

Feryok (2012) An Armenian EFL teacher‘s early How does a language teacher
experiences and actions outside of develop a sense of agency?
the professional development
classroom influenced her
engagement with teacher agency
constrained also by local, national,
and international contexts

Glas (2016) Reports from 13 Chilean English RQ1:How motivated are

language teachers‘ difficulties in students to learn English,
motivating their students indicate according to their teachers‘
the relevance between teachers‘ perception?
agency and learner motivation RQ2: What are the reasons
they mention to explain
either the presence or the
absence of learner
motivation?
RQ3:What contextual
constraints and challenges
with a potentially negative
influence on learner
motivation are mentioned by
the teachers?
RQ4: What internal
constraints can be inferred
from the teachers‘ accounts
that impede their use of
motivational strategies?
RQ5: How do contextual
and internal constraints
interact?
RQ6: What spaces for
manoeuvre are perceived by

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 55

the teachers that help create

and maintain learner
motivation in spite of
contextual constraints?

Haneda & Sherman (2018) Elementary ESL teachers‘ agentive RQ1: How did ESL teachers
action and redesigning of their work act agentively through job
through job crafting to optimally crafting to bring their
support English learners practice into greater
alignment with their
conceptua- lizations of what
constitutes ESL teachers‘
work?
RQ2: What factors allowed
for or hindered their job
crafting?

Hirver & Whitehead (2018) Language teachers‘ co-construction What roles do the
of a sense of agency and phenomenological
professional identity through their manifestations of teacher
classroom practice agency in instructional
practices play in the
process of teacher identity
formation?

Huyen Phan & Hamid (2017) University English teachers‘ To understand how teachers
exercise of agency motivated by (re)interpret and appropriate
their sense of responsibility to their the concept of LA, how they
students and their academic empower learners in the
well-being in micro-macro foreign EFL classroom through
language policy processes. involving them in the
decision-making process,
creating opportunities for
learners‘ self-reflection and
optimising learner‘s target
language use in the EFL class

Ilieva & Ravindran (2018) International graduate students‘ To understand the material
co-construction of teacher identity effects of one teacher
and teacher agency when engaging education program on
with native speaker ideology and enactments of agency
tensions in reconciling teaching by program graduates
goals and

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 56

professional contexts

Ishihara, Carroll, Mahler, & Russo Two former assistant language RQ1: How was teacher
(2018) teachers‘ agency construction agency constructed,
through drawing on linguistic and constrained, and
cultural resources from both (re)negotiated discursively in
English and Japanese relation to their positioning
by others in the local
context?
RQ2: How was the teachers'
translingual practice related
to the negotiation of their
agency?

Kang (2017) The complex bi-directional RQ1: How do an elementary

influence between teacher/learner school NNEST and her EFL
agency and Language Play (LP) students construct LP in
production which is related to their classroom?
teacher authority and inter-student RQ2: What are the
power underlying factors for such
construction of LP?

Kayi-Aydar (2015b ) The influence of three pre-service How do teachers of ELLs

classroom teachers‘ identity position themselves and
(re)negotiations on teachers‘ (re)negotiate identities in
agency, interactions and classroom relation to their social
practice context in their accounts of
experiences and how do
such positionings interact
with their agency?

Leal & Crookes (2018) A queer English language teacher's RQ1: What is Jackson's
exercise of agency with ―sense of purpose‖ (as
marginalized identities for social defined by Pantic) when
justice and the analyses were exercising agency for
through four aspects: ―sense of social justice in the
purpose,‖ ―competence,‖ classroom?
―autonomy,‖ ―reflexivity‖ RQ2: What are the
conditions, as understood by
Jackson (Pantic‘s
―competence‖), supportive
of her exercising agency for
social justice in the
classroom?
RQ3: How does Jackson
exercise agency (Pantic‘s
―autonomy‖) for social
change in the classroom?

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 57

Li & De Costa (2017) An EFL English teacher‘s RQ1: How did Ms. Q
negotiation of her professional negotiate her teacher identity
identity in relation to the exercise in relation to contextual
and investment of her professional affordances and
agency within the affordances and constraints at her school?
constraints of the given work RQ2: How did Ms. Q‘s
context exercise of teacher agency
affect the ways in which she
negotiated her teacher
identity?

Liyanage, Bartlett, Walker, & Guo Inner Mongolian English language To determine how teachers‘
(2015) teachers‘ exercise of agency amidst professional practices are
the instructional demands of an mediated by an
exam-oriented community, and a examination-success-oriented
misalignment created by an exam mind-set of the public,
remaining centered on discrete curricular and policy
skills rather than students‘ directives, and teacher
proficiency in agency.
language use within New English
Syllabus expectations

Mifsud & Vella (2018) Two Maltese preschool teachers‘ To reflect on how two
agency and mediation of languages teachers of bilingual
in their bilingual classrooms, which preschool classrooms in
are influenced by the teachers‘ Malta were agentive in their
background and language beliefs, language mediation strategies
the sociolinguistic context (national and to uncover the complex
and local), as well as the school interplay of personal beliefs
language policies about language, classroom
practices, and the individual
needs of learners

Miller & Gkonou (2018) Language teachers‘ agentive RQ1: What are the most
exercise of emotion and the role of common emotions
emotion labor in producing experienced by tertiary-level
emotional rewards in the teaching English language teachers
practice of English language while teaching?
teachers employed by tertiary-level RQ 2: How is teacher agency
institutions in the U.S. and U.K. enabled and constrained in
teachers' emotion labor?
RQ 3: How does their
exercise of agency, through
emotion labor, lead to
emotional rewards?
RQ 4: How can teachers'
reported emotions and
emotion labor be
understood from the
perspective of ethical
self-formation and
teaching-as-caring?

Newcomer & Collier (2015) Elementary teachers and teacher To show how teachers
educators‘ exercise of agency in exercise agency to counter
their interpretation and some of the restrictions
implementation of Arizona‘s model associated with Arizona‘s

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 58

of Structured English Immersion specific SEI program, the

(SEI) 4-hour ELD model

Nguyen & Bui (2016) Vietnamese English language RQ1: What are teachers‟
teachers‟ agency in response to the attitudes towards the
national English Language government-initiated English
Education Policy reforms at the policies in Vietnam?
local level RQ2: To what extent do the
teachers possess the capacity
for change in accordance
with Fullan‟s (1993) theory
on change agentry?

Ollerhead (2010) Investigation of two adult ESL To examine specific

teachers‟ interpretation and policy-driven constraints and
response to Australia's Language, enablements experienced by
Literacy, and Numeracy Program each teacher in the course of
(LLNP) policy through their her teaching work
diverging backgrounds and
pedagogical and personal attitudes
and beliefs

Palmer, Henderson,Wall, Z iga, & Two schools‟ teams of third grade How do two teams of 3rd
Berthelsen (2016) teachers worked together to grade bilingual teachers
negotiate the intersection of DLBE negotiate the intersection of
implementation and high stakes two-way dual language
accountability pressures program implementation
and high stakes standardized
testing?

Ray (2009) The characteristics of teacher What are the characteristics

agency at an academically of teacher agency at an
successful Dual Language (DL) academically successful
elementary school, including the dual language school?
identification of the factors that
inform teachers‟ sense of agency
(antecedents) and the instructional
behaviors that result from that
sense of agency (manifestations)

Tao & Gao (2017) The interaction of teacher agency RQ1: How did teachers
and identity commitment of enact agency in facilitating
Chinese university L2 teachers that professional development
facilitates professional development during curricular reform?
during curricular reform RQ2: How did their identity
commitment mediate
teachers' enactment of
agency to facilitate their
professional development
during curricular reform?

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 59

Tutunis & Hacifazlioglu (2018) 30 language teachers‘ reflective RQ1: What are the initial
practices on the development of a challenges encountered by
sense of agency in disadvantaged the English teachers in the
neighborhoods in İstanbul, Turkey first two years of their
teaching to young learners in
disadvantaged
neighborhoods?
RQ2: How do English
teachers overcome the initial
challenges?
RQ3: What are the
reflection experiences of
English teachers before and
after training?

Varghese & Snyder (2018) Four pre-service teachers‘ To examine how four
development of professional teachers in a mainstream
identities and sense of agency as elementary teacher
dual language teachers in the education program (TEP)
interactions with the teachers‘ develop their sense of agency
personal linguistic,racial,and and figured worlds of dual
cultural backgrounds and external language teaching
affordances, including their own
language ideologies and those
present in their contexts

Venegas-Weber (2018) The complexity of teachers‘ RQ1: How do

professional identity development Chicanx/Latinx bilingual
and their possibilities for agency teachers‘ learning and
within nepantla, focusing on their development within nepantla
negotiating of their linguistic and shape their professional
cultural identities as English-or identity as bilingual and
Spanish-only teachers in a dual bi/multicultural teachers?
language program with a strict RQ2: How does this
language separation model professional identity interact
with their agency?

Vitanova (2018) ESL teachers‘micro-aspects of Centrall question: How do

emergent agency mediated by social factors such as gender
causative social factors, like gender, and race mediate teachers'
race, and culture emergent agencies?
Other related questions are:
As teachers‘ agency emerges,
how do these identity
markers influence their
relationships with others, for
example, colleagues,
students, or superiors? How
does the past affect their
future choicesdboth personal
and professionaldas revealed
through storytelling?

White (2018) The interrelationships between To examine the

emotion and agency from a interrelationships
dialogical perspective in multiple between agency and emotion
accounts of an incident of emergent in teacher narrative accounts

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 60

conflict in an L2 class for

immigrants and refugees

Wong, Athanases, & Banes (2017) Through self-reflexive and RQ: How, and to what
student-learning inquiries to degree, did one bilingual
examine a bilingual teacher‘s educator leverage
teaching practices and agentive self-reflexive and
decision-making in a dual-language student-learning inquiry as
program resources for
decision-making and
teaching?

Yang (2018) Teachers‘ agency in resolving the To analyse the relationship

contradiction between their beliefs between teachers‘ beliefs and
and their practices in regard to EFL teacher agency within a
reading instruction in a Chinese joint-activity system,
university from an activity theory including the activity systems
perspective of the teachers,their
students and the departmen

Yang & Clark (2018). EFL teachers‘ pedagogical agency To investigate teacher
in implementing College English pedagogical agency in
curriculum reform from an activity implementing College
theory perspective within and English curriculum reform in
between the macro policy initiation the wider Chinese context
level, the university implementation
level, and the teacher‘s classroom
level

Zhang (2018) A Chinese suburban English writing RQ1: How does the teacher
teacher‘ s exercise of his agency develop himself through
while encountering multiple SFL-based distance
constraints in systemic functional education?
linguistics-based distance education RQ2: How does the teacher
conduct follow-up writing
instruction on his own?

Appendix B
An Example of Coding and Data Analysis

Article Theoretical What is the Methodology? Ethical Methodological

frameworks issues challenges

Research Methods Data Data analysis

design collection

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 61

Ray theory of qualitative interview ―Data were ―The clean data Not ―A potential
(2009) emergent instrumental collected set was put into mentioned limitation of this
interactive case study through a SuperHyperQual in the style of analysis
agency, approach series of (Padilla, 2004) article is the chance of
described in semistruct and analyzed missing themes
Bandura‘s ured using template that do not fit
(1989) interviews. analysis‖ (p. 120) within the
social Each framework‖ (p.
cognitive participant 126).
theory. was ―Although the
Human interviewe sample size for
agency d once, this study is
means with small, these
people interviews findings suggest
change their lasting agentic factors
situations or from 1 to 3 that may be
themselves hours‖ (p. associated with
through 126). high student
intentional achievement‖
actions (p. 135)
determined ―Another
by the potential
interplay of limitation has to
behavior, do with the
internal coding process
personal itself. By
factors, and removing
external fragments of
environmen text for use in
t (Ray, 2009, the coding
p. 116). process, it is
possible
that the data
might lose some
of their
meaning. This
threat of
decontextualizat
ion is countered
by both the
researcher‘s
attention
to detail and the
need to
amalgamate the
data‖ (p. 136).
About the Authors
Zhenjie Weng is a doctoral student at the Ohio State University in the Department of Teaching and
Learning. Her research interests include second language writing, teacher identity, language teacher
education, and World English(es).
Telephone: (724)-4679518; Email: [email protected]; Address: 1945 N. High St.,138, Columbus
OH 43210

Jingyi Zhu is a doctoral student at the Ohio State University in the Department of Teaching and
Learning. She is currently enrolled in the Foreign, second, and Multilingual Language Education
Program. Her research interests include second language reading, instructed second language
acquisition, Children‘s/YA literature, and multicultural education.

Grace J. Y. Kim is a doctoral student at the Ohio State University in the Foreign, Second, and
Multilingual Language Education program in the Department of Teaching and Learning. Her
research interests include bilingual education, teacher education and curriculum design in language
immersion programs, and heritage language education.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 62

Multilingual, Middle-Eastern Students‘ Varied Responses to Directive and

Non-directive Strategies in Peer Tutoring

Maria Eleftheriou 4

American University of Sharjah, UAE

Abstract
This article presents the findings of a qualitative study examining the tutorial experiences of English
as an additional language (EAL) tutees and their peer writing tutors in a Middle-Eastern university
where the language of instruction is English. Data from stimulated recall activities, written
observations, and interviews were analyzed to answer the following research questions:
1. Which type of tutoring approach (e.g. non-directive vs. directive) do EAL tutees find most
effective?
2. Which type of tutoring approach (e.g. non-directive vs. directive) do tutors of EAL tutees
find most effective?
The findings revealed that both tutors and tutees preferred the directive approach for lower order
concerns (LOCs) and a non-directive approach for higher order concerns (HOCs). This study
shows that diverse tutoring models that accommodate the background and experiences of Middle
Eastern students, and their particular strengths and weaknesses, should be considered. Based on
these findings, the author recommends tutorial training that emphasizes flexibility and recognizes the
unique nature of each tutorial situation. These findings may signal a direction for the development
of writing center pedagogy that focuses on the linguistically and culturally diverse students in the
Middle East.
Key Words: Writing Center; EAL students; non-directive strategies; directive strategies; peer
tutoring

Introduction
Writing center scholarship has developed in Western contexts and promotes a non-directive,
collaborative approach, so writing centers in North America typically eschew directive
approaches to peer tutoring. While a directive approach attempts to transfer the tutor‘s
presumably superior language knowledge to the tutee through explicit explanations, a non-
directive approach is intended to promote a sense of responsibility in students, teaching them to
recognize and correct their own errors by eliciting knowledge rather than transmitting it. The
orthodoxy of this non-directive peer tutoring perspective has been challenged in recent
scholarship that analyzes tutor-tutee interaction to assess the effectiveness of different tutoring
strategies. Tutors assisting tutees with English as an additional language (EAL) in writing centers
have been found to use more directive approaches with their EAL tutees than with English as a
first language (L1) tutees, because their EAL tutees require more language support and expect
tutors to engage in directive instruction. The influence of the orthodox model extends to the
Middle East, where a purely non-directive approach may be even less suited to address the
particular challenges experienced by students working to develop their English writing skills.
Students in the Middle East who seek help in English-language writing centers will typically be
EAL, may not have had prior experience with the style of teaching involved in non-directive,
collaborative tutorials, and they may not share the cultural assumptions implicit in the approach.

Little previous research has been done on English language writing centers in the Middle
East, and most studies of EAL writers have been conducted in North American contexts. The
present study thus seeks to examine tutors‘ and tutees‘ experiences of the effectiveness of directive
and non-directive strategies of instruction with EAL students at MEU, a pseudonym for a university
located in the Middle East. The findings of this study suggest that a mixed and context-sensitive
approach to the use of directive and non-directive strategies would be most effective in this
environment. These insights could eventually provide guidance for language instruction more

Email: [email protected], College of Arts and Sciences, Sharjah, UAE, 97165153353

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 63

generally in other multilingual or multicultural environments.

EAL Students in the Writing Center

In the mid-1990s, research on writing center pedagogy began to take into account the growing
number of EAL students using English-language writing center services (Williams & Severino,
2004). Such research began to raise questions about the peer relationship and the effectiveness
of a strictly non-directive approach for tutorials (Harris & Silva, 1993; Powers, 1995; Thonus,
2004; Williams & Severino, 2004). Some studies have indicated that EAL students might
benefit from a more directive tutoring approach (Blau & Hall, 2002; Shamoon & Burns, 1995;
Thonus, 2001, 2004; Williams & Severino, 2004), particularly with respect to lexical, syntactical
errors (Mousse, 2013; Myers, 2003; Nakamaru, 2010; Nakatake, 2013; Rafoth, 2015; Weigle &
Nelson, 2004). Studies focusing on EAL students have indicated that these students exhibit
problems with morphology, lexical mastery, and syntax (Myers, 2003; Williams & Severino,
2004). They may lack the vocabulary to clearly articulate their ideas and may also require
significant feedback on their word choice (Cogie, 2006; Minnet, 2009). Williams‘s (2005)
research has indicated that EAL tutees and their English L1 tutors engage in more extensive
diagnosis of the tutee‘s writing challenges (e.g. grammar, lexical issue) than is typically reported
with English L1 tutees. Furthermore, compared with their English L1 peers, EAL tutees tend to
elicit greater directive instruction from their tutors. The non-directive strategy of focusing on
higher order concerns (HOCs) rather than lower-order concerns (LOCs) may be difficult to
implement when students are still struggling with basic elements of a new language. Williams
and Severino (2004) have noted that this focus on HOCs is intended to increase student agency
and ownership of the text. Grammar and syntax improvement is assumed to occur naturally;
improvements that do not come naturally are thought to be more easily learned once the
student establishes the necessary connection to the text.
Though some scholars maintain that tutors should resist giving feedback on sentence-level
concerns (Staben & Nordhaus, 2009), attitudes about error feedback and correction for EAL tutees
have changed recently. The close link between rhetorical proficiency and linguistic proficiency in the
development of EAL writing ability has been recognized (Blau & Hall, 2002; Myers, 2003;
Nakamaru, 2010; Williams, 2004). Rafoth (2015) has claimed that adhering to a strictly non-directive
approach ―has opened writing centers to criticism for succumbing to the monolingual bias that treats
errors the same way for native speakers, who can fall back on their intuitions about what sounds
correct, and non-native speakers of English, who cannot‖ (p. 109). Blau and Hall (2002) have argued
―that sentence-level errors can create global concerns, such as ―errors in a student's thesis statement
that make his or her central point confusing" (p. 36). Myers (2003) has recommended using a more
traditional approach to tutoring EAL students, such as rephrasing students‘ sentences, inserting
corrections into students‘ texts, and even offering practice exercises that target specific areas of
weakness. She has argued that tutors must relinquish the attitude that giving EAL students the
assistance they need amounts to appropriation and is therefore ―unethical‖ (p. 66).

