Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachersof English as a Foreign Language in China and South Korea
Han Suk Bae1 & Li Yin2 & R. Malatesha Joshi3
Published online: 4 January 2019# The International Dyslexia Association 2019
AbstractThe purpose of the present study is to explore cross-cultural differences among teachers ofEnglish as a Foreign Language (EFL) on the basic language constructs and the impacts on theirperceived teaching ability in English-reading instruction. Chinese EFL (n = 73) and KoreanEFL (n = 39) teachers were administered the Reading Teacher Knowledge Survey for testingtheir implicit and explicit knowledge on phonemic awareness, phonological awareness,phonics, and morphological awareness; and their self-perceived teaching ability on teachingtypical readers, struggling readers, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, andreading comprehension. Results showed that both Chinese EFL and Korean EFL teachers’knowledge on the phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, and phonics was implicitrather than explicit. However, the teachers’ knowledge on morphological awareness showedcross-cultural difference: Chinese EFL teachers had greater explicit knowledge on morpho-logical awareness than implicit knowledge, while their Korean EFL counterparts showedopposite pattern. Self-perceived teaching ability was also distinct cross-culturally, in thatChinese EFL teachers were only confident in teaching English vocabulary, whereas KoreanEFL teachers had generally positive self-perception on teaching typical readers, fluency,vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Importantly, both groups of EFL teachers’ explicitknowledge on the basic language constructs explained additional variance for predicting theirself-perception on teaching English reading, controlling for the effects of their years ofteaching and implicit knowledge. Educational implications and future research ideas arediscussed in relation to the cross-cultural differences of teacher knowledge and their perceivedteaching ability.
Keywords Basic language constructs . EFL teacher knowledge . Self-perceived teaching ability
Teacher knowledge on the basic language constructs (i.e., phonology, orthography, andmorphology) has been proposed as one of the key components in English-reading instruction(Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, &
Annals of Dyslexia (2019) 69:136–152https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-00169-z
* Han Suk [email protected]
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Stanovich, 2004). Moats (2009), in her seminal study on teacher knowledge, stated thatteachers’ of beginning readers need to know phonological units of English, such as rhymes,syllables, and phonemes. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (2005) addressed that teachers’ knowledgeon English orthography and morphology would help their students’ understanding of wordstructure. However, various research studies from different countries have shown that teachersare not well-prepared for teaching those language constructs (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie,2005; Lee, 2014; Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats & Lyon, 1996; Pedroza &Talili, 2015; Zhao, Joshi, Dixon, & Huang, 2016). Further, Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi,and Hougen (2012) supported the basic notion that teachers cannot teach what they don’tknow (i.e., the Peter Effect; Applegate & Applegate, 2004) by providing the evidence thatteacher educators and their respective teacher candidates showed similar patterns of achieve-ment in language knowledge survey. In line with the notion, Washburn, Joshi, and Binks-Cantrell (2011) suggested that pre-service teacher training programs should be changed toinclude how to teach these basic language constructs.
For the teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), a limited number of studies haveexamined teachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs and its impact on students’reading success. One study with Chinese in-service EFL teachers (Zhao et al., 2016) showedthat even though the teachers had equivalent implicit skills for counting syllables to the nativeEnglish-speaking teacher counterparts, they did not have explicit knowledge on explainingtechnical terms and examples of phonemic and morphemic structure of an English word.Another study with Korean EFL teachers (Lee, 2014) pointed out that the teachers’ knowledgeon English phonemes and syllables was not sufficient to teach their students. Goldfus (2012)also provided evidence that pre-service and in-service EFL teachers in Israel did not wellrecognize consonant diagraph, diphthongs, and vowel diagraph. Based on the empirical data,these studies claimed that English teacher training programs in EFL contexts should beimproved for increasing the teachers’ understanding on the basic language constructs ofEnglish.
Notably, teachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs was attributable to their self-perceived ability in reading instruction (Bos et al., 2001; Cunningham et al., 2004; Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2005; Washburn, Joshi, & Binks-Cantrell, 2011; Zhao et al.,2016). Washburn, Joshi, and Binks-Cantrell (2011) found that the more the in-service teacherswere confident in counting syllables, phonemes, and morphemes, the greater they perceivedthemselves as a professional reading teacher. Interestingly, a study with non-native English-speaking teachers (Zhao et al., 2016) found that the degree of relations between teacherlanguage knowledge and their perceived-teaching ability in reading was dissimilar accordingto the target language constructs. That is, Chinese EFL teachers’ morphological knowledge inthe study was a statistically significant predictor for their self-perceived teaching abilities,whereas their knowledge on phonemes was not. However, due to a lack of empirical evidencefrom cross-cultural perspectives, it is uncertain whether the variant relationship comes from theEFL teachers’ first language (L1) orthographic features (i.e., morpho-syllabic) or from theireducational and instructional experiences of English teaching.
The purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to investigate cross-cultural differencesof EFL teachers’ knowledge on basic language constructs and (2) to explore whether their self-perceived teaching ability in English reading would be varied according to the cross-culturaldifferences. As a pioneer study, the present study focused on the comparison between Chineseand Korean EFL teachers, not only because the two teacher groups have different L1backgrounds (i.e., Chinese vs. Korean) but also because they experience distinct professional
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 137
development to be English-reading teachers. To accomplish the goal of the present study, wefirst reviewed studies about the role of teachers’ knowledge on basic language constructs inteaching English reading. Then, we described orthographic features of Chinese and Korean, inaddition to the contextual properties of professional development for English-reading teachersin China and Korea.
