Group/Pair Work and Error Corrections in CLT: A Study of Views of (EFL) Teachers in Saudi Arabia

Citation: Mustapha Mukaddas DARMA (PhD) (2022). Group/Pair Work and Error Corrections in CLT: A Study of Views of (EFL) Teachers in Saudi Arabia. Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture (YOJOLLAC), Vol. 10, Number 1. Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Nigeria. ISSN 2449-0660

GROUP/PAIR WORK AND ERROR CORRECTIONS IN CLT: A STUDY OF VIEWS OF (EFL) TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA

By

Mustapha Mukaddas DARMA (PhD)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out whether Saudi Arabian teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) allow group/pair work as well as minimize error corrections in their Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classes. Group/Pair work and minimal error corrections occupy key places in CLT because the approach is pragmatic. It emphasizes students’ engagement to enhance operating in the target language students learn. Therefore, the premier places they occupy dictate their significant positions in CLT. The researcher has used a closed-ended questionnaire that contains six items with the view to eliciting participants’ views towards the two factors. The questionnaire is administered on eighteen (46%) of thirty-two EFL teachers of a technical institute in Saudi Arabia. The result shows that the participants allow reasonable group/pair work to their students and ignore structural errors that do not distort their students’ messages. Consequently, some recommendations for improvements have been suggested. eg Students’ errors should be seen as a transition to fluency.

Background of the Study

EFL faces problems of standard methodology from grammar translation, natural approach, community approach to CLT approach. Many papers have been written on how to improve one methodology or the other. These changes gave birth to CLT approach as a combination of methods to ease learning and make learners to communicate well in English and other languages. This paper is aimed at finding out views of Saudi Arabian EFL teachers towards group/pair work and correction of students’ errors in CLT approach.

According to Perlovsky (2013), attitudes refer to a set of emotions and behaviors toward a particular object, concept or activity. These attitudes are often the result of experience or upbringing which can have a powerful influence on individuals’ behaviours. The influence can be that of rejection or acceptance of a certain approach, technique of teaching or evaluation of a programme. Individuals having diverse emotions may differ or agree in their attitudes towards a teaching approach or ways of assessing learning outcome. Also, Oskamp (1977) views attitude as responding positively or negatively to a particular object or item. This definition encompasses three components of attitude namely affective, cognitive and psychomotor. The affective domain deals with the person’s feelings and emotions about an idea or concept. The cognitive component is related to a person’s perception and conception towards an object while the last type is the psychomotor component which is a person’s physical responses towards an idea or a concept leading to application. Therefore, attitude towards a language teaching approach comes from one’s mental assessment and appreciation derived from feelings towards the position of their language or the language they study leading to fluency (Amin, 2020).

On the other hand, communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has a long history in English as a Second Language (as well as a foreign language) classroom. It is an approach which focuses on developing learners’ communicative skills in a meaningful context (Muhridza. & Satanihpy, 2019). As such, Nhem (2019) and Morrow (2022) posit that there is a considerable debate as to the appropriate ways of defining CLT, and no single model of CLT is universally accepted as authoritative. They view CLT as a language teaching approach that emphasizes the communication of meaning rather than the practice of isolated grammatical forms. The approach develops language learners’ knowledge and skills needed for a proper interpretation and use of a language in different communicative settings.

Moreover, since language is, to a greater extent, spoken, learners should engage in speaking through dialogue, group work, questions and answers as well as other means that will make the students use the target language. Some other ways of teaching in the communicative approach is by utilizing the learners’ knowledge. Teaching a student within his vocabulary range is desirable because it comforts students to speak within their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). This way, the students will be ready to learn when they use their own words with only a few managable lexical items to deal with.

Consequently, Richards & Rodgers (2006) explain that students’ interaction with each other is important to accomplish communication goals. Class interaction prepares them to become self-regulating in their target language and when they take part in more activities, it permits them to interact with their peers in pairs or groups. By this interaction, they rely on each other to solve problems rather than depend on the teacher alone. Therefore, attention should be paid to fluency rather than accuracy to keep students meaningfully busy in a target language. In addition, in a communicative class, authenticity is the key. Students should use the language productively and receptively in unrehearsed contexts (Fallatah, 2022) using real life situations (or their simulations) like a market, a cafeteria, banking settings etc.

Ahmed & Rao (2013), Durrani (2016) and Khatib &Tootkaboni (2017) also view CLT as a communicative approach for teaching a language through interaction as both the means and the goal of learning language. This view stems from the understanding that a language is meant for communication; therefore, to learn to communicate should be the major aim of language teaching. In CLT, language is taught pragmatically because it is seen as a social medium which speakers use to interact (Ahmed & Rao, 2013). They interact to seek or give information, sell or buy products, get or give assistance and so on.