Despite concerns about tutor appropriation of student texts, most practitioners believe
tutors can be good language resources for students without taking ownership of the text.
Severino (2009) has argued that appropriation does not take place if tutors offer reasons for the
changes they suggest to their tutees. Reid (1994) has also suggested that ―intervening‖ by offering
phrases and options to students to ―provide [them] with adequate schemata (linguistic, content,
contextual, and rhetorical)‖ (p. 286) is not appropriation; rather it ―demystifies the writing
process‖ (p.286). Pyle (2005) has suggested that tutors be given ―more leeway to... give the L2
students... more robust feedback in the arena of expression [e.g. grammar and word choice], as
well as training... in how best to do so‖ (as cited in Kastman Breuch & Clemens, 2009, p. 134).
Myers (2003) has argued that combining rhetorical and linguistic feedback is essential and in
keeping with the commonly accepted role of the tutor as cultural informant. There is a
consensus among writing center researchers that some combination of non-directive and
directive practices may provide the best solution to the variety of learning challenges faced by
EAL students (Blau & Hall, 2002; Mousse, 2013; Williams, 2004; Williams & Severino, 2004).
While EAL students may lack the intuitions for correct English writing that L1 students can
rely on, EAL students have another resource that many English L1 students lack: native mastery in a

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 64

language other than English. The native language that EAL students speak is often treated merely as
an impediment to good English writing, as a source of interference errors. While it would be a
mistake to deny or minimize the effect of interference errors, it is reductive to treat the native
language of EAL students solely as a source of errors when it is also a potentially rich source of
language knowledge upon which EAL students may draw in their English writing. The English
language is highly adaptable, and its vocabulary and grammar are in constant flux. Its role as the
lingua franca of the modern world results in an incredible diversity among it speakers, and the EAL
speakers among them are a significant source for innovation. Accordingly, although it may be
necessary to adopt a more directive approach with EAL tutees, non-directive strategies remain
important for EAL tutorials, if students are to maintain agency over their texts, and if their non-
English native languages are to be allowed to inform their writing in English. Horner, Lu, Royster
and Trimbur (2011) have argued persuasively for a translingual approach to writing, one that
addresses ―how language norms are actually heterogenous, fluid and negotiable‖ (p. 305). They have
proposed ―a new paradigm that sees difference in language not as a problem to overcome or as a
barrier to manage, but as a resource for producing meaning in writing, speaking, reading and
listening‖ (p. 303). According to Canagarajah (2013), the translingual approach opens language
pedagogy to the possibility of multiple languages producing ―synergy, treating languages as always in
contact and mutually influencing each other, with emergent meanings and grammars‖ (p. 41).
In the context of a writing center, within the translingual approach, ―a tutor‘s job is no
longer just about pointing out textual ―divergences‖ from a singular notion of American academic
English and then instructing a multilingual writer on how to ―fix‖ that ―mistake‖ (Olsen, 2013, para.
15). Although scholars advocating a translingual approach also call ―for more, not less conscious and
critical attention to how writers deploy diction, syntax, and style, as well as form, register and media‖
(Horner et al., 2011, p. 304), this attention will occur within a framework that does not view writing
instruction as a search for errors to correct. Horner et al. are writing within a North American
context, but this insight may be especially relevant for MEU, where the language of instruction is
English, and tutors and tutees are EAL speakers. Adopting insights from the translingual approach,
tutors could be trained to anticipate the possibility that the other languages spoken by EAL speakers
could be an asset, a source of novel ways of expressing meanings in English.

Possible Challenges Facing Arabic L1 Tutees in the Writing Center

Researchers have suggested that some Arabic L1 students do not respond positively to non-directive
teaching methods because the pre-university education of Arabic L1 students emphasizes passive
learning and rote memorization (Gardiner-Hyland, 2014; Martin, 2006). Although the UAE
government and UAE educational institutions have attempted to encourage active learning methods,
teacher-centered, behaviorist methods with a focus on rote learning and memorization are still
prevalent in many of the school systems in the country (Hall, 2011; Nunn & Langille, 2016;
Sperrazza & Raddawi, 2016). Martin (2006) has pointed out that teachers in the UAE are seldom
challenged, and students are not expected to be active participants in their learning. Mynard (as cited
in Martin, 2006) has noted that students from Arab societies may not challenge rules or take
initiative or risks in learning situations because they fear shame. Secondary school teachers may be
trained in constructivist methods, but confronted by student resistance to these methods in their
classrooms, they fall back to the traditional behaviorist methods that were used during their
schooling (Gardiner-Hyland, 2014). The highly hierarchical and directive methods of teaching
English experienced by most Arabic L1 speakers in their pre-university education is coupled with a
related traditionalist approach to language learning that focuses on grammar instruction as the main
route to language fluency. While an increased focus on grammar for Arabic L1 students is
advocated by some scholars (Al-Buainani, 2006; Al-Jamhour, 2001; Al-Khasawneh, 2010), other
researchers argue that a focus on grammar instruction and outdated approaches to English language
instruction are to blame for Arabic L1 students‘ low English proficiency levels. Al Hamzi (2006) has
observed that a commitment to sentence level construction and grammar consideration is one of the
central drawbacks of EAL writing instruction for Arabic L1 students. A narrow focus on grammar is
often ―in the service of the institution and at the expense of multilingual writers‖ (Olson, 2011, para.
9).
In the UAE, the majority of universities are Western and mostly American, and at the core
of their liberal arts curriculum is critical thinking (Hall, 2011; Sperraza & Raddawi, 2016). Incoming
students are required to complete courses in academic writing intended to develop critical thinking

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 65

skills. However, coming from primary and secondary school systems that follow traditionalist
teaching methods, these students are often ill-prepared to meet the expectations of their professors
because they ―are not used to being in charge of their own learning and text creation, and they
struggle to cope with the demands of critical thinking and independent learning‖ (Hall, 2011, p. 430).
For Arabic L1 students who have been conditioned to believe that progress in language learning
comes from learning rules of grammar and correcting errors in their application, the non-directive
and collaborative process employed in the writing center may seem useless or even obstructive.
Another challenge for the non-directive methods used in the writing center may result from
Arabic diglossia (Hall, 2011; Rivard, 2006). The written form of Arabic that students learn in school
is the classical Arabic of the Qur‘an, which is quite different from the variety of spoken dialects of
Arabic that function as the vernacular. Written mastery of Arabic is quite distinct from the ability to
speak clearly or even eloquently in demotic Arabic. Consequently, Arab L1 students may lack
writing mastery in their native language, which will in turn make it difficult ―for them to achieve
competency in second language (L2) writing‖ (Hall, 2011, p. 428). If the issue of Arabic diglossia is
considered together with the insight of Rafoth (2015) that EAL students may have problems with
non-directive methods because of their inability to draw on intuitions about what sounds correct, we
can see that the problem Rafoth has noted could be compounded in the case of Arabic L1 students,
who may be unaccustomed, even in their native language, to relying on speech-based intuitions when
writing.

Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand tutors‘ and tutees‘ experiences with the use of
directive and non-directive strategies in peer tutoring sessions with EAL tutees and tutors in a
Middle Eastern university where the language of instruction is English. Given the specific nature
of writing center work, as well as the wide range of potential factors that may influence tutors‘
and tutees‘ experiences, an interpretive approach was deemed appropriate to address the
research questions. This approach attempts to identify how individuals construct meaning
through their experiences, and it allows for examination of interaction authentically (Thonus,
2002) and within its natural environment (Kim, 2003; Rowlands, 2005). The following research
questions were addressed:
1. Which type of tutoring approach (e.g. non-directive vs. directive) do EAL tutees find
most effective?
2. Which type of tutoring approach (e.g. non-directive vs. directive) do tutors of EAL
tutees find most effective?

Methodology
Research Context and Participants
MEU, located in the United Arab Emirates, enrolls thousands of international students
annually. The university curriculum is modeled on the curriculum of American universities,
and it has received American accreditation. The population for this study is drawn from a
multilingual, multicultural, and polydialectical context. While most students enrolled at MEU
are Arabic speakers, they form a significantly different mix from Arabic speakers in other
Middle Eastern countries: they attend a university where the language of instruction is English,
many of them speak more than two languages and use English as their language of commerce.
Students at MEU, including tutors and tutees, have high levels of what Byram (1997) describes
as ―intercultural communicative competence and intercultural awareness‖ (p. 3). Tutors are
students themselves and share this common ground with their tutees. A tutorial session may
include tutors and tutees with various nationalities and ethnicities; for instance, an Iranian tutor
could be working with an Indian tutee, an Afghani tutor with a Sudanese tutee, or a Syrian
tutor and a Lebanese tutee.
Despite the diversity of the students‘ language backgrounds, the writing they produce for
their courses at MEU is expected to conform to, and is graded on the basis of proficiency in,
Standard American English (SAE). All students at the university are required to take 15 credits of
writing courses as part of their major programs, and many other courses have assessment
components that require writing, as part of a university wide effort to include writing across the
curriculum. Students with lower levels of initial English proficiency face serious hurdles, not merely

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 66

in comprehending course content in English classrooms with English textbooks, but in conveying
what they have learned in papers, tests and other types of assessment that are expected to conform
to SAE. The effect of this disparity in English proficiency upon student academic performance is a
serious concern for faculty members and students. The faculty of the Writing Studies department,
responsible for the teaching of writing to students in all disciplines, is aware of the cultural and
linguistic challenges that EAL students face, particularly when they first arrive at MEU. The
instructors use a variety of approaches to negotiate the institutional requirement for SAE. For
example, instructors may offer individualized attention to students who are not able to meet the
expectations for SAE in their classrooms. Additionally, in courses that are not focused specifically
on academic writing, instructors may tolerate or even encourage regional or translated idiomatic
expressions, and syntactic and organizational structures that may sound odd to the Western ear, but
that allow students to express their points. The ability of Writing Studies instructors to adopt a
broader translingual approach that would endorse the legitimacy of hybrid forms of English is
limited, however, by the fact that MEU has no major in Writing Studies, and therefore, the primary
function of Writing Studies courses is to prepare students for the writing requirements in the courses
of their chosen discipline, where SAE is expected.
Following the American writing center model, both in the use of the term ―peer tutoring‖
and in the organization of the Writing Center, the MEU Writing Center offers one-on-one tutoring
sessions by appointment or on a drop-in basis to all students throughout the university. Most of the
clients at the Writing Center are EAL students who are seeking help with their writing assignments.
Instructors teaching writing-intensive courses often encourage or even require their students to visit
the Writing Center for supplemental help. Students can also self-refer. Peer tutors are recruited
from undergraduate composition courses at the recommendation of their instructors, who attempt
to identify the most competent and confident English writers. Frequently, tutors are multilingual,
and occasionally, they are even unable to identify their native language. They are employed for 6-15
hours a week and paid 30 dirhams an hour. They have fulfilled the requirements for tutoring at the
Center: a credit-bearing course on peer tutoring and writing. The peer tutoring course is designed to
help students become familiar with and to think critically about writing and peer tutoring issues and
to develop a practical approach to peer tutoring in writing. Tutors are required to participate in in-
service training activities throughout the academic year to discuss issues and concerns that arise
during tutorial sessions.

Participants
Tutee and tutor participants were solicited at the beginning of the academic semester.
Participants were selected based on the time they arrived for their tutorials. Tutees who arrived
earliest for their appointments were recruited first. Fifteen tutees and 15 tutors participated in
the study. The 15 tutees were seeking assistance with writing assignments for their writing
composition courses. Both these tutees and the tutors who were paired with them were asked to
participate in the study.

Tutees
For the purposes of this study, the stimulated recall interviews and the interviews of 15 tutees and 15
tutors were separately examined. Nine of the tutees were female; 10 tutees were freshman, two were
juniors, two were sophomores, and one was a senior. Fourteen of the tutees were Arabs, and one
student was Pakistani. Most tutees spoke only Arabic at home (13), eight were taught in both Arabic
and English in high school, and six were taught only in Arabic. Twelve tutees spoke Arabic as a first
language. Tutees had a variety of academic majors (i.e., electrical engineering, mass communication,
mechanical engineering, civil engineering, international studies, design management, chemical
engineering, computer science, marketing and management, and architecture).
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Tutees‘ English Fluency Ratings

N Mean SD Min Max

Written Score 15 2.27 0.88 1 4

Oral Score 15 2.47 1.13 1 4

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 67

Table 1 shows the tutees‘ fluency in oral and written English. Tutees were asked to rate their written
and oral language skills on a scale ranging from 1 = Strong to 5 = Weak. The average tutee fluency
for both written and oral English was rated as moderate. The average and standard deviation for
English fluency represents a typical sample of Writing Center clientele in a given semester.

Tutors
Most tutors were female (13) and seven were 21 years of age. As with the tutees, the tutors had a
range of academic majors (i.e. mass communication, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering,
marketing and management, international studies, architecture, finance and management, visual
communication, as well as English literature). Tutors had a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and they
spoke a variety of languages (e.g., Arabic, English, French, Bengali, Farsi, Konkani, Tamil, Pashtu,
Malayalam).

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Tutors‘ English Fluency Ratings

N Mean SD Min Max

Written Score 15 1.07 0.26 1 2

Oral Score 15 1.13 0.35 1 2

Tutors were also asked to rate their English fluency on a scale ranging from 1 = Strong to 5 = Weak.
Although the languages spoken at home were diverse, the average tutor English fluency in both
written and oral was rated as strong. The average and standard deviation for tutors‘ English fluency
represents a typical sample of Writing Center staff in a given semester (see Table 2).

Tutees are referred to as E1 through E15, while tutors are referred to as U1 through U15, in
each case according to the order in which the tutorials took place.

Data Collection
The study took place over a six-month period. In an effort to enhance the validity of my findings, I
employed three methods for gathering data: observation, stimulated recall, and interviews.
_______________________________________________________________________________
______
Data collection methods Timeline Purpose

Noted elements of tutorial session

Observation Concurrent with tutorial session
Identified tutorial strategies

Within 24 hours of tutorial Prompted recall of thoughts during tutorial

Stimulated recall
session sessions

Within 72 hours of stimulated Asked questions to gather perceptions of

Interviews
recall tutorial effectiveness
_______________________________________________________________________________
______

Observation
Tutorials were video recorded. Video recordings of tutorials were then watched in order to (1) take
extensive notes on all elements of the tutorial (e.g., communication and dynamics between tutors
and tutees, effectiveness of tutorial strategies, reactions of tutees, overall effectiveness of tutorials,
and any other relevant factors) and (2) identify strategies later discussed by tutors and tutees during
their stimulated recall activity. To address the possibility of researcher bias, a colleague who taught
the tutor training course watched the videos with me. We then compared notes and discussed our
observations, finding no significant discrepancies.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 68

Stimulated Recall
As recommended by previous researchers (e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2000), stimulated recall using video
recordings was conducted immediately after tutorial sessions for tutees and within 24 hours for
tutors. During stimulated recall sessions, participants were asked to pause the video when they
wanted to comment about a particular segment. The researcher also paused the video to ask
tutors/tutees what they were thinking or feeling during certain interactions of interest (e.g. if a tutee
seemed confused, annoyed, frustrated, satisfied, or pleased), or if the video had not been stopped
for some time.

Semi-Structured Interviews
I conducted semi-structured interviews with all participants within 72 hours of the stimulated
recall. Interviews were based on a prepared set of questions asking tutees and tutors which
tutoring strategies they found effective or ineffective; however, I allowed emerging
circumstances to guide the interview process, asking for clarification or additional information
and encouraging participants to elaborate on their answers. The interviews were recorded and
transcribed.

Data Analysis
I adopted a theory driven approach in order to examine the discourse about the non-directive and
directive strategies. Once collected, I examined the data in order to identify references to non-
directive and directive strategies. When the type of strategy being referred to in the stimulated recall
was unclear, my research assistant, a tutor with two years‘ experience in the Writing Center, watched
sections of the tutorials with me to help identify the directive/non-directive moves used in tutor talk.
Strategies such as negotiating the tutorial agenda with tutees, discussing writing with tutees, and
encouraging tutees to think critically and independently were considered non-directive. Strategies
such as telling tutees how to rephrase a sentence, taking notes for tutees, and identifying and
correcting tutees‘ errors were considered directive. The research assistant and I had minor
disagreements about the labeling of a number of the tutoring moves, but these were typically when a
combination of directive and non-directive strategies were employed. In these cases, comments were
labeled ―non-directive and directive.‖ When there was insufficient information from the comment
or the videotaped tutorial to label the strategy being referred to as ―directive or non-directive,‖ the
strategy was left unlabeled.
Once the non-directive and directive labels had been added to the transcriptions, an
independent rater and I began the coding. At the time, I was an advanced doctoral student in
TESOL and Applied Linguistics and had over 10 years of experience working in and directing
writing centers. The rater had an MA in Education and experience with coding and analysis, but she
did not have experience with writing centers. Guidelines offered by Hycner (1985) on analysing data
phenomenologically were followed. First, the rater and I looked for patterns in the use of non-
directive and directive strategies from both tutors and tutees. Having completed the process of
identifying patterns, the next step was to combine and catalogue related patterns into sub-themes. In
addition to identifying patterns in the data, I calculated the frequency of themes and subthemes,
non-directive and directive comments, and positive and negative comments. I then compared the
notes I had taken while watching the tutorials with the themes/subthemes and frequencies that were
generated through the study.

