The Asian EFL Journal: May 2021 Volume 25 Issue 3

The Asian EFL Journal
May 2021
Volume 25 Issue 3
Senior Editors:
Paul Robertson and John Adamson
Production Editor:
Bonifacio T. Cunanan
The Asian EFL Journal Professional | Volume 25 Issue 3 May 2021
Published by the English Language Education Publishing
www.asian-efl-journal.com
©Asian EFL Journal 2021
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of the Asian EFL Journal Press.
No unauthorized photocopying
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the Asian EFL Journal.
editor@asian-efl-journal.com
Chief Editor: Dr. John Adamson
Production Editor: Dr. Bonifacio T. Cunanan
ISSN 1738-1460
Table of Contents
Foreword …………………………………………………………………… 1
Featured Articles
1. Marcus Bridle ………………………………………………………….. 2

A Comparison of Step Patterns in a Model Essay and Learner Texts:
Identifying Deviation and Its Causes
2. Diana J. Lee and Tae-Young Kim …………………………………… 20

Adult Bilinguals’ Perceptions of Changes in Motivation and Attitude
toward Learning the English Language
3. Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace …………………………………... 39

Speaking Assessments in Multilingual English Language Teaching
Book Review
1. Cheikhna Amar ………………………………………………………... 66

Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning,
Teaching and Testing in Global Contexts
Foreword by Issue’s Production Editor
Welcome to the May 2021 edition of the Asian EFL Journal. This edition has
three notable articles and a book review which are of interest to educators and
researchers in English as a foreign language.
In the first article, Marcus Bridle examined the efficacy of using genre analysis
in comparing step patterns in a model essay and learners’ written outputs. He explored
the key rhetorical steps and their associated linguistic markers in teaching students how
to write academic texts. Using AntMover, a software for training students to recognise
specific discourse moves, the researcher has found the broad spectrum how and why
students deviate from steps patterns of models in writing.
In the second article, Diana J. Lee and Tae-Young Kim investigated the factors
that must have motivated or demotivated the informants from kindergarten to adulthood
in their journey of learning English as a foreign language. Using a qualitative method,
the researchers have found the variabilities in the learners’ motivation in learning
English across time, age brackets, and social dynamics. Their research findings indicate
that more bilingual interviewees with varied and different social backgrounds are
desirable to obtain more meaningful results in conducting a similar study.
In the last article, Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace used exploratory sequential
mixed method in analyzing the speaking assessment methods in a multilingual learning
environment. She reported that using task-based language activities had been found
effective among multilingual learners of English in the Philippines.
This edition of the Asian EFL ends with a review of Conversation Analytic
Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in Global Contexts edited
by Hanh thi Nguyen and Taiane Malabarba. The reviewer, Cheikhna Amar, discusses the three
parts of the book: learners’ development of interactional competence, teaching and testing
practices as dynamic process, and sociocultural and ideological foreign language teaching by
using an emic perspective of Conversation Analysis.
Bonifacio T. Cunanan, Ph.D.

College of Arts and Letters, Bulacan State University
Graduate School, Don Honorio Ventura State University
Republic of the Philippines
1
A Comparison of Step Patterns in a Model Essay and Learner Texts:

Identifying Deviation and Its Causes
Marcus Bridle
Waseda University, Japan
Bio-profile:
Dr. Bridle is an assistant professor at Waseda University, Japan, and teaches on the Global
Education Center's academic writing and discussion in English courses. His research interests
include learner texts, error feedback and corpus consultation. bridle.m@aoni.waseda.jp
Abstract
The use of genre analysis to determine the typical structures of texts used within specific
contexts is well established in EFL. Highlighting the key rhetorical steps and their associated
linguistic markers can be used as a way of teaching learners how to produce a text. In academic
English contexts, much has been written about this within discipline specific contexts but less
is understood about the effect of the widely used short essay models on general academic
English courses. This study compares the rhetorical patterns found in an essay model with
those found in sixteen learner texts. The observations suggest that there can be noticeable
deviation in patterning from even a simple model due to step coding issues, difficulties faced
by the students and student innovation in language use. Recognizing these deviations and their
causes may be of use to practitioners and learners.
Keywords: Text models, step patterns, AntMover, EGAP, learner writing, deviation
Waseda University
Totsuka 1-104, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 169-8050, Japan
Introduction
For L2 learners who are new to academic English, writing poses significant challenges.
In addition to adhering to common grammatical and lexical rules, writers have to learn to
express themselves within the context of particular genres and their attendant linguistic
conventions. ‘Genre’ has no singular definition (Bruce, 2006) but can be understood as the
way language is used within a specific context. Typically, different contexts of discourse
follow, to varying degrees of adherence, common conventions which are visible in structural
and linguistic features. A formal letter to a prospective employer, for example, has prescribed
features, such as the form of address and register of the language, which are distinct from an
informal e-mail to a colleague. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has a wide variety of
genres, the classification of which can depend upon factors such as specific disciplines, (e.g.,
sciences, humanities), text types and subtypes (e.g., reports and theses, abstracts, and
conclusions) and text purposes (e.g., description, persuasion). The difficulty for the learner is
in both understanding how and when to apply these frameworks and how to communicate the
individual message within these conventions.
English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses are typically taken by
learners new to academia and often before they begin their degree program. In terms of writing,
one of the purposes of such courses is to familiarise students with fundamental academic
writing conventions. The vehicle for the instruction of structural and linguistic elements is
often the 1-3-1 essay model, which involves variations on an introduction-body-conclusion
format. This can be readily adapted to different topics and purposes depending on the course
and class and has become virtually ubiquitous.
As a sub-genre, there are relatively few studies of student 1-3-1 essays and the effects
that writing models have on learner written production. As the format is so widely used, an
increased understanding of its learning effects would be of benefit to practitioners, materials
writers, and syllabus designers. In this study, learners wrote essays based on a 1-3-1 structure
model which had been provided in class. The resulting learner texts were examined for their
similarity to the structure of the model. Structural deviation from the model was found to exist
in terms of the rhetorical patterns employed and the reasons for these were examined. The
findings highlight the potential importance of recognising the limitations of rhetorical models
whilst also showing that observing deviation from models can be an aid to identifying student
learning needs.
Genre Analysis
Swales (2005) has described a now commonly used convention of genre analysis
involving the identification of the ‘move’ and the ‘step’. The ‘move’ constitutes the broader
rhetorical aim, such as ‘Establishing a niche’, and may be composed of a number of steps with
particular linguistic features which are employed to realize the move. The implication for
pedagogy is that through recognising and understanding the rhetorical conventions of different
3
text types, learners will be able to adopt the linguistic features in order to create their own texts
(Hyland, 2003).
Within English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP), there seems to be little
information regarding genre analysis and its place within the classroom. This is perhaps, as de
Chazal (2014) suggests, because of the nature of learner text types in EGAP; whilst many are
produced by learners over the course of English programs, these tend to be unpublished and
thus not as easily accessible. EGAP writing is also problematic, in terms of genre analysis, in
that it tends to adhere to the ‘wide-angle’ (Widdowson, 1983) nature of courses catering to
learners new to academic writing. That is, regardless of their actual or eventual degree
discipline, students are working to achieve linguistic capacity which will allow them to
negotiate a range of undefined future contexts. This is as opposed to aiming to achieve a high
degree of linguistic competence within a narrow, subject specific area. Whilst this may mean
that EGAP courses have a preconceived, prescriptive bent which does not cater to every
individual need of a variety of learners (Bruce, 2011; Fooks & Asraf, 2018; Swales, 2005), it
could be argued that the only way of effectively facilitating opportunities to develop linguistic
capacity is to present the language in its fundamental, broad frameworks. Evidence from
Archibald (2001) and Cho (2003) suggests that observable improvement over a course tends
to occur in the structure of texts, rather than the language itself. Basturkmen and Lewis (2002)
further note that teachers on EGAP programs emphasise the organisational aspects of writing
largely because they perceive improvement in learner grammar and lexis to be unlikely.
Although the written content of courses may vary, even a cursory examination of textbooks
designed for EGAP classrooms will reveal the prevalence of instruction based on a ‘general’
essay model and, more specifically, the dominance of the five paragraph, ‘one-three-one’
(introduction – three body paragraphs – conclusion) model.
The Use of Essay Models

The use of text models of this type has garnered some criticism. Abbhul (2011) and
Macbeth (2010) note that such models are often reductive and overly formulaic,
misrepresentative of academic writing and the writing process, and may even undermine long
term learner performance. In an observation on the effects of studying model argumentation
texts for the academic IELTS exam, for example, Shi and Liu (2016) noted the potentially
negative pedagogic impact on learners if they relied too heavily on imitating the models.
Similarly, Griffiths (2016) has suggested that some learners may try to memorize model texts,
or large chunks of model texts, as part of their writing strategy repertoire. In the case of her
4
study, this strategy negatively affected end of course performance. If it is the case that the use
of model essays has a negative long-term impact on student performance, then it could also be
argued that their use hampers learner potential to operate in subsequent stages of academia.
This potentially places the use of model texts at odds with the wider aims of practitioners who
see EGAP courses as preparation for later academia and central in fostering fundamental
academic skills (Jordan, 2002; Watson-Todd, 2003; Alexander et al, 2008; Gillet, 2011).
However, the prevalence of 1-3-1 essay models can be explained and their use justified
to some degree. Firstly, they have the potential to raise awareness of basic academic
conventions on a scale which is unlikely to overwhelm students new to the area. They also
allow learners to visualise a structure and mitigate some of the unease they might feel in
approaching academic writing (Abbhul, ibid.). Macbeth (ibid.) also posits that as learners
progress in their writing and exposure to academic English, they will discover the limitations
of the models and this will serve as a prompt for them to develop their own writing accordingly.
Griffiths, (ibid), also posits that, if learners are aware of the potential flaws in attempting to
memorise texts (and she suggests many of them are), then the negative effects of this strategy
are easily lessened.
For institutions, and practitioners who may have many students and who may not be
experts in a specific academic discipline, using a general essay model also has potential
advantages. For courses which are brief in length or which have a low number of contact hours,
lengthier process writing approaches are precluded and the use of an essay model is pragmatic.
It is a relatively short form which allows for feedback and assessment. It can be used to
illustrate common linguistic features, prescribed either by general convention or a specific
syllabus, and accommodate practice of these. It does not require specialist, subject-specific
knowledge on the part of the practitioner delivering a course. Additionally, it can serve to
highlight where students may be struggling in their adoption of particular features of academic
writing or, indeed, when students may be progressing beyond the boundaries of the model
through their own linguistic innovation in the form of unusual move structures (Tardy, 2015).
Despite the potential disadvantages of the form, the short essay model is likely to be a
feature of many EGAP writing courses due to the relative ease of its employment. Whilst the
studies mentioned above have suggested both negative and positive considerations of using the
form, there is a gap in the literature regarding the relationship between the structure and
language used in taught essay models and the subsequent production of structure and language
in student texts. Examination of this relationship may supply tangible evidence for the effects
of the use of essay models in EGAP courses.
5
Research Questions
This study was conducted within the context of a pre-defined syllabus which used essay
models as the tool to teach students new to EAP the basics of academic writing. As such, it
does not seek to justify or condemn the use of what may be regarded as generic 1-3-1 writing
models. Rather, it seeks to add to the understanding of the relationship between written models
and subsequent student written output on EGAP, wide-angle courses. In order to do so, it
examines the rhetorical steps present in the written model and compares them to the step
patterning present in student writing. This was conducted with the aid of the step-analysis
freeware AntMover (Anthony, 2016). The study addresses the following areas:
a) Are there identifiable areas of deviation between the model essay and learner texts?
b) What might account for any deviation between learner texts and the model essay?
c) What are the implications for the employment of model essays on EGAP courses?
Method
The study involved the analysis of a model text used in a writing class, as prescribed by
the syllabus, and sixteen student texts written subsequent to analysis of the model. The learners
were enrolled in an elective course of 15, 90-minute classes over a period of 8 weeks at a
Japanese university. Learners had no previous formalised study of academic English.
The course began with an initial period of instruction on basic sentence patterns and
paragraph development before students were provided with explicit instruction about essays.
This was split over two sessions. The first 90 minutes involved the presentation of meta-
linguistic aspects of cause/effect essays (basic 1-3-1 structure) and the steps present within the
model. These features were analysed in terms of step structure (e.g., ‘argument’ followed by
‘example’ and ‘explanation’) and the language present in those features. The second 90-minute
session involved a review of structure and attendant linguistic features followed by a discussion
on the topic of the homework task to aid in preparation of the essay, which was ‘The Causes
of Internet Addiction’. Students were then given one week to complete their essay. All
students involved in the study read and completed a permission form granting the use of their
anonymised writing for research purposes.
Step Analysis
Identifying a particular unit of language as one step and not another is complicated and,
it may be argued, too reductive for reliable analysis (Upton and Cohen, 2009). In this case,
before the study began, samples of each step were collected and then coded by two raters (one
6
being the researcher). There are problems with this approach. Although no statistically
significant differences between rater codings were found, one inherent issue with the coding
of steps encountered by the raters is that mentioned by Sawaki (2016: 205), in that a ‘sentence
tends to realise two or more rhetorical purposes. For example, ‘More likely to’ is comparative
language and could be labelled as a signifier of a ‘comparison’ step. However, it could also
justifiably be labelled as ‘argument’ in the sense that it is making a claim. This issue will be
discussed later in more detail as it directly relates to the observation of results and the
subsequent discussion of the student texts, but it is important to note here that it constitutes a
significant limitation. The step codings were used to do the following: label the essay model,
label student output and train AntMover (Anthony, 2016), the software used to analyse the
texts. The basic framework and move categories presented to the students and identified in the
model were as follows:
Introduction
• Background
• Thesis statement
• Outline
Body Paragraphs (n.3)

• Topic sentences
• Supporting sentences
Conclusion
• Summary
Within this framework, the essay was divided into a series of rhetorical steps based on de
Chazal’s (2014) suggestions. These were selected on the basis of key signposting elements
and constructions used within the sentences, and included:
• Argument
e.g., more likely to / it is not surprising that / facts point to / may be / It could be argued that /
arguably
• Cause / Effect
e.g., Because / account for / therefore / may result from / as a result

• Comparison/contrast
7
e.g., On the one hand / on the other (hand) / the reverse / adj+er
• Explanation
e.g., These / They (anaphoric reference) / In short

• Addition
e.g., In addition, / Furthermore / Another / Also

• Summary
e.g., To sum up / In conclusion

• Examples
e.g., According to / researchers say / in fact / researchers have found / in one study / x percent
of / in the study / was found in / the rate was / For example
Using AntMover for Text Analysis

AntMover (Anthony, op. cit.) is freeware which can be downloaded and used for the
analysis of text structure. In simple terms, the program analyses a text by breaking it up into
sentences and categorising each as one of a series of user-defined steps. Figure 1 shows a text
divided into its separate components without labelling, the ‘processed’ view. These are simply
the individual sentences constituting the text.
Figure 1. AntMover ‘Processed’ View

Figure 2 shows the same text in the ‘moves’ viewing mode. Each sentence is now
labelled with a step classification. When clicked, the ‘2nd Opinion’ button visible next to the
coding provides a drop-down list allowing the user to re-label the step if they judge it to have
been incorrectly identified. In figure 3, the ‘outline’ view is shown. This mode removes the
8
original text and shows only the steps in sequence, foregrounding the text structure. It is this
view which is most useful in the provision of an initial overview of text structure and this data
which formed the first stage of the subsequent analysis.
Figure 2. AntMover ‘Moves’ View
Figure 3. AntMover ‘Outline’ View

