Elt j 1996-karavas-doukas-187-98

Using attitude scales to
investigate teachers'
attitudes to the
communicative approach
Evdokia Karavas-Doukas

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on February 3, 2011
Despite the widespread adoption of the communicative approach by
textbooks and curricula around the world, research suggests that com-
municative language teaching principles in classrooms are rare, with most
teachers professing commitment to the communicative approach but fol-
lowing more structural approaches in their classrooms. The literature on
curriculum innovation and implementation suggests that one of the
causes of the discrepancy between prescribed theory and classroom
practice may be teacher attitudes. In an effort to understand teachers'
attitudes towards the communicative approach within the context of an
EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools, a Likert-type attitude
scale was developed. This article focuses on the development and use of
the attitude scale on a sample of fourteen Greek English language teachers
whose classroom practices had also been observed. The advantages and
disadvantages of using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes are
then discussed.

Introduction The past decades have witnessed an abundance of research into the
strategies learners use to learn and cope with the demands of a language,
into the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful language learners,
and into tasks, activities, materials, techniques, and teacher behaviours
which lead to, facilitate, or obstruct second language acquisition. The
findings of this research have been fed, either directly or indirectly, into
the development and expansion of what is commonly referred to as the
'communicative approach'. This approach has various syllabus realiza-
tions, but just one ultimate aim: the development of learners'
communicative competence.
Despite the increasing popularity of the communicative approach, the
few small-scale classroom studies that have been carried out (e.g. Burns
1990; Guthrie 1984; Kamaradivelu 1993; Long and Sato 1983; Mitchell
1988; Nunan 1987; Walz 1989) seem to suggest that communicative
classrooms are rare; while most teachers profess to be following a
communicative approach, in practice they are following more traditional
approaches. Broadly speaking, the communicative approach appears to
have brought innovation more on the level of theory than on the level of
teachers' actual classroom practices.
ELT Journal Volume 50/3 July 1996 © Oxford University Press 1996 187

The Why does this disparity between prescribed theory and actual classroom
communicative practice exist? An answer to this question can be found in the
approach and curriculum innovation literature, where teacher attitudes are seen to
teachers' play a crucial role in determining the implementation of an approach.
attitudes What decision-makers often seem to forget is that teachers are not
atheoretical beings. The introduction of a new programme or approach
will be in competition with well-established theories of language
teaching and learning which are the product of previous teaching and
learning experiences, prejudices, and beliefs (Freeman and Richards
1993). Teachers' educational attitudes and theories, although in many
cases unconsciously held, have an effect on their classroom behaviour,

influence what students actually learn, and are a potent determinant of
teachers' teaching style, a truth recognized by many authors, including
Bennet (1976), Brophy and Good (1974), Burns (1990), Clark and
Peterson (1986), Clark and Yinger (1979), Gayle (1979), McNergney
and Carrier (1981), Nunan (1990), and Stern and Keislar (1977). When
introducing a new approach in the classroom it may be necessary for the
teacher to revise, refine, or change attitudes which may not be
compatible with the principles of that approach. Within the context of
curriculum innovations
it is not enough for people to act differently, which is a surface
phenomenon, they may also be required to change the way they think
about certain issues, which is a deeper and more complex change.
(Kennedy 1988: 329)
In other words, attitude change is an essential and inevitable part of any
pedagogical innovation. If incompatibilities between the philosophy of
an approach and teachers' theories exist, teachers will tend to interpret
new information in the light of their own theories, and will tend to
translate innovative ideas to conform with their own style of teaching
(Wagner 1991). The investigation of teachers' attitudes can help identify
the difficulties teachers face when implementing curricular innovations
in the classroom (Dingwall 1985), and can help in establishing the most
appropriate kind of support that is needed in in-service teacher
development (Breen 1991).