Limitations
My status as Director of the Writing Center meant that I was responsible for hiring and supervising
tutors and overseeing daily operations of the Center. As Lerner (2002) has noted, such insider status
may bias results but does not necessarily invalidate assessments by writing center directors.
Following his recommendations, I attempted to bring a sense of neutrality to the process of
participant observation and to balance the roles of insider and outsider. I took measures to reduce
anxiety and ensure authentic responses (making participation voluntary, assuring tutors that their
responses would not impact their positions). Furthermore, the tutors are accustomed to my
observing their tutorials and discussing them with me as part of their work. They indicated that my
observation did not make them nervous during sessions or throughout the study, that they
understood the study‘s objectives, and that our discussions were based on trust and mutual respect.
I also used triangulation to acquire data to test the veracity of

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 69

my interpretations and consultations with colleagues unaffiliated with the Writing Center to
double-check my conclusions.

Results and Discussion

The stimulated recall (SR) and the interviews (I) of 15 tutees and 15 tutors were analyzed
separately. The themes that emerged from the data were used to answer the research questions
related to directive and non-directive tutoring strategies. Themes related to the more general
tutoring experience will be addressed in a future article.

Tutees‘ Perceptions of Non-Directive and Directive Approaches

Fourteen tutees mentioned non-directive strategies as being effective 43 out of 55 times, and
directive strategies as being effective 35 out of 55 times. The interview data yielded slightly different
results, but the number of differences was too low to be considered significant. Patterns emerged
that show that tutees found each approach effective for specific concerns and in particular contexts.
Tutees favored a directive approach when discussing LOCs: they reported that they
appreciated clarity and directness when their tutors addressed issues such as verb tenses,
punctuation, and word choice. E2 paused the recording as her tutor explained how to identify and
correct a run-on sentence to say:
She made it very simple, she was direct. She wasn‘t trying to give me another example. No,
she just sticks to the material, and she said ‗this is what‘s wrong, and this is how you fix
it‘…and that was good.
(SR, E2)
Some tutees mentioned not having the knowledge necessary to identify and correct their
grammatical errors and therefore appreciated a more directive approach. In the video of Tutorial 15,
the tutor pointed to the word ―discriminate‖ and instructed the tutee to use ―discriminate against.‖
The tutee paused the tape at this instance to say:
I was not English educated, and sometimes, I feel I have some problems in my writing like
I don‘t know the correct way of using a certain word, so... I really appreciated how she told
it and explained it to me.
(SR, E15)
These reports are consistent with findings with EAL tutees in North American contexts (Blau & Hall,
2002; Mousse, 2013; Myers, 2003; Rafoth, 2015; Thonus, 1999, 2001; Williams, 2004) who point
out that EAL tutees may indeed require the directive approach of an informed tutor. Mastery of
LOCs is critical to both reading and writing texts, and while English L1 learners often have some
operative understanding of these functions, EAL learners must learn these elements before
proceeding to fuller text comprehension (Williams & Severino, 2004). Williams (2004) has
observed that deciding whether to use a directive or non-directive approach with EAL students is
―not a yes/no question. There is much that no amount of questioning, indirect or otherwise, could
ever elicit from these writers because there is so much that they simply do not understand about
their L2 and academic writing‖ (p. 195). Williams explained that tutor attempts to use non-directive
strategies with their EAL tutees sometimes resulted in ―almost absurdly circuitous interactions, in
which the writer engaged in a sort of guessing game‖ (p. 195). In Tutorial 15, U15 said she
attempted to elicit the correct answer from her tutee, but that it led to ―a guessing game,‖ so she
decided to switch to a directive approach. Her tutee said that she appreciated the more directive
approach because her high school education had left her unfamiliar with idiomatic expressions or
nuanced meanings.
Although most tutees preferred a directive approach when dealing with LOCs, some tutees,
even those with low English proficiency, also complained about this approach, especially if it
entailed line-editing or corrections without instruction. In Tutorial 4, the tutor asked the tutee to
rewrite his thesis statement, providing the tutee with the words to rephrase his sentence. E4
expressed his dissatisfaction with this method by pausing the recording during this section of the
tutorial to say:
I believe that the main goal or aim of the Writing Center is to help students be better in
writing, try to find their mistakes...without any tutor...But here…she's just... telling me to
write down the sentence, and this is not useful.
(SR, E4)
Tutees frequently requested additional explanations so that they could understand where they had

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 70

erred and how they could improve. In North American contexts, it has been observed that EAL
tutees may require more rules, explanations, and illustrations than English L1 students to make
sense of the language (Mousse, 2013; Rafoth, 2015; Williams & Severino, 2004). Perhaps our tutees,
who are predominantly EAL learners, sometimes require a similar style of instruction. Drawing on
Shamoon and Burns‘s research (1995), Myers (2003) has claimed that the directive approach is most
valuable when it includes rhetorical strategies such as modeling and imitation. In the recordings,
tutors can be seen employing these types of traditional directive strategies: explaining rules relating to
the particular errors while correcting them, illustrating how errors can be avoided and fixed in other
writing contexts, and modeling different ways of writing sentences. Tutees were particularly
responsive to situations when the tutor used examples to illustrate their errors. When discussing
comma usage, for instance, U3 not only mentioned the grammatical rule for comma placement, she
wrote a sentence on a notepad and explained where one would place the punctuation. She then
asked the tutee to address the comma issue in his writing, and he was able to identify the position of
the misplaced comma. The tutee identified this strategy as effective, thereby illustrating Myer‘s
(2003) claim that ―showing is better than telling‖ (p. 66).
It was observed in many instances that tutees seemed to want their tutors to be authoritative,
confident, and knowledgeable, but they still wanted to retain a level of control over the session. In
Tutorial 12, the tutor used a directive strategy by pointing to the word ―expressions‖ and
recommended that her tutee change it to ―words and actions.‖ It is clear from the video that E12
seemed hesitant to make the change: she was silent, paused for a few seconds before finally
scratching out her own word to make the suggested change. E12 said during her stimulated recall
that she was not convinced and did not understand the tutor‘s reason for this change: ―I didn‘t like
that she told me to change it. I thought it just made the sentence longer.‖ It is interesting to note that
tutees with higher English proficiency, such as E12 above, rejected tutors‘ suggestions and
questioned the tutors‘ advice more often than tutees with lower English proficiency. E5, the other
tutee who rated her English proficiency as strong and who was instructed in English in high school,
felt confident rejecting her tutor‘s suggestions as well. Throughout the tutorial, the tutor and tutee
had a relatively egalitarian relationship: it was a highly interactive tutorial with both tutor and tutee
taking turns leading the tutorial session. The tutor suggested that the tutee combine two of her ideas
into one paragraph rather than discuss the ideas in two separate paragraphs. E5 did not challenge
her tutor‘s suggestion during the tutorial, but during the stimulated recall, she paused the tape to tell
the researcher she had ignored her tutor‘s suggestion because ―essay writing is all about opinions.‖
Both the stimulated recall and interviews revealed that there were more instances of the
lower level EAL students accepting the tutor‘s advice in instances where they did not completely
agree with the recommendations. In Tutorial 6, the tutor recommends that the tutee change the
word ―religion‖ in his text to ―Islam‖ to make it more specific. During the stimulated recall, Tutee
E6 stated that he did not agree with his tutor‘s suggestion: ―I not want like to mention the name of
the religion. Want to just to write religion, but she told me to write Islam. I write Islam but not
completely agree. She know correct.‖ The tutor‘s suggestion, and the tutee‘s unfortunate belief that
the suggestion was ―correct,‖ appears to have distorted, rather than revealed, the tutee‘s intention.
The tutor was not in a productive dialogue with the tutee and failed to recognize the importance of
word choice (LOC) and its relation to the tutee‘s argument (HOC). Had the tutor explored the word
choice with the tutee, rather than defaulting to the assumption that the tutee had made a mistake,
had she considered ―what the [writer] [was] doing with language and why‖ (Horner et al., 2011, p.
305), the student would not have had his meaning distorted.
Instances when tutees expressed discomfort with the degree to which their tutors altered
their texts, or complained they did not understand the rationale for these changes, illustrate the risk
to student agency in the use of the directive approach by tutors. Instances of compromised agency
can be seen primarily in situations where tutors suggest modifications without explanation. The
translingual approach may provide insights that would help tutors to avoid employing the directive
approach in ways that compromise the writer‘s agency. This approach stresses the importance of
―discussing with multilingual writers the various reasons behind a question or suggestion about
language use‖ (Olsen, 2013, para. 15). With a translingual approach, writing tutors do not focus on
removing errors from tutee writing; rather, they help ―multilingual writers draw from their different
discourses and make active decisions about utilizing various features from them‖ (Olsen, 2015, para.
12). Canagarajah (2006) has noted that ―not every instance of nonstandard usage by a student is an
unwitting error; sometimes it is an active choice motivated by important cultural and ideological
considerations‖ (p. 609), and that to assume otherwise denies multilingual students agency. This

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 71

observation would have been valuable guidance to the tutor in Tutorial 6 above.
While tutees tended to find the directive approach more effective in addressing LOCs, both
sets of data revealed that they found a non-directive approach most effective when addressing HOCs
such as structure, organization, argument, and coherence. Strategies such as negotiating an agenda,
asking questions about the assignment, asking tutees for clarification on their intended meaning,
outlining with tutees, and asking them to write independently were deemed effective by most of the
tutees, even those with low English proficiency. Outlining was mentioned by several tutees as being
effective. In Tutorial 2, the tutor told the tutee that she had serious problems with coherence in her
essay. The tutor can be seen in the video writing numbers and headings and drawing boxes on a
sheet of paper and then asking the tutee to write her idea in each box. Her tutee, E2, paused the tape
during this activity to say: ―I may look grumpy, but I am really happy. I liked her method, I said so,
and it was making sense and boxes really help.‖ The non-directive strategy of asking tutees to explain
or clarify their ideas orally in order to help them rephrase their sentences was similarly effective.
Tutors can be seen asking their tutees questions such as ―Can you explain what you mean here?‖
Most tutees responded favorably to this non-directive strategy. E3 paused the tape as his tutor asked
him ―What do you mean in this sentence?‖ to say that he appreciated this strategy because his tutor
could not know his intended meaning without asking. Interestingly, tutees with lower English
proficiency also reported satisfaction with non-directive strategies. In one instance, U1 asks her tutee
to create a thesis statement, but he waits with pen in hand for the tutor to provide him with the words
to write the thesis. The tutor does not comply and instead gives the tutee a notepad to write the
sentence on his own. During the stimulated recall, the tutee said:
I was really comfortable and happy at the same time. She asked me to write something, and
then I asked her to do it, and she said, ―No you can do it.‖ I really liked that. (SR, U1)
These results are surprising in one respect: most of our writing center clientele have experienced a
traditional, authoritative style of schooling (Gardiner-Hyland, 2014; Martin, 2006; Richardson,
2004). Discovery and critical thinking, important elements in the non-directive approach, are not
generally encouraged. Although our tutees have been accustomed to directive approaches, they
seem to respond well to non-directive approaches and to the possibility of gaining a higher level of
agency and responsibility.
While the non-directive strategies mentioned above were considered effective by most
tutees, there were some exceptions with tutees at all proficiency levels. In Tutorial 8, the tutor asked
her tutee, a student with moderate English proficiency, to clarify the meaning of her topic sentence
and handed her a pad of paper to rephrase the sentence on her own. The tutee paused the
recording during this portion of the tutorial to say:
Okay, this part, it was stressful. When I sit at home, I'm relaxed, the words come up. But
then, I felt that I looked stupid in front of her. (SR, E8)
Similarly, several other tutees (E2, E11) reported finding their tutor‘s questions ―stressful,‖
―confusing,‖ or ―unclear,‖ or indicated that they felt ―lost‖ when the tutor used a non-directive
approach, such as trying to engage in a discussion about the logic of their arguments. Interestingly,
for first-time users of the Writing Center like E8, E2 and E11 above, opinions of non-directive
strategies seemed to change as their tutorials progressed. While their comments were more negative
at the beginning of the stimulated recall sessions, they became more positive toward the end of these
sessions and during their interviews. They became more adept at handling the tutor‘s non-directive
methods and even realized the value of these techniques. For example, during the stimulated recall,
E11 first reported that he did not like being asked about the problems in his writing but then later
said:
Over here, when he told me ... ―what the wrong here?‖... He gave me a chance to try to...
to know what my mistake and not to tell me what my mistake, so it's help me.
While studies conducted in North American contexts with EAL tutees indicate that they expect
directive approaches and perceive their tutors as representatives of the academic institutions (Blau &
Hall, 2002; Thonus, 2001, 2004), the findings of this study suggest that our tutees prefer non-
directive approaches under certain circumstances, perhaps because, as Ronesi (2009) has observed,
MEU students are ―multicultural and multilingual, and often multidialectal‖ (p. 77). The tutees may
respond well to non-directive approaches because they are more adaptable, having had years to
develop high levels of intercultural communicative competence. Although these tutors and tutees
come from families, educational institutions and societies that are largely hierarchical and
patriachical, they respond well to the egalitarian nature of peer tutoring relationships. Not only do
they have a tacit understanding of each other, they appreciate the opportunity to engage in

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 72

discussions about their writing where they are able to generate insights and ideas rather than just to
receive them. Their ability to "decentre" (Byram, 1997, p. 3) and understand how messages will be
perceived in another cultural context has been tested and developed in ways that may not be
characteristic of many EAL students in the US. The students at MEU, living as they do in a
multilingual community, may enjoy the benefit that Canagarajah (2007) has described from ―the
constant interaction between language groups‖ and how different languages can ―overlap,
interpenetrate, and mesh in fascinating ways‖ (p. 930).
All tutees responded positively when their tutors used a combination of directive and non-
directive strategies. Several tutees mentioned that a switch from a non-directive to directive approach
worked well because they did not have the necessary knowledge to work independently. In Tutorial
8, the tutor noted that the tutee had not included topic sentences in her paragraphs. She started by
asking her tutee to summarize and write down the main idea for each paragraph, but her tutee
responded negatively to this request. At this point, U8 changed her approach, explaining the
function of topic sentences and suggesting various methods of phrasing one. E8 paused the video at
this point to say:
I liked this way more than the other one when she asked me to come up with the points. I
liked it when she suggested the points that I should write, and I expressed it in my own
words. This way I learned topic sentences.
Similarly, E6 stated in both his stimulated recall and interview that he appreciated how his tutor
asked him to identify and correct his own errors first but then became more directive when it
was clear he did not have sufficient knowledge to self-correct. In his interview, E6 stated that he
found his tutor‘s strategy effective: ―She told me read sentence first, then after I finished, she
asked me if that‘s right. Find mistake yourself first, then if I can‘t, she will say it. This is good.‖
Although tutees appreciated having a role in the discussion of their writing, they acknowledged
the value of having tutors assume more authoritative roles as language informants.

Tutors‘ Perceptions of Non-Directive and Directive Approaches

The tutors felt positively about both non-directive and directive strategies; however, there was a
stronger preference for non-directive strategies. The preference for the non-directive approach was
apparent in both sets of data. Most of the tutors who answered the interview question ―Which
strategies, if any, did you find ineffective?‖ felt that the directive strategies they used were the least
effective. For example, U12 said the ―directive approach just put [her tutee] off‖ and that she
―should have been more facilitative because this is someone that clearly would have been very co-
operative with [her]‖ (I).
Tutors were more critical of a directive approach in the interview data than in the
stimulated recall session with 17 out of 22 comments on the directive approach being negative;
nevertheless, both sets of data show that different tutors displayed consistency in their preference for
a combination of directive and non-directive approaches. Like the tutees, tutors favored a directive
approach when discussing LOCs, particularly in cases where rules were not obvious and a native-like
fluency was required. U4 reported that she used the directive approach when correcting her tutee‘s
prepositions: ―It becomes very difficult to explain to the tutees when to use a certain preposition…so,
you tend to just say ‗it's just like this,‘ and you have to remember it‖ (SR). U15 can be seen using the
directive strategy frequently when addressing LOCs throughout her tutorial. She spoke about her
choice to use directive strategies in response to her tutee‘s incorrect use of a preposition:
I just felt that she didn‘t know it, that she couldn‘t know it, you know? I tried to get her to
figure it out, but she was not going to, and when I found out that she was not…., I just gave it
to her. (SR)
It is interesting to note that many tutor/tutee pairs commented on the same instances when
discussing the effectiveness of the directive approach. For example, in one pair, both tutor and tutee
(U15 and E15) commented favorably on the tutor‘s use of the directive approach when explaining
the error in ―discriminate people.‖ The tutee said that she was not familiar with the expression
―discriminate against‖ and appreciated her tutor‘s explanation. The tutor said she felt that a directive
move such as identifying the error and correcting it for her tutee was appropriate and effective in this
situation. Consistent with these findings, Blau & Hall (2002) have proposed ―a rethinking of
conventional tutoring strategies‖ (p. 29) for EAL tutees and have suggested that tutors should feel
comfortable using a directive approach when addressing LOCs. Similarly, Rafoth (2015) has
maintained that students who are struggling with low proficiency may need a tutor who can provide

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 73

answers to language questions.