Basic language constructs and teacher knowledge in reading instruction
Basic language constructs, including phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, andmorphology (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012), have been proposed as essential components of earlyreading success (Adams, 1990; Moats, 1999). While phonemic awareness is specific to thephonemic unit of the sound, phonological awareness is an umbrella term to represent generalability of manipulating all the sound units, such as syllables, rimes, and phonemes (Bae, 2015).Phonics is generally referred to a teaching method that stresses the correspondence betweensound and letter, which is a method that derives from the alphabetic principle. Morphologyrefers to the system of morphemes, which are the basic units of meaning in a word. These basiclanguage constructs are the building blocks for fluent and accurate word decoding which inturn is the key predictor of successful reading comprehension.
As postulated in the Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004; Binks-Cantrell et al.,2012), teachers cannot teach what they do not know and the notion has been cited toemphasize the importance of teacher knowledge on essential language constructs such asphonology, morphology, and orthography. Research showed that students’ reading achieve-ment has been highly correlated with teachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs(Cunningham et al., 2004; Moats & Foorman, 2003). In fact, an experimental study ofMcCutchen et al. (2002) provided evidence that knowledgeable teachers who acquired therole of phonological and orthographic information in literacy instruction more likely incorpo-rated that knowledge to change their classroom practice, and the students showed greatergrowth in phonological awareness, orthographic fluency, and word reading when the teachersmore frequently engaged them in explicit instruction on identifying word sounds and theircorresponding letter patterns.
Speaking of teacher knowledge on the basic language constructs, however, consistentevidence has been provided that English teachers do not have enough knowledge to teachthose building blocks. Moats and her colleagues (Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003;Moats & Lyon, 1996) repeatedly showed that native English-speaking teachers in the USAwere lacking knowledge on manipulating phonemes and morphemes and these discrepancieswere found even among highly motivated and experienced teachers. Similarly, native English-speaking teachers in Australia (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005) did not have strongknowledge on the basic language constructs. They scored low in discerning voiced/unvoicedsounds, diphthongs, and schwas (20, 22, and 31% correct, respectively). In addition, theteachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs was not explicit, but implicit. Forexample, many of the teacher participants in the study (54%) could not define what a syllablewas, while most of them were able to count syllables in a specific word (89%).
Current research with non-native English-speaking teachers showed similar features ofteacher knowledge on the basic language constructs (Goldfus, 2012; Lee, 2014; Pedroza &Talili, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016) where their knowledge base is fairly low, and it is rather implicitthan explicit. Pre-service English teachers in Philippine (Pedroza & Talili, 2015) had poor
138 Bae H.S. et al.
knowledge on phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, phonics, and morphology withless than 40% accuracy (38.98%). Chinese EFL teachers (Zhao et al., 2016) were able toimplicitly count syllables (79.8%), but did not explicitly define what phonological awarenesswas (15.7%). Korean EFL teachers were also good at implicitly counting syllables (60.0%)and phonemes (60.1%), but were poor at explicitly addressing what phonemic awareness was(38.8%). However, because these studies employed different methodological rigor (e.g.,teacher survey protocol, study participants, sampling method), we may not directly comparethe study findings cross-culturally. Furthermore, no studies simultaneously investigated EFLteachers of different L1 backgrounds, so we may not able to conclude whether the teachers’knowledge on English basic language constructs would be equivalent or varied according totheir L1 orthographic features or other-cross-cultural differences.
Notably, teachers’ self-perceived ability in reading instruction was not predicted by theireducational attainment or years of teaching, but was dependent on their knowledge on thebasic language constructs. Washburn, Joshi, and Cantrell (2011) showed that pre-service nativeEnglish-speaking teachers’ prior preparation (i.e., reading courses taken) and prior teachingexperience (i.e., reading tutoring) did not play a role in distinguishing their self-perceivedteaching ability. Zhao et al. (2016) also provided evidence that Chinese EFL teachers’educational level and teaching experience were not statically significant predictors for theirself-perceived teaching ability. Instead, the teachers’ knowledge on morphology was the onlyand the most significant predictor of their self-perceived teaching ability. Although years ofexperience were not demonstrated as a predictor in these studies, cross-cultural replication hasnot been studied or verified. Thus, further examination on other teacher populations would benecessary at this point to confirm the critical role of teachers’ language knowledge base fortheir self-perceived teaching ability.
In addition, teachers’ self-perceived teaching ability did not match their actual level ofknowledge on the basic language constructs. Actually, pre-service English teachers regardedthemselves having good teaching abilities in reading instruction, whereas they could not definecritical elements of reading, which are necessary for teaching beginning reading, such asphonemic awareness, phonics, and morphology (Washburn, Joshi, & Binks-Cantrell, 2011).Moreover, EFL teachers were even confident in their English teaching ability without havingcorrect knowledge base on the target language. Lee (2014) addressed that about half of theKorean EFL teachers in her study incorrectly defined phonemic awareness, saying “phonemicawareness instruction as teaching how sounds are articulated and how to pronounce themcorrectly” (p. 333). The teachers’ definition rather focused on vocalizing native-like pronun-ciation of each phoneme (i.e., pronunciation instruction), not practicing phoneme segmentationor blending (i.e., phonemic instruction). However, the Korean EFL teachers perceived theywere well-prepared to teach English reading. The mismatch between teachers’ self-perceptionof their teaching ability and their actual language knowledge base may have negative influenceon their future teaching practices in the classroom where they do not teach what they do notknow (i.e., the Peter Effect).