Despite the importance of teachers' attitudes in determining the
successful implementation of innovatory ideas and in understanding
teachers' classroom behaviour, teacher attitudes have been neglected in
second language classroom research (see Grotjahn 1991; Kleinsasser
and Savignon 1991; Nunan 1991). As Kleinsasser and Savignon (1991:
299) argue
In our quest for the improvement of language teaching, we have
overlooked the language teacher. Exploration ... of teachers'
perceptions of what they do and why they do it, holds promise for
understanding the frequently noted discrepancies between theoretical
understanding of second/foreign language acquisition and classroom
practice.
188 Evdokia Karavas-Doukas

Background to In an effort to understand language teachers' attitudes towards the
the study communicative approach an attitude scale was developed as part of a
larger study. The study (Karavas 1993) focused on the degree of
implementation of a communicative learner-centred approach in Greek
public secondary school EFL classrooms. A series of textbooks and a
curriculum embodying principles of the communicative approach, as
advocated by the Council of Europe Project No. 12 (van Ek 1987,
Girard and Trim 1993), were introduced in Greek EFL classrooms in
1987. The ultimate aim of the new curriculum and textbooks is the
development of students' linguistic repertoire, sociolinguistic skills, and
interactive strategies, as well as the promotion of students' intellectual

and social development through the process of foreign language
learning. Teachers are urged in the teachers' guides to make learners
the centre of attention by encouraging them to take initiatives, and by
providing opportunities for them to practise authentic spontaneous
communication in authentic contexts. The presence of the teacher in the
capacity of 'facilitator' and 'guide' to the language learning process
(rather than transmitter of knowledge and authority), and the affective
and cognitive involvement of the learners in the classroom proceedings
(achieved through the plethora of pair and group work activities within
the textbook series), are some of the basic features of the new
curriculum and textbooks. Before the introduction of this innovation
teachers used a variety of textbooks from foreign publishing companies
and the curriculum was structural. The investigation of Greek English
language teachers' attitudes towards the communicative approach would
help identify whether teachers were ready to accept and implement this
new approach in their classrooms. It would also be valuable in
understanding teachers' classroom practices, which were observed with
the use of an observation scheme aimed at documenting and analysing
the types and nature of activities carried out in the classrooms, and the
teachers' roles during those activities. The next sections will focus on the
development of the attitude scale, and the results of its application on
the Greek English language teachers.

Developing the A variety of methods have been employed in educational research for
attitude scale the study of teachers' attitudes and beliefs, e.g. interviews (Mitchell
1988), variations of Kelly's grid technique (Munby 1982; Olson 1981),
stimulated recall methods (Mitchell and Marland 1989), and, to a greater
extent, questionnaires consisting of open-ended (and closed) items
(Bennet 1976; Brown and Mclntyre 1978). Although such methods can
obtain fairly reliable indications of teacher attitudes, they cannot, and
should not, make any pretence to measure attitudes in the strict sense.
As Moser and Kalton (1971: 350) state:
to try and combine the answers a respondent gives to the various
questions into a measurement of the extremity and intensity of his
overall attitude requires a different analytical approach; and this is
where scaling devices find their place.
An attitude scale is a crude measuring device, consisting of a number of
Using altitude scales 189

statements to which the respondent must express his or her degree of
agreement or disagreement. Depending on the respondent's endorse-
ment of each statement, a particular score is rendered. The total score,
which is calculated by adding up the scores for each item, places the
respondent on a continuum from least favourable to most favourable.
Usually, the higher the score, the more favourable the respondent's
attitude.
The rating scale constructed for this study followed the Likert technique
of scale construction. The Likert-type scale (or method of summated
ratings) is the most widely used method of scale construction because of

its relative ease of construction, its use of fewer statistical assumptions,
and the fact that, in contrast to other scaling techniques, no judges are
required.1
As in all methods of scale construction, the first step in the process is to
compose a series of statements that cover all aspects of the attitude
under study (i.e. the communicative learner-centred approach as
embodied in the new curriculum) in such a way that statements can
distinguish between those holding favourable and those holding
unfavourable attitudes (i.e. neutral or extreme statements should be
avoided). The attitude statements for this study's attitude scale were
composed on the basis of an extensive review of the communicative
approach, and the reports of the Council of Europe (Edelhoff 1985;
Sheils 1988; Trim 1985; Van Ek 1985). Conscious efforts were made to
develop statements that referred to the version of the communicative
approach adopted by the Greek English language curriculum and
textbooks.