It is worth noting that some tutors mentioned avoiding the directive approach even though
they felt such an approach may have been necessary. For example, one tutor (U9) reported that she
was unsure how much content-based information she could provide for her tutee because she did
not want to overstep boundaries. Another tutor (U1) also worried that she was being ―too directive
with her tutee and found herself not helping him with vocabulary because she ―didn‘t want to
introduce too many new words into his essay‖ (SR). Consistent with these tutors‘ concerns, Severino
(2009) has argued that, while the directive approach can provide tutees with relevant information, it
can also compromise tutees‘ agency – especially in situations where tutors suggest modifications
without explanation. It is especially problematic in this context because tutees with a low to mid-level
English proficiency followed their tutors‘ advice unwaveringly, even when they were skeptical about
the recommendations. The tutors‘ concern about text appropriation is reasonable and has been
noted in the literature (Bringhurst, 2006; McHarg, 2013). Ethical dilemmas about whether or not to
intervene directly or how much to intervene are complex. However, as Bringhurst (2006) has
observed, a non-directive approach with struggling writers can present another ethical concern:
maintaining a strictly non-directive approach may be depriving tutees of the knowledge-based
guidance they require in order to gain new skills.
Like the tutees, most tutors favored a non-directive approach, especially when addressing
HOCs. They reported that non-directive strategies such as asking tutees for clarification, outlining,
mapping, and asking their tutees to write independently were more effective for addressing issues
such as unity and coherence of essay assignments. U9 said that asking for clarification was an
effective strategy with her tutee. In the video, U4 can be seen turning the tutee‘s paper away and
asking ―what are you trying to say here?‖ During her stimulated recall, she explained why this non-
directive strategy was effective:
There are some writers who… have a lot of ideas and they made the connections in their
heads, and they know exactly where they‘re going, but they don‘t write that down on paper.
So as a reader, I was really, really confused… But when she explained it to me, I
understood: … So I just asked her to sort of like make the connections herself and put them
down on paper. And…at this point I felt she did understand.(SR, U2)
Furthermore, tutors found that their tutees were most animated and receptive when they used non-
directive strategies and could engage their tutees in discussion and the writing process. This is
consistent with the findings from the tutees‘ SR and interviews. As mentioned earlier, this finding
does not correspond entirely with studies that have been conducted in North American contexts,
which report that EAL students elicit more directive strategies from their tutors (Blau & Hall, 2002;
Thonus, 2001, 2004), and it is surprising when considering that most students who participated in
the study have been through more traditional directive-style schooling. MEU students may be
involved in language studies in ways that differ from EAL learners in American universities. Being
multilingual, they may be able to relate English grammatical structures to their formal education in
other languages. Tutors are in dialogue with tutees, drawing upon structures from the tutees‘
backgrounds to highlight aspects of English, relating idiomatic expressions and turns of phrase to
SAE, and extending their understanding of writing as a process through which writers collaborate
with readers in order to allow meaning to emerge.
Although most tutors reported finding non-directive strategies effective with HOCs, there
were some notable exceptions. Several tutors claimed that, despite a tutee‘s English proficiency, their
lack of knowledge sometimes prevented the use of a non-directive approach. For example, in the
video, U2 can be seen trying to use non-directive strategies at the beginning of the tutorial to help
her tutee, whose English proficiency is high, organize her ideas; however, she changed her approach
when she noticed her tutee was not being receptive. As noted above, it is interesting that, in several
such cases, though tutors felt the non-directive strategies were not successful at the beginning of the
tutorials, they felt more positively about them by the end. Tutors attributed this change to their
tutees‘ unfamiliarity with the writing center approach. U2 described her tutee‘s reaction:
Initially, she was sort of sensitive. I was new to her, and she was new to the writing center
concept, and she really didn‘t know how to react or…what to expect. She didn‘t even know
how to react to criticism, so initially she was defensive, but then she warmed up and then
she became more comfortable to asking questions and being more interactive too.(I, U2)
Both sets of data revealed that all the tutors who used a combination of directive and non-
directive strategies found this combination effective. Fourteen tutors mentioned non-directive
strategies 72 times: 45 comments were positive, 25 were negative, and two were neutral. Fourteen

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 74

tutors mentioned directive strategies 50 times: 22 comments were positive, and 15 were negative. Tutors
who believed a combination of approaches worked best said that they often started the session with the
goal of using non-directive strategies but changed their approach if they noticed their tutees were not
receptive to it. Tutors reported that their strategies were most successful when they took into
consideration their tutees‘ personalities and English proficiency. U6 started off using a non-directive
approach but felt that her tutee‘s proficiency was too low to respond to this approach:
I found that there were a lot of times when he wouldn't really understand my question, and
he would nod, but then I kind of understood that he's really lost. So then I would be a little
directive and try to tell him, ―OK, do this,‖ and this worked much better.(I, U6)
U3 said she started off the tutorial using a directive approach because her tutee‘s spoken English was
difficult to understand; however, she switched to a non-directive approach when she noticed that
―his written English was better than his spoken English‖ (SR). She went on to say that this approach
suited her tutee much better. Tutorial 8 is another instance where a non-directive approach was
ineffective with HOCs. The tutee, a first-time user of the Writing Center, initially responded less
positively to the non-directive approach, leading the tutor to change her style and become more
directive. As the tutee became more relaxed, however, the tutor reintroduced some of the non-
directive strategies toward the end of the tutorial, and the tutee‘s perception of the non-directive
approach became more positive.
As Jane Cogie (2001) has said, ―fostering student authority is not a matter of following a
single approach and avoiding another‖ (p. 47). Tutors should use their discretion, which will improve
with experience, to determine the appropriate approach for each tutee, each assignment and during
each phase of the tutorial. Blau and Hall (2002) have cautioned against treating all EAL students in
the same way and advise tutors to consider students‘ individual differences by assessing each situation
as it arises. Likewise, Carino (2003) has advised tutors to try to anticipate when to focus on global
issues such as content, when to pay closer attention to LOCs such as grammar, or when to spend
time on both. He has argued that tutors need to prepare to deal with both ―interpersonal and
intertextual‖ features of tutorials and advises tutors to avoid ―all-too tempting sort of rules of thumb‖
that can lead to ―prescriptive dictums that can unintentionally cement a strained social relationship
between tutor and tutee‖ (p. 113). It is not surprising then that tutorials deemed most successful by
tutors and tutees were those in which tutors were most self-reflective and self-critical during their
stimulated recall and interviews. They demonstrated an ability to take into account tutees‘ level of
ability, their personalities, and their responses to different choices and decisions. These tutors were
attuned to the changing needs and levels of confidence of their tutees and navigated between the
directive and non-directive approaches as they interacted with their tutees. They were involved in a
genuine dialogue with the students, engaging in a shared attempt to find appropriate English
expression for meanings that emerged from a confluence of English and another language, or even
other languages.

Conclusion and Implications

Although traditional writing center doctrine has insisted that tutors adopt collaborative and non-
directive approaches in tutorials, recent literature has explored the potential for more directive
strategies when working with EAL students (Bringhurst, 2006; Thonus, 2001, 2002, 2004; Williams,
2004, 2005;). Studies conducted in North American contexts (Blau & Hall, 2002; Rafoth, 2015;
Thonus, 2001, 2004; Williams, 2004, 2005) have indicated that EAL tutees prefer authoritative
tutors who use directive approaches, and an emerging consensus suggests that a combination of non-
directive and directive practices may be more appropriate in addressing the needs of EAL students
(Blau & Hall, 2002; Carino, 2003; Henning, 2001; Mousse, 2013; Rafoth, 2015). This study‘s
findings are in line with the emerging consensus, in that they demonstrate the value of both
approaches in different situations. In contrast to the studies of EAL tutees in North American
contexts, however, this Middle Eastern study indicates that while tutors and tutees find directive
approaches useful for LOCs, both tutors and tutees prefer non-directive approaches when
addressing HOCs. Thus, while directive approaches should be recognized as valuable tools, tutors
should not abandon collaborative and non-directive strategies, even when dealing with low
proficiency EAL students. The participants in this study may be more responsive to the non-
directive approach than EAL students in a North American context because both tutors and tutees
are typically EAL students, making it more likely that they interact as genuine peers. Additionally,
their knowledge of multiple languages allows them to see languages other than English

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 75

as facilitating rather than obstructing effective communication in English, suggesting that insights
derived from a translingual orientation can inform the teaching of writing at MEU, and writing
centers and writing classrooms in the region. It is incumbent upon writing centers to continue to
challenge the orthodoxy of dominant theory and to keep asking themselves, ―how can we serve
writing students better?‖ The results of this study indicate the dynamic nature of writing center
research and the need to be wary of fixed theories and categories that are not responsive to the
changing needs of tutors and tutees. This study reveals the importance of recognizing the differences
not only between EAL tutees here and EAL tutees in North American contexts, but also among
different populations of EAL tutees within our Writing Center to better meet the individual tutee‘s
particular needs.
The implications of this study may extend beyond writing centers in the region to English
language classrooms. Using an appropriate mix of directive and non-directive strategies, in a manner
that can flexibly adjust to the particular needs of individual cohorts, could result in a better fit
between instruction methods and student needs, potentially improving outcomes in student English
fluency. Additionally, treating students as knowledgeable individuals with valuable skills in other
languages, rather than merely as failed English speakers, could bolster student confidence in a
context where fear of making errors can make students excessively risk-averse and therefore
reluctant to express themselves in English.
A more general implication of this study is that a student‘s learning history does not
determine the student's learning future. Students who had been educated in a highly directive,
authoritarian system have proven to be quite capable of appreciating, preferring, and even
demanding non-directive teaching strategies once they have been exposed to them. Teaching English
to EAL students, whatever their backgrounds, should proceed as a dialogue with the student, one in
which the student is seen as an active participant, contributing to and setting the direction for the
ongoing pursuit of clear English writing.

Recommendations
The findings of this study suggest that writing centers could benefit from tailoring tutor training and
writing center policy to suit their clientele.
The following recommendations are based on the findings of this study.
 Writing centers should employ flexible tutoring models that accommodate the
experiences of tutors and tutees and their particular strengths and weaknesses.

 Tutors should be open to the use of the directive approach, especially when
addressing LOCs, and with students with low English proficiency. However, tutors
should use the approach with caution, being careful to avoid appropriation.
Activities such as role playing, stimulated recall or close vertical transcriptions
could help tutors to determine when to use the directive approach, and when to
stick to non-directive strategies.

 Tutors should be trained in the use of directive strategies such as modeling, asking
leading or closed questions, offering suggestions, and identifying and correcting
errors. These strategies should be described in detail, and situations where such
strategies would be appropriate should be explained. Tutor training should include
participation in mock tutoring sessions that simulate difficult tutorial situations,
followed by sessions of stimulated recall with the writing center director, in order to
enable tutors to develop instincts to guide their use of directive approaches.

 Tutors should be cautioned to be careful when advising lower level EAL students.
Lower-level students often accept recommendations they do not agree with or
understand because they see their tutors as authorities.

 First time users of the writing center may not be familiar with the non-directive
approach and may be more resistant to it than repeat users. The study showed that
tutees sometimes warmed to the non-directive approach even later within the first
tutorial. If tutors are made aware of this situation, it may help them gain and retain
the confidence of new users, without foreclosing opportunities to deploy the non-
directive strategies that both tutors and tutees report as the most helpful, especially
when dealing with HOCs.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 76

References
Al- Buainani, H. A. (2006, March). Students‘ writing in EFL: Towards a teaching methodology.
Paper presented at the Second International AUC OXF Conference on Language and
Linguistics. Cairo, Egypt. Retrieved from http://www1.aucegypt.edu/conferences/aucoxf/
Al-Hazmi, S. (2006). Writing reflection: Perceptions of Arab EFL learners. South Asian Language
Review, XVI (2), 36-52. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/site_map.php
Al-Jamhour, A. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of written discourse of Arabic-speaking learners of
English. Journal of King Saud University (Language and Translation), 13(1), 25-44.
Retrieved from http://digital.library.ksu.edu.sa/V13M163R431.pdf
Al-Khasawneh, F. (2010). Writing for academic purposes: Problems faced by postgraduate students
of the college of business, UUM. ESP World, 9(2), 28. Retrieved from http://www.esp-
world.info
Blau, S., & Hall, J. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native-speaking students.
Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23-44. Retrieved from http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Bringhurst, D. (2006). Identifying our ethical responsibility: A criterion-based approach. In C.
Murphy & B. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director‘s resource book (pp. 165-178).
Englewood, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brooks, J. (1991). Minimalist tutoring: Making the student do all the work. The Writing Lab
Newsletter, 15(6), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.writinglabnewsletter.org/new/
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, NJ:
Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: pluralization continued.
College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586-619. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20456910?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2007.00678.x
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching
of English, 48(1), 40-67. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398646
Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M.A. Pemberton & J. Kinkead (Eds.),
The center will hold: Critical perspectives on writing center scholarship (pp.96-113). Logan,
UT: Utah Tate UP
Cogie, J. (2006). ESL student participation in writing center sessions. The Writing Center
Journal 26(2), pp. 48–66. Retrieved from http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Gardiner-Hyland, F. (2014). Exploring the impact of teacher education pedagogy on EFL reading
teacher identities: A United Arab Emirates Case. In Bailey, K. & Damerow, R (Eds.),
Teaching and learning English in the Arabic-speaking world (pp.83-100). London:
Routledge.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grimm, N. (1996). The regulatory role of the writing center: Coming to terms with a loss of
innocence. The Writing Center Journal, 17, 5-29. Retrieved from
http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Hall, K. (2011). Teaching composition and rhetoric to Arab EFL learners. In C. Gitskaki (Ed.),
Teaching and learning in the Arab world (pp. 422–440). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Henning, T. (2001, March). Theoretical models of tutor talk: How practical are they? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, Denver, CO. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED451569)
Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward
a Translingual approach. College English, 3(73), 303-321.
Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human
Studies, 8, 279–303. doi:10.1007/BF00142995
Kastman Breuch, L., & Clemens, L. (2009). Tutoring ESL students in online hybrid
(synchronous and asynchronous) writing centers. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL
writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.; pp. 132-148). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Kim, S. (2003). Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 77

of inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 9-18.

Retrieved from http://www.osra.org/itlpj/kimspring2003.pdf
Martin, J. (2006). Online Information literacy in an Arabian context. Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 3(2). Retrieved from
http//www.zu.ac.ae/lthe03_03_03_martin.htm
McHarg, M. (2013). A sociocultural exploration of English faculty perceptions of the Writing
Center in the Qatari context. Arab World English Journal. 4(4). Retrieved from
http://www.awej.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386:molly-mcha
rg&catid=44&Itemid=133
Minett, A. (2009). Earth aches by midnight: Helping ESL writers clarify their intended meaning.
In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.;
pp. 66–77). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Moussu, L. (2013). Let‘s Talk! ESL Students‘ Needs and Writing Centre Philosophy. TESL
Canada Journal, 30(2), 55-68.
Myers, S. A. (2003). Reassessing the proofreading trap: ESL tutoring and
writing instruction. The Writing Center Journal, 24(1), 51–67.
Retrieved from http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical Issues in Writing Center Tutorials with International and US-
Educated Multilingual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001
Nakatake, M. (2013). Challenges and possibilities in tutorials in a writing center in Japan. The
Language Teacher 37(6). Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/3458-
challenges-and-possibilities-tutorials-writing-cente r-japan

Nunn, R., & Langille, J. (2016). Operationalizing a global and holistic characterization of
competence in a local context in current trends in language testing in the Pacific Rim and the
Middle East: Policies, analysis, and diagnosis. In A. Aryadoust. & J. Fox (Eds.), Cambridge
Scholars (pp. 300-314). UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Olson, B. (2013). Rethinking our work with multilingual writers: The ethics and
responsibility of language teaching in the writing center. Praxis: A Writing Center
Journal. 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/journal-page-102
Rafoth, B. (2015). Multilingual writers and writing centers. Boulder: Utah State University Press.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students‘ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 273-292. doi:10.2307/3587434
Richardson, P. (2004). Possible influences of Arabic-Islamic culture on the reflective practices
proposed for an education degree at the Higher Colleges of Technology in the United Arab
Emirates. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(4), 429-436.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.02.003
Rivard, J. N. (2006). An investigation into diglossia, literacy and tertiary-level EFL classes in the
Arabian Gulf states. Unpublished Master‘s thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Ronesi, L. (2009). Multilingual tutors supporting multilingual peers: A peer-tutor training course in
the Arabian Gulf. Writing Center Journal, 29(2). Retrieved from
http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Rowlands, B. (2005). Grounded in practice: Using interpretive research to build theory. The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3(1), 81-92. Retrieved from
http://www.ejbrm.com
Severino, C. (2009). Avoiding appropriation. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A
guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.; pp. 51–65). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers.
Shamoon, L., & Burns, D. (1995). A critique of pure tutoring. Writing Center Journal, 15, 134-151.
Retrieved from http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/
Sperrazza, L., & Raddawi, R. (2016). Academic writing in the UAE: Transforming critical
thought in the EFL classroom. In A. Ahmed & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Teaching
EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world (pp. 157-188). Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-46726-3_7 157-188

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 78

Staben, J., & Nordhaus, K. (2009). Looking at the whole text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth
(Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.; pp. 78–90). Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case
studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 13(3), 203–225. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.011
Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor perceptions of
the tutor‘s role. Writing Center Journal, 22, 59-81. Retrieved from
http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is success?
Assessing Writing, 8, 110-134. doi:10.1016/S1075-2935(03)00002-3

Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227-242. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13, 173-201. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009
Williams, J. (2005). Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of peer tutors. In
B. H. K. Bardovi-Harlig (Ed.), Institutional talk and interlanguage pragmatics research (pp.
37-65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 13, 165-172. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.010

About the Author

Maria Eleftheriou is an Assistant Professor at the American University of Sharjah. In addition to
directing the AUS Writing Center, Maria researches the relevance of established writing center
models in contemporary Middle-Eastern contexts. Her research interests include tutor training
models, writing center assessment, on-line writing instruction and writing assessment.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 79

Differential Allocation of Attention to Meaning and Form in Reading

Comprehension for Monolingual and Bilingual Learners of English

Mohammad Nabi Karimi

Ebrahim Zangani 5

Nahid Fallah
Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
In the light of evidence that attention can facilitate and enhance learning, this study attempts to
investigate the allocation of attention to meaning and form simultaneously in reading comprehension
in the foreign language among monolingual and bilingual learners of English. To this end, three
groups of learners namely, bilingual (knowing Kurdish, Persian), monolingual (knowing Persian)
learners of English and mixed (equal number of bilingual and monolingual learners) as the control
group were selected based on the results of a language proficiency test ((MTELP). The learners in
the two experimental groups were asked to read a written text for meaning and circle a designated
lexical form. The learners in the control group were only required to read the text for meaning and
answer the follow-up questions. To examine whether the type of attentional condition and
bilinguality, as the two independent variables of the study, have any significant effect on
comprehension scores, a two-way ANOVA was run. Think aloud technique was also employed to
elicit the learners‘ targeted thought processes from the groups which had to circle the targeted lexical
form. The results indicated that the experimental group who paid simultaneous attention to form
and meaning and processed the targeted item for both form and meaning gained better
comprehension scores regardless of the number of languages they knew. Moreover, it was shown
that deeper levels of processing are associated with better comprehension ability. Therefore, we may
conclude focus on the lexical form might improve comprehension as indicated by comprehension
scores and may be an effective way to make texts more comprehensible. Key Words: Attention,
monolinguals, bilinguals, meaning, form, reading comprehension

Introduction
Majority of the studies that have been directed at uncovering language learning processes operate
under the assumption that language learners are monolinguals learning a second language (Kramsch,
2012), yet with the advent of globalization and the expansion of mobility and communication
technology, a considerable number of language learners tend to be bilingual or even multilingual.
Therefore, examining and exploring how learning a third language is different from learning a
second and what processes are involved in merit further investigations. This endeavor should be
undertaken to shed some light on how third language learners learn and may have implications as to
how they can be helped in their journey to become trilingual.
It is a rather established fact that prior knowledge influences our understanding and
interpretation of a text in a new language (Ellis, 2006). In this regard, Ellis proposes the concept of
―learned attention‖ to capture the idea of L1 affecting L2 processing and adopts McWhinny‘s (1987)
competition model to illustrate this point. He explains how second language learners selectively
attend to some parts of a sentence and ignore the redundant non-salient features. In an argument
similar to VanPatten's (2004) primacy of meaning principle, he posits that language learners attend
to content words rather than forms of low cue validity. He states that content words overshadow
non-salient linguistic features. What could be of interest for further research is that maybe learners
with different L1 backgrounds attend to different parts of a sentence. Moreover, it is still not clear
how being a third language learner and knowing more than one language would influence processing
at different levels of comprehension.
Any theory of sentence comprehension should account for ―(i) the representations, which are
encodings in memory, (ii) what information is extracted from incoming words, and (iii) how that
information is used to combine the incoming‖ (Malko, Ehrenhofer, & Phillips, 2016, p.1). The
majority of current research indicates the mixed storage and high interconnectivity of language

Emial: [email protected], No 43, Mofatteh Street, 15719-14911, Tehran, Iran, phone & Fax:
+98 021 88304896

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 80

systems in the mind of a multilingual (Szubko-Sitarek, 2015). Learners, therefore, are highly likely to
make use of all the linguistic resources available to them to make sense of a particular sentence.
However, it is still unclear whether they use L1 or L2 or both to process the meaning of a sentence
in a third language. In other words, what linguistic resources do they exploit to comprehend the
meaning of a sentence in another language? Do they reconstruct meaning in L1, L2, or both?
So far most of the studies on input processing have been done in second language acquisition
and it is not clear whether knowing a third language would be an asset in attending to meaning and
form simultaneously. Furthermore, as some studies have demonstrated low proficiency language
learners often resort to their L1 and their knowledge of the world to interpret and understand the
meaning of sentences and texts, thus, it is likely that multilingual learners use both L1 and L2 and
maybe even outperform second language learners due to knowing two languages. No previous
studies, to our knowledge, have been undertaken to compare the performance of low proficiency
third language learners in allocating attention to meaning.
Attention has long been associated with processing and subsequent learning (Schmitd, 1990).
The role of attention is central in theoretical and applied linguistics. In theory, most, if not all,
theatrical approaches to language learning posit a role for attention whether they regard it as the
detection or noticing (Schmidt, 2001; Tomlin & Villa, 1994).
Recently, Robinson (2017) while emphasizing the interrelation between attention and
awareness distinguished different levels of these two concepts. Two levels of attention, namely
perceptual attention (attending to different issues automatically and unconsciously) and focal
attention (attending to issues consciously) come into the fore in language learning issues. When
learning occurs without attention, it simply means that there is no focal attention to input, just
choosing some parts of data for more processing in memory. To justify such kind of learning,
Robinson maintains that at the perceptual processing stage, rudimentary detection of input before
selection takes place which assists the learner to learn. As such he concludes that this learning
usually occurs without awareness as awareness is a prerequisite to focal attention. Similarly,
awareness has also different levels ranging from noticing surface structures to understanding rules
and regularities.

Review of the Related Literature

It is claimed that attention facilitates and enhances learning (Baars & Gage, 2010; Logan, 2005)
since it induces learners‘ attention to intended linguistic forms and leads to noticing. Robinson
(1995) defined noticing as ―detection plus rehearsal in short-term memory, prior to encoding in
long-term memory‖ (p. 296). He claimed that only detected input is focally attended to and noticed.
While detected input goes into short-term memory, focally attended input goes into working
memory. Schmidt (2001) emphasized the importance of attention in all types of learning both
conscious and unconscious and believed that little learning can occur without attention. Tomlin and
Villa (1994), Truscott (1998) and Carroll (2006) believed that attention and input and not necessarily
awareness contribute to learning.
Attention in the field of SLA has received substantial research interest and many applied
linguists have paid much heed to it. Schmidt (2001) attributed a pivotal role to attention in every
aspect of the SLA process. He believed that attention helps us to understand L2 development,
variation, fluency, individual differences and the role of instruction. Learners may attend to form or
meaning or both when processing input (Greenslade, Bouden, & Sanz, 1999; VanPatten, 1990;
Leow, Hsieh & Moreno, 2008). However, Norris and Ortega (2000) believe that attention to form
and meaning simultaneously is more efficacious than either alone. VanPatten (2004) in his ―primacy
of meaning principle‖ postulated that ―learners process input for meaning before they process it for
form‖ (p.14). VanPattan (1990) investigated learners‘ attention to meaning and form simultaneously
in aural input. He used control and experimental groups to assess the learners‘ attentional resources.
Low proficiency learners in the experimental group were required to listen to the passage and
identify the occurrences of the three target L2 forms, namely inflació n, la and – n. The results
indicated that low proficiency learners cannot process both form and meaning in aural L2 mode.
Attention to grammatical items negatively influenced learners‘ comprehension compared to the
control group but attending to lexical items did not. Greenslade et al. (1999) replicated VanPattn‘s
study in the written mode. In this study, the learners were required to circle the same target forms in
the passage. He obtained similar results as VanPattn‘s. Learners who attended to a lexical form
understood the passage as well as control group but comprehension was somehow blocked when
they attended to grammatical form. Wong (2001) surveyed simultaneous attention to form and

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 81

meaning in both aural and written modes. This was another replication of VanPattn‘s study. Wong
used the English translation of the Spanish text that VanPattn used. He found that in the aural
mode, results corroborated VanPattn‘s study whereas in the written mode the same level of
comprehension was achieved by all groups. Wong propounded that learners‘ attentional resources
may be varied in the written and oral modes. Leow et al. (2008) followed the same line of inquiry
but with some modifications in the methods used like the use of think-alouds to elicit learners‘
targeted thought processes, the use of multiple choice questions to check learners‘ comprehension
of the text, and the use of new grammatical forms. In the written mode, no differences were found
between the experimental and control groups. They believed that differing cognitive constraints for
processing different modalities account for varied sets of results. They also found that target forms
may be processed at different levels by different learners. Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, and
Ebert (2012) studied simultaneous attention to form and meaning and the reactivity of think-aloud
protocols in the written mode. Their results showed that learners‘ attention to lexical or grammatical
forms did not influence the comprehension of the reading passage. They also found that thinking
aloud had a reactive effect when reading a passage for meaning and concurrently paying attention to
form. Finally, it was found that learners with deep processing of forms experienced greater
understanding.
Tomlin and Villa (1994) discussed three subparts of attention, namely alertness, orientation,
and detection. Alertness is concerned with interest and motivation. Orientation is associated with
input-flooding and attention to form. They refer to detection as ―cognitive registration of stimuli‖
which is crucial for learning and processing. LaBerge (1995) stated that attention has the potential to
facilitate or increase processing. Accordingly, selected materials require more attention (Neill,
Valdes & Terry, 1995) and ignored information receive little attention (Van der Heijden, 1981). It
has also been found that language components require different attentional resources. In other
words, the way that learners allocate attention and awareness to learning vocabulary and morphology
is different from learning syntax (VanPatten, 1994; Schwartz, 1993). Meanwhile, attention should be
subject to a particular learning domain, that is, it should be concentrated and it must not just be
global (Schmidt, 2001). Put it differently, to learn phonology, attention must be focused on the L2
sounds and to learn vocabulary, the learner should attend both to word forms and contextual clues.
Similarly, Robinson, Mackey, Gass, and Schmidt (2012) maintained that when processing
grammatical gender, learners pay more attention to morphophonological cues (noun endings) rather
than syntactic cues. Lew-Williams (2009) found that learners pay less attention to syntactic cues for
gender like agreement on adjectives and determiners. Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000)
elicited learners‘ perceptions of oral feedback using retrospective interviews in order to survey
learners‘ attention to different parts of the language. They focused on learners‘ production of the
target language and examined their attention on specific aspects of language especially deviated
forms. The role of attention was also investigated by Gass, Svetics, and Lemelin (2003) on the
learning of three aspects of language, namely lexicon, syntax, and morphosyntax. By manipulating
attention, they found that syntax received the largest amount of attention while without focused
attention, lexicon drew the learners‘ attention. They also highlighted the role of proficiency in
lowering the effect of directed attention.
In the same fashion, Armengol and Cots (2009), firstly investigated the nature and objects of
attention in two university students and secondly, they surveyed the relationship between the
attention processes and the final written products. These students were multilingual and underwent
think-aloud protocols while engaging in writing an essay in two languages (Spanish and English)
other than their first language (Catalan). The researchers found that the participants of the study
made use of their multilingual resources in creating a text in a specific language. With regard to
attention episodes as indicated in think-aloud protocols, it was found that the subjects focused on
procedure-related and language-related issues separately. The objects of attention in procedure-
related awareness episodes were content, text structure and cohesion, rhetoric, and writer‘s block
while in language-related awareness episodes were grammar, spelling, sentence cohesion and
structure and word choice. With regard to the relation between the attention processes and the final
written products, the researchers observed that explicit and implicit nature of awareness episodes
may be of importance and needs attention, as one participant exhibited good implicit knowledge
whereas the other showed good explicit knowledge about writing.
Godfroid and Uggen (2013) investigated German beginning second language learners‘
attention to irregular verb morphology during sentence processing by means of eye-tracking
techniques. He found that learners paid more attention to stem-changing verbs than those verbs

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 82

which were regular, demonstrating the delayed effect of irregularity of verbs on reading times.
Godfroid, Boers, and Housen (2013) wanted to know whether more attention contributes to more
learning. Specifically, they aimed to address whether L2 learners devote more attention to unknown
words when reading for pleasure. In other words, they assessed the role of attention in incidental
vocabulary learning in the second language using the eye-tracking technique. The results revealed
that the subjects of the study allocated more time for processing the unknown words than familiar
words. The results of their study were in line with Ellis‘ (2002) and Rayner‘s (2009) findings in
which low-frequency words required more processing time than high-frequency words.
Finally, Dolgunsöz (2015) measured learners‘ attention while reading L2 text and learning
gains by means of eye-tracking technique. The results indicated that learners spent less time on
familiar words than unfamiliar words. A positive correlation was also found between attention and
learning gains. He also discussed merits and drawbacks of eye tracking methodology compared to
other techniques of measuring attention like note-taking, underlining and verbal protocols. Eye
tracking is the robust method of gathering attentional data without suffering from reactivity and
memory decay. However, there are some technical challenges facing researchers regarding the use
of this technique which makes it demanding for them.
Although there have been few investigations regarding how learners allocate attention to
meaning, the paucity of studies concerning whether multilingual learners differ in allocating attention
to meaning and form from bilingual learners was a significant incentive in conducting this study.
Accordingly, this study intends to investigate whether multilingual learners utilize linguistic resources
of first, second or third language when attending to meaning. In other words, whether knowing a
third language (being multilingual) will be an asset in attending to specific aspects of meaning
compared to bilingual or monolingual learners. This research specifically aims to focus on the
following research questions:
1. Does simultaneous attention to form and meaning of lexical items in the written text have a
significant effect on comprehension?
2. Does the allocation of attention to meaning affect comprehension differently for bilinguals
and monolinguals?
3. Is there a statistically significant effect on reading comprehension due to the interaction
effect of bilinguality and attentional condition?
4. Do different levels of processing lexical items make a difference in comprehension?

Methodology
Participants
The study utilized a convenient sampling method and the participants were recruited from among
the low intermediate level students based on their English proficiency score at university entrance
exam majoring in Mechanical engineering at Kashan University, Iran. The subjects were male and
female, 26 monolingual and 28 bilingual. The learners‘ first language was Farsi or Kurdish. The
Kurdish language is usually spoken in Northwestern Iran (Kurdistan province). To achieve the
purpose of the study, three intact classes of third-semester English course with students‘ and
instructors‘ consent were selected. To ensure the exact proficiency of the students in English, a
language proficiency test was administered among the participating students. To save time, a reduced
form of Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) was applied. Those with one
standard deviation above or below the mean based on the result of MTELP were selected. Then,
the subjects were divided into two groups based on whether they were monolingual or bilingual. An
equal number of subjects (10) from each group was selected to be assigned to the third group, that is,
control group. The first group constituted bilingual learners of English (25 participants). These
learners speak Kurdish as their first language, Farsi as their second language at school and
community and English as their third language. The second group consisted of monolingual learners
whose first language was Persian and they learn English as a foreign language (25). The final number
of participants for the monolinguals was 18 and for the bilingual group was
16. The third group which consisted of the equal number of monolingual and bilingual learners (10
bilinguals and 10 monolinguals) acted as a baseline to compare the performance of students in the
first and second groups (20).

Instrumentation
The materials for this study were adopted from Wong (2001). Wong herself adopted the text from

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 83

VanPatten (1990) which was originally written in Spanish for listening and reading comprehension.
This study utilized multiple choice questions to check the learners‘ comprehension of the text as
they were used in Leow et al. (2008) and Morgan-short et al. (2012). Meanwhile, one content word
was chosen for the students to attend to in the reading comprehension task. That lexical item was
the word ―inflation‖ as it was used in VanPattan (1990) and Wong (2001). The verbal protocol was
also used to elicit learners‘ targeted thought processes at the end of the test. The type of technique
applied in this study was think- aloud protocol.

Procedure
As this study attempted to probe simultaneous attention to meaning and form among monolingual
and bilingual learners of English, three groups of monolingual, bilingual and mixed as control group
were selected. Learners first received instructions regarding how to perform their tasks. In the
control group, the learners were asked to read the text for meaning and answer the follow-up
questions. Students in monolingual and bilingual groups were told to read the passage for meaning
too and circle the word ―inflation‖ whenever they encountered in the text and then answer the
comprehension questions. Reading comprehension questions were designed in Persian since it was
believed that the goal is to check the overall comprehension of the text and not the questions. The
subjects were asked to complete their tasks in ten minutes. Then, the participants of the study
(except the control group) were asked to verbalize what was going through their mind when
performing the tasks. As the control group was not required to pay attention to form while reading
for meaning, they were not asked to verbalize their thought. For further analyses, the learners‘
reports were audio-taped by researchers or recorded by the participants themselves using their cell
phones. Students‘ recordings then were emailed to the researchers and transcribed and coded along
with researchers‘ audio-taped files. The obtained results of each group were analyzed so as to shed
light on the attentional resources they employed in comprehending the meaning of the sentences.
To be included in analyses, the subjects were required to detect the minimum of at least 60% of the
target item, as it was also highlighted in previous studies. Subjects received one point for every
correct answer to multiple choice questions and zero points otherwise. To operationalize attention,
the lexical items circled or mentioned in think-alouds were coded as instances of attention. Think-
aloud protocols were coded by the researchers. If learners asserted that they went back to read the
text in order to answer the questions, the researchers eliminated them from the subjects‘ pool.

Results
To address the first and the second research questions investigating whether the type of attentional
condition and bilinguality, as the two independent variables of the study, have any significant effect
on comprehension scores, a two-way ANOVA was run with two between-subject factors (number of
known languages and attentional condition). Before running the ANOVA, descriptive statistics were
calculated for the groups. Table 1 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for all groups.

Table 1
No. of known languages and attentional condition

Group Mean SD no.

Monolingual 3.16 1.24 18
Bilingual 3.06 1.34 16
Mon.(control) 2.3 1.25 10
Bi. (control) 2.4 1.17 10
Total 2.83 1.28 54

As shown in table 1, there does not seem to exist a large difference between the monolinguals
and bilinguals in their comprehension of the foreign text. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics
for the effects of the two independent variables, which are bilinguality and attentional condition. It
shows that monolingual and bilingual speakers who focused on the content words had better mean
scores than those who did not.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 84

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the effects of the two independent variables
Lang. status Attention Mean SD no.
Monolingual Circle 3.16 1.24 18
Not circle 2.3 1.25 10
Total 2.85 1.29 28
Bilingual Circle 3.06 1.34 16
Not circle 2.4 1.17 10
Total 2.8 1.29 26
Total Circle 3.11 1.27 34
Not circle 2.35 1.18 20
Total 2.83 1.28 54

The results from ANOVA, as presented in Table 3, showed that there was no statistically
significant interaction between the effects of bilinguality and attentional condition, F (1, 50) = .082, p
= .77. In other words, simple main effects analysis showed that there was no significant difference
between monolinguals and bilinguals in terms of comprehension, F(1, 50) = 0.00, p = .99. There
was, however, a significant difference in comprehension scores between the group which circled the
lexical item and the group which did not, F (1, 50) = 4.59, p = .03. Overall, the results showed that
bilinguality or monolinguality do not seem to have a particular role in learners‘ ability to attend to
the meaning and to comprehend a text. In other words, it was only the focus on the lexical target that
determined the learners‘ comprehension scores.