EFL teachers’ L1 background and professional development
Chinese and Korean orthographies are distinct in representing sounds with written forms.Chinese orthography is a morpho-syllabic writing system and there are approximately 4600Chinese characters. Each character represents a morpheme or a full word and is pronounced as
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 139
a syllable. Chinese characters are square-block shaped and each takes up the same amount ofspace. Because Chinese orthography is a meaning-based writing system (i.e., morpho-syllab-ic), there is not phoneme-grapheme representation (Cheung, McBride-Chang, & Chow, 2006),and hence, Chinese is considered as having highly opaque orthography. Korean has twodifferent writing systems, Hangul and Hanja. Hangul is alpha-syllabic and is transparentwhen it comes to phoneme-grapheme correspondence. There are 24 letters (i.e., 14 consonantsand 10 vowels), and each letter comprises a syllabic block (Kim, 2009). Hanja is morpho-syllabic and is written with script similar to Chinese characters.
Behavioral studies have suggested that EFL learners’ L1 orthographic features play animportant role in learning to read English words. Chinese L1 EFL students were slower andless accurate in deleting or combining phonemes in English words, but were efficient inprocessing English sight-words (Akamatsu, 1999; Brown & Haynes, 1985). Since their L1orthographies are opaque and the grain sizes are larger than phonemes, the students might notbe familiar with or have developed effective processing of phonemic units, but rather havedepended on recognizing larger units of sound representations (i.e., word). Differently, KoreanL1 EFL students were better in processing phonemic units in English words (Wang, Koda, &Perfetti, 2003) compared to their Chinese L1 counterparts, because their L1 orthography hasalphabetic features in amalgamating vowels and consonants.
Neuroimaging studies also provided similar evidence that supports the fact that L1 back-grounds of EFL learners would be an important factor in learning to read English. Forexample, when Chinese L1 EFL learners read English words, their left middle frontal gyruswas highly activated, while their Korean L1 counterparts showed great activation in the rightinferior frontal gyrus and medial frontal gyrus (Kim, Liu, & Cao, 2017). Interestingly, theKorean participants showed similar patterns of brain activation to the Chinese L1 speakerswhen they read Korean Hanja script which is equivalent to Chinese character (Lee, 2004). Inlight of previous findings from behavioral and neuroimaging studies, we may hypothesize thatthere exists cross-linguistic differences among EFL teachers when they acknowledge basiclanguage structures of English. In particular, Chinese L1 EFL teachers would be better inacknowledging morphemic and syllabic units of English, whereas their Korean L1 counter-parts would show greater knowledge in acquiring syllabic and phonemic units. However, nostudies have directly compared the two teacher groups’ English language knowledge base, norhave investigated whether their implicit or explicit knowledge on the English basic languageconstructs would show any cross-cultural differences.
Apart from the L1 background, professional development (Hao & Sun, 2013), in fact,general requirements of being an English teacher in China do not include acquiring the basiclanguage constructs, but taking courses of educational context would also be an importantfactor for the EFL teachers’ attainment of language knowledge base. As for the English teacherpreparation programs in China, specific knowledge of the basic language constructs, such asphonological awareness and phonics receive insufficient attention t and curriculum, pedagog-ical content knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge (Zhao et al., 2016). Furthermore,teacher educators do not provide explicit instruction on the basic language constructs, nor dothey emphasize how to analyze internal structure of a word (e.g., morphological units) duringthe teacher training courses. Even worse, the National English Curriculum in China does notinclude the knowledge of basic language constructs as teaching objectives (Ministry ofEducation, 2012).
As for the Korean EFL teacher preparation, knowledge of the basic language constructshave not been regarded as important elements of their professional development and
140 Bae H.S. et al.
educational curriculum. Even though elementary English teacher programs in Korea entailsubjects of English phonology, phonetics, and morphology, these courses focus on pre-serviceteachers’ understanding of linguistic theories and structures in general, not emphasizing theteachers’ metalinguistic ability to analyze, manipulate, and define those sub-lexical units.Actually, about 40% of the Korean EFL teachers had never been taught about phonics andphonemic awareness (Lee, 2014). Even worse, Korean EFL teachers and teacher educators donot consider teachers’ knowledge of the basic language constructs as being a critical compo-nent of their professional development. Instead, they thought English pronunciation, grammar,linguistic theories, language learning and acquisition theories, and cultural knowledge to be themost important knowledge that teachers should master (Ha & Min, 2008). In addition,according to the National English curriculum in Korea (Ministry of Education, 2015), knowl-edge of sounds (i.e., phonological awareness) and the connection between sounds and letters(phonics) are included in elementary grades. However, the former is limited to understandingsegmental (i.e., consonants and vowels) and super-segmental (i.e., rhythms, stress, andintonation) sounds, but do not cover understanding, manipulating and teaching rhymes,syllables, and phonemes. As for the latter, only implicit phonics skills are introduced andcomplex phonics rules are not included in the curriculum, such as consonant blends, digraphs,long vowels, and diphthongs.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to hypothesize that both Chinese and Korean EFL teachersmay not have a good knowledge base of English language. However, since there are noempirical data for the cross-cultural comparison in the field, we need to investigate whether thetwo groups of EFL teachers show any differences relating to the basic language constructs ofEnglish. In addition, we do not know whether their language knowledge base would influencetheir self-perception of English-reading instruction. If the teachers’ knowledge of the basiclanguage constructs would enhance their self-perceived confidence in teaching English read-ing; and if the influential role of teachers’ language knowledge would have any cross-culturaldifferences, then we may highlight those points to improve teacher training programs in eachEFL context.
Research questions addressed in the present study are as follows:
1. What are the cross-cultural differences among Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ knowl-edge on the English basic language constructs?
2. Are there any cross-cultural differences in Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ self-perceived teaching abilities in English-reading instruction?
3. Are the relationships between teacher language knowledge and their self-perceivedteaching ability cross-culturally different?