Training and Employing AntMover
Users wishing to make use of AntMover for the analysis of their own projects need to
train the program to recognise specific moves. The procedure used for this study was as
follows:
9
Firstly, the text-type target was established as being a basic 1-3-1 essay consisting of an
introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion. The specific genre of essay being analysed was
a cause and effect structure. Next, the categories of moves constituting the text (as noted above)
were defined.
A corpus of these moves was created. This entailed finding examples of each type of move
from various EFL materials and grouping them together in separate folders; a folder which
contained different examples of sentences making an ‘addition’, another folder with sentences
involving the presentation of a ‘cause’ and so on. This corpus was uploaded to AntMover. This
meant that AntMover was ‘trained’ to examine a text and categorise each sentence according
to the moves which had been uploaded. It should be noted here that the larger the corpus, the
greater the number of examples used to train AntMover, resulting in an increased likelihood of
AntMover making an accurate analysis of a text.
Once AntMover had been trained, the analysis of texts could begin. Firstly, the model
which had been supplied to the students in class was uploaded and processed by AntMover.
Secondly, each individual student essay was uploaded and processed by AntMover. At this
point, some relabelling using the ‘2nd opinion’ button was required in cases where a step was
judged to have been coded incorrectly.
The initial exploration of the texts began by examining each in terms of the step pattern
alone by collating the results of the ‘outline’ views provided by AntMover (Table 1 below). I
then condensed these into a simplified grouping of steps limited to ‘argument’, ‘support’ and
‘summary’. This allowed for a visualisation in the form of a bar chart to be created,
highlighting the distinct differences in composition between the model and student texts
(Figure 4). These foregrounded areas of difference were then analysed in more detail by
returning to the original texts in order to explain and account for student divergence from the
model text structure.
Results
The basic step patterning of each text, as provided by the ‘outline’ in AntMover,
presents an overview of the differences between the text model and the essays produced by the
learners. Table 1 shows a comparison between the step structure of the model essay and an
aggregate of the student essays. The most striking difference is in the proportion of steps
identified as ‘argument’. In the model, these account for less than a quarter of all steps.
‘Argument’ steps created by the students, however, accounted for nearly two-thirds of all steps
and, as a result, there are far fewer instances of supporting steps. In particular, steps which
could be identified as concrete examples serving to support argument steps were much lower
10
in learner texts (less than 10%) than in the model (25%). Although the sample size is too
limited to claim any statistical significance, the balance between claims being made and
supporting steps produced by the learners appears to be markedly different to the model.
Table 1.
Step Composition: Comparison of Model Essay and Student Essays
Argument Example Effect Clarification Contrast Addition Summary
Model 23.08% 25% 17.31% 13.46% 9.62% 9.62% 1.91%

Student 62.35% 7.91% 11.08% 12.34% 0.63% 0% 5.06%
Model (n) 12 13 9 7 5 5 1
Student (Mean) 66 11 14 16 1 0 7
The step pattern of individual learner texts also shows a wide variety in compositional
structure. In the interests of clarity and given that the bulk of the student text moves consist
of ‘argument’ steps, figure 4 graphic illustrates a simplified step pattern, consisting of
‘argument’ steps, ‘summary steps’ and the remaining five step types (example, effect,
clarification, contrast, addition) grouped together as ‘supporting’ steps. This allows for a
visualisation of the basic text pattering to be created which highlights the differences between
the structure of the model text and each individual learner’s text. The vertical display is a
simplified version of the AntMover output, with the text beginning at the top of the column
and proceeding downwards (i.e., the introduction is at the top of the bar and the conclusion at
the bottom).
MODEL
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16
Argument Support Summary
11
Figure 4. Step Composition: Model (Extreme Left Column) and Student Essays
The model text’s step composition is shown on the extreme left. Learner texts are to
the right, labelled Student 1 to 16 (S1 to 16). The model essay shows an arrangement of steps
which follow a regular pattern of ‘argument’ steps (never more than three consecutive steps)
followed by ‘supporting steps’, which form the bulk of the essay, and a ‘summary’ step at the
end. Some student texts (S4, S5, S7, S10, S13) display very similar composition, albeit with a
greater proportion of ‘argument’ to ‘support’ steps. Other learner texts show a marked
difference both in the arrangement of steps (S1, S2, S6) and in the ratio between ‘argument’
steps and ‘supporting’ steps (S3, S8, S9, S11, S12, S14, S15, S16). In some cases, (S8, S12,
S15 and S16), consecutive ‘claim’ steps constituted almost the entire text. This visualisation
clearly suggests both variance between learner texts and, in most cases, deviation from the
general step pattern provided by the model and divergence from the ratio between ‘argument’
and ‘support’ steps.
Discussion
The results described above show an obvious difference between the model and the
learner texts in terms of the step analysis output generated by AntMover. The ratio between
‘argument’ steps and ‘support’ steps in the learner texts seems almost to be an inversion of the
structure present in the model. It would be premature, however, to conclude that the model
had had no effect on student writing, or that the students had been unable to achieve the basic
structure outlined by the model. The nature of the coding employed, and the relatively small
scale of the study mean that it cannot escape being reductive. It is therefore important to treat
the output of AntMover as the first step in analysis rather than the analysis itself and conceive
of the program as a tool to foreground further areas for analysis. In this case, it is clear that the
discrepancy in the ratio between the ‘argument’ and the ‘supporting’ steps in the learners’ texts
as opposed to that in the model needs a closer, qualitative inspection.
The following discussion outlines the probable reasons for deviation from the model.
This may be accounted for in the following three ways:
a) Steps have been incorrectly coded.
b) A learner has been unable to adequately follow the model.
c) A learner has chosen to diverge from the model.
12
Qualitative analysis of the student texts and the coding suggests that all the three
elements are present in the program output and the texts, and each reason has implications both
for research and the use of text models by practitioners and learners.
a) Incorrect Coding
One of the reasons incorrect coding might be applied to a step by AntMover is that the
corpus of step types used to train the program was too small, resulting in lower reliability, and
that particular steps were not recognised as belonging to a particular category due to the
language used. This was the case in some instances. The following provides an example:
• ‘Needless to say, making friends with internet citizens is not bad in itself.’
This was originally categorised as support type step ‘example’. It displays, however,
none of the features of an example and, in fact, is akin to a statement of opinion. This inaccurate
coding is a problem, but it is resolvable to some extent. When viewing the ‘Moves’ view pane
(Figure 2), there is the option to manually recode the step appropriately, as already mentioned.
This was in fact done for each text before the final output shown in table 1 and figure 4 was
derived.
A more fundamental issue is the decontextualization of the language which is required
in order to code steps. As already noted in the methodology section, accurate and reliable
coding is at best problematic and at worst fallible at the outset due to the syntactic ambiguity
of sentences and the fact that they can, and often do, have more than one rhetorical purpose.
An important element of cohesion, and therefore the accurate coding of a sentence, is its context.
When a sentence is decontextualized, steps can be incorrectly coded. This issue is perhaps more
acute with essays which serve a wide-angle syllabus because the type and formation of steps
are more numerous than in genres which are limited by more specific aims. This constitutes a
significant limitation in the reliability of the results of this study and also highlights an area for
careful consideration in future research.
b) Inadequate Learner Step Formation

Closer analysis of the step patterns in some texts seems to foreground inadequacy in the
formation of steps, resulting in clusters of statements which lack the cohesive elements required
to configure them as support. Consider the following excerpt from a text in which each step
was labelled as an ‘argument’:
13
• Step 1
Most internet uses utilising social media like Facebook and Instagram. Step 2Social
media could fulfil a desire for recognition from others because they have functions of
Likes. Step 3Famous figures have their accounts and get a lot of Likes.
In this case, it could be argued that the learner was attempting a pattern of ‘Argument’
– ‘Explanation’ – ‘Example’ but has not used the necessary cohesive elements necessary to
make this explicit. A revision might be:
• Step 1
Most internet uses utilising social media like Facebook and Instagram. Step 2 This
is because social media could fulfil a desire for recognition from others because they
have functions of Likes. Step 3 For example, famous figures have their accounts and
get a lot of Likes.
One of the potentially useful applications of a step analysis, even on a small scale is the
detection of deviant step patterns Deviant step patterns can signal to a practitioner that a student
may have an issue with cohesion. If closer inspection finds this to be the case, then the
practitioner has the opportunity to make an appropriate intervention at a class or an individual
level.
c) Deliberate divergence
Deviation from the step patterns in the model may be the result of deliberate divergence.
That is, rather than highlighting an inability to write cohesively, steps which do not fit the
pattern of the model may instead indicate innovation on the part of the student.
The following passage is an example:

• Step 1
The second psychological cause is a need for instant gratification. Step 2The internet
can offer people various interesting things, such as games, videos, and music. Step 3It is
obvious that people can have fun through playing games, and they are able to get the
sense of achievement if they win games.
Each step was coded by AntMover as ‘argument’. In context, however, it could be

argued that the third step is in fact a ‘clarification’ of the first two claims. Contextual cohesion
has been achieved through an explanation of why games have been mentioned in step 2 and
how this links back to step 1 with the use of the lexical cohesion of ‘gratification’ and ‘sense
of achievement’. In this case, the mislabelling of steps does not seem to indicate an inability
14
to write cohesively but rather shows that cohesion was attained through a reliance on context
and not the explicit markers which were taught in class and used in the model.
Deviation of this sort could be an indication of independence and possible innovation
on the part of the learner, and this also has potential ramifications for the classroom. A student
identified as deliberately diverging from the language provided by the model may be, for
example, operating at a level in advance of the class as a whole and may need to be encouraged
or challenged more by the practitioner.
Implications
Despite the aforementioned criticism regarding the reductive nature and long-term
effects of short model essays, providing a general essay model does seem to be a widely
accepted, expedient way of acclimatising students to EGAP writing and is likely to continue
(Abbuhl, op.cit.; Hyland, op. cit; Macbeth, op.cit.). Therefore, identification of divergence in
student texts has a number of potentially useful outcomes for practitioners and learners.
For practitioners, the process of coding the steps and the resulting output can be
beneficial for those wishing to teach with a model. Native speakers and experienced teachers
may, understandably, regard the 1-3-1 essay as a rather simplistic means towards approaching
lengthier, more advanced types of text. However, the analysis of steps in these short essays
can highlight the difficulties novice learners may have when using structures unfamiliar to
them.
Secondly, identification of how and why students are deviating from a model could
help to inform the content of teacher’s feedback and further lessons. It could reveal, for
example, students or classes struggling with particular aspects of cohesion and point to areas
for remedial work in the future. Deviation from the model text could also be a sign of learner
linguistic innovation of the type outlined by Tardy (op.cit.) and may indicate students are ready
for a more advanced focus than the syllabus or scheme of work prescribed.
In the two cases above, the use of the simple 1-3-1 essay model does not seem to be in
conflict either with the goals of ‘wide angle’ courses (Widdowson, 1983), which aim to equip
students with a breadth of language abilities, or the holistic aims of EAP in general (Jordan,
2002; Watson-Todd, 2003; Alexander et al, 2008; Gillet, 2011). However, further studies
would need to be conducted to find out if there are other benefits to be gained by practitioners
and learners.
This study has practical implications for learners and practitioners. As AntMover is
freeware, students can access the program themselves. With some teacher support (brief
15
training and provision of a step corpus and a model), students could analyse their own texts
independently of the classroom. It would also be a fairly simple matter for teachers to use the
program, or at least its output, in class. Tasks might include simple visual step comparisons of
different text types in order to familiarise learners with basic structures. The AntMover output
could also be used as a form of corrective feedback. For example, in cases where students
seemed to miss a step due to the lack of cohesive devices, the students could be asked to rewrite
the paragraph in order to make it more cohesive and clearly indicate a step.
Awareness raising activities could include students coding steps themselves and
comparing them to those codes applied by the teacher and/or AntMover. Discussion could
then follow as to which language features signified particular steps. A natural progression from
this would be a productive task involving the re-coding of mislabelled steps by the students u
sing th e ‘2nd Opinion’ function of the AntMover program. Another analytical task to use in
the classroom would be for students to compare the step patterns of multiple text models. These
could all be models of the same text type (e.g., a selection of cause and effect essays), which
might help to show the extent to which language and structure can vary within a particular text
type. Alternatively, differing essay styles could be compared to show how step patterns vary
across genres. In both cases, the approach to analysis which was used here (i.e. an initial
visualisation of step patterns followed by textual examination) could be adapted to class use.
Syllabus designers could also benefit from an awareness of the linguistic variation
within differing text models themselves and the likelihood of divergence from the model in
learner texts. If there is variation between different models of texts within the same genre, then
due care needs to be taken in deciding how writing models are presented to students and if
some models need to be used at all. At the very least, the limitations of modelling need to be
acknowledged. Should a text model and product approach to writing be adopted, then careful
thought also needs to be given to the extent to which any student deviation from the model will
be considered acceptable or not. This is particularly true if the production of a prescribed
structure forms any part of assessment or testing.
Conclusion
This observational study examined the difference between a model text and learner
produced texts in an EGAP course. It showed that there can be an explicit step pattern deviation
of a learner’s text from the step pattern of the model and that this can occur for several reasons.
Firstly, it can result from the difficulties of coding the steps and the decontextualization of the
language involved in the process of using AntMover. Secondly, step deviation might be the
16
result of the difficulties faced by learners in using the language. Thirdly, divergence could be
caused by a student’s ability to develop cohesion without relying on certain structures imposed
by the model. Being able to identify step pattern deviation of a learner’s text when compared
to the step pattern of a written model, and subsequently being able to recognise the reason for
that deviation would help teachers, course designers and learners in managing an EGAP course.
This study was limited by its small scope, small sample size and the inherent difficulties
of coding a step. The nature of AntMover program limits the language which can be
successfully analysed; teaching the software to successfully recognise steps which are signified
by typical items, such as the signposting words listed in the ‘Step Analysis’ above, is only
addressing one particular aspect of cohesion. Other aspects of cohesion are neglected. Whether
or not it would be viable to teach the program to recognise lexical and contextual cohesion,
given the number of variables that could be involved and the time that it could take, is also an
issue.
This study suggests that further investigation into the relatively little understood area
of EGAP essays may yield a better understanding of the relationship between text models,
learner output and the use of models within the EGAP classroom. Subsequent studies would
benefit from a larger sample size and further investigation into the reasons why students might
deviate from the step patterns of models through the use of questionnaires and interviews in
addition to text derived data analysis.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by Waseda University funding grant 2017S-182.
References
Abbuhl, R. (2011). Using models in writing instruction: A comparison with native and non-
native speakers of English. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244011426295
Alexander, O. Argent, S. & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A Teacher’s Guide to
Principles and Practice. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Anthony, L. (2016). AntMover (Version 1.1.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda
University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 6th
February 2019).
17
Archibald, A. (2001). Targeting L2 Writing Proficiencies: Instruction and Areas of Change
in Students’ Writing Over Time. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), 153
– 174.
Basturkmen, H. & Lewis, M. (2002). Learner Perspectives of success in an EAP Writing
Course. Assessing Writing 8 (1), 31-46.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. London:
Continuum.
Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and Concepts of English for Academic Purposes. Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method? Assessing Writing, 8
(3), 165–191.
De Chazal, E. (2014). English for Academic Purposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fooks, I. & Asraf, R.M. (2018). Using analysis of student writing to improve lesson
planning. Asian EFL Journal, 20 (12), 44-65.
Gillett, A. J. (2011) What is EAP?[online]. Retrieved from http://www.uefap.com/bgnd/
Griffiths, C. (2016). Strategies for Developing English Language Writing Skills – Overall
and Individual Perspectives. Asian EFL Journal, 18 (3), 85-103.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Jordan, R.R. (2002) ‘The Growth of EAP in Britain’, Journal of English for Academic
Purposes 1: 69-78.
Macbeth, K.P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in
learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 33-48.
Sawaki, T. (2016). Analysing Structure in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Shi, Y. and Liu, X. (2016). Recontextualising writing proficiency: an investigation of
model argumentation texts for IELTS preparation. TESOL International Journal,
11(2), 57 – 69.
Swales, J.A. (2005). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. 2nd. Ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C.M. (2015). Beyond Convention: Genre Innovation in Academic Writing. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Upton, T.A., and Cohen, M.A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis:
The move analysis as example. Discourse studies, 11(5), 585-605
18
Watson Todd, R. (2003) EAP or TEAP? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 147-
156.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
19
Adult Bilinguals’ Perceptions of Changes in Motivation and Attitude