In addition, Sarab et al (2016) explain that the pedagogical rationale for the use of communicative approach depends on the claim that it will contribute to the learners’ linguistic development. They further maintain that language teaching inculcates using the language, mastery of linguistic knowledge and communicative competence. This view affirms the assertion that the purpose of language is communication and, so, the reason for teaching a language is to facilitate falicitatious communication. This postulation is shared by Thornbury (2006) and Galloway (1993) too.

Moreover, CLT is clearly aimed at employing the theoretical concept of the Communicative Approach by making students to attain communicative competence as the goal of language teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2006 and Littlewood (2007). Littlewood further advocates that this approach states that being able to communicate requires more than linguistic competence: It also needs communicative competence which means knowing when and how to say what to whom (Hymes, 1971).

Students’ full participation in CLT through group/pair is relevant. Therefore, studies were conducted by others like Liton (2012) who studied EFL teaching and learning practices in some colleges of Saudi Arabia to develop learners’ participation in class. In the research, participants were sampled from Abha, Jeddah, Jizan, Khamis, Madinah, Makkah and Riyad to represent some of the regions in the kingdom. The research revealed that grammar method classes were dominant in the schools and group/pair work was lacking while errors were sternly corrected. Consequently, it was suggested that the existing EFL materials and methodologies be redesigned to help the students play their desired roles so as to learn the target language better while errors should be allowed to run the course without any pedantic correction.

Also, Wong (2010) conducted a survey in South Plains of Spanish division to find out his participants’ attitudes towards CLT students’ group/pair work. The outcome revealed that some of the participants did not support group/pair work which they rejected for having the classes to be noisy without the control of the teacher. As for errors, the errors were found to be fairly tolerated. Students were only corrected when there was a break in communication.

In addition, Batawi (2010) had another survey in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 100 language teachers. The result showed that 72% of the participants preferred teacher-centered classes without any group/pair work because of the influence their teachers had on them. They did to their students what was done to them when they were students. They were passive learners and so they made their students too. According to them, a teacher-fronted class helped to settle students down to maintain discipline, therefore, there was no group/pair work and errors were frowned at.

It should be noted that a success of a teaching approach can be ascertained by the views of teachers towards it. If the views are positive, the approach may receive acceptance but if they are not, its rejection may be inevitable. Therefore, this study was carried out to get the teachers’ feedback on the students’ group/pair work and error corrections for better learning and teaching. Consequently, it is hoped that the findings will improve the strategies of teachers so that they may be more equipped to produce students with a high-level communicative competence.

Similarly, investigating teachers’ beliefs and perceptions towards Communicative Language Teaching is a valuable source of knowledge for practitioners and stakeholders to improve the quality of language teaching, to improve the curriculum and to develop the teaching methodologies (Kalbani, et al., 2018).

Research Question

 This study seeks to answer these questions:

1. Do Saudi EFL teachers give group/pair work to their students while using CLT?

2. How do Saudi EFL teachers view error corrections?

Methodology

This research administered closed-ended questionnaires adapted from Karavas-Doukas (1996) on eighteen (46%) of thirty-four EFL teachers in a technical institute in Saudi Arabia without a formal permission from the school authorities. To validate the research tool, it was piloted on a few experienced teachers who were conversant with research administration. The teachers gave some useful suggestions which were accepted before the questionnaire was used.

A quantitative method was used in this study to sample the views of some Saudi EFL teachers towards group/pair work and correction of students’ errors in CLT. Each participant filled and submitted the questionnaire within the expected time. The questionnaire had statements related to group/pair work and students’ error correction in CLT approach. The participants were given closed-ended questionnaires to sample their opinions. A descriptive data analysis was used to report the findings and the outcome of the survey was determined by the number and types of responses collected.

Random sampling was used for this research. This form of sampling is a non-probability type which is the commonest (Cresswell, 1994). Eighteen (46%) of thirty-two EFL male teachers of a technical institute were used as participants for the survey. The participants were of different nationalities with different academic qualifications and years of teaching experiences. Sixty-five percent of them were in their forties while the rest of them (35%) were in their fifties

Results and Discussion:

The presentation of the result is based on statement-by-statement discussion of the questionnaire responses. The five sections of the questionnaire will be discussed one by one as follows:

Pair/Group work

Pair or group work is a feature of CLT which scaffolds students to simulate real life situations. This section covers four statements that complement each other. The students are intended to find out whether the participants allowed them or not. Coskum (2011) suggests that with pair and group work, students can produce a greater amount of language output than they would produce in teacher-centered activities.