Selecting the The statements covered the main aspects of the communicative learner-
most appropriate centred approach: group work, error correction, the place and
statements importance of grammar, the needs of students, and the role of the
teacher and learner. The initial pool of items consisted of 85 statements
(40 favourable and 45 unfavourable). Many statements overlapped in
content but differed in wording; this was done in order to determine
which wording was best. The items were placed in random order, and
next to the items was a grid consisting of five columns: 'strongly agree',
'agree', 'uncertain', 'disagree', 'strongly disagree'; each column had a
particular value, i.e. 5, 4, 3, 2,1 respectively. Respondents were asked to
tick the appropriate box, to indicate how far they agreed or disagreed
with each item. It was decided that a high score on the scale would imply
a favourable attitude. Thus, favourable statements (i.e. statements
consonant with principles of the communicative approach) would be
scored 5 for 'strongly agree' down to 1 for 'strongly disagree'; for the
scoring of unfavourable items the scoring was reversed (unfavourable
items scored 1 for 'strongly agree' up to 5 for 'strongly disagree').
The next step in the construction of a Likert scale is to determine which
statements are the most representative and successful in measuring the
attitude in question. An item analysis is carried out in order to

determine the internal consistency of the scale. This is done by first
giving the initial pool of items to a representative sample of the target
population, and then determining which items have the highest
correlations by correlating each respondent's score on each item with
his/her total score minus the score for the item in question. In this study,
the initial 85 statement scale was given to a sample of 60 non-native
English language teachers completing their MA degrees in the UK.
With this sample the item analysis was carried out and the correlations
were computed. The items with the strongest correlations (r > 0.30) were
then selected. From this analysis, 18 favourable statements and 34

unfavourable items had correlations over 0.30. Since there were fewer of
them, the selection process for the final version of the scale was based
upon the favourable items. These fell into 5 thematic groups.
Unfavourable items with strong correlations that fell into these groups
were then selected, rendering a scale that consisted of 24 statements (12
favourable and 12 unfavourable)2, which fell into the following thematic
groups:
1 group/pair work (4 statements);
2 quality and quantity of error correction (4 statements);
3 the role and contribution of learners in the learning process (6
statements);
4 the role of the teacher in the classroom (4 statements);
5 place/importance of grammar (6 statements).

Testing the scale The split-half method was used to determine the reliability of the study's
for reliability attitude scale. This is the most widely used method, and measures
reliability by dividing the scale into two matched halves and correlating
the scores of each half. In order to test the scale's reliability, the 24
statements were divided into two parts, and the initial sample's
responses in each part (from 60 respondents) were correlated. The
corrected split-half reliability coefficient was rw = 0.81.
The attitude scale was also distributed to 40 Greek English language
teachers teaching English at private language institutes within the
Athens area. Thirty seven questionnaires were returned and the split-
half method was applied to their responses. The split-half reliability
coefficient was rw = 0.88. This coefficient proved that the scale had a
high level of internal consistency, since as Oppenheim (1966, 1992)
points out, most Likert scales achieve a reliability of 0.85. After this
reliability check, and discussions with the Greek English language
teachers concerning the wording of the statements, it was decided that
these 24 statements would constitute the final version of the scale (see
Appendix).

Teachers' The highest possible score that can be obtained in the attitude scale and
attitudes to the the one indicative of the most favourable attitude towards the
communicative communicative approach is 120 (by scoring 5, the highest mark on all
approach 24 statements), while the lowest and the one indicating the least
Using attitude scales 191

favourable attitude towards the communicative approach is 24.
Respondents' scores can therefore fall within a continuum from 24 to
120, the middle (neutral) point of the continuum being 72 (achieved by
being uncertain about all 24 items).
It should be pointed out that one of the limitations of Likert-type scales
is the difficulty of establishing a neutral point (and consequently a
neutral score) on the scale. The neutral point is not necessarily the mid-
point between the extreme scores (Oppenheim 1966, 1992). This is
because a respondent can obtain a middle-of-the-range score by either
being uncertain about many items, or by holding inconsistent or strongly

favourable and strongly unfavourable attitudes towards the attitude
object in question. For purposes of presentation, however, the score of
72 will be taken as the neutral or middle score of this study's attitude
scale.
The attitude scale was given to 101 Greek secondary school English
language teachers, fourteen of whom were observed in their classrooms
and interviewed. The results presented here will focus on the fourteen
teachers' scores which were analysed in depth. Table 1 shows their
scores on the attitude scale.

Table V.
Teachers' scores on the Teacher Score
attitude scale
K3 103
S3 96
T2 94
C2 91
D1 89
A2 88
C1 85
L3 85
K2 84
A1 79
L2 79
P3 75
KO2 73
G1 56

Although their scores ranged considerably, the vast majority of the
teachers seem to hold mildly favourable to favourable attitudes towards
the communicative approach. With the exception of one teacher
(teacher Gl, who scored the lowest in the group), the rest of the
teachers scored over 72, which was the middle point of the continuum.
The standard deviation of the 14 scores was SD = 11.2, the average score
being 83.
Taken at face value, the scores seem to suggest that, on the whole,
teachers hold favourable attitudes towards the communicative approach.

When the teachers were observed, however, their classroom practices
(with very few exceptions) deviated considerably from the principles of
the communicative approach. Teachers tended to follow an eclectic
approach, exhibiting features of both traditional and communicative
approaches in their classroom practices (the former featuring much
more frequently than the latter). Most lessons were teacher-fronted and
exhibited an explicit focus on form; pair work activities were used in two
classrooms whereas group work activities were never implemented
—although each unit in the textbooks contains an average of four pair
work activities and two group work activities.

This discrepancy between teachers' classroom practices and their
expressed attitudes towards the communicative approach prompted an
in-depth analysis of their responses to the attitude statements, which
revealed the cause of this discrepancy. The teachers who had obtained
'average' scores had responded inconsistently to many of the statements
in the attitude scale; in other words, they tended to respond in the same
manner to both favourable and unfavourable statements, revealing their
lack of understanding of many principles of the communicative
approach. This lack of understanding, or confusion, was also verified
in interviews held with the teachers, where teachers either did not
understand or were unable to see the practical implications of many of
the principles of the communicative approach.
It should be noted at this point that an individual's agreement with two
apparently opposing statements (one, for example, dealing with the
merits of teacher-centred instruction, and the other with the merits of
learner-centred instruction) does not necessarily imply a lack of
understanding, or an inconsistent attitude on part of the respondent.3
A teacher may well respond to both statements having in mind teaching
contexts in which both teacher-centred and learner-centred practices
have an important role to play. Such a pattern of responding does,
however, create problems in the interpretation of scores. Is the teachers'
similar endorsement of both statements due to lack of understanding of
the implications of learner-centred and teacher-centred practices, or is it
due to an awareness of the contribution that both could make to
effective language learning? One way of minimizing this problem is with
the careful selection and wording of attitude statements (i.e. the
judicious insertion of extreme words or superlatives); statements can
and should be worded in such a way as to prompt the respondent to take
a certain position in relation to a particular issue. Alternatively, the
problem of score interpretation could be overcome with the subsequent
interviewing of teachers. Interviews would enable the teacher trainer or
researcher to assess the depth of the teachers' knowledge, and how they
perceive two seemingly opposing practices as fitting into their overall
classroom routines.

