Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity

Teacher and learner perceptions oflanguage learning activity

Roger Hawkey

A study of the impact of amajor recent language education reform project in Italyemployed a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collectionmethods,some of which could inform other studies of language learning and teaching.Impact study findings suggested interesting differences between the perceptions oflearners and teachers on some of the activities in their foreign language classes.While both sides agreed in general on the virtues of communicative approaches tolanguage teaching, there were interesting differences in the perceptions of learnersand teachers on the prominence of grammar and pair work in their classes. Thesedifferences may indicate potential problem areas of lesson planning andimplementation which could usefully be given attention on teacher supportprogrammes.

Introduction Research on the differences between the views of language learners andteachers focus both on the conflicting perceptions they may have of whathelps or hinders language learning, and on how differently they mayactually perceive what is happening in their shared classrooms. Nunan(1989) identifies a ‘hidden agenda’ which may lead learners to concentrateon formal language points rather than the communicative purpose of alesson. He also cites research indicating that learners prefer pronunciationpractice and error correction to more communicatively-intended activitiessuchaspairworkand the self-discoveryof errors,which teachers valuemorehighly. Peacock (1998) adds evidence that certain learner perceptions maybe detrimental to language learning. Sixty-four per cent of the learners(compared with only 7 per cent of the teachers) in Peacock’s study believedthat ‘learning a language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammarrules’. The same learners were assessed as significantly less proficient inthe target language than the 36 per cent who had a different view of thenature of language learning.

On teacher and learner perceptions of the same classroomactivities, Nunan(1987) compares the ratings of teachers from the Australian MigrantEducation Program with responses to activities rated in the Willing (1985)study of learner preferences. Nunan (op.cit.: 182) found mismatchesbetween student and teacher responses on all but one of ten classroomactivities, with especially strong response differences on: error correction(very high student, low teacher rating); learner self-discovery of errors (lowstudent, very high teacher ratings) and pair work (low student, very high

242 ELT Journal Volume 60/3 July 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/ccl004ªª The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on Decem

ber 6, 2014http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

teacher rating). Nunan (2000: 4) refers to ‘many mismatches between thebeliefs and attitudes of the learners and the practices of their teachers’,includingpractices ‘important for successful languagedevelopment suchasthe extent to which use of the target language in class was encouraged oreven permitted’.

This article will attempt to shed further light on learner and teacherperceptions of the activities and processes that may be taking place incommunicative foreign language learning classrooms, using findingsfrom a recent impact study of the Languages 2000 Project (ProgettoLingue (PL) 2000) in Italy. The focus here is on learners’ and teachers’perceptions of activities in their shared classrooms, and the differencessometimes indicated between the two. The research question is notwhether learners and teachers favour different language teachingactivities, but whether learners’ perceptions of the prominence of variousclassroom activities are the same as those of the teachers who areinitiating them.

Study backgroundand methods

The PL2000 was a major foreign language education reform programmeto provide courses in two foreign languages at elementary to high schoollevels to meet the communication needs of students as defined by theCouncil of Europe Framework of Reference for Languages (2001). In PL2000classes, students were to learn in small homogeneous groups throughthe most technologically informed taught and self-access means, andwere encouraged to seek certification of their progress through externalinternational examinations.

TheProgetto Lingue2000 impact study (PLIS)was conductedby thewriteron behalf of and with the assistance of the Research and ValidationDepartment of Cambridge ESOL and of Cambridge ESOL staff in Italy.The study, which aimed to examine the processes and products ofEnglish language teaching, learning, and assessment on PL2000 Englishlanguage courses, was carried out with the encouragement, approval, andparticipation of theMinistry of Education in Italy (Ministero dell’Istruzione,dell’Universita e della Ricerca (MIUR)). The Ministry expected the impactstudy to contribute useful feedback on the PL2000 to supplement thatproduced by the Project’s own monitoring and research systems.Cambridge ESOL were confident that the study would provide data forthe continuing validation of Cambridge Main Suite exams, which wereamong those being used for the external certification of student languagelearning proficiency on PL2000 courses.