Table 3
Tests of between-subjects effects to examine the effects of attention and bilinguality

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Model 7.563a 3 2.521 1.577 .207 .086
Intercept 375.553 1 375.553 234.904 .000 .825
attention 7.352 1 7.352 4.599 .037 .084
No. of known langs. 5.459E-5 1 5.459E-5 .000 .995 .000
attention*No. of known.131 1 .131 .082 .776 .002
langs.
Error 79.938 50 1.599
Total 521.000 54
Corrected Total 87.500 53
a. R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = .032)

It was assumed that learners‘ overall comprehension was likely to deteriorate when they had
to put in additional cognitive resources and efforts to process meaning and form simultaneously and
that the average comprehensions score for those who had to circle the lexical item and process it
more deeply would be lower than those who only processed the text for meaning. However, the
findings of the study, as shown in Table 3, did not support these assumptions. In fact, the results
proved quite the opposite. As shown in Table 3, those who paid simultaneous attention to form and
meaning and processed the targeted item for both form and meaning gained better comprehension
scores regardless of the number of languages they knew. Overall, the findings from the present study
do not support the claim that deeper processing of lexical items hinders processing for meaning and
overall comprehension of the text.

Results of Coding: Operationalization of Attention to Meaning and Form

To answer the second question of the study, think-aloud protocols were gathered for the groups
which had to circle the target form. They were coded to make sure that the participants were
following the instructions and had paid attention to the targeted form while their attention was
simultaneously focused on meaning. Attention to meaning was, therefore, operationalized as the
participants' sustained effort to comprehend the meaning of the text while simultaneously
mentioning and/or circling the form. The participants who did not report the targeted form by a

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 85

minimum of 60% were excluded from the study. The think-aloud protocols revealed that for the
groups, whether bilingual or monolingual, there were some participants who did not process the
input for meaning. Others looked back at the text to answer the comprehension questions
(backtracking). As mentioned earlier, they were eliminated. Adding these participants to the data
pool would have jeopardized the validity of the study as processing for meaning was the basic
requirement of the study and could have a detrimental effect on the results of the study. Half of the
think-aloud protocols were coded by two raters. The interrater reliability was calculated and found to
be 85%.

Depth or Levels of Processing

There were also differences in the learners' level of attention and the processing of the target lexical
form. The participants‘ level of processing ranged from mere attention to form, pronouncing the
word, raising the intonation while reading the word, to translating or interpreting. To explore these
levels, concurrent data were analyzed by two coders to categorize the levels of processing (inter-
coder reliability was 90%). The think-aloud data revealed three levels: The first level was associated
with the simple circling of the target form. The second level was providing a report of processing for
example by reading with a noticeable intonation, and the third level was translating the target form
(see Table 4 for analysis).

Table 4
Descriptive statistics of different levels of processing

processing Mean SD. no.

First level 2.5 1.30 8
Second level 2.44 .88 9
Third level 3.76 1.14 17
Total 3.11 1.27 34

Table 5
Tests of between-subjects effects for different levels of processing

Type III Sum of

Source Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 14.248a
2 7.124 5.622 .008
Intercept 257.173 1 257.173 202.957 .000
process 14.248 2 7.124 5.622 .008
Error 39.281 31 1.267
Total 384.000 34
Corrected Total 53.529 33
a. R Squared = .266 (Adjusted R Squared = .219)
As it was already mentioned, there were different levels of processing; some of the participants
reported the target form in addition to circling it. They made some comments about it or changed
their intonation or reading it louder or paused after it. All of these cases were considered as
indications of a deeper level of processing compared to when participants were only circling the
word and therefore this could suggest allocating more attentional resources to it (Craik, 2002). As
attention to form was the only predictor of learners‘ ability to comprehend the text, a comparison
was made between the learners with different levels of attention to the text to examine the effects of
different levels of processing on the learners‘ comprehension of the presented text.
As shown in Table 6, the difference between the participants processed the text at a deeper
level (the third level) had significantly higher comprehension scores than the other two groups. The
difference between the first level and the second level participants did not even approach
significance. However, it is not surprising that most of the participants embarked on interpreting and
translating the word, given its salience in the text. However, at the start of reading, they just noticed
the word and then gradually they realized that the whole text depended on that word. They tried to
make sense of the word by guessing or interpreting the word from the context. As shown in the
table, most of the learners showed signs of deeper levels of processing. This may not be surprising,
as the circled item is a lexical item and is, therefore, more salient and also crucial to comprehending

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 86

the text. What is clear, nevertheless, is that deeper levels of processing, as it was mentioned, are
associated with better comprehension ability.
Table 6 Multiple Comparisons of different levels of processing

Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I) process (J) process (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
First Second .0556 .54698 .994 -1.2907 1.4018
Third -1.2647 *
.48263 .035 -2.4525 -.0769
Second First -.0556 .54698 .994 -1.4018 1.2907
Third -1.3203 *
.46404 .021 -2.4623 -.1782
Third First 1.2647 *
.48263 .035 .0769 2.4525
Second 1.3203 *
.46404 .021 .1782 2.4623
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 1.267.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Leow et al. (2008) pointed out that the degree of engagement with form depends on the
saliency of the target forms. Participants tend to notice and process content words more effectively
than function words (Ellis, 2006). Therefore, attention to form, in this case, does not appear to
reduce attention to meaning and, hence, does not seem to affect comprehension detrimentally. All
in all, this result indicates that there seems to exist a clear relationship between the level of
processing and the comprehension scores. The results of the study, therefore, corroborate the
finding of previous studies that simultaneous attention to form and meaning does occur but at
different levels.

Discussion
The current study has investigated the effects of bilinguality and type of attentional condition on
simultaneous attention to form and meaning. With regard to the effects of knowing an additional
language on attention to form and meaning, no significant difference was observed between
monolingual and bilinguals. To the best of researchers' knowledge, no previous studies have
addressed this issue, therefore drawing comparisons to other studies is not possible. Further
research, especially of neurological type, is recommended to uncover the complexities of bilingual
and multilingual subjects. With regard to the effect of type of attentional condition, it was found that
it did not affect comprehension negatively. This finding is in line with the results from Morgan-short
et al. (2012), Leow et al. (2008), and Wong (2001) but different from the findings from the studies
on written comprehension such as Greenslade et al. (1999) and from the studies on aural
comprehension by VanPatten (1990) and Wong (2001). This difference was not observed in
Greenslade et al.‘s study. Our study also confirms VanPatten (1990)'s finding in that focusing on
lexical items may lead to better overall comprehension of the text whereas a more non-salient
redundant feature may hinder comprehension. A possible explanation for this result might be
methodological issues. In Greenslade et al.‘s (1999) and VanPatten‘s (1990) studies, the participants
were asked to mark all the targeted forms during exposure and nearly 67% of the –n forms were in
one paragraph. Thus, it was not clear whether participants were processing the form and meaning
simultaneously. In our study, we made sure that there is an equal distribution of the target form
across the passage. Also, some of the participants in VanPatten‘s study admitted that they were not
following the instructions for paying simultaneous attention to form and meaning which make the
data collected from those participants questionable. In the present study, however, special care was
taken to make sure that the participants were following the instructions as precisely as possible.
As suggested in previous studies (e.g. Leow et al., 2008; Wong, 2001), modality can be a
possible explanation for successful simultaneous attention to form and meaning. Four studies
administered via a written text, including Morgan-Short et al., Leow et al., Wong and the current
study report that comprehension is not negatively affected by the attentional condition. The two
studies administered in aural mode, i.e., VanPatten (1990) and Wong (2001), on the other hand,
have reported negative effects of attention to form on comprehension.
Another possible explanation for the differences between the studies conducted in written
mode could be the learners' proficiency level. In the present study, the participants‘ proficiency level

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 87

was controlled by administering a proficiency test at the beginning of the study. The learners in
Wong‘s study recalled 12 idea units out of 52 whereas the learners in Greenslade et al. (1999)
recalled 22.5 idea units out of 53. This clearly indicates that the participants in Greenslade et al. 's
(1999) study were more proficient. For the studies to be comparable, similar levels of proficiency
should be ensured to rule out the effect of mediating variables.
Since the current study and Leow et al. (2008) used different measures of comprehension
from those of Greenslade et al. and Wong, it would be difficult to compare them. If these studies
employed the same measure of comprehension, then their comparison would have been more
plausible and would enable a more valid comparison. Although the proficiency level of the
participants could possibly interfere with the results in such research studies, it does not challenge
the conclusion that modality is an important variable. It seems that in the written mode, attention to
form while reading for meaning does not have a negative effect on comprehension. However, this
does not appear to be true about the aural mode.
Another issue worth considering is why studies conducted through different modes of
presentation produced differing results with regard to simultaneous attention to form and meaning.
Some suggest that cognitive constraints may account for the existing differences as attentional
capacity may be controlled differently by cognitive factors in written and oral modes (Wong, 2001).
In other words, due to the simultaneous nature of the oral mode, learners‘ cognitive capacities might
have a more determining role in their ability to comprehend. In the written mode, however, this
might not be quite a factor as the text is not transient in nature. Accordingly, a possible explanation
could be that aural mode is constrained by the limitations of the processor, whereas in written mode,
processing is not constrained in the same way. However, it should be noted that in the studies in
aural mode timing was controlled, but in the written mode the participants were asked to circle the
items at their own pace. Recently, research in cognitive psychology implies that attentional
constraints and processes are basically the same in different modalities (Chun, Golomb & Turk-
Browne, 2011). However, in the written mode, attentional constraints become more evident when
the timing is controlled through the rapid visual presentation of input.
To further explore the issue of attention during the process of comprehension, this study also
examined the role of depth of processing. To determine this and finding the relationship between
the level of processing and the overall comprehension the verbal protocols were analyzed. Leow et
al. (2008) had argued that the framework of level of processing proposed by Craik and Lockhart
(1972) may explain the results of the studies which reported the lack of effects of attentional
condition on comprehension.
In Leow et al.'s (2008) study since most of the targeted items were forms, few participants had
attended to the targeted forms at a deep level of processing. They stated that this shallow processing
of form used limited attentional resources and most of the attention was given to processing
meaning. They suggested that ―the non-significant difference in comprehension between
experimental conditions might be attributed to the relatively low level of processing reported in all
experimental groups in regard to the targeted form‖ (p. 686). The only conclusion they could arrive
at giving their limited number of participants was that attention to form did not have negative effects
on comprehension. Interestingly, the findings of the current study corroborate this statement as it
was shown that deeper levels of comprehension lead to increased comprehension scores.
In the current study, similar to the work done by MorganShort et al. (2012), there was
sufficient data to run statistical analysis that showed that a deeper level of processing is associated
with a better comprehension score. This conclusion, however, does not seem to be in congruence
with VanPatten‘s primacy of meaning principle. Nevertheless, these results do seem to be consistent
with the predictions made by Craik's (2002) levels of processing framework, which claims that
retention of items in memory depends on the level of processing of the item when encoding. The
framework postulates that recalling items which have been processed deeply is more likely than
those who have undergone shallow processing. The findings of this study confirm the predictions of
this framework. When the lexical form is processed deeply, attention to it does not interfere with
processing for meaning which leads to better comprehension.
Moreover, the type of linguistic target might have played an important role in the findings too.
As the results of the tables display, most of the students processed the targeted form at a deep level.
Inflation, being a lexical item, carried more semantic weight and therefore was noticed more easily
and processed more deeply compared to grammatical items which carry less meaning and
sometimes seem to be semantically redundant (Morgan-Short et al., 2012). The same holds true in
Leow's and Morgan-Short's studies as participants in these studies processed Sol which is a lexical

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 88

item more deeply than the morpheme –n which carries less meaning. The low level of processing of
grammatical forms in these two studies did not appear to impose any cognitive load when processing
the text for meaning and therefore no effect is seen on comprehension contrary to the results of the
Greenslade et al. (1999) and VanPatten (1990).

Conclusion
The current study attempted to expand the findings of previous studies with an advantage in which
the proficiency level of learners was controlled for. The primary goal was to see if there were any
differences between monolingual (Persian as the first language) and bilingual (Kurdish as a first and
Persian as second language) learners of English. The results confirmed the findings of Leow et al.
(2008) to a large extent. No significant difference was observed between bilingual and monolingual
learners regarding the level of processing of the targeted lexical form as far as the subject of attention
to meaning and form is concerned. However, in the current study, the results of the analysis of data
yielded interesting findings with regard to the level of processing. It indicates that learners should be
encouraged to focus more on the content words and process them more deeply since deeper
processing is associated with better reading comprehension according to the findings of the present
study. Furthermore, the results showed that, as with Leow et al. (2008) and Wong (2001), paying
attention to lexical forms when trying to understand meaning did not have any negative effect on
comprehension, as VanPatten‘s primacy of meaning principle would predict. In fact, the results
showed that focus on the lexical form does have a positive effect on comprehension. This means
that using input enhancement techniques such as textual input enhancement could positively affect
comprehension especially if the content words are targeted. The analysis of verbal protocols further
revealed that the more deeply the lexical item is processed the greater the comprehension score
would be. Further research probably should consider the effect of modality, the timing of input,
level of processing and L2 proficiency so that we may arrive at a clearer understanding of the issue.
Like any other study, however, this research project suffers from a number of shortcomings.
The most prominent ones are as follow: First of all, the number of participants was somehow low.
This will jeopardize the generalizability of findings beyond the current research. The mortality of
some participants due to backtracking was also disappointing. Second, this study focused on the
allocation of attention to lexical meaning and ignored the grammatical form. Future studies can
investigate the allocation of attention to grammatical form and meaning among multilingual learners.
Third, eye-tracking technique, a new research method, could also be employed to investigate the
issue of attention as it was applied in some researches (see Godfroid & Uggen, 2013; Godfroid et al.,
2013). The use of eye-tracking is also a better technique to control for the potential effect of
reactivity. Fourth, this study specifically focused on written input and ignored aural input. Future
studies could be conducted with aural input or both written and aural input being presented within
the same time period to control for the effects of timing. Finally, although our results were discussed
with reference to levels of processing, it has a number of shortcomings. The absence of an objective
measure of the depth of processing was an issue (Craik, 2002). Clear distinctions need to be made
between different levels of processing to enable researchers to make more reliable and consistent
conclusions and comparisons.

References
Armengol, L., & Cots, J. M. (2009). Attention processes observed in think-aloud protocols: Two
multilingual informants writing in two languages. Language Awareness, 18 (3), 259-276.
Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to
cognitive neuroscience. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. London.
Routledge.
Carrol, S. E. (2006). Shallow processing: a consequence of bilingualism or second language
learning? Applied Psycholinguistics, 27 (1), 53–56.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and
internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
Dolgunsö z, E. (2015). Measuring attention in second language reading using eye-tracking: The
case of the noticing hypothesis. Journal of Eye-movement Research, 8 (5), 1-18.
Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue
competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 89

Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 164–194.

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143-188.
Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future? Memory, 10 (5), 305–
318.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning,
53(3), 497–545.
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in
incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 35 (3), 483-517.
Godfroid, A., & Uggen, M.S. (2013). Attention to irregular verbs by beginning learners of
German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 291–322.
Kramsch, C. (2012). Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA. Journal of Critical
Multilingualism Studies 1(1), 107–128.
Kormes, J. (1998). Verbal reports in L2 speech production research. TESOL Quarterly 32
(2), 353-358.
Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited.
Language Learning, 58 (3), 665–695.
Lew-Williams, C. (2009). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-
native Spanish-speaking children and adults. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.
Logan , G. ( 2005 ). The time it takes to switch attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12
(4), 647–653.
Greenslade, T. A., Bouden, L., & Sanz, C. (1999). Attending to form and content in
processing L2 reading texts. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 65–90.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing: The brain‘s art of mindfulness. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–97.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms
of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malko, A. Ehrenhofer, L., & Phillips, C. (2016). "Theories and frameworks in second
language processing". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20.
Morgan-Short, K., Heil, J., Botero-Moriarty, A., & Ebert, S. (2012). Allocation of attention to
second language form and meaning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–
685.
Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., & Terry, K. M. (1995). Selective attention and the inhibitory control
of cognition. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in
cognition (pp. 207-261). San Diego: Academic Press.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ―Noticing‖ Hypothesis. Language Learning,
45(2), 283–331.
Robinson P. (2017). Attention and awareness. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.),
Language awareness and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of Language and Education
(3rd ed.). Springer, Cham.
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S., & Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention and awareness in second
language acquisition in In S. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 247-267). New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 90

(pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and
linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147-163.
Szubko-Sitarek, W. (2015). Multilingual lexical recognition in the mental lexicon of
third language users. Berlin: Springer.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183-203.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language
Research, 14(2), 103-135.
Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1981). Short term visual information processing. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in
consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–301.
VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition:
Terms, linguistic features & research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.),
Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 23(3), 345–368.

About the Authors

Mohammad Nabi Karimi is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and Head of the
Department of Foreign Languages at Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran, where he teaches SLA,
Second Language Teacher Education, Psycholinguistics, etc. for graduate students. His papers on
different language issues appear in prestigious journals like The Modern Language Journal,
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching and System.

Nahid Fallah is PhD student of Applied Linguistics at Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran and an
invited lecturer at Kashan University, Iran, where she teaches some TEFL courses for
undergraduate students.