Conclusion The discrepancy between teachers' classroom practices and their
expressed attitudes may raise serious doubts about the reliability,
validity, and usefulness of the attitude scale as a means of investigating

teacher attitudes. As was mentioned earlier, however, the identification
of disparities between teachers' classroom behaviour and their
expressed attitudes is not unique to this study. More often than not,
this is due to teachers' existing attitudes and beliefs being largely
neglected prior to the introduction of a new approach. Courses designed
to train teachers in the new approach focus on transmitting information
about the new approach and persuading teachers of its effectiveness.
When the teachers return to their classrooms they misinterpret the new
ideas and translate them to conform to their existing classroom
routines—at the same time believing that they are doing exactly what
the new approach calls for (Lamb 1995; Wagner 1991).

The importance of taking teachers' attitudes as a starting point in any
teacher training course is gradually being recognized by teacher
educators (Johnson 1994; Richards and Lockhart 1994; Tillema 1994).
As Lamb (1995: 79) concluded, after a disappointing experience with
teacher trainees in Indonesia, the focus of teacher training courses
should be the teacher beliefs: 'These need first to be articulated, and
then analysed for potential contradictions with each other, the teaching
circumstances, and the beliefs of the learners.' Attitude scales can play a
significant role in revealing teacher beliefs.
An attitude scale can act as a cost-effective and easy to administer
instrument for gathering baseline data on trainees' beliefs on particular
issues, especially where large groups of trainees are concerned.
Although the scores (specifically middle of the range scores) may not
give insights into the exact nature of an individual's attitudes, a closer
examination of the trainees' pattern of responding to favourable and
unfavourable statements, followed by interviews or group discussions
with the trainees, will reveal potential contradictions in trainees' beliefs,
and thus the areas in which teachers will need further clarification and
support. Moreover, the administration of the attitude scale and
subsequent discussion of teachers' responses will give the opportunity
to teachers to become more aware of their attitudes and of elements
within them which can be less readily justified. If awareness of one's
attitudes is the first step towards clarifying them and developing the
appropriate frame of reference in which to receive new ideas, then
attitude scales can certainly help in achieving this aim.
Received February 1995


Notes Gayle, G.M.H. 1979. 'A model for second
1 There are two other very common techniques of language teaching'. Canadian Modern Language
attitude scale construction: the Thurstone tech- Review 35/3: 348-65.
nique and the Guttman technique. The former Girard, D. and J. Trim 1993. Learning and
uses experts to judge which statements are most Teaching Modern Languages for Communication.
appropriate for the attitude scale, in which Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
respondents need only tick the statements they Grotjahn, R. 1991. 'The research programme
agree with. The Guttman technique uses a subjective theories'. Studies in Second Language
laborious procedure called scalogram analysis Acquisition 13/2: 187-214.
to select the most appropriate items for inclu- Guthrie, E.L. 1984. 'Intake, communication and
sion in the scale. In scales, respondents are second language teaching' in S.J. Savignon and
presented with an agree/disagree option. M.S. Burns (eds.). 1984. Initiatives in Commu-
(Details and criticisms of these techniques can nicative Language Teaching. Reading, Mass.:

be found in Oppenheim 1966, 1992; Oskamp Addison Wesley.
1977.) Johnson, K.E. 1994. 'The emerging beliefs and
2 The favourable items in the study's attitude instructional practices of pre-service English as a
scale are statements 2,3, 6, 7,8, 9,12,14,16,18, second language teachers'. Teaching and Teacher
20, 24. The rest are unfavourable. Education 10/4: 439-52
3 I wish to thank the reviewer who pointed this Kamaravadivelu, B. 1993. 'Maximizing learner
issue out to me in an earlier version of this potential in the communicative classroom'. ELT
paper. Journal 47/1: 12-21
Karavas, E. 1993. 'English Language Teachers in
References the Greek Secondary School: A Study of their
Bennet, N. 1976. Teaching Styles and Pupil Classroom Practices and their Attitudes towards
Progress. London: Open Books. Methodological and Materials Innovation'.
Breen, M. P. 1991. 'Understanding the language Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick.
teacher' in Phillipson et al. 1991. Kennedy, C 1988. 'Evaluation of the management
Brindley, G. (ed.) 1990. The Second Language of change in ELT projects'. Applied Linguistics
Curriculum in Action. Sydney: NCELTR. 9/4: 329-42.
Brophy J. and T. Good. 1974. Teacher-Student Kleinsasser, R.C and SJ. Savignon. 1991. 'Lin-
Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New guistics, language pedagogy and teachers' techni-
York: Holt Rinehart Winston. cal cultures' in Georgetown University Round
Brown, S. and D. Mclntyre. 1978. 'Factors Table in Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown:
influencing teacher responses to curricular Georgetown University Press.
innovations'. Research Intelligence 4/1: 19-23. Lamb, M. 1995. 'The consequences of INSET'.
Burns, A. 1990. 'Focus on language in the ELT Journal 49/1: 72-80.
communicative classroom' in Brindley (ed.). 1990. Long, M.H. and CJ. Sato. 1983. 'Classroom
Clark, CM. and P.L. Peterson. 1986. 'Teachers' foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of
thought processes' in M.C. Wittrock (ed.). 1986. teachers' questions' in H. W. Seliger and M. H.
Handbook of Research on Teaching. London: Long (eds.). 1983. Classroom Oriented Research in
Macmillan. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Clark, CM. and RJ. Yinger. 1979. 'Teachers' Newbury House.
thinking' in P.L. Peterson and H.J. Walberg (eds.). McNergney, R.F. and C.A. Carrier. 1981. Teacher
Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and Development. London: Macmillan.
Implications. California: McCuthran. Mitchell, J. and P. Marland. 1989. 'Research on
Council of Europe. 1985. Symposium on the Initial teacher thinking: The next phase'. Teaching and
and In-Service Training of Teachers of Modern Teacher Education 5/2: 115-28.
Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Mitchell, R. 1988. Communicative Language
Dingwall, S.C. 1985. 'The Teacher Variable in Teaching in Practice. London: CILT.
ELT. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster Uni- Moser, C.A. and G. Kalton. 1971. Survey Methods
versity. in Social Investigation. London: Gower.
Edelhoff, C. 1985. 'Language learning for com- Munby, H. 1982. 'The place of teacher beliefs in
munication: The roles, needs, and problems of research on teacher thinking and decision making,
language teachers' in Council of Europe 1985. and an alternative methodology'. Instructional
Freeman, D. and J.C Richards. 1993. 'Concep- Science 11: 201-25.
tions of teaching and the education of second Nunan, D. 1987. 'Communicative language teach-
language teachers'. TESOL Quarterly 25/2: ing: making it work'. ELT Journal 41/2: 136-45.
193-216 Nunan, D. 1990. 'The language teacher as decision

maker: a case study' in G. Brindley (ed.)- 1990. tion and pre-existing beliefs of teachers'. Teaching
Nunan, D. 1991. 'Methods in second language and Teacher Education 10/6: 601-15.
classroom research: a critical review'. Studies in Trim, J.L.M. 1985. 'The learning and teaching of
Second Language Acquisition 13/2: 249-74. modern languages for communication' in Council
Olson, J. 1981. 'Teacher influence in the class- of Europe 1985.
room'. Instructional Science 10: 259-75. Van Ek, J.A. 1985. 'Language learning for
Oppenheim, A.N. 1966. Questionnaire Design and communication: the needs and problems of
Attitude Measurement. London: Heinemann. learners' in Council of Europe 1985.
Oppenheim, A.N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Van Ek, J. A. 1987. Objectives for Foreign
Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London, Language Learning. Vols. I and II. Strasbourg:
New York: Pinter.
Council of Europe.
Oskamp, S. 1977. Attitudes and Opinions. New Wagner, J. 1991. 'Innovation in foreign language
Jersey: Prentice Hall. teaching' in Phillipson et al. 1991.

