During the 20th century,it was commonly assumed that the best way to teach English as a foreign language was through the exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction.Although recent publications have challeng...During the 20th century,it was commonly assumed that the best way to teach English as a foreign language was through the exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction.Although recent publications have challenged this view,many educational policy-makers in schools and universities still tend to to insist onEnglish only",and decry the practice of codeswitching between the target language and the first languages of learners and teachers.Findings from a recent volume of case studies clearly show that codeswitching is a common practice across a wide range of university EFL classrooms in Asian contexts.In many cases,this codeswitching may be regarded as aflexible convergent approach",where languages are switched more or less spontaneously and at random.Often,however,the teachers reported in Barnard and McLellan(2014)responsibly alternated between languages in a principled and systematic way.This paper presents and discusses observational data and extracts from interviews with teachers on the rationale for codeswitching.Thus codeswitching is both normal and can be pedagogically justifiable.The paper will then suggest how teachers can reflect in-,on-and for-action(Farrell,2007)by systematically recording,listening to,and analysing their use of language(s)in their own classrooms,using a set of interactional categories(Bowers,1980).Reflective practitioners may then develop collaborative action research projects(Burns,1999,2010)which could empower them to critique and challenge monolingual language-in-education policies.展开更多
This article reviews and reflects on Yang & Gao's research on beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction.After a summary of the major arguments, the author offers a detaile...This article reviews and reflects on Yang & Gao's research on beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction.After a summary of the major arguments, the author offers a detailed and balanced critique on Yang&Gao's research. In the end, the author comes to a conclusion based on her critique and proposes several implications it has on L2 writing instruction.展开更多
文摘During the 20th century,it was commonly assumed that the best way to teach English as a foreign language was through the exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction.Although recent publications have challenged this view,many educational policy-makers in schools and universities still tend to to insist onEnglish only",and decry the practice of codeswitching between the target language and the first languages of learners and teachers.Findings from a recent volume of case studies clearly show that codeswitching is a common practice across a wide range of university EFL classrooms in Asian contexts.In many cases,this codeswitching may be regarded as aflexible convergent approach",where languages are switched more or less spontaneously and at random.Often,however,the teachers reported in Barnard and McLellan(2014)responsibly alternated between languages in a principled and systematic way.This paper presents and discusses observational data and extracts from interviews with teachers on the rationale for codeswitching.Thus codeswitching is both normal and can be pedagogically justifiable.The paper will then suggest how teachers can reflect in-,on-and for-action(Farrell,2007)by systematically recording,listening to,and analysing their use of language(s)in their own classrooms,using a set of interactional categories(Bowers,1980).Reflective practitioners may then develop collaborative action research projects(Burns,1999,2010)which could empower them to critique and challenge monolingual language-in-education policies.
文摘This article reviews and reflects on Yang & Gao's research on beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction.After a summary of the major arguments, the author offers a detailed and balanced critique on Yang&Gao's research. In the end, the author comes to a conclusion based on her critique and proposes several implications it has on L2 writing instruction.