Findings fromPLIS data on the effects of the Project on language learning,teaching, and testing are now presented, with a particular focus on:

n PL2000 learner and teacher perceptions of classroom approaches andactivities,

n related language learning problem areas that might benefit fromattention on teacher support programmes, and

n aspects of the methodology of the study that may be useful for relatedclassroom-oriented research.

Teacher and learner perceptions 243

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Impact andwashback

The fact that the study referred to in this article is called an ‘impact study’raises the distinction between ‘impact’ and ‘washback’ in the fields oflanguage teaching and testing. Hamp-Lyons (2000: 586) suggests the‘limitation of the term ‘‘washback’’ to influences on teaching, teachers,and learning (including curriculum and materials)’ and the inclusionof ‘discussion of wider influences of tests under the term ‘‘impact’’’.The emphasis of this article, namely teacher and learner perceptionsin the communicative classroom, is on the washback elements ofan impact study which also covered influences of the PL2000 onnon-classroom participants such as school heads, parents, and projectadministrators.

Data collection Data for the impact study were collected over the 2001–02 school year ontwo or three visits to seven case-study schools, elementary, middle, andhigh, located in north, central, and southern Italy. The study’s backgroundand attitude questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, and classroomobservations, were supported by informal contacts with the schoolsthroughout the period. A total of 228 student questionnaires wereadministered; 37 teachers, 10 school heads, and 21 parents were recordedin interviews and focus groups; and 20 PL2000-related lessons werevideo-recorded. Visits to the participating schools took place on normalworking days, with every attempt made to minimize disruption.

Itwas alwayspart of thedesign of the PLIS to combine quantitative data (forexample, test scores and closed questionnaire items) with qualitative data(for example, open-ended questionnaire responses, interviews and focusgroups, classroomobservations). Throughout the study, it proved beneficialto cross-check (or triangulate) related data from different sources and ofdifferent kinds.

The questionnaires for students and teachers were short andstraightforward, their content developed from a study of PL2000 aims,objectives, and defining features, from impact study aims and researchquestions, and from pre-Project discussions with heads, teachers, studentsand PL2000 administrators in the schools. The interviews and focusgroups held during the main visits to the schools, in October 2001 andApril 2002, were semi-structured but usually developed into freediscussion (mostly video-recorded for later analysis). The classroomobservation analysis instrument was fairly simple (see Appendix A),requiring records of the lessons in terms of their timings, episodes,activities, participation, and materials.

Study findingsLearner and teacherperceptions

PL2000 students’ perceptions of some of their classroom languagelearning activities differed interestingly from those of their teachers.In response to a questionnaire section listing 13 classroom activitiesidentified, from prior classroom observation and discussion, asrelevant to the Italian school foreign language teaching context,students indicated the following five activities as occurring ‘frequently’or ‘quite often’ in their classes. (See Appendix B for a sample PLIS

student questionnaire.)

244 Roger Hawkey

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Activities in class

Frequently

Quiteoften

Sometimes

Never

Individual student responses

1 listening to the teacher talking to the whole class 35 20 9 2

2 reading texts (from books or other materials) 25 24 17 1

3 writing notes, letters, or compositions 18 27 20 2

4 reading then writing answers to questions 22 23 20 2

5 grammar exercises 25 19 20 3

discussions with whole class 20 24 17 5

Two classes (total 42 students) negotiating block votes*

1 listening to the teacher talking to the whole class

2 reading texts (from books or other materials)

3 writing notes, letters, or compositions

4 reading then writing answers to questions

5 grammar exercises

discussions with whole class

table 1Student perceptions offrequency of activities intheir English classes atschool

* in two of the case-study classes, the teacher and students worked together toproduce joint responses to some of the student questionnaire items.

The eleven teachers teaching the case-study school students completedequivalent questionnaires. Their number is probably too small to makedirect quantitative comparisons between their responses and those of theirstudents (especially with participating classes of differing sizes). Table 2,however, compares the rankordersof student and teacherperceptions of theprominence of all 13 classroom activity categories selected for thequestionnaires.