Method
Participants
There were 73 Chinese EFL (12 males and 61 females) and 39 Korean EFL (all females)teachers who voluntarily participated in the present study. The Chinese EFL teacher partici-pants were recruited from seven public schools across four provinces in northern China. Mostof the teachers had a bachelor degree (84.5%), but few of them had a higher educationalattainment (i.e., 2.8% of master degree). The average length of teaching English of the Chinese
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 141
EFL teachers was 9.75 years (SD = 5.08 years). In particular, 24.7% of the teachers had lessthan 5 years of English teaching experiences, 36.9% were from 5 years to 10 years, and about33.4% of them taught English for more than 10 years.
Teachers from four public schools in Seoul, Korea participated in the present study.Approximately 59.0% of the participants had earned a bachelor degree, while 41.0% of themhad a master degree. Unlike the Chinese EFL teachers, the Korean EFL teachers in the presentstudy had less teaching experience (M = 2.46 years, SD = 2.19 years). The majority of theparticipants (94.9%) had less than 5 years of English teaching experiences. Only 2.6% of themexperienced English teaching from 5 to 10 years. No Korean EFL participants had more than10 years of teaching experience.
Instruments
The Reading Teacher Knowledge Survey (Zhao et al., 2016) was adapted for the present study.The survey protocol was originally developed for testing EFL teachers’ implicit and explicitknowledge on the basic language constructs of English, in addition to their self-perceivedteaching ability in English-reading instruction. Implicit knowledge refers to the ability toperform task (e.g., count the number of syllables in the word heaven), whereas explicitknowledge means the ability to define a term or concept (e.g., what are phonemes?). Thereare 27 test items which include implicit language knowledge of processing phonemes,syllables, phonics rules, and morphemes (eight items); explicit knowledge of defining termsrelated to phonemes, phonics, and morphemes (11 items); teachers’ self-perceptions onteaching typical readers, struggling readers, phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency,vocabulary, and reading comprehension (seven items); and the teachers’ educational
Table 1 Categories and item numbers of the Reading Teacher Knowledge Survey
Category Item numbers
Educational attainment and years of teaching Q1Implicit knowledge
Phonemes Q12, Q15, Q16, Q17Phonological (syllables)* Q18 a–ePhonics Q10Morphemes Q18 a–e, Q27 a–g
Explicit knowledgePhonemes Q9, Q13, Q23Phonological Q22Phonics Q11, Q14, Q19, Q20, Q21, Q24, Q25Morphemes Q26
Self-perception on teachingTypical readers Q2Developing readers Q3Phonemic awareness Q4Phonics Q5Reading fluency Q6Vocabulary Q7Reading comprehension Q8
The Reading Teacher Knowledge Survey protocol is adapted from Zhao et al. (2016)
Note. * consists of items testing syllable counting
142 Bae H.S. et al.
attainment and years of teaching (one item). Categories and numbers of the test items areprovided in Table 1.
Procedures
The data collection procedures followed the following steps. For the Chinese EFL teacher datacollection, in each of the seven schools, the participating teachers were asked to complete thesurvey, which was translated into Chinese by the second author of the present study. Smallgroups of 7 to 10 people were gathered in a meeting room and trained research assistantsadministered the survey. No feedback or comments were provided during testing and noelectronic devices or reference materials were available for assistance. The designated timewas 30 min, and on the average, teachers took approximately 20 min to complete the survey.
To collect Korean EFL teachers’ data, the survey protocol was translated into Korean by thefirst author of the present study. Then, the Korean version of the survey protocol was cross-checked by an experienced Korean-speaking English teacher who is a doctoral student ofEnglish education. The final version of the Korean teacher survey was distributed by a researchassistant to English teachers in four public elementary schools, Seoul, Korea. The consentform was obtained first, and then the participants completed the survey individually in theirclassroom after school hours. Approximately 20 to 30 min were utilized per each for thesurvey completion.
Results
Chinese vs. Korean EFL teachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs
Similar to findings from previous studies (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005; Lee, 2014;Pedroza & Talili, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016), both groups of EFL teachers’ knowledge on thebasic language constructs were rather implicit than explicit (see Table 2). Chinese EFLteachers had more than 70% accuracy in processing phonemes (M = 0.79, SD = 0.15), phono-logical (M = 0.93, SD = 0.25), and phonics (M = 0.76, SD = 0.22), while their explicit knowl-edge on the structures showed lower accuracy (Mphonemes = 0.47 [SD = 0.27],Mphonological = 0.03[SD = 0.16], andMphonics = 0.53 [SD = 0.17]). Korean EFL teachers showed about or more than70% accuracy of the implicit knowledge on phonemes (M = 0.69, SD = 0.18), phonological(M = 0.95, SD = 0.23), and phonics (M = 0.74, SD = 0.28). On the contrary, their explicitknowledge on explaining what phonemes, phonological awareness, and phonics rules are farless accurate (Mphonemes = 0.38 [SD = 0.20], Mphonological = 0.49 [SD = 0.51, and Mphonics = 0.41[SD = 0.23].
Notably, distinct cross-cultural differences were found between the two EFL teachergroups. First, the Chinese and Korean EFL teachers showed very different patterns ofacknowledging morphemic units. While the Chinese EFL teachers were less accurate incounting number of morphemes in a word (i.e., implicit knowledge; M = 0.47, SD = 0.15),they were good at defining what morphemes are (i.e., explicit knowledge; M = 0.82, SD =0.39). The opposite finding was observed in the Korean EFL teachers’ knowledge of mor-phemic structure. The teachers had good implicit knowledge of counting morphemes in a word(M = 0.60, SD = 0.19), but were less accurate in explicitly explaining the language construct(M = 0.49, SD = 0.51). Second, regarding the phonological unit, the two group teachers had
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 143
good implicit knowledge, but were distinct in explicit knowledge. The mean accuracy ofcounting syllables were almost perfect in both groups (MChinese EFL = 0.93 [SD = 0.25] andMKorean EFL = 0.95 [SD = 0.23]). However, the Chinese EFL teachers had very limited explicitknowledge on defining what phonological awareness was (M = 0.03, SD = 0.16), while theirKorean EFL counterparts were fairly good at (M = 0.49, SD = 0.51).