Results

Research Question One: This question seeks to find out if Saudi Arabian EFL teachers give group/pair work to their students. A summary of the responses is presented according to each statement.

Statement One: Group work allows students to explore problems for themselves and thus have some measures of control over their own learning.

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	4	24%
A	10	55%
N	3	16%%
D	1	5%
SD	0	0%
Total	18	100%

This statement recognizes the importance of allowing students to interact with one another in order to reinforce themselves. The outcome of the result shows more acceptance in the ‘strongly agree’ and the ‘agree’ scales than in others. Twenty-four percent of the respondents chose to strongly agree and 55% of them agreed. These two scales had the highest scores with 79% aggregate. However, only 16% was neutral, while the least score (5%) disagreed. This result might be viewed that majority of participants agreed with the statement at varying degrees.

Statement Two: It is impossible in a large class of 33 students to organize your teaching so as to suit the needs of all.

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	3	15%
A	5	40%
N	3	15%
D	7	30%
SD	0	0%
Total	18	100%

This statement acknowledges the hardship of organizing and controlling a large class, let alone form a group or pair work. Therefore, the scoring of the result is reversed because a negative response shows acceptance while a positive one indicates rejection. Fifteen percent of the participants strongly agreed with the statement as against 40% which agreed. Consequently, 55% of the respondents saw large class size as a hindrance to group/pair work. However, 15% of the participants had a neutral view, while 30% disagreed. None of the participants strongly disagreed. What can be seen from this result is that, majority of the participants (55%) were in favor of not having group work because of large class size.

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

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	3	15%
A	9	50%
N	2	10%
D	3	20%
SD	1	5%
Total	18	100%

This statement doubts the possibility of running a smooth group/pair work unless it is not given predominantly. Hence, the scoring system is also reversed. The positive scores indicate rejection of group/pair work while the negative ones show acceptance. The statement has attracted a total response from the respondents. From the result, 15% of the participants strongly disagreed and 50% agreed with the statement. However, only 20% disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed. The remaining 10% was on the neutral scale. By disagreeing, it means that class population is not a hindrance to either group or pair work.

Consequently, the results show that there were more participants who identified with the statement than those who didn’t which means they rejected having group/pair work except when had sparingly.

Statement Four: Group work activities have little use since it is very difficult for a teacher to monitor the students’ performance and prevent them from using their mother tongue.

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	1	6 %
A	2	11%
N	2	11%
D	11	61%
SD	2	11%
Total	18	100%

This statement does not support group work because of its difficulty for the teacher to monitor students’ performances and it does not allow students to use their vernacular. The scoring of the statement is reversed too. To accept it means opposition of group/pair work while to reject it shows acceptance. A total of 17% of the participants identified with difficulty of monitoring students’ activities during group work. The percentage of the participants which chose to either strongly disagree or simply disagree was 72%. However, two (11%) participants were neutral. As rejection of the statements attracted 72% of the respondents, it confirms the participants’ recognition of group/pair work activities to have a lot of use and it is not difficult to conduct and monitor.

The outcome of these four statements indicates that 55% of the participants were not in favor of having group work because of large class size. Also, 66% of the participants rejected having it predominantly, except when had sparingly. However, 79% of the participants accepted that group work allows students to explore problems for themselves and thus the students have some measures of control over their own learning. Further, 72% of the participant rejected the statement that group/pair work had little use because of its difficulty to monitor.

In conclusion, it is clear that the result has answered the question that sought to find out whether Saudi Arabian EFL teachers give group/pair work to their students.

This result reflects that of Nunan (1989), Thompson (1996), Li (2011), Richards & Rodgers, (2006), and Saegboon (2006) that learners need to have the freedom to choose their language use in pair and group work activities. Also, students’ interaction with each other is paramount to accomplish communicative goals.

Error Correction

This section seeks to have an insight into how the participants deal with their students’ errors. How and when they give the correction is the preoccupation of this section. Do the participants ‘nit-pick’ the errors as in grammar translation teaching or do they tolerate and view them as a learning process which can be remedied when fluency begins to surface? To investigate the error correction, two statements are set aside to collect the participants’ responses and the results are:

Research Question Two: This question seeks to know how Saudi EFL teachers view error corrections.

Statement Five: Since errors are normal parts of learning, much correction are wasteful of time.

