2.3. Previous Related Studies in the Field
2.3.3. Teachers’ Beliefs towards TBI
2.3.3.1. Studies in the Non-Egyptian Context
148
149
was analyzed in the majority of studies using thematic analysis frameworks where the data was reported as themes and sub-themes within the data set. The participating teachers from these studies reported holding a variety of qualifications in language and education (e.g., certificate, bachelor, diploma, master, Ph.D, etc.) with long-term L2 teaching experiences that qualified them to take part in these studies on a voluntarily basis.
Taken together, the findings from the above studies were positive towards the use of TBI in the classroom to boost students’ language development in general and their speaking development in particular. These findings were accounted for the merits of TBI in providing students with the authentic communicative activities essential to improve their professional and academic careers. Not only this, it was also useful to promote students’ overall academic progress and meet their needs and interests. Additionally, it enabled students to deal with real- life tasks, triggered them to become more creative, confident and independent and motivated them to interact and practice the target language through work group. For these studies, this resulted in the improvement of students’ communicative competence as well as their cognitive and social skills.
Moreover, these studies agreed with many others on some impediments to, or challenges against, the adoption of TBI in the classroom to encompass: (1) teachers’ low proficiency levels (e.g., Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu & Xiong 2016; Pham & Nguyen 2018; Tabatabaei &
Hadi 2011), (2) teachers’ lack of adequate knowledge, experience and confidence associated with insufficient training on TBI (e.g., Chen & Wright 2017; Duong & Nguyen 2021; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu & Ren 2021), (3) teachers’
inability to assess students’ learning based on students’ performance on the task (e.g., Duong &
Nguyen 2021; East 2019; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu &
150
Ren 2021; Liu & Xiong 2016; Pham & Nguyen 2018), (4) teachers’ lack of motivation (e.g., Douglas & Kim 2014; Mustafa 2010), (5) teachers’ adherence to the old traditional teaching methods due to prior experiences or school regulations (e.g., Chen & Wright 2017; East 2019;
Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021), (6) students’ low cognitive abilities and proficiency levels (e.g., Chen & Wright 2017; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Zheng & Borg 2014), (7) students’ varied language levels especially in large-sized classes (e.g., Bhandari 2020; Duong & Nguyen 2021;
Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021), (8) teachers’ limited management skills to handle group activities (e.g., Duong & Nguyen 2021; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan &
Chambers 2018; Liu & Ren 2021; Liu & Xiong 2016), (9) teachers’ lack of academic guidance and administrative support (e.g., Adamson & Yin 2008; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu &
Ren 2021; Nahavandi & Mukundan 2012), (10) the heavy workload on teachers as facilitators (e.g., Hadi 2013; Hao 2016; Liu & Xiong 2016; Mahdavirad 2017), (11) the incompatibility of TBI with the standardized examinations (e.g., Chen & Wright 2017; Deng & Carless 2010;
Duong & Nguyen 2021; Hao 2016; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Zheng & Borg 2014), (12) the extensive use of the native language in EFL classes (e.g., Ahmed 2017; Lam, Nguyen &
Nguyen 2021; Mustafa 2010), (13) the lack of appropriate instructional materials (e.g., Chen &
Wright 2017; Duong & Nguyen 2021; East 2019; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan &
Chambers 2018; Liu & Ren 2021; Pham & Nguyen 2018), (14) large class sizes (e.g., Bhandari 2020; Duong & Nguyen 2021; Hadi 2013; Hao 2016; Lam, Nguyen & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu & Xiong 2016; Pham & Nguyen 2018), (15) the limited availability of time (e.g., Duong & Nguyen 2021; East 2019; Hao 2016; Lam, Nguyen &
Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu & Ren 2021; Liu & Xiong 2016; Pham &
Nguyen 2018), (16) uncertainty about teachers’ role (e.g., Duong & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan
151
& Chambers 2018; Liu & Xiong 2016), (17) deterioration of students’ grammatical competence as a result of the avoidance of correcting students’ grammatical errors (e.g., Chen & Wright 2017; Duong & Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018), and (18) students’ lack of motivation for language learning (e.g., Douglas & Kim 2014; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018).