Toward Learning the English Language
Diana J. Lee and Tae-Young Kim

Chung-Ang University
Bio-profiles:
Diana J. Lee is a Ph.D. candidate at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. Her research
interests are based on her teaching experiences in private educational institutes. Her current
research interests are L2 learning motivation, demotivation, L2 learning and acquisition, and
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbot. djlee0711@gmail.com
Kim, Tae-Young (corresponding author, Ph.D. OISE/Univ. of Toronto) is Professor in the

Department of English Education at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. His areas of
interest include L2 learning motivation, demotivation, Vygotskian sociocultural theory/activity
theory, learner identity, and qualitative research methodology. tykim@cau.ac.kr
Abstract
This study investigated which factors caused bilingual speakers to be motivated or demotivated
language learners through an analysis of their life stories from kindergarten to adulthood. Four
adults who received both a Korean and an American education were recruited for the interview.
Prior to the semi-structured interviews, they were asked to recall their memories of learning
English. The interview results indicated that they had a positive attitude toward the target
language and enjoyed learning English when exposed to the language for the first time in either
kindergarten or elementary school. During elementary school, students experienced
predominantly positive influences. They tended to possess favorable attitudes toward the target
community, had a positive attitude toward English as a language, were sufficiently motivated
to learn English and were confident in their language ability. Compliments from parents and
teachers and experiencing second language contexts, such as visiting English-speaking
countries like the U.S. and Canada, influenced the young
Department of English Education, College of

Education
Chung-Ang University
84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 06974,
South Korea
language learners to have a good impression of English and to be further motivated to learn
English. Language learners were most demotivated to learn English during middle school,
mainly due to the change of study methods and to adolescence. Each student had different
motivating and demotivating factors, along with the moment of improving English skills.
Keywords: Adult bilingual, perceptions of motivational changes, motivating factors,

demotivating factors, language learners’ attitudes
Introduction
This study examined the most influential motivating and demotivating factors that
affected Korean-English bilingual speakers when they learned English. Based upon the results,
the study aimed to provide helpful guidelines for parents and young English learners who plan
to study abroad or study at international schools in South Korea (henceforth Korea).
Rather than using Likert-type questionnaire items—the method customarily used in
previous second language (L2) motivation research (e.g., Dörnyei et al., 2006; You & Dörnyei,
2014)—we adopted a series of qualitative interviews to be conducted with four bilingual
participants. This method carefully examined the linguistically intricate developmental paths
of bilingual speakers by focusing on specific aspects of their motivation and developing an in-
depth report on motivating and demotivating factors.
The research questions of this study are as follows:
1. How frequently did the bilinguals’ English-learning motivation level change throu
ghout their lives?
2. What similar and different characteristics exist in the English-Korean bilingual spea
kers’ language-learning trajectories?
Literature Review
The Linguistic Characteristics of Bilingual Speakers
As the participants of this study are bilingual speakers of English and Korean, it is
crucial to understand the linguistic characteristics of bilinguals. Lee (2014) presented a
conceptual framework to understand bilingualism and bilingual speakers. First, she introduced
voluntary and involuntary bilingualism. The difference is that voluntary bilingual speakers
consciously learn L2 to live an affluent life, whereas involuntary bilingual speakers learn the
language without awareness. Second, bilingual English language learners can be designated
based upon their level of fluency in two languages. If a bilingual has an excellent command of
21
two languages, then they are a balanced bilingual; however, if an individual is fluent in only
one language, then they are an unbalanced bilingual. There is a wide range of definitions
regarding how fluent bilinguals should be in L2.
Marini, et al. (2019) and Zoirovna (2020) argued that the age of first exposure to L2,
acquisition contexts, and social and personal factors of bilingual acquisition are considered
crucial for language learners. Marini et al. (2019) conducted a pilot study to observe the
linguistic characteristics of bilingual children (Italian, L1; German, L2) with developmental
language disorders and with typical language development. They suggested that reduced
phonological short-term memory and lexical selection skills result in failure to be successful
bilingual children who are exposed to two languages. Zoirovna (2020) highlighted that
language input plays a crucial role in maintaining bilingualism. A bilingual may gradually
forget a language if there is a forced interruption of input to the language. Place and Hoff (2016)
emphasized that the quality of input plays a role in young bilingual speakers’ language
outcomes.
Code-switching is also commonly observed among bilingual speakers, during which
the two languages do not play the same role in sentence making (Wei, 2020). Code-switching
is the grammatical integration of one language into another. When bilinguals are code-
switching, they express the intended meaning precisely and circumvent lexical gaps (Green &
Wei, 2014). Interestingly, some researchers (e.g., Tse & Altarriba, 2015) found that bilinguals
who have balanced language proficiencies outperformed those who have less balanced
language skills of two languages.
Recent Advances in L2 Motivation and Demotivation Theories

The population of non-native English speakers is consistently increasing because
English serves as a lingua franca (Crystal, 2012; Ditual, 2012). Language learners with
sufficient learning motivation can proactively and continuously perform learning. Based on
this perception, researchers in L2 motivation strive to identify the factors that motivate
language learners to be interested in a target language because motivation operates as a critical
determinant of language learning and achievement of the target language (Dörnyei, 2009). L2
motivation research was initiated by Gardner (2010) who viewed motivation from a socio-
educational approach, introduced two main concepts—instrumentality and integrativeness—
and emphasized the centrality of integrativeness in L2 learning. However, Dörnyei (2005,
2009) claimed that there were limitations in applying Gardner’s concept to many EFL
environments because in the era of world Englishes or English as a lingua franca, a specific
22
English community in which individual ESL/EFL speakers can be immersed cannot be
pinpointed. In this regard, Dörnyei (2005, 2009) proposed the L2 motivational self-system
(L2MSS), where L2 learners’ ideal or ought-to L2 selves are the focus.
The opposite of motivation, demotivation refers to the loss of motivation or interest in
learning due to some external influence (Dörnyei, 2001). It is useful for educators to have
familiarity with the demotivational factor or causes that language learners encounter. For this
reason, research on demotivation has been actively undertaken. Kikuchi (2009) reported that
the most significant causes of demotivation are class materials and learning contents. Other
factors are the teacher’s ability and teaching style, inadequate school facilities, lack of students’
integrative motivation, and pressure to achieve higher grades. Internal factors of L2
demotivation were cited as learners’ self-confidence, loss of goals, lack of will to study, and
disappointment in learning (Dörnyei, 2001; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009).
According to Boo et al. (2015), quantitative research still prevails in the research
methodology utilized in L2 learning (de)motivation. Nevertheless, its popularity has been
gradually eclipsed by a surge of studies utilizing different qualitative research orientations.
Orientations such as qualitative and innovative research methods have been endorsed in L2
motivation research. Face-to-face interviews can be a useful tool to capture subtle non-
linguistic cues such as intonation, facial expression, and physical gestures. It sets a comfortable
atmosphere, thereby enabling the interviewer to easily elicit information from the interviewee
(Irvine et al., 2013) and enabling the interviewee to elaborate upon their thoughts in-depth,
helping to generate rich data (Ryan et al., 2009). It is time-consuming and labor-intensive, yet
it should be worth the effort for information gains and revelatory insight (Newcomer et al.,
2015).
Method
Participants
Participants in this study included four Korean adults aged from the late 20s to early
30s who had received both Korean and American educations. 1 Pseudonyms were used to
protect each interviewee’s privacy. Detailed personal information of the four participants is
described as follows:
1
We did not adopt any control group since this study used a naturalistic inquiry method.
23
In his early 30s, the first participant is Alex. He started learning English by
communicating with his cousins in the U.S. when he was a toddler. He attended a Korean
school until his second year in middle school, after which his parents sent him to school in the
U.S. However, he had difficulty adjusting to the American school and returned to Korea after
three months, at which time he was enrolled in an international school with a one-year
probation. After graduating from high school at the international school, he attended a
university in the U.S. He was employed at a bank for three years in the U.S., but currently
works in Korea.
The second participant, Leah, is in her early 30s and started learning English when
she was in preschool. As a child, she visited relatives who live in Canada and the U.S. She
often traveled overseas when she was an elementary student. She was educated in Korea until
middle school and transferred to an international school as a 9th grader. After graduating from
high school, she enrolled in college in the U.S. She is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in
environmental engineering in Korea.
The third participant is Jack who is in his late 20s. He did not take any English courses
until his 3rd grade of elementary school. He enjoyed feeling smarter than his classmates, and
he was good at English among his friends. Nevertheless, he faced difficulty during a one-day
visit to a Canadian elementary school when he was in sixth grade. He entered Korean public
middle school but transferred to the alternative school which features American education. He
attended for two years after which he went to an American high school and graduated from a
university in the U.S. Currently, he works in the Information Technology (IT) field in Korea.
The fourth participant is Sophia who in her late 20s. Her interest in English was
inspired by her aunt, who was studying in the U.S. when Sophia was a preschooler. Her aunt
read many English books to her and she had private English language lessons. She maintained
her interest by traveling abroad with her family and by attending YMCA camps in the U.S.
when she was an elementary student. She attended a Korean middle school until 2nd grade and
began 8th grade at an American school. She graduated from high school in the U.S. and was
admitted to American universities but attended a Korean University. Currently, she is
employed in Korea.
Data Collection and Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to investigate bilinguals’ English learning
motivation because they offer a moderate degree of freedom (Ushioda, 2001). Prior to the
interviews, interviewees were asked to think about their experiences of exposure to English
24
from preschool to the present, in addition to positive/negative factors that
motivated/demotivated them, to make the interview easier. Interviews took approximately 40–
50 minutes and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. After collecting background
information, the interviewees talked about their changes in motivation over the years.
Motivation and demotivation factors were organized by standard school periods in
kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12), college, and adulthood. Then, components classified by each
period were compared using the classification criteria from Shoaib and Dörnyei (2005). The
elements not stated by the interviewees were excluded and some novel concepts depicted by
them were added in the category and revised accordingly. The final version of the research
analysis criteria for this study is presented in Table 1. Using the completed motivation criteria,
the frequency was measured based on factors recorded in participants’ interviews regarding
changes in motivation for each time period.
Table 1.
List of (De)Motivation Factors Identified in the Study
Dimension Motivation Factors Demotivation Factors

Positive attitudes towards the target Negative attitudes towards
language language learning
Positivity towards language learning Turbulent puberty (i.e., not in
the mood to study due to
Affective/Integrative puberty and preferring to
Dimension hang out with friends)
Favorable attitudes towards the target
community (i.e., sharing positive
experiences with people in a host
environment)
In the mood to study English
Current Job
Desired job
Colleagues (i.e., getting along with
Instrumental colleagues and wishing not to be
Dimension humiliated by them)
Further study
English as a lingua franca
English is part of the image of a
modern person
Confidence Acceptance of one’s limits
(i.e., giving up on improving
English skills after
acknowledging language
barrier)
Satisfaction
25
Self-Concept-Related Acceptance of one’s limits
Dimension (i.e., low English proficiency in 4
language skills)
Self-determination (i.e., deciding to
learn English to enhance one’s
English skill)
Mastery orientation
- Learning to know
Goal-Oriented Performance orientation
Dimension - Demonstrating one’s ability
- Achieving good grades
- Outdoing other students
Goal specificity
Teacher (i.e., to be praised by a Teacher (i.e., teacher’s harsh
teacher) criticism toward students’
work and language ability)
Fellow students (i.e., receiving Methodology (i.e., radical
attention from fellow changes in teaching methods
Educational-Context- students/classmates by demonstrating for learning English such as
Related Dimension one’s English ability) grammar-focused curriculum
requiring cramming and
memorization)
Methodology (i.e., creative, and
amusing methods of learning
English)
Compulsory subject
Parents (i.e., parents’ support causes
students to not want to disappoint
them)
Significant-Other- Family (i.e., family’s support and
Related Dimension having role models among family
members stimulate language
learners)
Friends’ encouragement
Having a foreign lover
L2 contact (i.e., communicating with Inability to integrate (i.e.,
people who speak English [L2] most unable to adjust to host
of the time) environment and foreign
Host-Environment- hosts)
Related Dimension Inability to integrate (i.e., difficulty
expressing one’s thoughts
sufficiently with existing English
skills)
Length of stay (i.e., living in an
English-speaking country)
As indicated in Table 1, motivation and demotivation factors are classified by seven

dimensions. Whenever each classification item was perceived as positive to students, it was
attributed as a motivation factor. If it was perceived as negative to students, it was considered
as a demotivation factor. The first dimension—Affective and Integrative—relates to language
learners’ attitude toward English (L2), learning English, and an English-speaking society as
26
they are mastering English. The second dimension—Instrumental—relates to studying English
in preparation for learners’ successful careers and futures. The third dimension—Self-Concept-
Related—relates to deciding to learn English, experiencing satisfaction and limitations of their
English ability, and being confident in their language proficiency. The fourth dimension—
Goal-Oriented—involves learning English to master it and to improve performance, such as
demonstrating one’s English ability to others, receiving good grades, and being an outstanding
student. The fifth dimension—Educational-Context Related—consists of language teachers,
classmates, class curriculum, methods of learning English, and English as a mandatory class.
The sixth dimension—Significant-Other-Related— relates to the influence of family, friends,
and partners on language learners. Lastly, the Host-Environment-Related dimension
encompasses holding a conversation in English with people in English speaking countries,
length of stay in the target language country, and difficulty integrating within the local
community and befriending people from the same country.
Results
From Pre-school to Kindergarten
Alex, Leah, and Sophia were exposed to English since they were young because they
had cousins who lived and attended schools in the U.S. Sophia had an aunt who was attending
graduate school in the U.S., providing her niece the opportunity to naturally expose to English.
With her aunt’s efforts, she developed a positive attitude toward English and language learning.
Alex and Leah have Korean-American and Korean-Canadian relatives living in the
U.S. and Canada; thus, they had opportunities to visit their relatives and to be exposed to
English involuntarily while visiting North America. All factors in the Affective and Integrative
dimensions applied to these two participants. When Alex visited his cousins, most youth
usually communicated in English, so he decided to learn English to understand and fit in with
them.
Even though I stayed there shortly and had low English ability, I loved
America and its culture. (Alex)
Leah had positive memories of her time in Canada and became confident. She also
recalled her memory of watching Disney movies in her house.
I think there were two significant factors that made me motivated and to become
interested in English. The first event is while I visited my grandmother’s sister in
Canada. My grandparents praised my English even though I spoke broken English.
Their compliments and contact with natives made me to use English. The other factor
27
is Disney movies. I watched them a lot. I felt like I understood all, but I probably did
not. (Leah)
As indicated in Table 2, all three participants had positive influences, which ultimately
helped them to maintain their interest in English.
During Elementary School

The interview data revealed that all participants had positive attitudes toward learning
English and toward the target language community, which encouraged them to want to learn
and to maintain their interest in English. Alex, Leah, and Sophia had similar reasons as they
had before elementary school. Jack was exposed to English when it became mandatory for
elementary students. He was in third grade when he first learned English from the alphabet. He
went to Gongbubang, which is like private tutoring with a few students.
I learned English from school first. I studied with some kids. English was
very fun and not hard for me. I studied harder because I liked situations when the
teacher praised me, and my friends were jealous of me. (Jack)
For Jack, English became a fun subject in which he could show off his English ability
to his friends and a tool to enable him to be an outstanding student among his classmates.
Unfortunately, he experienced frustration with difficulties in English and realized his low
English proficiency.
I had an opportunity to take classes at a Canadian school when I was in 6th
grade. Before I went there, I thought I was very talented in English, but I couldn’t
understand what the teacher and classmates said to me. It was terrifying and I lost my
interest, but at the same time, I wanted to get over it, so I continued studying English
after I came back from Canada. (Jack)
Furthermore, learners’ parents and teachers influence learners the most when they are
elementary students (see Table 2). Parents expose their kids to English as much as possible
even though they were in an EFL environment. It was not an exception to these participants.
Alex, Leah, and Sophia had various English lessons with native speakers.
Sophia had a chance to attend a YMCA camp in the U.S. for three months when she
was in the 4th grade. While she was living there, she spoke English a lot and experienced
American culture, which was very attractive to her.
I heard English and spoke English from morning to night. I didn’t speak
Korean at all. At the end of camp, I could feel that my English got much better. After
I came back to Korea, I just listened to American pop songs and watched American
TV programs. (Leah)
28
Leah and Sophia saw their parents speaking English with foreigners during trips, and
they also communicated with people in English, so they realized that English was a useful
language. They had confidence in their English proficiency, especially in speaking.
During Middle School
There are drastic changes during middle school. Female participants reported that
learning English as a class subject was boring, and they disliked the Korean school’s style of
teaching, however they liked English as a language because they knew they were good at it.
Sophia said,
Students had to memorize English passages from the textbook in order to
receive a good grade. I did because I had to, but it was not fun at all. I received a
high grade in English exams, so I felt good. I knew I had an aptitude for English so
I tried to develop it more because it would be to my advantage. (Sophia)
Two male participants were going through a turbulent period of adolescence during
middle school, so they disliked studying and did not pay much attention to schoolwork. Alex
experienced major trouble at Korean school and was sent to America; nevertheless, he had
difficulty adjusting to an American school. He experienced racism at school because he was
not fluent in English and was rebellious. Here is what Alex said:
I had no desire for anything. I was racially discriminated … I realized that I
could not have a good command of English like natives, so I gave up studying
English. (Alex)
Jack’s parents transferred him to an alternative school which utilized the American
education system, and students who attended there were planning to study abroad. His
classmates had the goal of attending American high school, so he was re-motivated.
Sophia also transferred to an American school after she finished her 2nd year of middle
school in Korea. She was enrolled in ESL classes for a year. In class, her inability to catch up
with schoolwork caused her to become depressed, but she made steady and persistent efforts
to understand classes.
Table 2.
Summary of (De)Motivation Factors in Learning English from Kindergarten to Middle
School
Kindergarten Elementary School Middle School

Dimension Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
influences Influences influences Influences influences Influences
Attitude towards
Affective/ 3 - 4 - 2 -
the target language
29
Integrative Attitude towards
3 - 4 - - 1
Dimension language learning
Attitude towards
the target 2 - 2 - 1 1
community
Mood 3 - 4 - - -
Turbulent Puberty - - - - - 2
Current Job - - - - - -
Desired job - - - - - -
Colleagues - - - - - -
Instrumental Further study - - - - - -
Dimension English as a lingua
- - 2 - - -
franca
English is part of
the image of a - - - - - -
modern person
Confidence - - 3 - - 1
Self-Concept- Satisfaction - - - - - 1
Related Acceptance of
Dimension 1 - 1 1 - 1
one’s limits
Self-determination 2 - - - - 1
Mastery orientation
1. Learning
1 - 1 -
to be informed
Performance
orientation
1. Demonstrating
Goal-Oriented 1 - 1 1
ability
Dimension
2. Getting good
- - -
grades
3. Outdoing other
1 - 1 -
students
Goal specificity - - - - 2 -
Teacher - - 4 - 3 -
Fellow
Educational- - - 1 - 1 -
students/classmates
Context-
Methodology 2 - 2 - 1 -
Related
Dimension Textbooks/workboo
- - 1 - - 2
ks
Compulsory subject - - - - 2 -
Parents - - 4 - 2 1
Significant- Family 3 - - - - -
Other-Related Friends’
- - - - - -
Dimension encouragement
Having a foreign
3 - 3 - - -
lover
Host- L2 contact 2 - 4 - 2 1
Environment- Inability to
- - - - - 1
Related integrate
Dimension Length of stay 1 - 1 - 1 -
30
During High School
During this period, Alex and Leah attended an international school in Korea while
Sophia and Jack attended high school in the U.S.
The purpose of attending an international school was different between the two
participants. Thus, their motivations also varied. Here is an excerpt from the interview with
Alex:
The only choice that I could make was to apply to an international school in Korea.
Luckily, I got an acceptance but with one-year probation. To avoid getting kicked out
of school, I studied hard for a year and qualified to be a regular student. (Alex)
Following is an excerpt from Leah:

Enrolling American University seems better than entering Korean University for
achieving my dream, so my parents sent me to an international school. (Leah)
Sophia and Jack, who studied in the U.S., had similar motivation factors, but differed
from the participants in Korea. Both said that they were motivated to improve their English
skills to be able to express their thoughts to others. They had to master English to survive in
the new environment, and they were sure they would not adjust to Korean high school when
they returned. Here is an excerpt from Sophia:
From the 2nd semester of 9th grade, I started to get involved in school activities and
made many friends. I made remarkable progress in English. (Sophia)
While participants in the U.S. did not experience negative factors, participants in
Korea experienced some demotivating factors. Alex had not changed his negative attitudes
and thoughts about learning English. One day, Leah’s Korean-American classmates looked
down on her because of her low English proficiency. After that event, she paid careful
attention to her English and spoke English less than before.
Because all participants were planning to apply to universities in the U.S., they
continuously focused on maintaining their academic standings and studied for the SAT and
TOEFL tests while they were attending high school.
During College
Sophia attended Korean school, and the other three participants went to universities in
the U.S. Alex befriended Korean friends and did what he had to do for classes. He had a core
course that all freshmen took. In that class, the professor criticized his grammar and words on
his paper even though he double-checked his work at the writing lab. That professor
demotivated him, but he did not have any problem with other classes. Leah was very motivated
31
during the college years. Before freshman year began, she had chances to meet people from all
over the world and improve her speaking skills. Here is an excerpt from Sophia:
When I took ESL courses with foreign friends whose second language was English, I
was not afraid to speak in English because English was the only language that we could
communicate in and no one was criticizing our English skills. After 3 months, I
improved my speaking ability and became confident. (Sophia)
When freshman year began, she faced difficulty to understand concepts in English and
to memorize unfamiliar terminologies. However, she did it to receive a high GPA.
Nevertheless, she was not as talkative with American classmates after she was discriminated
against by her Caucasian classmate.
Adult Phase
Alex experienced a tremendous change in his life after graduating from college and
working at a bank in the U.S. After he worked at the bank, he faced reality. He could not
communicate with customers fluently and did not get along with American colleagues.
My customer came to the bank, but I was afraid to talk with him, so I hid, but the boss
caught me, and he humiliated me in public. I grasped the magnitude of my problem.
Since I lived and would live in the U.S., I had to improve my speaking proficiency.
Thus, I started to memorize useful expressions that I could use with my customers. I
also hung out with my American colleagues after work to enhance my speaking skills.
(Alex)
After Jack getting a job in the IT field, he had to communicate with many foreigners
from other countries and read manuals written in English. He does not spend extra time
studying English, but he wants to preserve his English ability because it is his asset. Like him,
other female participants, Leah, and Sophia, do not study English but hope to maintain their
English ability.
Table 3.
Summary of Motivation and Demotivation Factors in Learning English from High School to
the Adult Phase
High School College Adult
Dimension Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
influences Influences influences Influences influences Influences
Attitudes towards the
- - - - - -
target language
Affective/ Attitudes towards
2 - - - - -
Integrative language learning
Dimension Attitudes towards the
- - - - - -
target community
Mood 2 1 - - - -
32
Turbulent puberty - - - - - -
Current job - - - - 2 -
Desired job 1 - 1 - - -
Colleagues - - - - 1 -
Instrumenta Further study 4 - 1 - - -
l Dimension English as a lingua
- - 1 - 2 -
franca
English is part of the
image of a modern - - - - - -
person
Confidence 2 - - - - -
Self-
Satisfaction - - - - - -
Concept-
Related Acceptance of one’s
1 1 - - - -
Dimension limits
Self-determination 1 - - - - -
Mastery orientation
1. Learning
1 - - - 2 -
to gain knowledge
Performance
orientation
Goal- 1. Demonstrating
- - - - 2 -
Oriented ability
Dimension 2. Acquiring good
4 - 1 - - -
grades
3. Outdoing other
- - - - - -
students
Goal specificity 1 - - - 1 -
Teacher 1 - - 1 - -
Educational Fellow
- 1 - 1 - -
-Context- students/classmates
Related Methodology - - - - - -
Dimension Textbooks/workbooks - - - - - -
Compulsory subject - - - - - -
Parents 2 - - - - -
Significant- Family 1 - - - - -
Other- Friends’
Related 3 - - - - -
encouragement
Dimension Having a foreign
2 - 1 - - -
lover
Host- L2 contact - - - - 1 -
Environme
Inability to integrate - 1 - 1 1 -
nt-Related
Dimension Length of stay - - - - - -
Discussion
The results indicated Alex, Leah, and Sophia who had visited or stayed in North
America during childhood, formed a positive impression of English. Kinginger (2011) found
that most satisfied L2 learners who went abroad for language training to the target language
formed and demonstrated a favorable attitude toward the host community. Her findings
matched with participants in this study. Additionally, three participants had cousins who
studied and lived in the U.S. and Canada, and they had a good relationship with them and
33
wanted to emulate them. In his socio-educational model, Gardner (2010) argued that a positive
attitude toward a person who uses a target language has a positive effect on learners’ acquisition
of that target language. Participants’ Korean-American relatives motivated learners to acquire
English and to have a good command of English.
During the middle school period, many negative influences emerged, causing extensive
negative experiences. Similar findings were found by Mihaljevic (2012), who argued that the
attitude and motivation young language learners initially experience changes gradually as they
become older. Kim (2012) similarly reported the phenomenon of demotivation factors across
school grades. Language learners’ motivation steadily decreased until Grade 9 but increased
after high school due to the pressure of college entrance. These phenomena matched with the
participants’ cases in this study. Female participants lost their interest in English as the school
focused on grammar-based English teaching and required extensive memorization. However,
two participants loved the language itself and received high grades on exams.
When Sophia was studying abroad in the U.S., she was indeed demotivated when she
encountered a language barrier. As Cheng (2000) described, typical East Asian ESL/EFL
students who study in English speaking countries with low L2 speaking proficiency are not
actively involved in in-class activities. Mesidor and Sly (2016) reported that international
students had an adjustment issue when they were experiencing a transition phase from home
to overseas. As these researchers explained, Sophia suffered from adjustment issues and was
demotivated.
Notably, the two male participants claimed that they were not inclined to study because
they were going through an unstable period of adolescence. Vantieghem and Van (2018) stated
that early adolescence is a critical phase for the manifestation of various academic
achievements by gender differences, particularly, most boys underachieve at school. Male
students’ chance of academic engagement diminishes (Elmore & Oyserman, 2012). As studies
described, male students were demotivated to study; however, Jack regained his motivation
after he was with students who had a similar goal.
Motivation has been consistently recognized as a crucial component in successful
language learning (Dӧrnyei, 2001; Gardner, 2010; Ushioda, 2016) and is also a driving force
to do what is needed to improve self-esteem. The current study attempted to analyze how
Korean-English bilinguals’ motivation fluctuates and what causes them to be motivated or
demotivated to study and learn English. Exposure to English in a natural environment, and not
in an academic setting, helped them to avoid an aversion to English (Jensen, 2017). However,
studying and living abroad is different from traveling abroad. Those who visited the U.S.
34
needed time to adjust to the new environment and to enhance their language ability (Kim &
Okazaki, 2014). When Jack and Sophia went to the U.S. for school, they wanted to
communicate with local people. They also wanted to share their opinions and thoughts with
others. They were motivated to master speaking skills in order to fulfill their needs --
communicating with local people. Leah did not experience a significant motivating moment
after her elementary school years. Nonetheless, she steadily motivated herself from the moment
she entered international school, which would enable her to get closer to her dream career. By
conducting research with EFL learners in Japan, Kimura et al. (2001) observed that there are
multiple factors affecting language learners and setting goals is one of the fundamental
components for successful language learners. From the findings in Kimura et al. (2001) and
this study, it could be assumed that, formulating clear goals is essential for adolescent and adult
language learners. Attaining a goal could be learners’ driving force to continue to study English
and to maintain motivation. It may also enable learners to be re-motivated after being
demotivated.
Summary, Implications, and Limitations

This study endeavored to present (de)motivational dynamics of four bilingual English-
Korean speakers by using semi-structured qualitative interviews. The participants’ lives were
dissimilar, and they received different English input. Nevertheless, the frequency of motivating
factors during the elementary period was highest and negative factors were the highest during
middle school. Three participants began learning English as toddlers in a natural environment;
thus, they did not learn English academically. The other participant, Jack, learned English
beginning in Grade 3 but did not have much pressure on it. However, to varying degrees, they
were demotivated during middle school. One of the reasons is that the English context they
learned in middle school is quite different from what they had learned before and some were
more interested in spending time with friends than studying.
Based on these findings, some pedagogical implications can be suggested to language
learners, their teachers, and parents. First, providing plenty of input on the target language
serves as an essential element to boost language learners’ English proficiency when they are
placed in an English-speaking environment (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Gilmore, 2007). Second,
it is advisable not to force learners to study, but rather to provide circumstances that stimulate
language learners’ motivation. Third, it seems better not to think English as a subject. It is a
language tool that people can utilize to communicate with people or live conveniently.
35
Despite the findings, it is difficult to generalize the results of this study to all Korean
students because it involved a limited number of participants and adopted a qualitative research
method, and individuals have different personalities, situations, and circumstances. If there
were more bilingual interviewees with varied and different backgrounds, more useful and
meaningful results would be obtained.
References
Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). Language input and second language acquisition. Journal
of Education and Practice, 3(3), 39-42.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding
a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145-157.
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students' reticence revisited. System, 28(3), 435-446.
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Ditual, R. C. (2012). The motivation for and attitude towards learning English. The Asian
EFL Journal, 63, 4-21.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and
globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self-system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda
(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Elmore, K. C., & Oyserman, D. (2012). If “we” can succeed, “I” can too: Identity based
motivation and gender in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37,
176-185.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational
model. New York: Peter Lang.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning.
Language Teaching. 40(2), 97-118.
Green, D. W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language,
Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 499–511.
36
Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’
Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-
face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87-106.
Jensen, S. H. (2017). Gaming as an English language learning resource among young
children in Denmark. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 1-19.
Kikuchi, K. (2009). Listening to our learners' voices: what demotivates Japanese high school
students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 453-471.
Kim, H. J., & Okazaki, S. (2014). Navigating the cultural transition alone: Psychosocial
adjustment of Korean early study abroad students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 20(2), 244-253.
Kim, T.-Y. (2012). The L2 motivational self-system of Korean EFL students: Cross-grade
survey analysis. English Teaching, 67(1), 29-56.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL
learners in Japan-A cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. Jalt
Journal, 23(1), 47-68.
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 31, 58.
Lee, K. I. (2014). A Study on linguistic and social/cultural identity of English-Korean
bilingual and Korean monolingual adolescents in Korea. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Marini, A., Sperindè, P., Ruta, I., Savegnago, C., & Avanzini, F. (2019). Linguistic skills in
bilingual children with developmental language disorders: A pilot study. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 493.
Mesidor, J. K., & Sly, K. F. (2016). Factors that contribute to the adjustment of international
students. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 262-282.
Mihaljevic, D. J. (2012). Attitudes and motivation in early foreign language learning. CEPS
Journal, 2(3), 55-74.
Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Conducting semi-structured
interviews. Handbook of practical program evaluation, (pp. 492-505). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2016). Effects and noneffects of input in bilingual environments on
dual language skills in 2½-year-olds. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19,
1023–1041.
37
Ryan, F., Coughtan, M.., & Cronin, P. (2009) Interviewing in qualitative research: the one-to-
one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309-314.
Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System,
37, 57-69.
Shoaib, A., & Dӧrnyei, Z. (2005). Affect in lifelong learning: Exploring L2 motivation as a
dynamic process. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and
diversity in language learning (pp. 22-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Tse, C.-S., & Altarriba, J. (2015). Local and global task switching costs in bilinguals who
vary in second language proficiency. The American Journal of Psychology, 128(1),
89–106.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational
thinking. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt, (Eds.), Motivation and second language
acquisition (pp. 93-126). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research
agenda. Language Teaching, 49(4), 564-577.
Vantieghem, W., & Van Houtte, M. (2018). Differences in study motivation within and
between genders: An examination by gender typicality among early
adolescents. Youth & Society, 50(3), 377-404.
Wei, L. (Ed.). (2020). Dimensions of bilingualism. In L. Wei, (Eds.), The bilingualism reader
(pp.16-35). New York: Routledge.
You, C. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a large-
scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 495–519.
Zoirovna, S. L. (2020). A study on the unbalanced bilingual acquisition process of
multiethnic bilinguals. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 25(1), 75-94.
38
Speaking Assessments in Multilingual English Language Teaching
Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace

School of Advanced Studies, Saint Louis University
Bio-profile:
Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace, Ph.D. is a licensed professional teacher, researcher, and
speaker. She completed her degree, Doctor of Philosophy in Language Education (Magna
Cum Laude) in Saint Louis University, Philippines. At present, she teaches in the English and
Communication Department of the University of Baguio. xenia.garnace@gmail.com
Abstract
This study is aimed at identifying the speaking assessment methods in multilingual English
Language Teaching (ELT) in the Philippines. It also determined the perception of the English
language teachers towards the effectiveness of the varied speaking assessment practices in the
multilingual classroom. The results of this exploratory sequential mixed method study
revealed that the speaking assessment methods perceived to be most effective are debates and
argumentations, social surveys, task-based language teaching, individual oral presentations,
informative speeches, and role plays. Using various assessment methods is encouraged among
English language teachers so as to establish a motivating language learning environment in
multilingual classroom settings.
Address 1:
School of Advanced Studies
Saint Louis University
A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City, Philippines
Address 2:
University of Baguio
General Luna Rd., Baguio City, Philippines
Keywords: assessment, English Language Teaching (ELT), multilingual, speaking, oral

proficiency
Introduction
Over the years, certain scholars and language experts have underscored the significance
of speaking among the four macro skills of language learning. According to Burkart (1998),
many language learners regard speaking ability as the measure of knowing a language. They
define fluency as the ability to converse with others, much more than the ability to read, write,
or comprehend oral language. Vergara (1990) cited Bygate (1987) who highlighted the
importance of speaking. First, speaking is needed to carry out many of the basic transactions.
Second, speaking is the skill by which speakers are most frequently judged and through which
they may make or lose friends. Speaking is a skill that allows people to be confident and
competent communicators. It gives students the opportunity to understand, criticize and
analyze information efficiently and communicate clearly (Singay, 2018). Third, speaking
reflects social ranking or professional advancement. Speaking tests have been a part and parcel
of worldwide large scale language proficiency tests like Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL), Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), and International
English Language Testing System (IELTS), and Cambridge exams like First Certificate in
English or FCE and Certificate in Advanced English or CAE (Karim & Haq, 2014). Fourth,
speaking is the medium through which much language is learnt. Hence, if speaking is the most
essential yet the most crucial skill among the four language learning skills (Al-Sobhi & Preece,
2018; Oradee, 2012), then it is imperative for the learners to be provided with the significant
learning experiences that will enhance their speaking skills.
As such, scholars such as Elshawa (2017) and Nkosana (2008) emphasized the value of
speaking and its assessment, the impact of the non-assessment of speaking in teaching, and the
implementation of speaking assessment.
While evaluation is a part of teaching the English language, assessment scales for
performance testing is complex and multi-dimensional (Galaczi, Hubbard, & Green, 2011).
Recent studies that were subjected to analysis found assorted means of assessing speaking in
multicultural English language teaching brought about by differences in terms of the learners’
cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Alemi & Khanlarzadeh, 2016; Fereshteh Tadayon &
Khodi, 2016; Gilmour, Klieve, & Li, 2018; Hansen-Thomas & Chennapragada, 2018; Kamali,
Abbasi, & Sadighi 2018; Wandera & Farr, 2018), unique characteristics (Parker, O’Dwyer, &
Irwin, 2016), age (Gaibani & Elmenfi, 2016), attitudes (Hansen-Thomas & Chennapragada,
2018; Nkosana, 2008; Ren & Wang, 2018), anxiety levels (Ocak, Kizilkaya, & Boyraz, 2013),
communication strategies (Kongsom, 2016), opportunities and capability to speak the target
language (Kanwal & Shehzad, 2016; Wilson, et al., 2016), individualized needs and
40
achievement goals (Chang & Martínez-Roldán, 2018; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Singay,
2018), and even the challenges that the native or non-native language teachers face (Atamturk,
Atamturk, & Dimililer, 2018; Bhatti, Shamsudin, & Said, 2018; Gan, 2013; Liton, 2012;
Schenck, 2018; Sonsaat, 2018). A number of proposed tests and evaluative measures were
presented, which only means that there is a call for varied ways to assess the English speaking
prowess of learners. As a result, a number of approaches can be considered reliable and
appropriate to measure what is intended to be measured. As for large groups, the teacher can
also consider adapting a more structured assessment based on the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR).
In South Asia, multilingual education refers to learning and using multiple languages
in school. In some countries, it includes four languages—the students’ mother tongue or first
language, a regional language, the national language and an international language (Malone,
2007 as cited in Lartec et al., 2014). The Philippines itself is vast in terms of language and
culture resulting to a multilingual society as highlighted in various studies (Bernardo, 2011;
Gomari & Marshall, 2017; Lartec, Belisario, Bendanillo, Binas-o, Bucang, & Cammagay,
2014; Tarrayo, 2011). In particular, Baguio City has been considered as a melting pot of
various cultures since it has developed into an education capital in the northern part of the
Philippines. It is considered to be a home to many immigrants from other parts of the country
and other countries. (Lartec et al., 2014), making it a multilingual haven. As a result, many
languages are presently being spoken by native and non-native residents of the city, such as
Ibaloi, Ilocano, Kankanaey, Kapampangan, Pangasinense, Tagalog, English, Chinese, and
recently, Korean (Lartec et al., 2014).
In the Philippine multilingual English language classroom, the common criteria used in
assessing the students’ English speaking proficiency are similar with how the students’
speaking skills is assessed in other countries. These are accuracy, fluency, pronunciation,
intonation, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, coherence, organization, discourse size, and
communicative strategy (Andrade & Du, 2005; Ekmekçi, 2016; Huang & Gui, 2015; Joe,
Kitchen, Chen, & Feng, 2015; Reynolds-Keefer, 2010; Sawaki, 2007; Zhang & Elder, 2011).
Consequently, Abbaspour (2016) emphasized that apart from the abovementioned cognitive
and linguistic factors, affective factors like the speaker’s confidence, anxiety and self-
restriction, and social factors such as the speaker’s strategic competence and stylistic
adaptability should also be greatly considered. Singay (2018) added that presentation skills,
public awareness, critical listening and body language are also some of the basic requirements
of oral communication.
41
Despite having English as a second language (L2) or even a first language (L1) for
some, the level of English oral proficiency among the multilingual English language learners
in the Philippines is still varied. Challenges relating to instruction (Erfe & Lintao, 2012;
Hernandez, 2016) and assessment (Bernardo, 2011; Saefurrohman & Balinas, 2016) remain in
multilingual English classrooms in the country. Other factors are the teachers’ openness to the
use of information and communication technology or ICT to improve educational outcomes
(Dela Rosa, 2016; Valk, Rashid, & Elder, 2010), and the learners’ pragmatic oral proficiency
in English (Barrido & Romero, 2005). The occurrence of code switching as a mode of
discourse, leading to what is now known as Philippine English or Taglish, is inevitable in
various contexts (Bautista, 2004; Dayag, 2004; Tarrayo & Duque, 2011). Furthermore, the
English language teacher must consider the multilingual environment in choosing the suitable
assessment method to be able to understand that each and every language learner has a distinct
linguistic repertoire. This is apart from the fact that several Englishes have already developed
among different English and non-English speaking countries throughout the years.
Notably, Holroyd (2000) recommended that assessment should be considered as part of
the teaching process rather than an activity taking place at the end of teaching. With such a
prominent role, assessment and testing issues have begun to witness increasing emphasis in the
agenda of higher educational institutions around the world (Elshawa, 2017). In fact, empirical
research on teacher’s beliefs and perceptions have been conducted in different contexts which
in turn reflect the multicultural practices (Brown & Harris, 2009; Brown, Lake, & Matters,
2009, 2011; Elshawa, 2017).
Considering the productivity of research conducted on speaking assessments and
multilingual language teaching, few of these were conducted with the aim to present an overall
view on the various trends in speaking assessments in multilingual English language teaching.
Specifically, other noteworthy gaps presented in the reviewed literature are curriculum
mismatch (Ocak et al., 2013), teachers’ lack of training and unfamiliarity with the use of
technology (Park & Slater, 2014), and insufficient authentic tasks to eliciting practical language
samples for assessment. In addition, only a few studies focused on the English language
teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about these speaking assessments. Overall, majority of the
studies were conducted in Western setting, allowing relatively insufficient rigorous inquiry into
the East and Southeast Asian context. To date, there are still limited research on how native
and non-native speakers of the English language approach the task of evaluating L2 learner
performance, and no consensus on assessing speaking in multilingual English language
teaching has yet been reached.
42
To address the gaps in research, this study is primarily aimed at identifying the various
speaking assessment methods in multilingual English Language Teaching (ELT) in the
Philippine setting. It also aimed at determining the perception of English language teachers
towards the effectiveness of the varied assessment practices in the multilingual classroom.
Specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What are the different methods of assessing speaking utilized by English language
teachers in multilingual classrooms?
2. How do English language teachers perceive the effectiveness of the assessment
methods used in multilingual classrooms?
As found in various studies, speaking using the English language is one of the weakest
points of the learners (Foorman, Espinosa, Wood, & Wu, 2016; Huang & Gui, 2015; Huang &
Hung, 2010; Zhao, 2013). Although a considerable number of researches focused on several
assessment tools used among monolingual and bilingual English language learners, there is
scant assessment tools specifically designed for multilingual language learners with various
linguistic repertoire like the English language learners in the Philippines.
Method
This study utilized an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design. This
research design is characterized by an initial qualitative phase of data collection and analysis,
followed by a phase of quantitative data collection and analysis, with a final phase of
integration or linking of data from the two separate strands of data (Berman, 2017).
This study has two phases. The first phase employed literature survey and interviews
with assessment experts, experts on speaking and English language teachers. The qualitative
data that resulted from this phase were used as basis for the development of the initial survey
tool. The second phase was the validating and the administering of the survey questionnaire
to English language teachers of the universities in Baguio City and Benguet known to be
Centers of Excellence for Teacher Education. The data gathered from the respondents were
analyzed quantitatively and descriptively.
The participants of the quantitative phase of the study were comprised of 33 English
language instructors during the Second Semester of Academic Year 2018-2019 in the top
universities in Baguio City and Benguet which attained the Center of Excellence status for
Teacher Education, namely: Saint Louis University, University of the Cordilleras, and Benguet
State University. The piloting was conducted in the University of Baguio, which is known as
43
a Center of Development for Teacher Education. The researcher sought the consent of the
concerned authorities and respondents.
To gather the qualitative data for first phase of this study, interview guides with key
questions were prepared based on a priori codes. The aim of the interview is to elicit first-hand
data from the speaking experts, language experts and English language teachers that were
needed for the development of the survey tool in identifying the methods utilized by English
language teachers on speaking assessment in multilingual English language classroom settings.
For the second phase of this study, a questionnaire was developed based on the
combined intensive literature review and the qualitative data that were gathered during the first
phase of this study. The respondents measured the effectiveness of each of the methods of
speaking assessment in multilingual English language teaching using the following scale for
interpretation.
The questionnaire was subjected to a validity analysis by three experts on English
language speaking assessment. The content validity index of the tool was also identified.
Afterwards, the questionnaire underwent a reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of reliability. The aim of this questionnaire is to identify the speaking assessment method in
multicultural classrooms perceived to be the most effective by English language teachers.
Table 1.
Scale for Interpretation on the Effectiveness of the Speaking Assessment Methods

Scale Range Interpretation
1 1.00-1.75 Not Effective
2 1.76-2.50 Sometimes Effective
3 2.51-3.25 Effective
4 3.26-4.00 Highly Effective
Four assessment experts, three experts on speaking, and four English language teachers
were interviewed to generate qualitative data that will be needed for the creation of the survey
tool. It was supported by an exhaustive literature review.
A questionnaire that seeks to identify the methods used by English language teachers
and their perception towards the effectiveness of such methods was designed. The
questionnaire was content validated by three English language experts.
The instrument was piloted to the English language teachers at the University of
Baguio. The reliability of the questionnaire was determined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of reliability. Since the computed reliability coefficient of 0.988 is greater than the threshold
of 0.70, the questionnaire is reliable.
44
To answer question number 1, interviews were conducted with experts on assessment,
experts on speaking, and English language teachers. An exhaustive literature survey was also
conducted. The qualitative data gathered served as the baseline for the creation of the
questionnaire for the gathering of the quantitative data.
To answer question number 2, the data elicited from the questionnaire were collated,
tabulated, categorized, and presented using descriptive statistics particularly mean and standard
deviation to summarize the perceptions of English language teachers toward the effectiveness
of the various speaking assessments. Out of the 33 total questionnaires that were retrieved by
the researcher, only 29 questionnaires were considered valid after the data cleaning procedure.
Among the items in the questionnaire, higher mean scores were interpreted as high levels of
effectiveness. Consequently, low mean scores indicated that the respondents perceive the
assessment to be not effective.
Results and Discussions
Methods of Assessing Speaking in Multilingual Classrooms