Student perceptions Teacher perceptions

1 listening to teacher talking towhole class

listening to teacher talking towhole class

2 reading texts (from books or othermaterials)

pair discussions

3 writing notes, letters, compositions cassette listening and taking notes

4 reading then writing answersto questions

reading texts (from books orother materials)

5 grammar exercises writing notes, letters, compositions

6 whole class discussions vocabulary exercises

7 cassette listening and taking notes taking practice exams

8 pair discussions listening then choosing answers

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


9 vocabulary exercises reading then writing answersto questions

10 taking practice exams whole class discussions

11 listening then choosing answers grammar exercises

12 small group discussions discussing external exam

13 discussing external exam small group discussions

table 2Rank-ordered learner andteacher perceptions ofthe prominence ofclassroom activities

Ourdiscussion of PLIS findingswill focus on the two significantly differentrank orderings in the table, where potentially significant inferencesmay bemade. The first indicates that students see grammar exercises as moreprominent (rated fifth) in their classrooms than do the teachers (ratinggrammar exercises eleventh). The second inference is that the studentsappear to perceive pair work as less prominent, rated eighth out of thirteenactivity types across the two administrations of the student questionnaires,but second most prominent by the teachers.

Learner andteacher perceptionsof grammar

The learner and teacher perceptions over grammar are interesting.Nunan (1987: 185) quotes Brindley (1984: 96) as suggesting that theincompatible beliefs of teachers and learners are encapsulated in teachercomments such as ‘All they want is grammar’ and student comments suchas ‘Without the grammar, you can’t learn the language’. It is possible that,with communicative language teaching (CLT) still holding sway, suchbeliefs might have influenced the perceptions of the students and teachersquestioned in the PLIS. After all, one of the objectives according to officialMinistry specifications of the PL2000 was ‘to develop communicativecompetence in reading, written and oral interaction and productionappropriate to the learners’ age, level, domains and contexts of specificlanguage use in the various school types’. Did the teachers perhaps feelinclined, given the clearly communicativemessage of the PL2000and theirown strong belief in CLT (as confirmed in PLIS teacher interviews), tounder-estimate the prominence of grammar exercises in their lessons? Orwere the students in the PLIS classrooms over-estimating the prominenceof grammar exercises because of its perceived importance to them?

The students (in their end-of-year questionnaire) and the teachers both hada similar open-ended item on change over the year. In none of the 157student responses to their question ‘Please write here how you think yourEnglish language learning has changed over the past year’ was grammarexplicitly mentioned. The students emphasized instead increased activityin language skill areas (80 mentions), especially reading, writing, andspeaking, the use of information technology (19), especially the computer,and the switch to external exams (13). An analysis of student questionnaireresponses to an itemon the skills seen as themost improved over the schoolyear is given in Table 3, indicating most perceived improvement in theproductive skills, writing and speaking.

Reading Listening Writing Speaking

29 25 51 56

table 3Student questionnaireresponses on the mostimproved skill(s) over the2001/2002 school year(some students selectedmore than one ‘mostimproved’ skill)

246 Roger Hawkey

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Nor was grammar referred to in the questionnaire responses of the elevenclass teachers to their question: ‘Please write here how you think yourEnglish teaching and attitudes have changed over the past year’. Whenteacher responses to this open-ended question were combined withtheir responses on the related request for comment on the advantagesand disadvantages of the PL2000 for their students, the focus was on:improving learner motivation and interest (10), improving communicativeskills (7), and ‘modern’ teaching methods, including IT (7).

But in the teacher interviews and focus group discussions (the latter, itwill be recalled, involving 37 teachers including the eleven teachers of theparticipating students) the matter of approaches to grammar in the contextof the communicative approaches advocated by the PL2000 was raisedregularly. A high school teacher commented to her focus group, forexample, that ‘CLT does not mean no attention to grammar; all approachesare acceptable as long as they improve students’ communicativecompetence’. Six months later the same group of teachers agreed that ‘CLT

has to be combined with more structural approaches’. A middle schoolteacher participant in the PLIS also saw the need for a balance betweenallowing students to make mistakes in English communication and notaccepting every accuracy error. Some correction of grammar and lexis errorswas necessary, he suggested: ‘If you don’t know the code, you’re in trouble’.