Chinese vs. Korean EFL teachers’ perceived teaching ability
Self-perceived teaching ability was also different between Chinese and Korean EFL teachers(see Table 3). Generally, Korean EFL teachers perceived themselves more confident inteaching typical readers, struggling readers, as well as teaching phonemes, phonics, fluency,and reading comprehension, compared to their Chinese EFL teacher counterparts. The meanscores of all the measured variables for the Korean EFL teachers’ self-perceived teachingabilities were higher than Chinese EFL teachers. In addition, Korean EFL teachers weremostly confident in teaching typical readers (M = 3.26, SD = 0.68), fluency (M = 3.26, SD =0.68), vocabulary (M = 3.26, SD = 0.88), and reading comprehension (M = 3.26, SD = 0.72),whereas Chinese EFL teachers were highly confident only in teaching vocabulary (M = 3.03,SD = 0.50).
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ knowledge on basic language constructs
Language knowledge Chinese (n = 73) Korean (n = 39)
M SD M SD
ImplicitPhonemes 0.79 0.15 0.69 0.18Phonological(syllables)* 0.93 0.25 0.95 0.23Phonics 0.76 0.22 0.74 0.28Morphemes 0.47 0.15 0.60 0.19
ExplicitPhonemes 0.47 0.27 0.38 0.20Phonological 0.03 0.16 0.49 0.51Phonics 0.53 0.17 0.41 0.23Morphemes 0.82 0.39 0.49 0.51
Note. The maximum score of all the measured variables is 1.00, which means the percentage of accurate answersof the target test items. * consists of items testing syllable counting
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ self-perceived teaching abilities
Self-perception on teaching Chinese (n = 73) Korean (n = 39)
M SD M SD
Typical readers 2.32 0.55 3.26 0.68Struggling readers 1.84 0.71 2.90 0.91Phonemes 2.77 0.61 2.90 0.82Phonics 2.78 0.61 3.05 0.76Fluency 2.53 0.62 3.26 0.68Vocabulary 3.03 0.50 3.26 0.88Reading comprehension 2.75 0.64 3.26 0.72
Note. The maximum score of all the measured variables is 5.00
144 Bae H.S. et al.
Table4
Correlatio
nsam
ongallmeasuredvariables
Variable
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1.Ty
ear
1.62*
*.38*
.16
.32
.31
.37*
.55*
*.26
.31
.11
.23
.06
.04
.20
.30
2.Pt
−.19
1.40*
.43*
*.41*
*.50*
*.39*
.68*
*.21
.35*
.08
.38*
−.04
.23
.16
.09
3.Ps
.03
.09
1.33*
.35*
.45*
*.38*
.34*
.02
.13
−.03
.08
.03
.03
.08
−.03
4.Pp
n−.15
.35*
*.10
1.78*
*.39*
.27
.39*
.42*
*.30
.11
.10
−.35*
.06
−.04
−.26
5.Pp
ho−.18
.29*
.22
.55*
*1
.30
.25
.45*
*.47*
*.42*
*.01
.05
−.24
−.05
−.07
.06
6.Pfl
−.03
.24*
.34*
*.19
.24*
1.30
.67*
*.02
.07
.08
.18
.10
.01
.28
−.07
7.Pv
oc−.04
.27*
.19
.30*
.35*
*.54*
*1
.34*
−.13
.00
.07
−.02
.08
.17
.18
.24
8.Prc
−.19
.27*
.15
.31*
*.28*
.52*
*.45*
*1
.23
.19
.08
.32
−.06
−.09
.10
.21
9.IM
pn.03
.11
.01
.16
−.01
−.01
.19
.09
1.27
.20
.33*
−.11
.12
−.22
.14
10.IMpa
.20
.10
.05
−.03
.12
−.03
.13
.05
.04
1.09
.27
.02
.08
.16
.14
11.IMpho
.18
−.15
.20
−.01
.17
.00
−.09
−.19
.09
.15
1.25
.06
.23
.36*
−.01
12.IMma
.21
.03
.03
−.09
−.09
−.22
−.02
.02
.04
.17
−.03
1−.01
.01
−.05
.27
13.E
Xpn
.07
−.05
−.10
−.05
−.09
.18
.00
.07
.06
.05
.14
−.31*
*1
.27
.35*
.10
14.E
Xpa
.18
−.09
−.08
−.07
.05
−.15
−.18
−.32*
*−.19
−.02
.05
−.05
−.09
1−.05
−.03
15.E
Xpho
−.05
.27*
.02
.02
.18
.04
.14
.12
−.08
.07
−.01
.30*
.09
−.03
1.04
16.E
Xma
.09
−.06
.14
−.11
−.05
−.15
.03
.10
.09
.10
.02
.35*
*−.02
−.14
.12
1
Note.The
Chinese
EFL
teachers’groupisbelowandtheKoreanEFL
teachers’groupisabovethediagonal.T
year=yearof
teaching;P
t=perceptio
non
teaching
typicalreader;Ps
=perceptio
non
teaching
strugglin
greader,Pp
n=perceptio
non
teaching
phonem
icaw
areness;Pp
ho=perceptio
non
teaching
phonics;Pfl=
perceptio
non
teaching
fluency;
Pvoc
=perceptio
non
teaching
vocabulary;Prc=perceptio
non
teaching
readingcomprehension;IM
pn=im
plicitknow
ledgeon
phonem
icaw
areness;
IMpa
=im
plicitknow
ledgeon
phonologicalaw
areness;IM
pho=im
plicitknow
ledgeon
phonics;IM
ma=im
plicitknow
ledgeon
morphologicalaw
areness;andEX
inthesubsequent
variablenumbers13,1
4,15,
and16
representsexplicitknow
ledge
*p<.05
**p<.01
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 145
Interestingly, the two groups of EFL teachers were not confident in teaching strugglingreaders. Chinese EFL teachers’ self-perception score on their teaching ability for strugglingreaders was the least (M = 1.84, SD = 0.71) among all of the mean scores as shown in Table 3.This result was analogous to the findings from Zhao et al. (2016), which showed that ChineseEFL teachers were the least confident in teaching struggling readers. Similar pattern was alsofound from the Korean EFL teachers’ self-perception scores indicating that the teachers werenot confident to teach struggling readers (M = 2.90, SD = 0.91) compared to their perceptionon other variables.