A total of 124 English speaking assessment methods were identified based on the
literature review and the interviews with speaking experts, English language experts, and
assessment experts. These speaking assessment methods were randomly enumerated in the
designed tool for the quantitative phase of the study. No specific sub-groupings were done
among the listed assessment methods to enable the respondents to focus on measuring the
effectiveness of one assessment method at a time. The study yielded the following salient
speaking assessments utilized by English language teachers in multilingual classrooms, which
are presented in no particular order.
Oral Discourse. Since there is no other way to learn speaking English than to speak it
per se, it is undeniable that face-to-face interactions are essential in multilingual ELT. Among
the speaking assessment methods that promote free discourse between and among the
multilingual English language teachers and learners are: (1) answering philosophical questions
or reasoning, (2) asking for and giving information, (3) asking opinions on social issues, (4)
creating own sentences and dialogues, (5) debates and argumentations, (6) dialogues, (7)
discussing teacher and student feedback, (8) everyday casual conversations, (9) group works,
(10) group discussions, (11) guided conversations, (12) guided reporting, (13) yes/no questions
about random topics, (14) open discussion sessions, (15) two-way discussions, (16) oral
interviews, (17) oral description of people, objects, and places, (18) giving and following oral
instructions/directives, (19) whole class mills (i.e., student is given a questionnaire with
45
questions related to the topic; students must fill in the form by asking each other questions as
they move around the classroom), (20) one-on-one coaching and (21) recitations.
Abiding by the language policy. The mode of instruction and the language policies
being implemented within the English language learning environment inadvertently form part
of the speaking assessment in multilingual ELT. For some English language teachers,
assessment experts and speaking experts, these instruction and policies are still considered as
speaking assessment methods. Among the conflicting policies in the multilingual classroom
setup are (1) the use of mother tongue vis-à-vis the (2) English-only policy. Other areas of
concern in a multilingual English language classroom are whether or not to allow the practice
of (3) translation and (4) code switching. Another issue is the (5) use of politically-correct
words in a learning environment with multilingual English language learners. These issues
find corroboration in the study of Tan, Farashaiyan, Sahragard, and Faryabi (2020), which
found that English as an International Language (EIL) as a means of intercultural
communication in a wide range of contexts calls for a reconceptualization of language
pedagogy. Citing Brown and Peterson (1997), Tan et al. (2020) emphasized that learners fully
acquire the target language through the culture of the native language. Hence, in multilingual
countries like the Philippines, there should be equal opportunities for learning both the English
language and the native speakers’ language.
Speeches and Presentations. Several types of speeches were included in the list of the
speaking assessment methods in multilingual ELT. These include: (1) demonstration speeches,
(2) impromptu speeches, (3) extemporaneous speeches, (4) informative speeches, (5)
memorized speeches, and (6) situational speeches like toasts and eulogies, among others. Also
included in the list is (7) speech writing, which serves as the foundation of every successful
speech.
Since speech is constructed spontaneously and, therefore, shows particular patternings
of language use that are not usually found in written texts (Burns, 2019), delivering speeches
remains to be one of the rudiments in assessing speaking in multilingual ELT.
Oral presentations are also viewed to be effective in assessing speaking in multilingual
ELT, particularly: (8) individual oral presentations, (9) group oral presentations, and (10)
presentations with question and answer. One respondent also included (11) Pecha Kucha, a
fast-paced presentation format consisting of 20 slides set to proceed automatically every 20
seconds. Several research studies have proven the effectiveness of Pecha Kucha as a formative
assessment of the speaking skills of English language learners (Columbi, 2017; Hirst, 2016)
46
and in reducing English public speaking anxiety of students (Coskun, 2017). However, it poses
a challenge to language learners with low proficiency level (Murugaiah, 2016).
Communicative Approach. Exposure and experience both play essential roles in
developing the English speaking skills of multilingual language learners. Some of these
include: (1) speaking with native speakers of English, (2) talking to English speaking
individuals online, (3) interviewing foreigners, (4) conference participation, (5) immersions,
(6) learning English with English speakers, (7) intensive language programs, (8) English
adventure classes, and (9) service learning and/or buddy system (students tutor their fellow
students). In the recent study of Fan (2019), the results reveal that the language learners show
highly positive attitudes toward the communicative approach, and mostly favor grammar
instruction within communicative practice.
Use of Artistic and Literary Devices. The incorporation of artistic and literary devices
has been a tradition in assessing speaking in multilingual English language classrooms. These
are the (1) use of drama, (2) monologues and soliloquys, (3) role plays, skits and
improvisations, (4) standup comedy, and (5) use of situational comedy (sitcom) and (6) use of
English village. Also related to the aforementioned are the (7) use of idioms and idiomatic
expressions. Furthermore, other literary devices being used are (8) retelling stories and
passages, (9) short storytelling, and the (10) use of circle stories, where the teacher provides a
plot and setting, and students construct the story’s ending. Related to this is the (11) use of
open-ended stories. The (12) use of songs, (13) use of jazz chants and rhythm in speaking
drills, (14) and speech choirs are also widely used in multilingual ELT. Also included are (15)
use of poetry and the (16) use of fliptop battles in argumentation. Notably, several experts
support that the integration of music in multilingual ELT boosts motivation for language
learning (Akhmadullina, Abdrafikova, & Vanyukhina, 2016), increases linguistic,
sociocultural, and communicative competencies (Engh, 2013), promotes meaningful learning,
and creates positive attitude among language learners (Rodríguez-Bonces, 2017). Moreover,
the respondents also shared that the (17) use of language games, (18) show-me activities, and
(19) icebreaker questions have also contributed to the establishment of a fun multilingual
English language teaching and learning environment.
This finds corroboration in the studies of Quy (2019) and Yang and Dixon (2015). Quy
(2019) highlighted that games do not only offer authentic language practice but, more
importantly, have the potential to shape students into critical thinkers who are willing to take
risks, show compassion for their teammates, and see the value of teamwork and tolerance.
Yang and Dixon (2015) added that appropriate use of games in college English teaching could
47
help students eliminate the psychological pressure of learning a language and creates a relaxed
atmosphere for learning. However, Yang and Dixon (2015) cautioned that English language
teachers have to be clear in their role in game activities in the classroom, be aware of the
frequency and time of games used in classroom and devote themselves to designing games that
not only can be carried out easily but also benefit student learning in a long term way.
Oral Drills. A huge portion of the speaking assessments in multilingual ELT is
comprised of oral drills. These include: (1) pronunciation tutorials and phonetic exercises, (2)
modelling of prosodic features, (3) imitation and mimicry, (4) use of native speaker models in
listening and speaking drills, (5) mirror exercises (observing lips and mouth movement during
speaking drills), (6) practicing of pauses, (7) vocabulary building exercises, (8) tongue twisters,
(9) memory and rote productions and (10) oral proficiency tests. Also included are (11) reading
aloud, (12) reading texts, (13) reading short passages and answering of questions, (14) use of
daily newspapers for speaking and reading drills, and (15) chorale reading. Oral drills have
been a tradition in speaking assessments in multilingual ELT. These speaking assessment
methods may seem old school, but they remain effective especially for low proficient English
language learners (Bakar, Noordin, & Razali, 2019). Generally, these methods focus on the
enhancement of rote production among language learners. Specifically, they aim at improving
the pronunciation and vocabulary of the language learners but not necessarily for them to
acquire a certain accent. On the other hand, some of the criticisms of these oral drills are they
are one-way and do not encourage interaction among multilingual language learners.
Evaluations and Examinations. Traditional evaluations and examinations remain to
be part of the speaking assessment methods in multilingual ELT. Some of these are: (1) self-
assessment (self-monitoring and evaluation of English speaking skills via reflections or
rubrics), (2) peer assessments, (3) students as evaluators (e.g., three students are tasked to
evaluate the speaker in terms of content, delivery, mechanics, respectively), and (4) feedback
reports. The study of Nejad and Mahfoodh (2019) emphasized that the language learners'
involvement in their own and peers’ assessment can enhance their motivation to learn. The (5)
use of analytic rating scales or rubrics (e.g., content, delivery, mechanics) also plays a crucial
role in assessment and evaluation in general. Meanwhile, examinations have already become
part of the conventional assessment tools in multilingual ELT. Some of these are: (1) pre-tests
and post-tests, (2) diagnostic tests (pen and paper), (3) graduated mock tests (oral and written),
and (4) standardized English tests (e.g., IELTS, TOEIC, TOEFL, etc.).
Use of Multimedia and Technology. Some of the new speaking assessment methods
being practiced in language teaching and learning are: (1) blended learning/computer-aided
48
instruction, (2) computer applications (WebQuest, Google Earth, Wiki visualization,
VocabularySpellingCity (Krause, 2018), Duolingo, Kahoot, etc.), (3) flipped classrooms, (4)
mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), (5) online conversations, and (6) online learning
(pure online English courses). Online learning has been made even more fun through the
integration of (7) digital board games (board game language-learning) and (8) digital learning
playgrounds (language learning through gaming). Moreover, modern language learners also
enjoy the (9) use of a variety of video blogs, (10) video jockeying, (11) video recordings, (12)
video reflections, (13) video-conferencing, (14) virtual storytelling, and the (15) use of
multimedia (not just one but a variety of media technologies) in general. Furthermore, the
multilingual language learners even make use of their social media accounts such as Facebook
and YouTube as avenues to share these kinds of outputs. Several recent literatures continue to
highlight the integration of technology as an emerging trend in 21st century English language
teaching and learning (Al Yafaei & Attamimi, 2019; Bedir, 2019; Haidari, Yanpar Yelken, &
Akay, 2019; Kawinkoonlasate, 2019; Yesilçinar, 2019) and the positive attitude of English
language teachers towards such (Bedir, 2019; Kozikoglu & Babacan, 2019). English language
teachers in this generation have learned to innovate their teaching skills in order to cope with
today’s so-called modern multilingual language learners.
Task-Based Language Teaching. Several task-based assessment methods also
resulted from this study. Examples are (1) task-based language teaching per se like real-life
situations of visiting a doctor, or calling customer service for help, (2) advertisement delivery,
(3) election campaigning, (4) disc jockeying, (5) hosting/emcee exercises, (6) newscasting, (7)
brochure, magazine, and newspaper presentation, (8) product presentations, (9) radio drama,
(10) tour-guiding, (11) simulations, and (12) situational analysis. In line with this, Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) proponent, David Nunan, has drawn a clear distinction between
the two concepts of tasks. One is the ‘real-world’ tasks, which pertain to the things people do
with language in the world outside the four walls of the classroom (Nunan, 2010). Other forms
of task-based assessments that arose from this study are (13) communicative group tasks (e.g.,
team building), (14) mock job interviews, (15) multimodal cues, (16) performance-based
activities like presentations, portfolios, exhibits and fairs, (17) sample call center scenarios,
(18) sports commentator exercises, and (19) speech olympics. The aforementioned assessment
methods are classified under the second concept of tasks according to Nunan, which is the
pedagogical tasks. These refer to the tasks that engage learners in mastering the target language
inside the confines of the classroom (Nunan, 2010).
49
Book-based Approach. The utilization of books stays as a trend in English speaking
assessment. These are: (1) the use of ESL books and (2) the use of textbooks in general. This
finds support in the recent study of Shuqair and Dashti (2019), which showed that teachers
successfully use books in enhancing the English skills of their EFL students, hence, enriching
the students' learning experience. Moreover, books have also proved their importance in
bibliotherapy sessions among English as Second Language students (Cancino & Cruz, 2019).
Perception of English Language Teachers towards the Effectiveness of the Assessment

Methods Used in Multilingual Classrooms
After the English language teachers evaluated the effectiveness of each of the 124
speaking assessment methods identified in the designed questionnaire, these speaking
assessment methods were ranked using descriptive statistics particularly mean and standard
deviation. The following emerged as the top 10 most effective speaking assessment methods
in multilingual ELT.
Social Surveys (Asking Opinions on Social Issues) and Debates and Argumentations
both topped the list at rank 1.5. Majority of the interviewees comprised of English teachers
and language experts indubitably consider debates and argumentations as the best speaking
assessment methods for multilingual ELT. They also believe that debates and argumentations
promote spontaneous language production and successful interaction and comprehension
among the multilingual English language learners. Aside from honing the English speaking
skills of the multilingual English language learner, other essential skills also considered by the
English language teachers as speaking assessment methods in the designed questionnaire are
already integrated in debates and argumentations. These are asking and giving information,
reasoning, research, and the use of the Internet and other technology-related resources, among
others.
Meanwhile, several English language teacher interviewees shared that asking opinions
on social issues, like debates and argumentations, promotes successful interaction and
comprehension and encourages language production among multilingual English language
learners.
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) ranked third in the list. Numerous linguists
view task-based language approach as a direct and viable approach to language pedagogy since
it promotes both practice and principles in language learning (Nunan, 2010).
Individual Oral Presentations ranked fourth. One interviewee explained that oral
presentations can best be used to assess fluency during formative assessments. This finds
50
corroboration in the study of Tailab and Marsh (2020) which found that the students’ self-
assessment of their recorded individual oral presentations helps them to observe certain
delivery skills such as good preparation, self-confidence, eye contact, and voice quality that
needed improvement.
Informative Speeches and Role Plays, Skits, and Improvisations both tied at rank 5.5.
Informative speeches prove to be one of the leading speaking assessment methods in
multilingual ELT.
Meanwhile, Communicative Group Tasks, Demonstration Speeches, Oral Proficiency
Tests, and Pronunciation Tutorials and Phonetic Exercises all tied at rank 8.5, respectively.
A number of assessment experts and speaking experts highlight the importance of
Communicative Group Tasks. This finds corroboration in the study of Ramírez Ortiz and
Artunduaga Cuéllar (2018) which states that since tasks are an optimal alternative to engage
learners in communicative exchanges, teachers are encouraged to use authentic tasks in the
classroom to involve students in meaningful learning to foster oral production.
Meanwhile, Demonstration Speech is a type of an informative speech. One English
language teacher emphasized the suitability of topic of a demo speech to suffice a successful
assessment method.
Oral Proficiency Tests are also crucial assessment methods in multilingual ELT. In
fact, the study of Xing and Bolden (2019) found that the language learners' motivation for oral
English learning increased as a result of the newly acquired high subjective value of spoken
English during their academic acculturation. However, caution should be exercised in using
this assessment method since the participants in the said study experienced high levels of
psychological stress due to their low oral English proficiency.
Lastly, Pronunciation Tutorials and Phonetic Exercises remain to be part of the leading
assessment methods in multilingual ELT. Several experts throughout history attest that these
oral exercises help hone a speaker’s prosodic features.
Notably, the top ten speaking assessment methods were all perceived by the
respondents as Highly Effective.
On the other hand, the following least five speaking assessment methods were
perceived by the respondents as Sometimes Effective: The Use of Computer Applications
(WebQuest, Google Earth, Wiki visualization, VocabularySpellingCity, Duolingo, Kahoot,
etc.), Diagnostic Tests (pen and paper), and Memorized Speeches triple tied at rank 120.
Digital Board Games (board game language-learning) followed at rank 122. Lastly, the Digital
Learning Playgrounds (language learning through gaming) and Memory and Rote Production
51
were both perceived as the least effective among all the identified speaking assessment methods
(rank 123.5).
Table 2.
Top 10 Speaking Assessment Methods