Finally, there is significant evidence on the actual role of grammar fromPLIS classroom observation analyses. Nine out of the twenty PL2000lessons observed and video-recorded indicated that the lexical, grammatical,semantic and phonological competences distinguished by the CommonEuropeanFramework (Council ofEurope2001: 109) as elements of linguisticcompetence, might require more systematic attention. The analysessuggest inconsistent approaches to the communicative impact of the errorsconcerned, and to the level and confidence of learner performance. Therewas also, in the observed lessons, little evidence of systematic consolidationof new or recycled linguistic knowledge, although this may have beenplanned into subsequent lessons.

Triangulating evidence fromstudent and teacher open-endedquestionnairecomment, from interviews and discussions, and from the PLIS classroomobservation analyses, suggests the following explanation for the apparentmismatch in student and teacher perceptions of the prominence ofgrammar in their lessons. The teachers interpret the principles of the CLT

and its espousal by the PL2000 as encouraging a less explicit role for theteaching of grammar. The students may still not be entirely convinced ofthis and thus tend to look for a higher prominence for grammar in theirlessons. But to judge from their focus on improved communicative skillsperformance, thePLIS students are less likely thanwereBrindley’s learnersin 1984 (op. cit.) to see grammar as ‘all they want’.

Learner and teacherperceptions of pairwork

Pair work (labelled as ‘pair discussion’ in the PLIS student questionnairefollowing advance consultation with Italian teachers of English involved inthe study)was assumed to refer to ‘a process inwhich studentswork inpairsfor practice or discussion’ (Trask 1997). The differing learner and teacherviews on the prominence of pair work (see Table 2 above), with the students


at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


rating it eighth of out thirteen activity types in their questionnaires, theteachers rating it as second most prominent, is interpreted here withreference again to questionnaire responses, interviews and focus groups,and to the twenty classroom lessons observed and video-recorded in thePLIS case-study schools over the academic year.

Therewerequite frequent references in teacher interviews and focusgroupsto the importance of activities involving learner-to-learner communication.Typical were these:

There is a need to use groups as well as pairs to broaden thecommunicative context, to prevent students expressing learnt ratherthan their own real opinions. (Focus group of liceo teachers, October2001.)

One teacher found that though her (CEF Level) B1 students could speakin English, they were not good at interacting in the language, i.e. co-operating, using language that helped others, as they would in actualcommunication, . . . Such skills have to be developed . . . (Liceo teacherwritten comment on PL2000 student progress, March 2002.)

There is good evidence that theCLT, supported in the aims and objectives ofthe PL2000, motivated teachers to seek pair-work activities relevant to thecommunicative needs of their students. Examples of these from the video-recorded and analysed lessons are as follows:

n Scuola media students encouraged by their teacher not only to exchangepersonal informationwith their friends, in pairs, groups, and in informalpresentations to the whole class, but also to amuse their colleagues(and themselves), as thirteen-year- olds often like to do, with their flightsof imagination and humour; these included, in the observed lessonconcerned, stories of intelligent, tennis-playing tropical fish, andfantasies of living as tramps.

n First-week B2 students (16–18 years old) working in pairs to discussand compose emails to their English teacher suggesting the kinds ofEnglish language learning activities they considered would meet theirneeds on their course.

n AC1 class (18 year-olds), working in groups, selecting a local product andplanning how they would promote it, discussing their plans orally andmaking written notes for the advertising campaign on which they haddecided.

The analyses of the 20 PLIS lessons show 22 episodes of pair work, 11 ofwhich are considered to have offered good communicative opportunities.There were also, however, instances of pair work which was analysed asunsuccessful. In seven of these cases, the activity was considered too brief,terminated rather early or interrupted too frequently by the teacher. Insix cases the communicative opportunity was significantly reduced byparticipant inattention or silence. The drift or interruption of some pairactivities, which thus reverted to individual work, teacher-student dialogueor whole class interaction, may perhaps explain why students perceivedtheir pair work as less prominent than their teachers had probablyenvisaged in the original lesson plan.