Role of teachers’ language knowledge on their perceived teaching ability
To handle the non-normality problem of the observed variables in the present study, the rank-case transformation method was utilized and obtained normal scores for the subsequentcorrelation and hierarchical regression analysis (see Templeton, 2011, for the details of thetwo-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal).
Statistically significant correlations were found between the EFL teachers’ knowledge onthe basic language constructs and their self-perceived teaching ability (Table 4). Chinese EFLteachers’ explicit knowledge on the basic language constructs statistically significantly relatedto their self-perceived teaching ability on reading comprehension (r = − .32, p < .01) andtypical readers (r = .27, p < .05). Korean EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge on phonemeswas statistically significantly correlated to their perceived teaching ability for phonemicawareness instruction (r = − .35, p < .05). Interestingly, none of the variables of Chinese EFLteachers’ implicit knowledge showed statistically significant relationship with their self-perceived teaching ability. However, there were statistically significant correlations betweenKorean EFL teachers’ implicit knowledge on phonemes and their perceived teaching ability onphonemic awareness instruction (r = .42, p < .01) and phonics instruction (r = .47, p < .01);between their implicit knowledge on phonological awareness and self-perception on teachingtypical readers (r = .35, p < .05) and phonics instruction (r = .42, p < .01); and between theirimplicit knowledge on morphological awareness and their self-perception on teaching typicalreaders (r = .38, p < .05).
Hierarchical regression analysis showed that the EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge on thebasic language constructs explained additional variance of their self-perception on theirteaching ability, after controlling for their years of teaching and implicit language knowledge.In Table 5, the Chinese EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge on the basic language constructsexplained additional variance of their self-perception on phonics teaching ability (△R2 = 0.11,p < .05). In fact, their explicit knowledge on specific phonics rules was statistically significantpredictor for their perceived phonics teaching ability (β = 0.29, p < .05). In Table 6, KoreanEFL teachers’ explicit knowledge on the basic language constructs explained additionalvariance of their self-perception on teaching typical readers (△R2 = 0.11, p < .05). Particularly,if the teachers have greater explicit knowledge on phonological awareness, their perceivedability for teaching typical readers was predicted better (β = 0.28, p < .05). Regarding the otherperception variables, however, explicit knowledge did not explain any more variance for eithergroup.
Another noteworthy point was found from the hierarchical regression analysis results of theKorean EFL teachers. While the teachers’ explicit knowledge on the basic language constructsplayed a significant role in explaining additional variance of their self-perception on teachingphonemic awareness (△R2 = 0.23, p < .05), the statistically significant standardized coefficients
146 Bae H.S. et al.
Table 5 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis results of the Chinese EFL teachers
Outcome and predictors R2 △R2 SEb β
Ppho 0.12Tyear 0.01 − 0.33*IMpn 0.04 0.04IMpa 0.06 0.21IMpho 0.49 0.21IMma 0.02 − 0.34*
0.23* 0.11*
EXpn 0.09 − 0.22EXpa 0.88 0.10EXpho 0.07 0.29*
EXma 0.28 0.06
Note. Ppho = perception on teaching phonics; Tyear = year of teaching; IMpn = implicit knowledge on phonemicawareness; IMpa = implicit knowledge on phonological awareness; IMpho = implicit knowledge on phonics;IMma = implicit knowledge on morphological awareness; and EX in the subsequent variable number 13, 14, 15,and 16 represents explicit knowledge; Bold represents explained variance of explicit knowledge in the hierar-chical regression analysis
*p < .05
**p < .01
Table 6 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis results of the Korean EFL teachers
Outcome and predictors R2 △R2 SEb β
Pt 0.47**
Tyear 0.04 0.51**
IMpn 0.05 − 0.07IMpa 0.67 0.09IMpho 0.88 − 0.22IMma 0.02 0.39*
0.58* 0.11*
EXpn 0.17 − 0.20EXpa 0.22 0.28*
EXpho 0.08 0.26EXma 0.21 − 0.14
Ppn 0.20Tyear 0.06 0.06IMpn 0.08 0.33IMpa 0.10 0.23IMpho 1.31 − 0.05IMma 0.03 0.20
0.43* 0.23*EXpn 0.25 − 0.34*EXpa 0.33 0.09EXpho 0.12 0.17EXma 0.32 − 0.35*
Note. Pt = perception on teaching typical reader; Ppn = perception on teaching phonemic awareness; Tyear = yearof teaching;; IMpn = implicit knowledge on phonemic awareness; IMpa = implicit knowledge on phonologicalawareness; IMpho = implicit knowledge on phonics; IMma = implicit knowledge on morphological awareness;and EX in the subsequent variables represents explicit knowledge; Bold represents explained variance of explicitknowledge in the hierarchical regression analysis
*p < .05
**p < .01
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 147
were negative (βEXpn = − 0.34, p < .05 and βEXma = − 0.35, p < .05). These negative standard-ized coefficients imply that if the teachers have greater explicit knowledge on phonemicawareness and morphemic awareness, they perceived themselves less confident in teachingphonemic awareness.