By and large, the above studies showed that teachers had conflicting beliefs and attitudes towards TBI; namely, they believed that TBI is advantageous to students; meanwhile, it is arduous to be implemented in the classroom. To give an example of the conflicting attitudes of teachers towards TBI, the results of the study conducted by Carless (2007) showed that the participants (11 secondary school teachers and 10 teacher educators) who had ample knowledge of TBI and its fundamentals, accounted TBI as a good teaching methodology, while at the same time they believed that TBI is not suitable for Hong Kong secondary schools. The unsuitability of TBI was ascribed by Carless (2007) and Duong and Nguyen (2021) to the inappropriateness of TBI for assessment requirements and students’ language levels, the large class sizes and the lack of teaching expertise. Carless (2007) argued for the use of the weak version of TBI as more suitable for schooling or at least adapting TBI to enhance the role of grammar instruction and to integrate other language skills (e.g., reading and writing skills) into the language learning and teaching process.
Interestingly, the studies carried out by Bhandari (2020), Hasnain and Halder (2021), Jeon and Hahn (2006), Lin and Wu (2012), Liu, Mishan and Chambers (2018), Liu and Ren (2021) and Liu and Xiong (2016) showed that, although the participating teachers did not have clear understandings of the rudiments and practices of TBI, they had positive attitudes towards TBI. They defined TBI as an effective teaching approach used in the classroom to develop students’ language skills and particularly students’ communicative skills, but they failed to
152
describe the task cycle with good examples. Moreover, some teachers thought that TBI concentrates only on speaking and they did not know that TBI can develop all four language skills. Additionally, others thought that TBI does not focus on form and they do not understand that focus on form can be enhanced either implicitly or explicitly though interaction or explicit linguistic instruction in TBI classes. However, despite favoring TBI, the studies by Hao (2016) and Liu, Mishan and Chambers (2018) found that teachers continued with the traditional teaching approaches and methods as a safer way to cover the instructional material within the instruction time limit and as a more secure way to meet with the examination criteria.
Substantiating this, the participants from the studies by Lin and Wu (2012), Liu and Ren (2021) and Zheng and Borg (2014) believed that TBI is laborious to be applied in the classroom context due to large class size, insufficient class time, inflexible syllabus, inadequate assessment system and students’ low proficiency level. Because of these constraints, the respondents from the study by Lin and Wu (2012) preferred to use GTM and the respondents from the other two studies preferred to utilize TSLT as more suitable for students than TBI. Adding to this, the participants from the study by Jeon and Hahn (2006) believed that teachers’ lack of confidence is the main reason for teachers’ reluctance to apply TBI in the classroom. To be able to adopt TBI, the participating teachers recommended conducting intensive training on TBI to include the training on the merits and demerits of TBI, the fundamentals of TBI and the most preferable techniques used with TBI.
Reviewing teachers’ beliefs towards TBI from another angle (based on students’ school levels), research showed that teachers’ beliefs varied largely based on students’ school levels. In light of this, research indicated that teachers of primary school levels had positive attitudes towards TBI; such as the studies carried out by Bryfonski (2021), Carless (2004), Leaver and
153
Kaplan (2004), and Xhaferi and Xhaferi (2013). The results from these studies also referred to some obstacles as detrimental factors against the perfect application of TBI in the classroom;
such as students’ lack of initiative, teachers’ inability to and students’ inability to complete certain communicative tasks. To apply TBI with school children, Xhaferi and Xhaferi (2013) argued for simplifying the given tasks or choosing the tasks that are more suitable for students’
low cognitive abilities. Bryfonski (2021) uncovered that teachers will be able to teach school children if they are provided with ample training on the key principles of TBI and how to apply them to students at an early age.
Research also showed that teachers of graduate students had positive attitudes towards TBI, believing that TBI is the best to enhance students’ language development in general and their communicative language skills in particular (e.g., Hadi 2013; Hao 2016; Lam, Nguyen &
Nguyen 2021; Liu, Mishan & Chambers 2018; Liu & Ren 2021; Liu & Xiong 2016; Pham
& Nguyen 2018). The researchers of these studies believed that TBI is more effective with college students as they have the cognitive ability to notice the gap and reflect on their own language as required by TBI. They also felt that TBI is appropriate to college students for having the language proficiency level that enables them to use what they know about the target language to complete the given communicative tasks by themselves without assistance from their teachers. They further stated that the difficulty of applying TBI for students at university education levels stems mainly from teachers’ adherence to the administrative system mandated by universities with regard to time schedule, teaching outline and instructional materials.