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	1	6%
A	10	56%
N	2	11%
D	2	11%
SD	1	6%
Total	16	90%

This statement supports how errors should be tolerated so long as they do not distort the message and a teacher should not be too strict in making corrections. Only 90% of the participants responded to the statement because two of the participants did not indicate their opinions. The result reveals that one (6%) strongly disagreed while two (11%) simply disagreed with the statement. These two form a cumulative result of three participants (17%) that rejected the statement. In addition, one (6%) participant chose to strongly agree and ten (56%) participants simply agreed, whereas two (11%) respondents were neutral. In response to this statement, as such, only three (16%) participants rejected the claim. The whole result shows that eleven (62%) of the respondents supported that errors are usual parts of learning process, therefore, pedantic corrections are futile.

Statement Six: The communicative approach to language teaching produces fluent but inaccurate learners.

Responses	Number of Respondents	Percentage
SA	1	6%
A	4	22%
N	2	11%
D	9	50%
SD	2	11%
Total	18	100%

This statement rejects CLT because it produces inaccurate learners whose errors are rampant even though their fluency is acknowledged. The scoring of the responses will, therefore, be reversed since acceptance of the statement indicates rejection of CLT, while rejection of it is acceptance. In response to the statement four, (22%) of the participants agreed, while only one (6%) of them strongly agreed. The only neutral choice is from two participants who form only11%. These responses also show rejection of the statement which signals the participants’ acceptable attitude because 11% strongly disagreed and 50% disagreed to form an aggregate of 61%, whereas 11% was neutral.

Subsequently, it may be concluded that all the statements were either strongly agreed or agreed with. This discovery reveals the positive attitudes of the participants on CLT which further provides answer to the research questions which seeks to find out how Saudi EFL teachers view error corrections.

This result has similar findings with others like Al-Twairish (2009), Ansarey (2012) Badger (2008), Batawi (2010), Chang (2010), Coskun, (2011), Ji (2014), Liton (2012), Li Pei-Long (2011), and Wong (2010).

Discussion of Results

As this study is about the attitudes of EFL teachers towards group work and error correction in CLT, eighteen (46%) of thirty-one EFL teachers at a technical institute in Saudi Arabia were sampled for the study. Survey questionnaires were given to the sample. The outcome of the survey revealed that 88% of the participants had positive attitudes towards the roles accorded to them in CLT. This result agrees with that of Richards & Rodgers (2001) and Memari (2013). Their results showed that teachers are also facilitators who are present in the class to guide students to learn to automatically communicate in the target language.

Similarly, this result resembles others like that of Ansarey (2012) who conducted a research on 30 teachers in Bangladesh. The result revealed that teachers had positive attitudes towards group/pair work as well as error corrections in CLT. It also reflects that of Al-Twairish (2009) whose result revealed that the participants complied with the roles group/pair and error corrections. Another researcher who had a similar result was Batawi (2010), whose result indicated that participants exhibited features of CLT in their classes. Chang (2010), like others, found out that teachers were in line with the demand of CLT. Vongxay (2013) also had similar results that his samples liked the roles prescribed for group/pair work and error corrections better than in other methods.

However, these results are not global because there are some papers whose results showed the contrary. For instance, Fan et al.’s (2014) result revealed a teacher-centered class which did not fully engage students to participate in their lessons. Teacher talk time was more dominant than student talk time. Badger (2008) also discovered that all the classes observed were not learner-centered. Further, Liton (2012) found out too that the CLT variety that was found suffered from lack of proper group work, and Wong (2010) noticed that most of the participants were not using CLT approach.

Conclusion

As this paper was about attitudes of teachers of JTI towards group/pair work and error corrections, forty-six percent of teachers of an institute were sampled for the study. A 20-item survey questionnaire was administered on them. The outcome of the survey demonstrated that majority of the teachers had positive attitudes towards CLT.

Recommendations

After the conduct of this survey, it was found that some recommendations were needed for improvement of the teachers’ attitudes towards CLT. Because of these, it was recommended that

1.   students who demonstrate improvements in their effort to communicate in the target language should be rewarded with certificates or extra marks in their examinations, and

2.   Errors that don’t impede meaningful communication should be condoned. They should be seen as a transition to fluency.

3.   As this study was restricted to the EFL alone, it will be good if another study will be conducted to tally students’ attitudes towards their roles, the teachers and grammar in teaching.

References

Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2013). Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: A case study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, 187-203.

Al-Twairish, B. (2009). The effect of the communicative approach on skills of the listening and speaking secondary school students. [M. A. Thesis], King Saud University, Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

Ansarey, D. (2012). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Teachers. Attitude and Perception in Bangladesh. ASA University Review, 6(1), 61-78.).

Amin, A. (2020). Attitude towards language in sociolinguistics settings: A brief overview. Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, vol. 2, no. 1, 27-30.