Ebrahim Zangani (corresponding author) is PhD student of Applied Linguistics at Kharazmi

University, Tehran, Iran and an English language teacher in the Ministry of Education. He has
published some articles on language issues internationally and co-authored two general English
textbooks for university students. His main areas of interest are second language teacher education,
language assessment, clinical linguistics and SLA.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 91

Utilizing Textbook Adaptation Strategies: Experiences and

Challenges of Novice and Experienced EFL Instructors

Enisa Mede 6

Bahcesehir University, Turkey

Şenel Yalçın
Bahcesehir University, Turkey

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the utilization of textbook adaptation strategies by novice and
experienced EFL instructors working in a language preparatory program at a foundation (non-profit,
private) university in Turkey. Specifically, the study investigated the self-reported beliefs of the two groups
of instructors about textbook adaptation and explored which adaptation strategies were most frequently
implemented in their classroom. The study also attempted to compare whether there were differences
between the two groups of instructors related to their use of adaptation strategies in their courses and find
out the reasons behind their adaptive decisions. The participants were 14 Turkish EFL instructors (7
novices and 7 experienced) offering English courses in an intermediate level English classroom. Data
were collected from reflective essays, lesson plans, and semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed
that both groups of instructors shared highly positive beliefs about the implementation of adaptation
strategies in their courses apart from some differences related to types of strategies and their frequencies.
Besides, the adaptive decisions of the participating instructors were closely related to their students, tasks,
context, time, and their own beliefs. Based on the obtained findings, the researchers provided some
pedagogical implications and suggestions regarding the effective use of textbook adaptation strategies in
language preparatory programs.
Key words: textbook adaptation; adaption strategies; novice instructor; experienced instructor;
adaptive decisions; English as a foreign language (EFL)

Introduction
Textbooks can be referred to as published materials that help and support language learners to
improve their linguistic and communicative abilities (Sheldon, 1987; Ur, 1996). They provide
the language input learners require and the necessary language practice. They also provide the
content of the lessons serving as a guide for teachers‟ instruction.
However, when teachers open a page in a textbook, they need to find answers to these
questions: “Is the language at the right level? Is the topic/content suitable for the students? Is
the sequencing of the lessons logical?” (Harmer, 1998, p. 111). pecifically, teachers
need to make sure that textbooks include the essential elements of a language as well as the
culture of the taught language referring to the needs of learners, their language proficiency, and
their cultural backgrounds.
Based on these overviews, teachers should be able to select and adapt textbooks to meet
the needs their classrooms and individual students. During the process of textbook adaptation,
many scholars provided various reasons for teachers‟ planned decisions on selecting
and adapting materials (Ebrahimpourtaher & Hamidi, 2015; Edge & Wharton, 1998;
Gabrielatos, 2004; Graves, 2000; Mısırlı, 2010). According to Graves (2000), teachers‟
beliefs, the implications they draw out of their experiences, and their educational background
are among the reasons that lead teachers to adapt course materials. In addition, students‟
needs, and interests are also determining factors which affect teachers‟ adaptive decisions.
Finally, teaching contexts, testing plans, and student profiles and timetables might impact
materials adaptation in language classrooms.

Email: [email protected], Department of English Language Teaching (ELT), Faculty of

Educational Sciences, phone number: +905363957295

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 92

Mısırlı (2010) listed more reasons for adapting textbooks. One of them is lack of grammar input
which can be a problem when students have a particular goal in their mind such as, preparing for
national or international language tests. Lack of communicative activities or lack of balance among
language skills may also drive teachers to adapt textbooks. Similarly, discrepancies related to
proficiency level and learning styles between the materials, activities, and the textbook users along
with the activities are among the reasons for adapting textbooks as well.
Another reason for textbook adaptation is related to the course objectives that have been
determined in the educational context; adaptation arises as a need for facilitating the learning
process through identifying learning problems so that learners are able to internalize content
effectively (Ebrahimpourtaher & Hamidi, 2015). If the materials are adapted to increase
learners‟ awareness, they can be prepared to take their own decisions, control their
own learning, and develop their own preferred learning styles. This can result in autonomous
learning.
Finally, Edge and Wharton (1998) argued that experienced teachers have the tendency to
make changes in textbooks both at the planning stage and while teaching classes in response to
student reactions. They also reported that experienced teachers do not usually teach their
classes entirely based on what textbooks offer as they can easily interpret the content in a more
critical way.
Apart from planned textbook adaptations summarized in the previous section of this study,
teachers have been observed to make on-the-spot adaptations as well (Bailey, 1996; Shavelson
& Stern, 1981). To exemplify, Shavelson and Stern (1981) stated that the need for adaptation
may arise unexpectedly when a teacher realizes that their ordinary style of teaching is not
appreciated by students or there is a lack of interest. Similarly, Bailey (1996) indicated that
teachers may decide to focus on a specific part of the lesson upon a question from one student,
reckoning that other students may also benefit. Students may show enthusiasm about a
particular subject, and in this case, teachers may want to make the most of the moment and
divert from their plans. Likewise, students‟ learning styles, their engagement, and
equal participation may also be reasons for adaptation which may provide each student with a
more effective learning environment and thus, help them to improve their language proficiency.
In brief, it can be said that the job of a teacher is similar to that of a writer (Madsen &
Bowen, 1978). Just like a writer who imagines the questions their readers might want to ask; a
teacher also needs to meticulously monitor students and respond to all of their voiced and
unvoiced needs. To meet these needs and make students more active in the language learning
process textbook adaptation is inevitable in any educational context.

Textbook Adaptation Strategies

A close look at the literature illustrates that various adaptation strategies have been suggested
(Islam & Mares, 2003; Maley, 1998; McDonough & Shaw, 1993; McGrath, 2002). To begin
with, McDonough and Shaw (1993) came up with three basic strategies to be implemented
while adapting materials. The first strategy is adding which is related to extending the existing
material by including more of the same material to increase its quality and effectiveness. The
second strategy deleting or omitting refers to deleting material on a small or large scale. When
the material is reduced quantitatively, it is referred to as subtracting, while abridging is about the
changes made to the methodology. Finally, the modifying strategy is examined under two sub-
categories, rewriting and restructuring. Both types of modification involve an internal change
that can be implemented in any aspect of the material. While rewriting is usually done to cater
for students‟ interests and their backgrounds, restructuring happens when the teacher
changes the organization of activities to suit the number of students, classroom size, and so on.
Furthermore, the researchers added two more adaptation strategies to be implemented in
classroom settings. They indicated the importance of simplifying as a type of rewriting activity to
aid with student comprehension. Finally, re-ordering is the last strategy regarding alterations in
the order of the activities within a unit or among the units depending on students‟
needs and levels.
A very similar list of adaptation strategies was proposed by Maley (1998) including omission,
addition, reduction, extension, replacement, re-ordering, and branching strategies. To

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 93

exemplify, while omission means leaving out things which are not appropriate for the target
learners, addition is just the opposite. In other words, with this particular strategy the teacher
adds some material to meet the needs and interests of the students. Additionally, using the
reduction strategy makes the activity or material shorter whereas extension adds an alternative
dimension. Similarly, using the replacement strategy helps the teacher replace the material with
something more suitable while re-ordering aids with the decision to plot a different course
through the material than the one the writer intended. Lastly, with the use of the branching
strategy, the teacher adds options to the existing activity or suggests alternatives.
Looking at the different adaptive strategies suggested in the literature, it is obvious that
textbook adaptation is a broad and extensive process which can be utilized in different
educational contexts. As stated by Graves (1996), the degree of adaptation may vary with the
nature of actual class performance ranging from simple to complex which will have impact on
the teachers‘ adaptive decisions.

Textbook Adaptation in EFL Classrooms

A close review of the literature revealed that teachers‘ years of teaching experience might lead to
differences in terms of their adaptive decisions (Akyel, 1997; Bigelow, 2000; Tsui, 2003). To
begin with, Akyel (1997) examined whether there were any differences between experienced
and novice EFL teachers in terms of their instructional goals, actions, and thoughts. The results
of the study revealed that there were more similarities than differences between the two groups
of teachers in terms of their instructional goals and actions. On the contrary, there was a
noteworthy difference related to teacher‘s years of experience and students‘ actions. Specifically,
while experienced teachers were more responsive to students‘ reactions, novice teachers
believed that these reactions affected the flow of their classes negatively.
In a similar study, Bigelow (2000) compared the lesson planning of three teachers with
varying levels of teaching expertise and looked at how they implemented the lessons in their
classrooms. The findings showed that the novice teacher mostly concentrated on students‘
engagement in class and with the materials. The more experienced teacher, on the other hand,
emphasized more on challenging students by simplifying content and the difficulty of tasks.
Finally, the teacher with the most experience who was referred to as an expert, was primarily
interested in arranging the class in a manner that encouraged students to begin with engagement
and then, to gradually work more individually. These results clearly illustrated that years of
teaching experience has a crucial role in teachers‘ adaptive decisions.
Furthermore, Ç oban (2001) conducted a study with 8 novices and 8 experienced teachers
which aimed to understand their use of adaptation strategies in their courses. The study also
attempted to reveal the rationale behind the teachers‘ adaptations, and to find if any differences
exist regarding their adaptive decisions. The findings obtained from classroom observations and
interviews indicated that both groups of teachers used addition as the most frequent adaptation
strategy. The majority of these strategies were related to the task itself, and the reasons behind
these adaptations were related to teachers‘ perceptions, students‘ interests, their needs, and the
nature of the tasks. The results also showed that there were no considerable differences
between the adaptive decisions made by the two groups of teachers.
Tsui (2003) investigated the pre-active and interactive phases of expert and novice teachers‘
teaching decisions. The findings of the study revealed that the experienced teachers tried to
meet the curriculum objectives more closely and they made adaptations to the related materials
in an autonomous manner. However, the novice teachers were hesitant to deviate from the
suggested plans. Regarding the length of planning, expert teachers preferred to carry out more
long-term planning, whereas novice teachers planned for shorter periods. Expert teachers were
much more efficient because they could recall their previous experiences during the process of
lesson planning and teaching, while the novices needed more time to make detailed plans
before they taught.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 94

Research Questions
Guided by previously reported studies and based on the obtained findings, years of teaching
experience is one of the major reasons teachers‘ adaptive decisions might be affected during
classroom practices. To gain more in-depth information on this issue, the adaptive decisions of
teachers with different years of expertise should be investigated more closely to find out whether
there is any difference between their adaptive decisions and to discover the reasons behind
them. The present study, therefore, aims to identify the self-reported beliefs of novice and
experienced EFL instructors about adapting textbooks in an intermediate level classroom of a
language preparatory program. The study also attempts to examine and compare what textbook
adaptation strategies the participants utilize most frequently in their classroom practices. Lastly,
the study tries to find out what reasons lead to the instructors‘ adaptive decisions. To meet these
objectives, the following research questions and sub question were addressed in this study:

1. What are the self-reported beliefs of the novice and experienced instructors about
textbook adaptation in an intermediate level English preparatory classroom?
2. Which adaptation strategies are most frequently implemented by the two groups of
instructors in their classroom?
2a. Are there any differences between their use of the adaptation strategies?
3. What are the reasons behind their adaptive decisions related to these pre-set categories:
a. students
b. time
c. tasks
d. context
e. teacher beliefs

Methodology
Design
For the purposes of this research, a case study was adopted as a research design to enable the
researcher to closely examine the data within a specific context (Zainal, 2007). A case study,
which is a type of qualitative enquiry, is defined by Yin (2002) as ‗‗an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident‘‘ (p. 13). In this sense, the
data related to the specific context (i.e., a language preparatory classroom) were collected and
analyzed using qualitative research methods.

Participants and Setting

This study was carried out at an English preparatory school of a foundation (non-profit, private)
university in Istanbul, Turkey during the second semester of the academic year 2017-2018. In
the program, students are tested with a proficiency exam at the beginning of the year in order to
determine whether or not their command of English is adequate for the study requirements of
their departments. Students who score 60 out of 100 points or above directly start their
undergraduate programs at various academic disciplines. However, the ones who receive scores
below the average are required to take the language placement test administered by the
preparatory school. In this exam, the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR/CEF) is taken into consideration to determine the proficiency level of the
students. According to the placement exam scores, the students start the preparatory program
which lasts between 8 to 18 weeks. The program follows a modular system which offers
language skills and grammar courses in accordance with the proficiency level of the students.
After the students complete the related modules of the preparatory program, they take an
achievement exam. The ones who score above 60 start their undergraduate programs. However,
the students who fail have to repeat the preparatory program until they earn the points to pass
the exam.
Considering the preparatory class that the present study was conducted (B2, intermediate

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 95

level), New Language Leader Intermediate (http://product.pearsonelt.com/newlanguageleader/)

textbook is used as the main source which is accompanied by weekly packs prepared by the
instructors.
For convenience, the participants of this study (7 novices and 7 experienced EFL instructors)
were chosen from the group of instructors who were teaching intermediate classes in an 18-
week long module. Table 1 summarizes the demographic profile of each participant:

Table 1
Demographic Profile of the Participants
Pseudonym Novice/Experienced Field of BA and MA (obtained) Other
(Teaching Experience) Qualifications
EI 1 Experienced BA in Linguistics -
(22 years) MA in Applied Psychology
EI 2 Experienced BA in English Language Teaching -
(22 years)

EI 3 Experienced BA in English Language Teaching -

(20 years)
EI 4 Experienced BA in Western Languages and -
(15 years) Literature
MA in Human Resources
Management
EI 5 Experienced BA in English Language Teaching Certificate in
(11 years) MA in Linguistics English
Language
Teaching
(CELTA)
EI 6 Experienced BA in English Language & Teaching
(10 years) Literature English as a
MA in Educational Management Foreign
& Planning Language
(TEFL)
EI 7 Experienced BA in English Language & CELTA
(9 years) Literature
MA in American Culture &
Literature (on progress)
NI 1 Novice BA American Culture & Literature
(5 years)
NI 2 Novice BA in English Language Teaching -
(5 years) MA in English Language Teaching
NI 3 Novice BA in English Language & -
(4 years) Comparative Literature
MA in English Language
NI 4 Novice BA in Technical Translation & CELTA
(4 years) Teaching Foreign Languages
MA in BA in Technical
Translation & Teaching Foreign
Languages
NI 5 Novice BA in Foreign Languages TEFL
(4 years) Education
BA in Foreign Languages
Education (in progress)

NI 6 Novice BA in Teaching English as a TEFL

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 96

(4 years) Foreign Language

MA in English Literature
NI 7 Novice BA in Cultural History CELTA
(1 year)
Note: EI: Experienced Instructor; NI: Novice Instructor

Data Collection
Before the data collection process, permission was obtained from the director of the
preparatory school and the level coordinator. Then, all EFL instructors offering B2 level
preparatory courses were asked to complete a consent form in which they were provided with
the opportunity to participate or not in the study. As a result, the instructors who were willing to
take part in this research were ensured with the maintenance of confidentiality regarding the
collected data.
In order to, answer the research questions and the sub question of this study, data were
collected from reflective essays, lesson plans, and semi-structured interviews administered to the
participating instructors. The following section provides detailed information regarding each
tool along with the rationale behind their use.

Reflective essays.
To answer the first research question of this study about the self-reported beliefs of novice and
experience instructors about textbook adaptation, both groups were asked to write a reflective
essay about their general beliefs on adapting textbooks in their classes. The two groups of
instructors were also requested to specific provide examples to gain more in-depth information
about their adaptive decisions.

Lesson plans.
As the second research question and sub-question aimed to find out which types of adaptation
strategies the novice and experienced instructors most frequently used, as well as explore
whether there were any differences between their preferences, data were collected from lesson
plans. Specifically, the two groups of instructors were asked to prepare a lesson plan related to
two pages (76 and 77) of New English File Intermediate textbook. For the purposes of this
study, a different textbook was chosen because some of the participating instructors might
already have had some familiarity with the main book used in the B2 level preparatory class.
This might have had an impact on their lesson planning process. In other words, the familiarity
with the textbook could have led to ready-made lesson plans which might have affected the
results of this study. Therefore, the two groups of instructors were provided with two pages of a
new textbook, and they were asked to prepare a lesson plan using a template designed by the
teacher development unit of the preparatory program.
Specifically, the template comprised three sections: aim, procedures, and interaction
patterns. In the first section, the instructors had to explain how they plan to start their lesson. In
other words, they had to provide a sample lead-in or a warm-up activity related to the content of
the lesson. Next, the instructors had to explain the particular aim of their lesson (i.e.,
introducing new vocabulary). In the second section, the instructors were expected to describe
the procedures of their lesson including their planned actions, defining the anticipated
problems, and adding predictable responses of the students. Finally, in the last section related to
interaction patterns, the participants were asked to indicate the desired interaction relationship,
i.e., Teacher-Students, Students-Students, etc. After the two groups of instructors completed
these three sections, they were asked to implement their lesson plans for 2 hours (90 minutes)
in their classroom.

Semi-structured interviews.
Considering the third research question of this study which addressed the reasons behind the
adaptive decisions of the participating instructors, a semi-structured interview was carried out
with each participant (both novice and experienced) individually. The interview questions were
adapted from the pre-set categories identified in Çoban‘s (2001) study which aimed to

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 97

investigate what adaptive decisions novice and experienced teachers take in their classrooms
and reveal the rationale behind their decisions.
The interview included two parts. The first part collected brief information about the
participants‟ demographic background in terms of their years teaching of teaching
experience, their educational background, and other teaching qualifications. The second part
aimed to investigate the reasons which led to the participating instructors‟ adaptive
decisions. Specifically, all instructors were prompted with questions related to 5 pre-defined
categories: students, time, tasks, context, and teacher beliefs which provided a frame and
comprehensiveness for the interview. Each interview lasted approximately for 40-50 minutes.
The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the two researchers.

Data Analysis
In this study, the obtained data were analyzed using qualitative techniques. To begin with, to
find out the most frequently adaptive strategies used by the novice and experienced instructors
and examine whether there were any differences between the two groups, the researchers
calculated the frequencies. In addition, the data obtained from the reflective essays and semi-
structured interviews were analyzed through pattern coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First,
the answers given to the open-ended questions were categorized into similar groups; then, these
categories were used to determine the main themes. As the next step, the voice recordings of
the interviews were converted into transcripts. After reading the transcriptions, the same process
of open-ended questions was repeated, and the main themes were determined by coding.
Lastly, the main themes were interpreted by the two researchers providing samples from the
excerpts and/or quotations of the participating instructors. To identify the degree of agreement
between the two researchers, the inter-rater reliability was found to be .86, which indicated a
close agreement between the two raters on the general themes.
Finally, the lesson plans and the type of adaptation strategies utilized by novice and
experienced instructors were identified referring to the seven strategies (based on McDonough
& Shaw, 1993): adding, deleting, modifying, simplifying, re-ordering, replacing and branching.
The novice and experienced instructors were asked to use these strategies in their lesson plans.
Based on these pre-set strategies, the preferences of the two groups were reported using
frequencies. As the last step, a comparison was made to see if years of teaching experience had
any impact on instructors‟ adaptive decisions.