Additionally, research revealed that the studies conducted on teachers at secondary school levels were conflicting. For example, some studies showed that secondary school teachers’ beliefs towards TBI were negative (e.g., Deng & Carless 2010; Hasnain & Halder
154
2021; Zheng & Borg 2014). The participants from these studies expressed that it is hazardous to shift from the traditional teaching methods at this very critical stage in students’ learning because TBI contradicts with the assessment systems currently in force which may lead to students failing the final exams. The participants from the study by Zheng and Borg (2014) referred to some other detrimental factors against their implementation of TBI such as mismatching curriculum materials, improper examination systems, time pressure, students’ low proficiency levels, large-sized classes, etc. Other studies, on the other hand, showed secondary teachers’ positive attitudes towards the use of TBI in the classroom but with some challenges, typically the afore-mentioned challenges, against its perfect implementation in the classroom context (e.g., Bhandari 2020; Carless 2007; Chen & Wright 2017; Duong & Nguyen 2021; Hu 2013; Lin & Wu 2012).
To end with, the study by Hasnain and Halder (2021) was very appealing as the researchers of this study synthesized previous research on teachers’ cognition towards TBI, aiming at exploring teachers’ understanding and beliefs towards using/ not using TBI in the classroom as well as understanding the instructional procedures that should be followed in the classroom to enhance the perfect implementation of TBI. In collecting the research data, an initial search was conducted by the researchers on some journal databases (e.g., Elsevier, Eric, Sage, Springer, etc.) using some key words and phrases to find some related empirical peer- reviewed articles (e.g., teachers’ opinions towards TBI, teachers’ attitudes towards the implementation of TBI, teachers’ perceptions towards TBI, so forth).
The searching process was ruled out by some eligibility, inclusion and exclusion criteria determined by the researchers of the study. These criteria included that (1) the publication date should range from 2004 to 2019, (2) the studies should focus only on teaching of English as a
155
second language while other languages should be excluded, (3) the studies should be available and accessible through open access portals, and (4) any duplicate and irrelevant articles should be excluded. The screening process resulted in sixteen studies (fourteen articles and two theses) representing the research data. These studies were then coded, categorized and analyzed under the following headings: (1) authors’ name, (2) publication year, (3) nature and size of samples, (4) research context, (5) publication source, and (6) research findings.
The results showed that (1) most of studies were conducted in the Asian countries where there is an urgent need to improve the process of English language teaching; such as Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and China, (2) there was a strong tendency towards the use of TBI as an effective teaching strategy to improve students’ learning of English as a second language in different contexts, even with the lack of deep knowledge and practical experience of TBI by L2 teachers in some contexts; such as the Chinese and Taiwanese contexts, (3) the exception from the above generalization was found in the Vietnamese teachers who preferred using traditional teaching methods over TBI, despite the call for using the principles of the communicative language teaching paradigm by the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training to enable L2 students to communicate effectively in proper communicative contexts, (4) the suitability of TBI for graduate but not for primary students for the difficulty of imposing discipline and understanding teachers’ instruction by school children, (5) the challenges encountered by teachers in applying TBI in L2 classrooms were typically similar and included teachers’ lack of English proficiency level, teachers’ adherence to the traditional teaching methodology, teachers’ lack of deep knowledge of TBI, improper curriculum and assessment systems, large-sized classes and teachers’ inability to assess students’ performance based on TBI, and (6) teachers recommended to provide proper training on TBI to maximize the benefit
156
from its implementation in the classroom context and to conduct both intergroup and intragroup assessments as a way to enable collective and individual assessment of students to overcome the problem associated with the adoption of communicative tasks in pairs or groups.
Overall, literature indicated a general belief and attitude that TBI is able to provide what is necessary to enhance effective language teaching and successful learning development whatever the context is and whosoever learners are. Yet, to date, it did not receive universal acceptance by language practitioners to be used in the classroom as an effective alternative to the well-established teaching methodologies on account of the impediments to its application in the classroom. Therefore, to increase TBI practices while at the same time maximizing its benefits in the classroom, such impediments should be tackled. Not only this, teachers may be given training on TBI to enable them to evaluate its principles, a matter which may enhance reaching new understandings about the successful application of TBI in real-world classrooms.