Mean SD VI Rank
Speaking can be assessed through . (N = 29)
debates and argumentations 3.45 0.69 HE 1.5
asking opinions on social issues 3.45 0.63 HE 1.5
task-based language teaching 3.41 0.63 HE 3.0
individual oral presentations 3.38 0.56 HE 4.0
informative speeches 3.31 0.54 HE 5.5
role plays, skits, and improvisations 3.31 0.60 HE 5.5
communicative group tasks (e.g., team building) 3.28 0.59 HE 8.5
demonstration speeches 3.28 0.65 HE 8.5
oral proficiency tests 3.28 0.65 HE 8.5
pronunciation tutorials and phonetic exercises 3.28 0.45 HE 8.5
Majority of the language teachers view the integration of technology in multilingual

ELT as sometimes effective as reflected in the low ranking of the Use of Computer
Applications (rank 120), Digital Board Games (rank 122), and Digital Learning Playgrounds
(rank 123.5).
Meanwhile, most language teacher respondents are also not favorable with the use of
pen and paper tests in assessing speaking in multilingual ELT as shown in its low ranking (rank
120). On the contrary, pen and paper tests are indispensable in assessing speaking in
multilingual ELT because they remain in major English language proficiency tests such as
IELTS.
Lastly, the language teachers are also gradually diverting from the traditional use of
rote memory in assessing speaking in multilingual ELT. This has been made evident in the
low ranking of Memorized Speeches (rank 120) and Memory and Rote Production (rank
123.5). One speaking expert and English language teacher strongly believed that these are
among the methods of assessing speaking that should be avoided in multilingual classroom
settings.
Notably, among the 124 speaking assessment methods identified in the first phase of
the data gathering procedure, nothing was perceived to be Not Effective.
52
Table 3.
Least Five Speaking Assessment Methods

(N = 29)
Speaking can be assessed through Mean SD VI Rank
computer applications 2.34 0.86 SE 120.0
diagnostic tests (pen and paper) 2.34 0.90 SE 120.0
memorized speeches 2.34 0.72 SE 120.0
digital board games 2.28 0.75 SE 122.0
digital learning playgrounds 2.21 0.68 SE 123.5
memory and rote production 2.21 0.82 SE 123.5
In sum, the top 10 speaking assessment methods which resulted from this study suggest
that there now exists a paradigm shift on the goals of the speaking assessments in the
multilingual English language classroom. Gone are the days when the focus was merely on
memorization and pronunciation. Nowadays, achieving language fluency and utilizing task-
based approach in language learning have become among the top priorities.
Further, the results of the least five speaking assessment methods perceived to be
effective by the English language teachers confirm that there lies an immense need to address
the teachers’ lack of training and unfamiliarity with the use of technology as previously stated
in the research gap of this study. Thus, it calls for English language teachers to highly
reconsider giving rote and memory production-related speaking assessments in multilingual
English language classrooms since more and more teachers no longer consider them as
effective as before.
Conclusion
Given the wide range of speaking assessments, the English language teacher will not
run out of strategies and techniques in establishing a fun and exciting English teaching and
learning environment in and out of the classroom. The English language teacher can absolutely
go beyond the speaking assessment methods identified in this study. There are countless
possibilities left to the English language teacher’s creativity and imagination.
The English language teacher’s perception of the effectiveness of the assessment
methods plays a vital role in determining which among the varied assessment methods should
be utilized more often and/or sparingly. Nonetheless, this should be juxtaposed with the actual
performance and level of proficiency of the multilingual English language learners. The level
of validity of the assessment tool should also be highly considered.
In multilingual ELT, the goal is to achieve the learner’s fluency of the English language
and the use of appropriate terminologies in speaking English. On the other hand, the language
53
teacher should not expect instant and similar results from all the English language learners.
Learning and mastering a language is a painstaking and gradual process. What matters is there
is evident progress on the part of the language learner.
Overall, this study marks its contribution to the constantly growing body of knowledge
about assessing speaking in English language teaching especially within multilingual English
language teaching and learning contexts.
References
Abbaspour, F. (2016). Speaking competence and its components: A review of literature.

International Journal of Research in Linguistics, Language Teaching and Testing,
1(4), 144- 152. Retrieved from http://ijrlltt.com/fulltext/paper-25092016150504.pdf
Akhmadullina, R. M., Abdrafikova, A. R., & Vanyukhina, N. V. (2016). The use of music as
a way of formation of communicative skills of students in teaching English language.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1295-1302.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1114401.pdf
Al-Sobhi, B. M. S. & Preece, A. S. (2018). Teaching English speaking skills to the Arab
students in the Saudi school in Kuala Lumpur: Problems and solutions. International
Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(1). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172338.pdf
Al Yafaei, Y. & Attamimi, R. (2019). Understanding teachers' integration of Moodle in EFL
classrooms: A case study. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p1
Alemi, M. & Khanlarzadeh, N. (2016). Pragmatic assessment of request speech act of
Iranian EFL learners by non-native English speaking teachers. Iranian Journof
Language Teaching Research, 4(2). Retrieved from
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(4). Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=3
Atamturk, N., Atamturk, H. & Dimililer, C. (2018). Native speaker dichotomy:
Stakeholders' preferences and perceptions of native and non-native speaking English
language teachers. South African Journal of Education, 38(1). Retrieved from
54
Bakar, N. I. A., Noordin, N., & Razali, A. B. (2019). Improving oral communicative
competence in English using project-based learning activities. English Language
Teaching, 12(4), 73-84. doi: 10.5539/elt.v12n4p73
Barrido, E. & Romero, L. (2005). Pragmatic oral proficiency in English of the entering
freshmen at the college of education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,
2(2), 74-89. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068848.pdf
Bautista, M. L. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 5(2), 226-233. Retrieved from
Bedir, H. (2019). Pre-service ELT teachers' beliefs and perceptions on 21st century learning
and innovation skills (4Cs). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 231-
246. doi:10.17263/jlls.547718
Berman, E. (2017). An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to understanding
researchers’ data management practices at UVM: Integrated findings to develop
research data services. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2017.1104
Bernardo, A. (2011). "De-hegemonizing" the "hegemonized": An exploratory study on the
dominion of American English in the oldest university in Asia. i-manager’s Journal
on English Language Teaching, 1(3), 7-22. Retrieved from
Bernardo, A. (2011). The empirical dimension of communicative language tests: The case of
selected Philippine universities. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching,
1(1), 31-50. Retrieved from
Bhatti, A., Shamsudin, S. & Said, S.B.M. (2018). Code-switching: A useful foreign language
teaching tool in EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 93-101.
Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (2009). Unintended consequences of using tests to improve
learning: How improvement-oriented resources heighten conceptions of assessment as
school accountability. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 68-91.
Retrieved from journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/download/236/230
Brown, G.T.L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2009). Assessment policy and practice effects on
New Zealand and Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 35, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587152
55
Brown, K., & Peterson, J. (1997). Exploring conceptual frameworks: Framing a World
Englishes paradigm. In L. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000. pp.
32–47. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i & East-West Center.
Burkart, G. (1998). The essentials of language teaching – teaching speaking. Retrieved
November 14, 2018 from www.nclrc.org
Burns, A. (2019). Concepts for teaching speaking in the English language classroom. LEARN
Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 12(1), 1-11.
Cancino, E. M. R. & Cruz, C. P. B. (2019). Exploring the use of bibliotherapy with English
as a second language students. English Language Teaching, 12(7), 98-106. doi:
10.5539/elt.v12n7p98
Chang, S. & Martínez-Roldán, C. (2018). Multicultural lessons learned from a
Chinese bilingual after-school program: Using technology to support ethnolinguistic
children's cultural production. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 36-41. Retrieved from
Coskun, A. (2017). The effect of Pecha Kucha presentations on students' English public
speaking anxiety. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 19(1),
11-22. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162589.pdf
Dayag, D. (2004). Editorializing in L2: The case of Philippine English. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 5(1), 100-109. Retrieved from
Dela Rosa, J. (2016). Experiences, perceptions, and attitudes on ICT integration: A case
study among novice and experienced language teachers in the Philippines.
International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology, 12(3), 37-57. Retrieved from
Ekmekçi, E. (2016). Comparison of native and non-native English language teachers’
evaluation of EFL learners’ speaking skills: Conflicting or identical rating
behaviour? English Language Teaching, 9(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p98
Elshawa, N. (2017). Malaysian instructors’ assessment beliefs in tertiary ESL classrooms.
International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 5(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.29
56
Engh, D. (2013). Why use music in English language learning? A survey of the literature.
English Language Teaching, 6(2), 113-127. Retrieved from
Erfe, J. & Lintao, R. (2012). Using processing instruction for the acquisition of English
present perfect of Filipinos. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching,
Fan, J. (2019). Chinese ESL learners' perceptions of English language teaching and learning
in Australia. English Language Teaching, 12(7), 139-152. Retrieved from
Fereshteh Tadayon, F. & Khodi, A. (2016). Empowerment of refugees by language: Can ESL
learners affect the target culture? TESL Canada Journal, 33(10), 129–137.
http://dx.doi.org/1018806/tesl.v33i0.1249
Gaibani, A. & Elmenfi, F. (2016). Age as an affective factor in influencing public speaking
anxiety of English language learners at Omar Al-Mukhtar University. Advances in
Language and Literary Studies, 7(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.2p.179
Galaczi, E. D., French, A., Hubbard, C. & Green, A. (2011). Developing assessment
scales for large-scale speaking tests: a multiple-method approach. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 18(3), 217-237.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.574605
Gan, Z. (2013). Learning to teach English language in the practicum: What challenges do
non-native ESL student teachers face? Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
38(3). Retrieved from https://eric.gov/?q=Learning+to+teach+English+language+
in+the+practicum%3a+What+challenges+do+nonnative+ESL+student+teachers+face
%3f+&id=EJ1012944
Gilmour, L., Klieve, D. & Li, D. (2018). Culturally and linguistically diverse school
environments – exploring the unknown. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
43(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n2.10
Gomari, H. & Marshall, D. (2017). From native-like selections to English academic
performance: Exploring the knowledge base of English bilinguals. Iranian Journal of
Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 129-150. Retrieved from
Haidari, S. M., Yanpar Yelken, T., & Akay, C. (2019). Technology-enhanced self-directed
language learning behaviors of EFL student teachers. Contemporary Educational
57
Technology, 10(3), 229-245. Retrieved from
Hansen-Thomas, H. & Chennapragada, S. (2018). Culture clash in the multicultural
classroom: A case study from a newcomer school. English Language Teaching,
Hernandez, H. (2016). OBE EAP-EOP model: A proposed instructional design in English for
specific purposes. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(4), 1-12.
Hirst, N. (2016). Using Pecha Kucha as formative assessment in two undergraduate modules.
(Re)conceptualising "The right lines". Practitioner Research in Higher Education,
Holroyd, C. (2000). Are assessors professional? Student assessment and the professionalism
of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1469787400001001003
Huang, H. T. D. & Hung, S. T. A. (2010). Implementing electronic speaking portfolios:
perceptions of EFL students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), E84-
E88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00996.x
Huang, Y. & Gui, M. (2015). Articulating teachers’ expectations afore: Impact of rubrics on
Chinese EFL learners’ self-assessment and speaking ability. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 3(3). doi:10.11114/jets.v3i3.753
Joe, J., Kitchen, C., Chen, L. & Feng, G. (2015). A prototype public speaking skills
assessment ETS Research Report RR-15-36). ETS Research Report Series. 1-
22.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12083
Kamali, M., Abbasi, M. & Sadighi, F. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2
grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education and
Literacy Studies, 6(1), 72-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.1p.72
Kanwal, A. & Shehzad, W. (2016). Effective intervention across socioeconomic classes for
improvement in language outcomes. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i
Karim, S. & Haq, N. (2014). An assessment of IELTS speaking test. International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in Education, 3(3), 152-157. Retrieved from
58
Kawinkoonlasate, P. (2019). Integration in flipped classroom technology approach to develop
English language skills of Thai EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 12(11),
23-34. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n11p23
Kongsom, T. (2016). The impact of teaching communication strategies on English speaking
of engineering undergraduates. PASAA, 51, 39-69. Retrieved from
Kawinkoonlasate, P. (2019). Integration in flipped classroom technology approach to develop
English language skills of Thai EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 12(11),
23-34. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n11p23
Krause, T. (2018). Using VocabularySpellingCity with adult ESOL students in community
college. ORTESOL Journal, 35, 43-46. Retrieved from
Lartec, J., Belisario, A., Bendanillo, J., Binas-o, H., Bucang, N. & Cammagay, J. (2014).
Strategies and problems encountered by teachers in implementing mother tongue –
based instruction in a multilingual classroom. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning,
1(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1167236.pdf
Liton, H. A. (2012, July). Developing teaching & learning practices in Saudi Arabia colleges:
A review. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 129-152. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533782.pdf
Murugaiah, P. (2016). Pecha Kucha style Powerpoint presentation: An innovative call
approach to developing oral presentation skills of tertiary students. Teaching English
with Technology, 16(1), 88-104. Retrieved from
Nejad, A. M. & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2019). Assessment of oral presentations: Effectiveness
of self-, peer-, and teacher assessments. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3),
615-632. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220196.pdf
Nkosana, L. (2008, April 23). Attitudinal obstacles to curriculum and assessment reform.
Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 287-312. Retrieved
fromhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/12/2/287.full.pdf+html
Nunan, D. (2010). A task-based approach to materials development. Advances in Language
and Literary Studies, 1(2), 135-160. Retrieved from:
Ocak, G., Kizilkaya, H. & Boyraz, S. (2013). Evaluation of 6th grade English
curriculum in terms of speaking skills and identifying causes of speaking
59
problems students face. International Journal of Academic Research Part B, 5(3), 366-
372. Doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-3/B.55
Oradee, T. (2012). Developing speaking skills using three communicative activities.
(discussion, problem solving and role-playing). International Journal of Social
Science and Humanity, 2(6), 533-535. Retrieved from A10036.pdf
Park, M. & Slater, T. (2014). A typology of tasks for mobile-assisted language learning:
Recommendations from a small-scale needs analysis. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8).
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052104
Parker, C., O’Dwyer, L. & Irwin, C. (2016). The correlates of academic performance for
English learner students in a New England district. SREE Spring 2016. Retrieved
from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED546480.pdf
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement
emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135. doi:10.1037/a0013383
Quy, P. H. P. (2019). Cooperative game-playing in the EFL classroom. English Teaching
Forum, 57(3), 14-23. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1228105.pdf
Ramírez Ortiz, S. M. & Artunduaga Cuéllar, M. T. (2018). Authentic tasks to foster oral
production among English as a Foreign Language learners. HOW, 25(1), 51-68.
https://doi.org/10.19183/how.25.1.362
Ren, J. & Wang, N. (2018). A survey of students' attitudes toward English graded teaching in
China: A case study of North China Electric Power University. English Language
Teaching, 11(5), 24-32. Retrieved from
Renau, M. L. & Pseudo, M. (2016). Analysis of the implementation of a WebQuest for
learning English in a secondary school in Spain. International Journal of Education and
Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 12. Retrieved from
Reynolds-Keefer, L. (2010). Rubric-referenced assessment in teacher preparation: An
opportunity to learn by using. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(8).
Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=8
Rodríguez-Bonces, M. (2017). A basis for the design of a curriculum incorporating music
and drama in children's English language instruction. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers'
Professional Development, 19(2), 203-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n2.59583
60
Saefurrohman & Balinas, E. (2016). English teachers classroom assessment practices.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 5(1), 82-92.
Sawaki, Y. (2007, July). Construct validation of analytic rating scales in a speaking
assessment: Reporting a score profile and a composite. Language Testing, 24(3), 355-
390. Retrieved from http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/24/3/355.full.pdf+html
Schenck, A. (2018). NESTs, necessary or not? Examining the impact of native English
speaker instruction in South Korea. Journal of International Education and
Leadership, 8(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1181270.pdf
Shuqair, K. & Dashti, A. (2019). Teachers' perceptions of the use and effectiveness of
children's literature in the EFL classrooms of the primary schools of Kuwait. English
Language Teaching, 12(7), 87-97. doi: 10.5539/elt.v12n7p87
Singay (2018). English oral communication needs of Bhutanese students: As perceived by the
teachers and students. English Language Teaching, 11(4), 74-81. Retrieved from
Sonsaat, S. (2018). Native and nonnative English-speaking teachers' expectations of teacher's
manuals accompanying general English and pronunciation skills books. CATESOL
Journal, 30(1), 113-138. Retrieved from
Tailab, M. M. K. & Marsh, N. (2020). Use of self-assessment of video recording to raise
students' awareness of development of their oral presentation skills. Higher Education
Studies, 10(1), 16-28. doi:10.5539/hes.v10n1p16
Tan, K. H., Farashaiyan, A., Sahragard, R. & Faryabi, F. (2020). Implications of English as
an international language for language pedagogy. International Journal of Higher
Education, 9(1), 22-31. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n1p22
Tarrayo, V. (2011). Metatext in results-and-discussion sections of ESL/EFL research: A
contrastive analysis of Philippine English, Taiwanese English, and Iranian English. i-
manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(3), 39-52. Retrieved from
Tarrayo, V. & Duque, M. (2011). Arguing in L2: Discourse structure and textual
metadiscourse in Philippine newspaper editorials. i-manager’s Journal on English
Language Teaching, 1(4), 11-24. Retrieved from
61
Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational
outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 117-140. Retrieved from
Vergara, E. (1990). English for specific purposes – a primer. Philippines: ESP Regional
Network Center (Luzon).
Wandera, D. B. & Farr, M. (2018). Interrupting ideologies of cultural deficiency: Illustrating
curricular benefits of plurilingualism in a Kenyan classroom. Journal of Language
and Literacy Education, 14(1). Retrieved from
Wang, L. J. & Chang, H. F. (2010). Applying innovation method to assess English speaking
performance on communication apprehension. Belt Journal, 1(2), 147-158. Retrieved
from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25529836.pdf
Wilson, J., et al. (2016). An urgent challenge: Enhancing academic speaking opportunities for
English learners. Multicultural Education, 23(2), 52-54. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1097857
Xing, D. & Bolden, B. (2019). Exploring oral English learning motivation in Chinese
international students with low oral English proficiency. Journal of International Students,
Yang, Q. & Dixon, V. (2015). Application of games in college English teaching in China.
International Research and Review, 4(2), 65-75. Retrieved from
Yesilçinar, S. (2019). Using the flipped classroom to enhance adult EFL learners' speaking
skills. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 58, 206-234.
Zhang, Y. & Elder, C. (2011, January). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and
native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs?
Language Testing, 28(1), 31-50. Retrieved from
http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/28/1/31.full.pdf+html
Zhao, Z. (2013, December). Diagnosing the English speaking ability of college students in
China – validation of the diagnostic college English speaking test. RELC Journal,
44(3), 341-359. Retrieved from
http://rel.sagepub.com/content/44/3/341.full.pdf+html
62
Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
Instruction: Please check (√) your response to the following statements by using the scale
below.
1 = Not Effective 2 = Sometimes Effective 3 = Effective 4 = Highly Effective
1 2 3 4
Speaking can be assessed through
(Not (Sometimes (Effective) (Highly
_____________________________________.
Effective) Effective) Effective)
1. advertisement delivery
2. allowing code switching
3. answering philosophical questions or reasoning
4. asking for and giving information
5. asking opinions on social issues
6. blended learning/computer-aided instruction
7. brochure, magazine and newspaper presentation
8. choral readings
9. communicative group tasks (e.g. team building)
10. computer applications (WebQuest, Google Earth, Wiki
visualization, Vocabulary Spelling City, Duolingo,
Kahoot, etc.)
11. conference participation
12. creating own sentences and dialogues
13. debates and argumentations
14. demonstration speeches
15. diagnostic tests (pen and paper)
16. dialogues
17. digital board games (board game language-learning)
18. digital learning playgrounds (language learning through
gaming)
19. disc jockeying
20. discussing teacher and student feedback
21. election campaigning
22. English adventure classes (e.g. cultural trips during
immersions)
23. English-only policy
24. everyday casual conversations
25. extemporaneous speeches
26. feedback reports
27. flipped classrooms
28. giving and following oral instructions/directions
29. graduated mock tests (oral and written)
30. group discussions
31. group oral presentations
32. group works
33. guided conversations
34. guided reporting
35. hosting/emcee exercises
36. icebreaker questions
37. imitation and mimicry
38. immersions
39. impromptu speeches
40. individual oral presentations
41. informative speeches
63
42. intensive language programs
43. interviewing foreigners
44. learning English with English speakers
45. memorized speeches
46. memory and rote production
47. mirror exercises (observing lips and mouth movement
during speaking drills)
48. mobile-assisted language learning (MALL)
49. mock job interviews
50. modelling of prosodic features
51. monologues and soliloquys
52. multimodal cues (allowing the reliving personal
experience according to the contents that are presented in
their natural social environment)
53. newscasting
54. one-on-one coaching
55. online conversations
56. online learning (pure online English courses)
57. open discussion sessions
58. oral descriptions of people, objects, places
59. oral interviews
60. oral proficiency tests
61. peer assessments
62. performance-based activities
(e.g., presentations, portfolios, exhibits and fairs)
63. practicing of pauses
64. pre- and post-tests
65. presentations with question and answer
66. product presentations
67. pronunciation tutorials and phonetic exercises
68. radio drama
69. reading aloud
70. reading texts
71. recitations
72. retelling stories and passages
73. role plays, skits, and improvisations
74. sample call center scenarios
75. self-assessment (self-monitoring and evaluation of English
speaking skills via reflections or rubrics)
76. service learning and/or buddy system
(students tutor their fellow students)
77. short passages reading and answering of questions
78. short storytelling
79. show-me activities (show and tell)
80. simulations
81. situational analysis
82. situational speeches (toast, eulogy, etc.)
83. speaking with native speakers of English
84. speech choirs
85. speech olympics
86. speech writing
87. sports commentator exercises
88. standardized English tests (e.g. IELTS,
TOEIC, TOEFL, etc.)
89. standup comedy
64
90. students as evaluators
(e.g., three students are tasked to evaluate the speaker in
terms of content, delivery, mechanics, respectively)
91. talking to English speaking individuals
online
92. task-based language teaching (real-life situations e.g.,
visiting a doctor, calling customer service for help)
93. tongue twisters
94. tour-guiding
95. translation
96. two-way discussions
97. use of analytic rating scales or rubrics
(e.g., content, delivery, mechanics)
98. use of circle stories (teacher provides a plot and setting and
students construct the story’s ending)
99. use of daily newspapers for speaking and reading drills
100. use of drama
101. use of English village (whole class simulates a small
English speaking community)
102. use of ESL books
103. use of fliptop battles in argumentation
104. use of idioms and idiomatic expressions
105. use of jazz chants and rhythm in speaking drills
106. use of language games (e.g., Spictionary, charades)
107. use of mother tongue
108. use of multimedia (not just one but a variety of media
technologies)
109. use of native-speaker models in listening and speaking
drills
110. use of open-ended stories
111. use of poetry
112. use of politically-correct words
113. use of situational comedy (sitcom)
114. use of songs
115. use of textbooks
116. use of a variety of video blogs
117. video jockeying
118. video recordings
119. video reflections
120. video-conferencing
121. virtual storytelling
122. vocabulary building exercises
123. whole class mills (student is given a questionnaire with
questions related to the topic; students must fill in the form
by asking each other questions as they move around the
classroom)
124. yes/no questions about random topics
125. Others (Please specify):
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Thank you!
65
Book Review
Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in