PhilJipson, R., E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M.
Sharwood Smith, and M. Swain (eds.). 1991. Walz, J. 1989. 'Context and contextuaiised lan-
Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. guage practice in foreign language teaching'.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Modern Language Journal 73/2: 160-68.
Richards, J.C., and C. Lockhart. 1994. Reflective
Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. The author
Sheils, J. 1988. Communication in the Modern Evdokia Karavas-Doukas has taught EFL in
Language Classroom. Strasbourg: Council of Greece and EAP in the UK. She has an MA
Europe. and a PhD from the University of Warwick, where
Stern, C. and E.R. Keislar. 1977. 'Teacher she is currently a lecturer in the Centre for English
attitudes and attitude change'. Journal of Research Language Teacher Education. Her research inter-
and Development in Education 10/2: 63-76. ests include teacher training and development,
Tillema, H.H. 1994. 'Training and professional evaluation and implementation of language teach-
expertise: Bridging the gap between new informa- ing programmes, and classroom-oriented research.


Appendix
Strongly Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
1 Grammatical correctness is the most
important criterion by which language
performance should be judged.

2 Group work activities are essential in
providing opportunities for co-operative
relationships to emerge and in promoting

genuine interaction among students.

3 Grammar should be taught only as a
means to an end and not as an end in itself.

4 Since the learner comes to the language
classroom with little or no knowledge of the
language, he/she is in no position to suggest
what the content of the lesson should be or
what activities are useful for him/her.

5 Training learners to take responsibility for
their own learning is futile since learners
are not used to such an approach.

6 For students to become effective
communicators in the foreign language,
the teachers' feedback must be focused
on the appropriateness and not the
linguistic form of the students' responses.

7 The teacher as 'authority' and 'instructor'
is no longer adequate to describe the
teacher's role in the language classroom.

8 The learner-centred approach to language
teaching encourages responsibility and
self-discipline and allows each student to
develop his/her full potential.

9 Group work allows students to explore
problems for themselves and thus have
some measure of control over their own
learning. It is therefore an invaluable means
of organizing classroom experiences

10 The teacher should correct all the
grammatical errors students make. If errors
are ignored, this will result in imperfect
learning.

11 It is impossible in a large class of students
to organize your teaching so as to suit the
needs of all.


12 Knowledge of the rules of a language does
not guarantee ability to use the language.

13 Group work activities take too long to
organize and waste a lot of valuable
teaching time.

14 Since errors are a normal part of learning,
much correction is wasteful of time.

15 The communicative approach to language
teaching produces fluent but inaccurate
learners.

16 The teacher as transmitter of knowledge is
only one of the many different roles he/she
must perform during the course of a lesson.

17 By mastering the rules of grammar,
students become fully capable of
communicating with a native speaker.

18 For most students language is acquired most
effectively when it is used as a vehicle for
doing something else and not when it is
studied in a direct or explicit way.

19 The role of the teacher in the language
classroom is to impart knowledge through
activities such as explanation, writing, and
example.

20 Tasks and activities should be negotiated
and adapted to suit the students' needs
rather than imposed on them.

21 Students do their best when taught as a
whole class by the teacher. Small group
work may occasionally be useful to vary the
routine, but it can never replace sound
formal instruction by a competent teacher.

22 Group work activities have little use since it
is very difficult for the teacher to monitor
the students' performance and prevent
them from using their mother tongue.

23 Direct instruction in the rules and terminology
of grammar is essential if students are to learn
to communicate effectively.

24 A textbook alone is not able to cater for all
the needs and interests of the students. The
teacher must supplement the textbook with
other materials and tasks so as to satisfy the
widely differing needs of the students


Elt j 1996-karavas-doukas-187-98

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Elt j 1996-karavas-doukas-187-98

Recently uploaded

Elt j 1996-karavas-doukas-187-98