Badger, R., & Yan, X. (2008). To what extent is communicative language teaching a feature of IELTS classes in China? IELTs Research Report Volume 13. IDP: IELTS Australia.

Batawi, G. H. (2010). Exploring the use of communicative language teaching in Saudi Arabia [M A Dissertation] and British Council. https://www.ielts.org/ PDF/ Report4.pdf.

Chang, C. (2010). Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2013, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 196–209 © Centre for Language Studies National University of Singapore.

Coskun, A. (2011). Investigation of the application of communicative language teaching in the English Language Classroom. A case study on teachers’ attitudes in Turkey.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Durrani, H. (2016). Attitudes of undergraduates towards grammar translation method and communicative language teaching in EFL context: A case study of SBK women’s university Quetta, Pakistan. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(4), 167-172.

Fallatah, R. M. (2022). A Sociomaterial perspective of the challenges of implementing the communicative approach in Saudi State Schools.

Fan, J., Ji, P., & Song, X. (2014). Washback of university-based English language tests on students’ learning: A case study. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 178-91.

Galloway, A. (1993). Communicative language teaching: An introduction and sample activities. ERIC Digest.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmonds worth, Middx: Penguin

Ji, X Song (2014). The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics.

Kalbani, M. S. A., Solabarrieta, J., & Touq, A. B. (2018). Omani students’ perceptive of communicative language teaching approach in higher education in Oman: Its practice. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, 2(21), (1333.).

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitude to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187-198.

Khatib, M., & Tootkaboni, A. A. (2017). Exploring EFL learners' beliefs toward communicative language teaching: A case study of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 109-134.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2^nd ed.) OUP, London.

Li Pei-long (2011). The study on the effectiveness of communicative language teaching strategies used in college english classes. Sino-US English Teaching, Vol. 8, No. 7, 457 461.

Liton, H. A. (2012). Developing EFL Teaching and Learning Practices in Saudi Colleges: A Review. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2).

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(03), 243-249.

Memari, M. (2013). How appropriates communicative language teaching (CLT) in EFL Context (an Iranian Case Study). Life Science and Biomedicine, 3(6), 432-438.

Morrow, C. K. (2022). Communicative language testing. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching 1-7.

Muhridza, N. H. M., & Satanihpy, A. (2019). Observation of communicative language teaching (CLT) in a year 3 primary school in Johor Bahru. LSP International Journal, 6(1).

Nhem, D. (2019). Cambodian EFL teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about communicative language teaching. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 238-251.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for communicative classroom. Cambridge: CUP.

Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (1977). Attitudes and opinions. Psychology Press.

Perlovsky L. (2013) A challenge to human evolution cognitive dissonance. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00179.

Richard, J. & Rodgers, Th. (2006). Approaches and methods in language `teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Saegboon, W. (2006). CLT revisited. NIDA Language and Communication Journal, 136-146.

Sarab, M. R., Monfared, A., & Safarzadeh, M. M. (2016). Secondary EFL school teachers’

  perceptions of CLT principles and practices: An exploratory survey. Iranian Journal of

  Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 109-130.

Savignon, Sandra J. (2002). Communicative curriculum design for the 21st century. Forum. Vol. 40. No. 1. http://exchanges. state. gov/forum/.

Thompson, G, (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching, ELT Journal, 50(1), 9-15.

Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford, McMillan.

Vongxay, H. (2013). The implementation of communicative language teaching (CLT) in an English department in a Lao higher educational institution: A case study [Master's thesis].

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press.

Wong, R. (2010). Carrot or stick? An investigation into motivation orientations in learning English among Hong Kong Chinese students. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 10(1), 71-87.

Appendix A

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Group/Pair Work and error Corrections in Saudi Arabian EFL CLT Classes

 Please read each statement and tick (√) one appropriate answer. For this questionnaire the following five responses are prepared:

· Strongly Agree (SA) · Agree (A) · Neutral (U) · Disagree (D) · Strongly Disagree (SD)

Serial No. S/N	Statements	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
1	Group work allows students to explore problems for themselves and thus have some measures of control over their own learning.
2	It is impossible in a large class of 33 students to organize your teaching so as to suit the needs of all.
3	The learner-centered approach to language teaching encourages responsibility, self-discipline and it allows students to develop their full potentials.
4	Group work activities have little use since it is very difficult for a teacher to monitor the students’ performance and prevent them from using their mother tongue.
5	Since errors are normal parts of learning, much correction are wasteful of time.
6	The communicative approach to language teaching produces fluent but inaccurate learners.

[Adapted from EvdokaKaravas-Doukas (1996)]