Discussion
The results of the present study addressed cross-cultural differences among EFL teachers’knowledge on the basic language constructs and their self-perceived teaching ability in readinginstruction. Both Chinese EFL and Korean EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge on the basiclanguage constructs was generally lower than their implicit knowledge. However, ChineseEFL teachers showed greater success in defining morphemic structures, while their implicitknowledge on morphemic units was relatively very low. In addition, Korean EFL teachersperceived themselves as having good ability in teaching typical readers, fluency, vocabulary,and reading comprehension, whereas their Chinese EFL counterparts were only confident inteaching vocabulary. Both the EFL teachers’ explicit and implicit knowledge on the basiclanguage constructs showed statistically significant relationship with their self-perceivedteaching ability in English-reading instruction. Notably, explicit knowledge on the basiclanguage constructs was a statistically significant predictor for the Chinese and Korean EFLteachers’ self-perception in English-reading instruction, controlling for the year of teaching andthe teachers’ implicit language knowledge. Interestingly, Korean EFL teachers showed that thegreater they had explicit knowledge base, the less they were confident in teaching Englishreading.
One of the noteworthy points from the present study findings was that both Chinese andKorean EFL teachers showed almost 100% accuracy in counting English syllables (93 and95%, respectively). Similar results were reported from Zhao et al. (2016) that Chinese EFLteachers had good implicit knowledge on syllable counting (79.8%) and from Lee (2014)showing good syllable counting skills of Korean EFL teachers (60.0%). These consistentfindings may support the research hypothesis of the present study stated that EFL teachers’ L1background would influence their L2 (English) linguistic knowledge attainment. In Chineseorthography, sounds are recorded based on squared-block syllabic unit, called Chinese char-acter. The basic unit of Korean orthography is also syllable, which is called as Eumjeol. Sinceboth the Chinese EFL and Korean EFL teachers were familiar with syllabic unit in their L1orthography, they might easily catch the syllabic information in English.
However, the L1 orthographic influence was not found in the EFL teachers’ Englishlanguage knowledge attainment for phonemic and morphemic units. For instance, whileKorean orthography is similar to English in combining phonemes to represent the correspond-ing sounds (i.e., alphabetic principle), Korean EFL teachers’ accuracy level of countingphonemes was lower than their Chinese EFL counterparts, whose L1 orthography does nothave direct relevance to the alphabetic combination rules. Apart from the L1 orthographiceffect, the higher accuracy level of the Chinese EFL teachers’ knowledge on phonemic unitsmay be due to their experience of using Pinyin system, an alphabetic coding system using 26Roman letters and four tone marks to represent the pronunciation of Chinese characters. Inaddition, Chinese EFL teachers’ implicit knowledge on counting English morphemes was verylow, while their L1 is morphemic orthography which each Chinese character represents
148 Bae H.S. et al.
meaning not sound. Accordingly, we may conclude that EFL teachers’ L1 orthography plays alimited role in their language knowledge attainment of English. Thus, in order to acquire astronger English knowledge base, EFL teachers should have detailed instruction on identifyingeach units of the basic language constructs related English reading during their teacherpreparation or professional development programs.
Chinese EFL teachers’ higher level of explicit knowledge of morphological awareness alsoproposed the importance of teacher training on the basic language constructs. In China, thebasic language constructs of English are not considered as important elements of teachertraining courses and English instruction. Chinese EFL teachers’ low level of explicit knowl-edge on phonemes, phonological awareness, and phonics may support the fact that the teachersdid not have enough opportunities to acquire the language knowledge. However, the ChineseEFL teachers had good explicit knowledge on defining the terminology of morphologicalawareness. Even though the present study did not investigate what specific language constructswere included in teacher preparation programs previously taken by the study participants, thisresult implied that the Chinese EFL teachers at least had opportunities to achieve theinformation about what morphological awareness means.
Cross-cultural difference of the Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge onthe basic language constructs is also worthwhile to note. Chinese EFL teachers’ accuracy levelscores for different concepts greatly varied from 3.0 to 82.0%, while it was very small rangefor the Korean EFL teachers (from 38.0 to 49.0%). This result may represent that specificterms or language elements related English reading are more highlighted in English teacherpreparation or professional development courses in China. That is, for the teachers in ChineseEFL context, more emphasis is given to the terms related to morphological awareness, whereasalmost no information about the terminology of phonological awareness is provided. Futureinstructional investigation may be necessary at this point whether the steep difference of theChinese EFL teachers’ explicit knowledge base would affect their students’ language attain-ment; and whether the cross-cultural difference of the teachers’ explicit knowledge betweenChinese and Korean EFL teachers would generate different patterns of the students’ languagedevelopment.
Both Chinese and Korean EFL teachers’ low self-perception on their ability in teachingstruggling readers should be taken consideration. In China and Korea, English is not only acompulsory subject from elementary grades but also one of the most important subjects for thestudents’ university entrance exam. Thus, it is very important for the English learners in EFLcontexts not to be failing in early grades, nor lose interest in learning to read English. Withouthaving knowledge on the basic language constructs, the English learners in China and Koreamay not be successful in English reading. As Binks-Cantrell et al. (2012) claimed, strugglingreaders are generated due to insufficient teacher instruction on the basic language constructs. IfEFL teachers would have appropriate teacher education on acknowledging the basic languageconstructs, they may be more confident to teach the language information, which in turn willbe an efficient teacher to help the struggling readers overcome their difficulties.
