Discourse in the Chinese EFL classroom

Eunice Tang, University of Warwick

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, I look at how three EFL teachers taught vocabulary - a language item prescribed in the national syllabus and in the national examination, to the first year students. The lessons were recorded and transcribed. The way of teaching vocabulary was analyzed based on Ellis and his co-researchers' work (1994, 1995, 1999) on the different types of oral input and output in promoting vocabulary learning. In revealing the vocabulary teaching contexts, this study at the same time gives a real picture of the kind of exposure and experience that the Chinese learners have in their EFL classrooms. The collection and the analysis of classroom discourse in the Chinese EFL classrooms help explain some behaviours of the Chinese learners, uncover the cultural roots of some general characteristics of Chinese learners and foster better understanding and communication between western teachers and Chinese learners.

DATA

The three EFL teachers had five to ten years experience of teaching College English (CEB1 to CEB4). These teachers were all English major graduates from normal university (i.e. teacher training university). Each of them recorded a 2-hour lesson on teaching the year one students in the second term.

College English is the English course offer to all non-English major university students. At present, there are about 4 million students taking College English at university. The College English has six bands or levels. All non-English major students must get a mandatory pass at CET4 (College English Test 4) before graduation. However, it is optional to take the upper levels, e.g. CET6. Recently, more and more students are attending it as it is a proof of their language ability and it is an advantage when they applying for graduate school or work. Each year, there are about 2 million students taking the CET4 in the whole the country.

College English Test is a national examination. It is designed to have heavy washback effect on teaching and learning. In the College English Syllabus for students of Arts and Science (1999), a prescribed word list is attached. The words are classified into 3 categories indicating the different stages of acquiring these words. The (E) words are supposed to have learned at secondary level and (A) words are to be learned if students want to attempt the CET6. So, only the (I) words are to be acquired in the College English education (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: The College English word lists (College English Revision Team 1999)

ANALYSIS

The analytical framework used in this paper is based on Ellis and his co-researchers’ work (1994, 1995, 1999) on the different types of oral input and output in promoting vocabulary learning.

Input/Output Types

Ellis and his co-researchers (1995) isolated four experimental conditions under which their subjects had to complete a language task:

1. “unmodified input” (UMI), where new words were introduced orally without any explanation of their meaning and use,
2. “premodified input” (PMI) where the researcher explained and repeated new words,
3. “interactionally modified input” (IMI), where subjects could ask the researcher to clarify meaning and repeat words, and
4. “modified (or negotiated) output” (MO), where subjects worked in pairs, negotiating word meaning between themselves (in Ellis and He 1999).

In these experiments the UMI group, which acted as a control, were the least successful learners, whilst the IMI group acquired more words than the PMI group, at least in the short term. The output condition (MO) proved most favourable of all for vocabulary acquisition, leading Ellis and He to conclude that “dialogically symmetrical discourse seems to create better conditions for incidental vocabulary acquisition than interaction in teacher-controlled exchanges” (1999: 299).

Other than these four input/output types, an additional output type was added based on the study of the vocabulary teaching in secondary schools in Hong Kong and Guangzhou (Tang and Nesi, under review). Tang and Nesi found that a lot of substitution drills and spelling practice were observed in the Chinese classroom and this students’ output did not lead to any modification from the teacher. Thus, an extra category “unmodified output” (UMO) to reflect vocabulary teaching methods tied to substitution drills and spelling practice was identified.

FINDINGS

Words explicitly taught

In the total of six hours of lessons, the three teachers taught altogether 160 words. (see Table 2 below) In about 2.5 minutes, a new word was introduced. The reason why the teachers had to teach so many words in the lesson can be reflected by the vocabulary requirement in the national syllabus and in the textbook. If only the intermediate (I) level words are to be taught in the 280 semester hours of College English, a teacher has to teach 9.5 words in an hour according to the requirement prescribed in the national syllabus. On top of it, the vocabulary requirement in the Intensive Reading textbooks (books used in the English lessons) is even higher. In College English: Intensive Reading, Book 2, Unit Five, there are 88 words selected from the text for teaching and learning. Among them, 65 of them are bolded, meaning they are important as they are words in the syllabus word list and will, therefore, be assessed during the national examination. There are another 25 words in the Study and Practice section and 16 in the Reading Activity. Altogether, a teacher has to teach 129 words within a week of 4 one-hour lessons. In each hour, a teacher will have to go through about 32 words with the students. The demand from the textbook, the expectation from the syllabus and the vocabulary requirement for the examination propel the teaching of a large number of words in a short period of time.

Table 2: Number of words explicitly treated in the lessons

Treatment of explicitly taught words

As mentioned, in Ellis and his co-researchers’ work, IMI group did better than PMI group. However, the findings do not reflect the efficiency of the different vocabulary teaching treatments in terms of the number of words acquired per minute of input. As Ellis (1995: 424) points out “although interaction led to more words being acquired, it also resulted in a conspicuously slower rate of acquisition”. In Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki’s experiment, for example (1995) the two premodified input groups took ten and twenty minutes to complete the task, whilst the two interactionally modified input groups both took forty-five minutes each. Their findings have suggested that PMI would be a more efficient way to teach vocabulary in terms of the amount of time needed. Thus, it is not surprising to find that PMI was highly preferred (see Table 3 below). The extra category UMO added to this study was also frequently adopted in teaching vocabulary. This suggests that this particular category is apparent and specific in the Chinese classroom in learning new words.

Table 3: Treatment of explicitly taught words

Multiple treatment of explicitly taught words

The three teachers tended to use more than one type of treatment to teach the new words. Eight-eight of the words (55%) taught explicitly were treated with two different methods. About 29% of the words were treated once, mainly with PMI. (Examples from the transcripts)

CONCLUSION

The English lesson in the university for non-English major focuses on Intensive Reading. Teachers explain the text and go through the words suggested by the textbook writers. The teaching of vocabulary takes up the most of the class time as vocabulary is a test item in the national examination. Teachers spend substantial amount of time to deal with vocabulary. However, the vocabulary teaching strategy is limited to way which requires less time and covers most vocabulary items. The teaching method does not create opportunities for practice and application of the vocabulary items taught. The many vocabulary items learnt are kept in the Chinese students’ lexicon as receptive ones. As soon as the examination is over, the memory of such passive items is gone too.

The Chinese students need more exposure to appropriate vocabulary activities which aim at production (speaking and writing) if they have to catch up with the English standard required for studying abroad. They need to re-develop the vocabulary knowledge with the help of the teachers here, giving emphasis on their learning habits and their vocabulary needs.

Back