Global Contexts by Hanh thi Nguyen and Taiane Malabarba (Eds.), Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 2019. Pp. xi + 313.
Reviewed by Cheikhna Amar. Kobe University, Graduate School of Intercultural Studies,

Kobe, Japan
This volume is the first to empirically document the realities of natural interaction in EFL
settings from a Conversation Analytic (CA) perspective. The book sheds light on a variety of
topics that are significant to both CA researchers and EFL researchers more generally.
Covering many EFL classroom types with different age groups of learners and different first
languages, the collection focuses on EFL learning and teaching practices. The editors point out
the importance of applied CA methods and how they are effective in understanding teaching
and learning practices in classroom settings.
The book organizes its ten chapters into three main sections. Part 1 focuses on current
issues that deal with learners’ development of interactional competence, Part 2 deals with
teaching and testing practices, and Part 3 investigates some of the socio-cultural and ideological
forces in English language teaching. In this review I will briefly introduce each part by
summarizing one chapter from each section.
In Part 1, learners’ development of interactional competence, the chapter by Maria
Vanessa aus der Wieschen and Soren Wind Eskildsen shows how teachers introduce new
vocabulary items with a gesture-talk combination. They emphasize the effectiveness of
multimodal resources in classroom teaching. The study also points out the importance of time
management, especially for young learners, and that teachers should give enough time for
teaching the new language instead of time-consuming games which do not provide learning
opportunities.
The second part presents four chapters on teaching and testing practices as dynamic
process. In the chapter written by Tim Greer titled “Closing up testing: Interactional orientation
66
to a timer during a paired EFL oral proficiency test”, for example, the author shows how
participants in a paired conversation test manage the test process, specifically how they bring
the test to a close by monitoring the timer. The findings reveal that students who show greater
evidence of engagement with the topic do not monitor the timer actively. On the other hand,
those who monitor the timer closely are less involved in the conversation. This chapter raises
the issue of using timers during tests and how they can distract the students from the topic and
also suggests that EFL teachers should introduce pre-closings to the students to enable them to
close conversations naturally.
The third and final part of the book documents sociocultural and ideological forces in
language teaching. Taiane Malabarba's chapter ‘In English, sorry’: Participants’ orientation to
the English only policy in beginning-level EFL classroom interaction” examines language
policy as a joint endeavour by teacher and students in an EFL classroom in Brazil. It shows
participants’ methods for instituting language policy in the classroom, revealing that students
orient to translation into their native language as a last option in understanding vocabulary and
that they prioritize the use of English over Portuguese. This chapter also documents how the
teacher socializes the students into a preference for English. The important issue raised in this
article is the difficulty of implementing an English-only policy in the classroom: it requires
teachers to build more meaningful and engaging lessons but, if done properly, English only
classes play a role in developing learners’ interactional competence. Malabara's study also
demonstrates how language policy is managed locally in the classroom via a wealth of
interactional practices (Amir, 2013).
In this way, the contributions of this book address a wide variety of topics related to
learning, teaching, and testing (EFL). The topics are from a variety of settings; small classes,
large classes, and test situations, and the locations also are equally diverse, including Asia,
Europe, and South America. The contributions to this book suggest how embodied action is
fundamental to understanding what is going on in classroom, and how teachers can improve
the interactional conditions for language learning, particularly in situations where the target
language is not commonly used beyond the classroom context.
However, the volume has some shortcomings, for example there is a lack of studies
covering EFL in university classrooms’ context. In addition, the transcription conventions used
by authors are not consistent, which may confuse readers.
Overall, the strengths of this volume overcome its shortcomings. It provides deep insights into
EFL learning, teaching, and testing through lenses of the emic perspective of CA.
67
References
Amir, A (2013). Self-policing: How English-only is upheld in the foreign language
classroom. Novitas-ROYAL 7(2), 84-105.
Biodata
Cheikhna Amar is a lecturer at Kobe University, Japan. He is using CA methods to analyze
teacher-student interaction in EFL classrooms in Japan. The main focus of his research is on
teachers’ practices to pursue students’ responses.
68

The Asian EFL Journal: May 2021 Volume 25 Issue 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Asian EFL Journal: May 2021 Volume 25 Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Asian EFL Journal

Published by the English Language Education Publishing

©Asian EFL Journal 2021

1. Marcus Bridle ………………………………………………………….. 2

2. Diana J. Lee and Tae-Young Kim …………………………………… 20

3. Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace …………………………………... 39

1. Cheikhna Amar ………………………………………………………... 66

Foreword by Issue’s Production Editor

Bonifacio T. Cunanan, Ph.D.

A Comparison of Step Patterns in a Model Essay and Learner Texts:

The Use of Essay Models

Body Paragraphs (n.3)

e.g., Because / account for / therefore / may result from / as a result

e.g., These / They (anaphoric reference) / In short

e.g., In addition, / Furthermore / Another / Also

e.g., To sum up / In conclusion

Using AntMover for Text Analysis

Figure 1. AntMover ‘Processed’ View

Figure 2. AntMover ‘Moves’ View

Figure 3. AntMover ‘Outline’ View

Model 23.08% 25% 17.31% 13.46% 9.62% 9.62% 1.91%

Argument Support Summary

b) Inadequate Learner Step Formation

The following passage is an example:

Each step was coded by AntMover as ‘argument’. In context, however, it could be

Adult Bilinguals’ Perceptions of Changes in Motivation and Attitude

Diana J. Lee and Tae-Young Kim

Kim, Tae-Young (corresponding author, Ph.D. OISE/Univ. of Toronto) is Professor in the

Department of English Education, College of

Keywords: Adult bilingual, perceptions of motivational changes, motivating factors,

Recent Advances in L2 Motivation and Demotivation Theories

Data Collection and Analysis

Dimension Motivation Factors Demotivation Factors

As indicated in Table 1, motivation and demotivation factors are classified by seven

During Elementary School

Kindergarten Elementary School Middle School

Following is an excerpt from Leah:

Summary, Implications, and Limitations

Speaking Assessments in Multilingual English Language Teaching

Xenia Ribaya Emperador-Garnace

Keywords: assessment, English Language Teaching (ELT), multilingual, speaking, oral

Scale for Interpretation on the Effectiveness of the Speaking Assessment Methods

Results and Discussions

Methods of Assessing Speaking in Multilingual Classrooms

Perception of English Language Teachers towards the Effectiveness of the Assessment

Top 10 Speaking Assessment Methods

Majority of the language teachers view the integration of technology in multilingual

Least Five Speaking Assessment Methods

Abbaspour, F. (2016). Speaking competence and its components: A review of literature.

Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in

Reviewed by Cheikhna Amar. Kobe University, Graduate School of Intercultural Studies,

You might also like