While Korean EFL teachers had less experiences of teaching English and lower knowledgeon the basic language constructs, they had greater confidence in teaching English reading,compared to their Chinese EFL teacher counterparts. The mean years of teaching English forthe Korean EFL teachers was 2.46 years, whereas it was 5.08 years for the Chinese EFLteachers. In addition, Korean EFL teachers had lower accuracy scores across all the measuredvariables except for three (i.e., implicit knowledge on phonological awareness and mor-phemes, and explicit knowledge on phonological awareness; see Table 2). However, Korean
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 149
EFL teachers’ self-perception on teaching English reading was greater than Chinese EFLteachers across all the measured variables in Table 3. This result may be interpreted as Englishadage, “the boughs that bear most hang lowest,” which means the more experienced andknowledgeable the EFL teachers are, the more they feel humble to their teaching ability.Negative values of the hierarchical regression coefficients in Table 6 would also support thispoint, but further investigation with more experienced and knowledgeable teacher groups mayneed to confirm the explanation.
Limitations and educational implications
There are limitations of the present study. First of all, the number of participants was not well-controlled. Relatively small number of Korean EFL teacher participants (n = 39) compared tothe number of Chinese EFL teachers (n = 72) was due to the difference of sampling conditions.While the Chinese sample was recruited based on the national funding projects of the secondauthor, the Korean sample was recruited based on voluntarily participation, which was hard toattract to join the research project without any benefits. In addition, the present study did notinvestigate the EFL teachers’ previous experiences of instruction or courses taken related to thebasic English language constructs. If we had additional information, we would have been moreconfident to explain why the Chinese EFL teachers had better explicit knowledge of morpho-logical awareness, while they did not on other basic language constructs (i.e., phonemes,phonological awareness, and phonics).
Educational implications based on the present study are evident that explicit knowledgebase should be emphasized for EFL teacher preparation and professional development courses.In addition, EFL teachers’ knowledge on the basic language constructs are essential forincreasing their positive self-perception in teaching English reading. However, due to cross-cultural variances between EFL teachers of different L1 backgrounds and professional devel-opment, specific elements of the basic language constructs may be given more emphasis forthe teacher language knowledge development.
Funding information This research was in part supported by grants from the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no. 81371497) and the Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program(Grant no. 2016THZWYY07) awarded to the second author.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in
English as a second language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 381–403.Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of teacher
candidates. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554–563.Bae, H. S. (2015). Metalinguistic awareness in vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from grade six Korean EFL
learners. Primary English Education, 21(3), 5–22.Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter Effect in the preparation of
reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434.
150 Bae H.S. et al.
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preserviceand inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.
Brown, T., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a second language. In H. Carr(Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 19–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cheung, H., McBride-Chang, C., & Chow, B. W. (2006). Reading Chinese. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.),Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 421–440). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers' attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in the processof learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teachers Education, 33, 65–75.
Goldfus, C. (2012). Knowledge foundations for beginning reading teachers in EFL. Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0073-5.
Ha, M.-A., & Min, C. K. (2008). The constituents of English teachers’ professional competency in EFL context.Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 7(2), 87–110 (in Korean).
Hao, Y., & Sun, E. (2013). Analysis of the current situation of middle and primary school English teachertraining: Problems and strategies. Foreign Language Education, 2, 48–51 (in Chinese).
Kim, S. Y., Liu, L., & Cao, F. (2017). How does first language (L1) influence second language (L2) reading inthe brain? Evidence from Korean-English and Chinese-English bilinguals. Brain and Language, 171, 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.04.003.
Kim, Y. S. (2009). The foundation of literacy skills in Korean: The relationship between letter-name knowledgeand phonological awareness and their relative contribution to literacy skills. Reading and Writing: AnInterdisciplinary Journal, 22, 907–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9131-0.
Lee, K. (2004). Functional MRI comparison between reading ideographic and phonologic scripts of onelanguage. Brain and Language, 91, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.03.004.
Lee, Y.-A. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about phonemic awareness and phonics. PrimaryEnglish Education, 20(4), 321–347.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cos, S., Potter, N. S., Quiroga, T., & Gray, A. L.(2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86.
Ministry of Education. (2012). English curriculum standards for basic education. Beijing: Beijing NormalUniversity Publishing Group (in Chinese).
Ministry of Education. (2015).National common basic curriculum: English subject. Ministry of Education (in Chinese).Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and
written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102.Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. Washington, DC: American Fedration of Teachers.Moats, L. C. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1.Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals
of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language
Disorders, 16, 73–86.Pedroza, K. G. F. A., & Talili, I. N. (2015). Exploring the Peter Effect in the teacher educators' knowledge base in
reading instruction. IAMURE International Journal of Education, 13, 113–142. https://doi.org/10.7718/iamure.ije.v13i1.994.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (2005). Knowledge needed to support the teaching of reading: Preparingteachers for a changing world. Washington: National Academy Press.
Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–296.
Templeton, G. F. (2011). A two-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal implications andrecommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28, 41–58.
Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identifi-cation: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00232-9.
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts anddyslexia. Dyslexia, 7, 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.426.
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Cantrell, E. B. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach strugglingreaders? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0040-y.
Zhao, J., Joshi, R. M., Dixon, L. Q., & Huang, L. (2016). Chinese EFL teachers’ knowledge of basic languageconstructs and their self-perceived teaching abilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0110-2.
Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a... 151
Affiliations
Han Suk Bae1& Li Yin2
& R. Malatesha Joshi3
1 Department of International Tourism, Dong-A University, 225 Gudeok Ro, Seo Gu, Busan 49236, SouthKorea
2 Center for the Study of Language and Psychology, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures,Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
3 Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
152 Bae H.S. et al.
