Presentation of data from student teachers’ oral proficiency based on IELTS band descriptors

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

« A pause in the wrong place, an intonation misunderstood, and a whole conversation went awry. » (From: Passage to India by EM Forster 1924:269) In conversations with others, misunderstandings often arise for various reasons. To avoid misunderstandings and achieve successful communication, speakers and hearers need to achieve some form of mutual understanding. This effort to achieve mutual understanding in communication can, however, go « awry » (Foster 1924:269) and may cause misunderstanding. The misunderstanding may provide amusement, but often causes embarrassment. In an instructional context, however, such misunderstandings may lead to a breakdown in communication and may have a negative impact on the learning experience. Commonly, language is described as the means by which a person learns to organize experiences and thoughts.
It stands at the centre of the many cognitive, affective and social factors that shape learning (Thomas & Collier 2002). One of the most important uses of language, therefore, also in an instructional setting, is for the purposes of successful communication between people, be they native or non-native speakers of the language (Dascal 1999). The notion of misunderstanding has been described using socio-linguistic terms, among others, miscommunication, misinterpretation, pragmatic failure or breakdown in communication (Dascal 1999:753). Although one cannot possibly know how often misunderstandings occur in everyday conversation, Dascal (1999:754) states that it is « assumed that misunderstandings are ubiquitous ». Hinnenkamp (1999:9) agrees by stating that « my own research rather supports the view that misunderstandings are all-pervasive and ubiquitous, in all kind of encounters ».
This is something we can all agree on as we continuously experience misunderstandings in our everyday lives. It would seem, however, as if native speakers of English are able to repair misunderstandings rather quickly, often within the next turn. In view of this ability for quick repair, some researchers have come to believe that misunderstandings should not be considered a problem, or something to be fixed, but rather that it should be considered a natural part of communication (Hinnenkamp 2003; 1999; Wong 2000; Dascal 1999). Misunderstandings occur daily, and while these misunderstandings are not necessarily always due to second language (L2) phenomena, such as grammatical inadequacy or cross-cultural transfer, it is evident that second language speakers at times experience difficulties in expressing their thoughts in the target language, which may ultimately result in misunderstanding. The study of misunderstanding falls within the domain of intercultural communication (ICC). Hinnenkamp (1999:1) states that misunderstanding has become the « raison -d’etre » for studying ICC because the communication involving the misunderstanding is often between « cultural others ».
A great body of knowledge on theory and analysis of miscommunications and misunderstandings exists in the literature, mainly perhaps, owing to linguists’ interest in ambiguity in language (Hinnenkamp 2003; Wong 2000; Dascal 1999; Weigand 1999; Weizman 1999; Schegloff 1992). This research deals with, among others, defining the term « misunderstanding », and classifying and analysing misunderstandings.
However, research interest seems to have excluded the actual misunderstandings that cause miscommunication. Misunderstandings in the literature are generally classified according to structural rather than content factors, such as where the misunderstandings occur in the turn-taking (Wong 2000; Schegloff 1992). There seem to be few classifications that categorise what is actually occurring when misunderstandings take place, and fewer still explain the reasons for the occurrence of misunderstandings in an instructional context, which this study aims to address. The type of misunderstanding and the possible reasons for such misunderstandings could shed light on problematic instructional communication. This study is, therefore, an investigation into the occurrence, type, frequency and causes of misunderstanding in the instructional setting.

Table of contents :

• Description
• Chapter 1 Overview of the study
  • 1.1 Introduction
  • 1.2 Rationale
  • 1.3 Scope of the study
  • 1.4 Terminology
  • 1.5 Summary of research design and methodology
  • 1.6 Anticipated research constraints and limitations of the study
  • 1.7 Outline of the study
• Chapter 2 Conceptual framework
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 Second language acquisition
  • 2.3 Communicative competence
  • 2.4 Speech Act Theory and speech acts
  • 2.5 Instructional communication
  • 2.6 Misunderstanding
  • 2.7 Conclusion
• Chapter 3 Research design and methodology
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Paradigmatic and epistemological premises
  • 3.3 Research design
  • 3.4 Theoretical framework
  • 3.5 Methodology
  • 3.5.1 Selection and profile of participants
  • 3.5.2 Research sites
  • 3.5.3 Data collection process
  • 3.5.4 Instrumentation
  • 3.5.4.1 Observations
  • 3.5.4.2 International English Language Testing Score (IELTS)
  • 3.5.4.3 Focus group interviews
  • 3.5.4.4 Questionnaire
  • 3.5.5 Data analysis procedure
  • 3.5.5.1 Observations
  • 3.5.5.2 International English Language Testing Score (IELTS)
  • 3.5.5.3 Focus group interviews
  • 3.5.5.4 Questionnaire
  • 3.6 Role of the researcher
  • 3.7 Strategies for enhancing trustworthiness
  • 3.8 Ethical considerations
  • 3.9 Conclusion
• Chapter 4 Data analysis and findings
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Data analysis – procedure
  • 4.2.1 Observations (recorded lessons)
  • 4.2.2 International English Language Testing Score (IELTS)
  • 4.2.3 Focus group interviews
  • 4.2.4 Questionnaire
  • 4.3 Data analysis – presentation
  • 4.3.1 Presentation of data from observations
  • 4.3.2 Presentation of data from student teachers’ oral proficiency based on IELTS band descriptors
  • 4.3.3 Presentation of data from focus group interviews
  • 4.3.4 Presentation of data from questionnaire
  • 4.4 Data analysis – emerging categories
  • 4.4.1 Emerging categories from observations
  • 4.4.2 Reasons for the identified misunderstandings
  • 4.4.3 Emerging categories from focus group interviews
  • 4.4.4 Emerging categories from questionnaire
  • 4.5 Data analysis – discussion
  • 4.5.1 Oral proficiency, idiosyncratic utterances and speech act realization
  • 4.5.2 Inadequate content knowledge
  • 4.5.3 Inadequate instructional (methodological) skills
  • 4.5.4 Teacher disposition and personality
  • 4.5.5 New knowledge: extending Hinnenkamp’s (1999) model of
  • classifications of misunderstandings
  • 4.5.6 Consolidation of discussion
  • 4.6 Conclusion
• Chapter 5 Significance and implications of study
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Synopsis and significance of the study
  • 5.3 Implications of the study
  • 5.3.1 Pragmatic or communicative competence and oral proficiency in instructional settings
  • 5.3.2 Content knowledge
  • 5.3.3 Methodological skills
  • 5.4 Recommendations for further research
  • 5.4.1 Pre-service teacher development courses
  • 5.4.2 Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic competence
  • 5.5 Conclusion
  • References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Misunderstanding in second language instructional communication