Findings and Discussion

Self-Reported Beliefs of Novice and Experienced EFL Instructors about Textbook Adaptation
The analysis of the reflective essays indicated that the majority of the EFL instructors felt the
need to use adaptation strategies in their classroom and that they were highly positive about
their adaptive decisions. In other words, the two groups of instructors (both novice and
experienced) preferred to use adaptation strategies in their classrooms.
In their reflective essays, the participants stated that they felt the need to adapt their
textbooks to meet the course objectives. This finding was in accordance with Tsui‟s
(2003) study which revealed that meeting the course objectives is one of the primary reasons
for textbook adaptation. Excerpt 1 taken from the reflective essay of an experienced instructor
supports this finding:

Excerpt 1: […] I feel the need to use adaptation strategies in my lesson quite often.
It helps me meet the course objectives. (Experienced instructor 1, Reflective Essay
data, 28 March 2017)
th

Apart from the course objectives, the instructors expressed that they prefer to use
adaptive strategies to meet the needs of their learners who vary in their learning styles and
interests. imilarly, Bailey (1996) and Mısırlı (2010) emphasized the importance of
learning styles as a need for adaptation. Excerpt 2 which was shared by a novice instructor is an
example of this finding:

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 98

Excerpt 2: […] Adaptation answers a certain need that is derived from learner‘s
learning styles and interests. It helps me to meet the needs of my students (Novice
instructor 7, Reflective Essay data, 29 March 2017)
th

Furthermore, both groups of instructors perceived classroom interaction and

collaboration to be helpful in terms of facilitating learning and increasing student interest.
These results were in line with the findings of Ç oban (2001) who showed that instructors
adapted their textbooks to promote student interaction in their classrooms. Considering this
finding, an experienced instructor said:

Excerpt 3: My preference is choosing activities focusing on learner interaction and

collaboration. Therefore, I exploit and adapt textbooks. (Experienced instructor 2,
Reflective Essay data, 26 March)
th

Types of Adaptation Strategies Utilized by Novice and Experienced EFL Instructors

In order to investigate the types of adaptation strategies utilized by the novice and experienced
instructors, and find out the differences between their preferences, the lesson plans were
analyzed by the two researchers. Table 2 reports the frequencies of the strategies used by the
two groups of participants:

Table 2
The Types and Frequencies of Textbook Adaptation Strategies Utilized by Novice and
Experienced EFL Instructors
Textbook A D M Rep Re-o S B Total
Adaptation
Strategies
EIs 18 34 31 9 8 - - 100

NIs 23 29 31 2 1 - - 76

Note: EIs: Experienced Instructors; NIs: Novice Instructors

A: Adding; D: Deleting; M: Modifying; Rep: Replacing; Re-o: Re-ordering; S: Simplifying; B:
Branching
As shown in Table 2, both experienced and novice instructors utilized a considerably
high number of adaptive strategies while designing their lesson plans (EI: 100, NI: 76). Edge
and Wharton (1998) found similar results showing that teachers feel flexible to use adaptive
strategies in their classroom practices.
On the other hand, the experienced and novice instructors differed in their preferences
related to the types of adaptation strategies they used in their courses. To exemplify, while
adding was utilized 23 times by novices, the experienced instructors used this strategy 18 times
in their classroom. In other words, novice instructors tended to make more additions to the
existing activities when compared to the experienced ones. Specifically, the additions were
usually made as warm-up activities to activate students‘ schemata and raise their interest. This
strategy was also implemented to practice newly-taught language such as vocabulary and
grammar. The findings also indicated that some novice instructors added kinesthetic or online
interactive games to their lesson plans.
Furthermore, for the deleting strategy, the results contrasted with those from the adding
strategy. The experienced instructors utilized this particular strategy 5 more times than novices
(EI: 34, NI: 29). The activities which were deleted from the textbook pages included vocabulary
sections and free practice for new vocabulary structures.
Modifying was the most popular strategy among novice instructors and it was the second
most popular among experienced instructors; it was used 31 times by each group. The
modifications made by the participants included changes in the classroom mode, changes in the

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 99

information delivered, changes in the content of speaking tasks, etc. The most commonly
modified activity was related to the practice of newly-learned grammatical structures. Even
though this activity was designed as a pair-work speaking activity, 3 of the novice instructors
modified it into a group-work, which increased the amount of student interaction. As for the
experienced instructors, they preferred to delete it completely or replace it with their own
activity (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. A Frequently Modified Activity. From Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C.

(2007). New English File Intermediate (p. 77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Considering other adaptation strategies, replacing was not used as commonly as the first
three strategies mentioned in the previous sections of this study. Experienced instructors were
observed to replace the activities more frequently than novices (EI: 9, NI: 2). Almost half of the
replacing was related to activities involving free practice of vocabulary and grammar.
The obtained results for re-ordering strategies showed some similarities with the replacing
strategy which was used more frequently by the experienced instructors (EI: 8, NI: 1). To
illustrate, the experienced instructors changed the order of activities while practicing vocabulary
and speaking. Finally, even though simplifying and branching were among the strategies given to
the participants, none of the participants used them in their lesson planning.
Based on these findings, it is obvious that both novice and experienced instructors
preferred to use adaptation strategies in their classroom practices. This clearly indicates that
there is a tendency towards adapting textbooks in English language preparatory classrooms.

Reasons behind the Adaptive Decisions of Novice and Experienced EFL Instructors
The third research question of this study attempted to reveal the reasons behind the adaptive
decisions of the novice and experienced instructors. The following section describes the
findings under the pre-set categories: student-related reasons, teacher-related reasons, time-
related reasons, task-related reasons, context-related reasons, and reasons related to the
teachers‘ beliefs.

Student-related reasons.
When the novice and experienced instructors were asked whether they needed to adapt their
textbooks for student-related reasons, they affirmed that factors such as student attention,
student proficiency level, student needs, and classroom interaction often prompted them to
make adaptations regardless of their teaching experience.
The two groups of participants stated that their adaptive decisions were related to
student interests which helped them to increase student participation and attention. Excerpt 4
was made by a novice instructor during the interview:

Excerpt 4: […] My students get easily bored. To attract their attention, I prefer to
adapt the activities such as changing partners, groups and places in the textbook.
(Novice instructor 1, Interview data, 9 April 2017)
th

The proficiency level of students was the second most frequently mentioned reason

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 100

during the interviews. Both novice and experienced instructors said that using textbook
adaptation strategies helped students to understand the lesson better as illustrated in Excerpt 5
from an experienced teacher‘s interview:

Excerpt 5: […] I simplify or modify the activities from the textbook according to
the proficiency level of my students to help their understanding. (Experienced
instructor 6, Interview data, 7 April 2017)
th

Students‘ needs were another common reason that was mentioned during the interviews
and also written in the reflective essays as displayed in Excerpt 6 shared by a novice instructor
supports this finding:

Excerpt 6: […] Students‘ needs are very important. I omit, delete or simplify the
activities in the textbook considering what they need in the lesson. (Novice
instructor 6, Interview data, 9 April 2017)
th

Classroom interaction and student collaboration were also provided as reasons to use
adaptation strategies in English classrooms. The experienced and novice instructors
emphasized in their interviews that utilizing textbook adaptation in their lessons helps them to
increase collaboration among students. Considering this finding, a novice instructor said:

Excerpt 7: […] I adapt the textbook to make sure the students interact with each
other and share their ideas. (Novice instructor 4, Interview data, 7 April 2017)
th

According to the findings gathered from the interviews and reflective essays, both novice
and experienced instructors shared similar reasons for their adaptive decisions. A possible
explanation for this finding might be that the instructors predominantly consider their students
when they plan their lessons, and they try to design their lessons to meet students‘ learning
needs and interest in the course. All these findings agree with the study conducted by Bailey
(1996) who confirmed that teachers changed their activities and modes of instruction when they
wanted to increase students‘ interest. Similar to the findings of the present study, simplifying the
difficulty level of activities to meet students‘ proficiency level is another adaptation reason found
in Bigelow‘s (2000) study. As for the classroom interaction, the gathered findings in this study
were parallel to those of Ç oban (2001), which revealed that teachers tend to use adaptation
strategies to enhance collaboration among students.

Time-related reasons.
For the purposes of this study, both novice and experienced instructors shared time-related
reasons for utilizing textbook adaptation strategies in their classroom practices. Specifically, the
deleting technique was mostly employed by the two groups. All of the instructors clearly stated
that they had to delete certain activities due to time constraints and pacing as displayed in the
novice teacher‘s excerpt below:

Excerpt 8: […] With such a loaded weekly program that must be followed, lack of
time and pacing seem to be the major problems that forces me to omit some
exercises. (Novice instructor 4, Interview data, 8 April 2017)
th

This finding is in accordance with the finding of Bigelow (2000) supporting the fact that
teachers give importance to time management during their lesson plans. This clearly shows that
instructors feel responsible for covering the existing program on time.

Task-related reasons.
Another common reason identified for adaptation was tasks not being relevant to the learning
styles of the students. The participant instructors indicated that the given tasks were not related
to the students‘ learning styles. One of the experienced instructors shared the following
comment in the interview:

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 101

Excerpt 9: […] Some tasks are not related to my students‘ learning styles.
Therefore, I adapt the activities to make sure they are appropriate for them.
(Experienced instructor 6, Interview data, 9 April 2017)
th

The two groups of instructors also stated that some tasks were very repetitive, and the
students felt bored. This led them to use the modifying strategies as shared by an experienced
instructor below:

Excerpt 10: […] I have to modify the activities as they are very repetitive, and the
students get bored easily. (Experienced instructor 7, Interview data, 7 April 2017)
th

In brief, task-related were among the important reasons for the implementation of the
adaptive strategies both by the novice and experienced EFL instructors. The instructors
highlighted the importance of students‘ learning styles, and they also tried to avoid repetition in
the tasks to gain students‘ attention. These findings show that material adaptation helps to
increase students‘ attention and their motivation in language classrooms.

Context-related reasons.
Context-related reasons were perceived crucial by the instructors for their adaptive decisions as
well. Specifically, both novice and experienced instructors added more exam-related activities
related to the reading skills as shared in Excerpt 11 of a novice instructor:

Excerpt 11: […] I prefer the type of material that we generally test in exam; I always
try to add one or two reference questions when we cover reading. (Novice
instructor 2, Interview data, 8 April 2017)
th

Considering the exams, the participants emphasized the influence of pacing on adapting
materials. Excerpt 12 which was share by one of the experienced instructors clarifies this point:

Excerpt 12: […] Pacing is very important in our program as we have exams. In
order to catch up with the schedule, I change the order of the activities or replace
them with my activities from different sources. (Experienced instructor 4,
Interview data, 7 April 2017)
th

To summarize, context-related reasons were considered crucial for the adaptive decisions
of novice and experienced instructors. This finding might be related to modular system of the
preparatory program which accommodates pre-scheduled and centralized exams. All classes
are required to fulfill the necessary learning objectives before the pre-scheduled exams. The
importance of exams was also listed as a reason for adapting materials by Graves (2000) and
Yan (2007) who explicitly stated that teachers have to consider the test-oriented nature while
planning their lessons.

Reasons related to teacher beliefs.

As for the last category about he reasons for textbook adaptation, all instructors were asked if
they were driven to make adaptations based on their own beliefs and understanding. The great
majority reported students‘ engagement and their performance were highly influential for their
adaptive decisions as displayed in the Excerpt13 and Expert 14 taken from the interviews:

Excerpt 13: […] I try to add different activities during my lesson to increase
production and make sure my students actively participate in the lesson.
(Experienced instructor 4, Interview data, 7 April 2017)
th

Excerpt 14: […] I usually adapt textbooks by adding an activity to increase learner
involvement and create an atmosphere where they can use the language in
different contexts. (Novice instructor 7, Interview data, 10 April 2017)
th

Students‘ interest was another important reason when the instructors shared their beliefs

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 102

as professionals regardless of their years of teaching experience. This finding is supported in

Excerpt 15:

Excerpt 15: […] My students get bored quickly. That‘s why I try to adapt activities
to attract their interests by modifying or adding. (Experienced instructor 3,
Interview data, 9 April 2017)
th

As a final remark, Figure 2 illustrates how the findings of the reflective essays and semi-
structured interviews overlap and support each other. The results of the reflective essays
represent instructors‘ self-reported beliefs about why textbook adaptation is considered as a
rewarding practice, while the semi-structured interview results list the reasons behind the
instructors‘ adaptive decisions.

Figure 2. EFL Instructors‘ Self-Reported Beliefs about Textbook Adaptation and the Reasons
for their Adaptive Decisions

According to Figure 2, it is obvious that reasons resulting from the understanding and
beliefs of novice and experienced instructors were dominant while implementing adaptation
strategies in the preparatory classroom. The two groups stated that certain adaptations were
made to increase the language performance and engagement of their students. This finding
might be related to the fact that students learn more effectively when they are actively involved
in the lesson which was highlighted in Bailey‘s (1996) study as well.

Conclusion
The present study aimed to shed light on the self-reported beliefs of experienced and novice
instructors about utilizing adaptation strategies in intermediate (B2 level) English classes of a
preparatory program. The findings revealed that both group of instructors prefer to adapt
activities in their classroom practices apart from some differences related to the types strategies
used and their frequency. Regardless of their years of teaching experience, all of the
participating instructors adapted their activities to meet the students‘ needs and interest in the
course.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 103

Considering the gathered data, this research has some pedagogical implications to be
taken into consideration. First of all, all instructors had an opportunity to use various adaptive
strategies in their lesson which helped them to gain more experience on utilizing textbook
adaptation strategies in language classrooms. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to
design an in-service training program to be offered both to the experienced and novice EFL
teachers. Besides, the material designers can take the adaptation reasons provided in this study
as important clues to develop materials for intermediate level English classes. In a similar vein,
textbook writers may draw a good number of implications related to what reasons cause
teachers to adapt their textbooks. This may help them to design materials to cater for different
language needs, interest and objectives.
On the other hand, this study includes some limitations. One of them is related to
sample size which was particularly small due to the heavy workload of the other participants. A
larger number of participants could provide more generalizable results. Selection of the sample
is another limitation of this study. For the purposes of this study, the instructors were selected
only from one classroom (intermediate, B2 level). Different results could emerge if instructors
teaching different proficiency levels were selected as participants in this study. Therefore, all
these findings should be taken as suggestive rather than definitive.
Apart from certain limitations, the present study offers some recommendations for
further research. First, this study investigated the use of textbook adaptation in one particular
(intermediate, B2 level) preparatory language classroom. Future research could be conducted
with a larger sample from different proficiency levels groups to obtain comparative and in-depth
results. The actual practices of the participating instructors regarding their adaptive decisions
could not be observed in this study due to the instructors‘ loaded schedule. A different study
integrating classroom observations might provide an opportunity for analyzing teachers‘ in-class
practices in detail.
To conclude, the present study attempted to make contribution to the field of language
education providing some evidence about the implementation of adaptations strategies by
novice and experienced instructors in a language preparatory classroom. The findings revealed
important pedagogical implications and recommendations that may be of benefit for
practitioners, material designers, and textbook writers in terms of the tole of textbook
adaptation in English language preparatory programs.

References
Akyel, A. (1997). Experienced and student EFL teachers' instructional thoughts and actions.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 677-692. doi: 10.20880/kler. 2010.38.233.
Bailey K. M. (1996). The best laid plans: teachers‘ in-class decisions to depart from their lesson
plans. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 15-
40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bigelow, L. (2000). Class planning strategies of expert and novice teachers. The Sloping Halls
Review, 7, 79-88. Retrieved from
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=shr
Botelho, M. (2003). Multiple intelligences theory in English language teaching: An analysis of
current textbooks, materials and teachers‘ perceptions (Master‘s Thesis). Ohio University,
Ohio. Retrieved on August 20, 2016 from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Çoban, Z. Z. (2001). Novice and experienced English language teachers‘ use of textbook
adaptation strategies at Gazi University (Unpublished Master‘s Thesis). Gazi University,
Turkey.
Ebrahimpourtaher, A. & Hamidi, E. (2015). Authenticity and adaptation in EFL materials.
International
Archive of Applied Sciences and Technology, 6(2), 34-39.
Edge, J., and S. Wharton. (1998). Autonomy and development: Living in the materials world.
In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 295–311).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Center for Applied Linguistics

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938

 104

Digest 2(10). Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/briefs-digests/digests/(offset)/105
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow, UK: Longman. 

Islam, C. & Mares, C. (2003). Adapting classroom materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 86-103). London: Continuum.
Madsen, H. S., & Bowen, J. D. (1978). Adaptation in language teaching. Rowley Mass:
Newbury House.
Maley, A. (1998). Squaring the circle-reconciling materials as constraint with materials as
empowerment. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp.
279-294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Mısırlı, . (2010). Materials in TEFL: A discussion of what lies behind them and
implications. Humanising Language Teaching, 12(4). Retrieved from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/aug10/sart04.htm
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
havelson, R., & tern, P. (1981). Research on teachers‟ pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
doi: 10.3102/00346543051004455
Sheldon, L. (1987). ELT textbooks and materials. Problems in evaluation and development.
Oxford: Modern English Publications.
Tsobanoglou, S. (2008). What can we learn by researching the use of textbooks and other
support materials by teachers and learners? (Master‟s Thesis). University of
Nottingham, Nottingham.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yan, C. (2007). Investigating teachers‟ materials adaptation. Humanising Language
Teaching, 9(4), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jul07/mart01.htm
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method, Journal of Kemanusiaan, 9(1), 1-6.

About the authors:

Enisa Mede is an Assistant Professor and the chair at the Faculty of Educational Sciences,
Department of English Language Teaching (ELT), Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey.
She has been offering Teaching Language Skills, Teaching English to Young Learners and
Teaching Practicum courses at the undergraduate level and Syllabus Design, Program
Evaluation in Language Education and Second Language Acquisition courses at the graduate
level. Her chief research interests are program design and evaluation in language education,
first/second language development in young learners and bilingual education.

Şenel Yalçın is an EFL instructor at the English Language Preparatory chool, Bahcesehir
University, Istanbul, Turkey. She has been teaching English for seven years. She graduated
from the Department of English Language Teaching (ELT) and received her Master‟s
Degree in English Language Education. Her research interests are material design and
evaluation, teacher education and second language acquisition.

2019 TESOL International Journal Vol. 14 Issue 1 ISSN 2094-3938