248 Roger Hawkey

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Themismatch between learner and teacher perceptions of the prominenceof pair work compares interestingly with Nunan’s finding (above) thatpair activities received a low student, but a very high teacher rating onusefulness. As mentioned in our discussions of learner and teacherperceptions on grammar, there may be also a connection between theperceived usefulness and the perceived prominence of pair work.

Conclusion This article has presented findings from the Progetto Lingue 2000 impactstudy to illustrate how mismatches between language learner and teacherperceptions of classroom activity can be usefully analysed and may haveimplications for language learning and teaching. (See also Hawkey 2000;Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione 1999.) Along with much encouragingevidence of positive classroom impacts from the PL2000, the identificationof differences of opinion such as those discussed above, on the prominenceof grammar and pair communication activities, suggests areas suitable forpossible attention in teacher support programmes. For example, throughthe encouragement of :

n closer and more systematic planning and preparation of lessons foreffective communicative teaching and learning across the languageskills, in particular to avoid lesson fragmentation or drift, unplannedbut frequent changes of direction; these seem often to be caused byteacher unease about allowing time and space in activities such aspair work, when learners may be uncertain or still straining towardsthe communication of meaning; and

n strategies and materials to maintain an appropriate balance betweenteaching and learning for accuracy, and for target language fluency andappropriacy.

There is no doubt that the more we know about what is perceived to behappening in the classroom, the better our chances are of improving thequality of language learninganduse. Impact studies, usingopinion surveys,face-to-face opinion finding, and classroom observation can be crucialelements in the discovery process.

Final revised version received September 2004

ReferencesBrindley, G. 1984.Needs Analysis andObjective Settingin the AdultMigrant Program. Sydney: Adult MigrantEducation Service.Council of Europe. 2001. Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for Languages: Learning,Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Hamp-Lyons, L. 2000. ‘Social, professional andindividual responsibility in language testing’. System28, 579–91.Hawkey, R. 2003. The Cambridge ESOL ProgettoLingue 2000 Impact Study: Full report. Cambridge:Cambridge ESOL.

Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. 1999. ProgettoLingue 2000. Rome: Coordinamento Nazionale perL’ Autonomia.Nunan, D. 1987. ‘Communicative languageteaching: the learner’s view’, in B. Das (ed.).Communication and Learning in the ClassroomCommunity. Singapore: SEAMEO RegionalLanguage Centre.Nunan, D. 1989. ‘Hidden agendas: the role ofthe learner in programme implementation’, inR.K. Johnson (ed.).TheSecondLanguageCurriculum.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. 2000. ‘Seven hypotheses about languageteaching and learning’. Plenary presentation,TESOL Convention, Vancouver, March 2000.


at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Peacock, M. 1998. ‘The links between learnerbeliefs, teacher beliefs, and EFL proficiency’, inPerspectives: Working Papers 10/1. City University ofHong Kong. 125–59.Trask, R. 1997. Student’s Dictionary of Language andLinguistics. London: Arnold.Willing, K. 1985. Learning Styles in Adult MigrantEducation. Sydney: Adult Migrant EducationServices.

The authorRoger Hawkey is now working with CambridgeESOL on research projects in language programmeand test impact, assessment criteria for writing

proficiency, and language test task analysis. He alsosupervises master and doctoral students for theUniversities of Bristol and Roehampton.Roger has experience of English language teaching,and curriculum development projects in Africa,Asia, Latin America and Europe, with particularinvolvement in language needs analysis, syllabusdesign, and testing. His doctoral researchinvestigated inter-relationships between cognitive/affective and social factors and language learning.

He has published widely in applied linguistics,language teaching, and testing.Email: [email protected]

Appendix A PLIS classroom observation form

250 Roger Hawkey

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Appendix B PLIS student questionnaire


at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


252 Roger Hawkey

at University of C



Dow

nloaded from


Documents

Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity