STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING IN CHINA

Student comments shed light, as well, on contemporary educational practices in China. Survey responses are analyzed in relation both to content and to form. Issues of language, content, and form are addressed in several ways. First, the survey instrument itself constitutes the content of a language exercise which activates student language skills. Second, student answers to survey questions provide content not only for data analysis and interpretation but also for eventual suggestions for pedagogy. Moreover, as both content and form of student responses interact to illuminate learner characteristics, both quantitative and qualitative data are given. Verbatim student comments demonstrate the inextricable nature of connections among language, content, and form. For purposes of explication, content is featured first.

Regarding gender, males and females appear in equal distribution. Though students record forty-two major fields - ranging from English majors to agriculturists to medical specialists to bee-keepers - the data file is split simply according to English majors and non-English majors.

Fifty-two percent of all students report feeling most confident and when reading English. The second-highest ranked skill, Speaking, percent of the students. That is, 78 percent feel most confident and either reading or speaking English.

Chi-square statistics show that older students and non-English majors report feeling more confident and comfortable reading English than do younger students and English majors. However, also important is the fact that large numbers of students across the board and within all categories report feeling both confident and comfortable when reading English.

A likely explanation for this decided preference for reading lies in the fact that older students and non-English majors have studied English chiefly from textbooks. Moreover, reciting text books - even to the point of memorizing them - is standard operating procedure for Chinese students of all ages. Therefore, it is no wonder that students feel both confident and comfortable in doing something which they do so frequently.

Students, then, prefer reading by far, then speaking, then listening and writing. The ranking probably reflects the extent of students' personal experiences with and use of English. From their first day in class, they read English. From the very beginning, as well, they recite English - a form of speaking, though not of communicating. In many instances, speaking and listening complement each other. Writing, on the other hand, is in a class by itself - foreign at any age or stage.

1. Reading is dry;
2. I don't like writing;
3. Intensive Reading makes me nauseous;
4. Writing is difficulty, but I like it.

Reasons why writing produces anxiety in so many students are not hard to find. Quite frequently, even though students may have studied English for ten years or more, they will not have done any writing whatsoever until they first study composition with a native speaker of English. Because Chinese middle-school teachers of English will themselves have rarely written English, seldom do they make any attempt to teach their students to write. Moreover, as the college entrance examination system in China does not call for the writing of coherent, unified paragraphs in English, writing receives short shrift in Chinese high schools.

Students will have set out word-for-word English translations of Chinese. They nay have copied passages from purportedly fine models of English writing. They will have attended lectures on writing. They may even have read quite a bit about writing, but rarely will they actually have written.

Thirty-five percent of the group name reading as their most effective study method. Among English majors, 41 percent cite reading, but only 26 percent of the non-English majors do so.

Differences in esteem for reading may reflect differences in students' purposes for studying English. Young students and English majors, that is, need to absorb and retain great amounts of information in English and about English in order to perform well on their own examinations and in order to teach English in the future. Older students and non-English majors, on the other hand, probably are more interested in learning to communicate in English. Therefore, the clear vote for reading may reflect a bent toward "book learning."

Practice is mentioned by 19 percent of the students as their most effective study method; use is cited by another 14 percent. Those who mention practice and use may well be thinking of the same concept. However, practice can be carried out alone, whereas use - of necessity - involves at least one other person.

A separate paper might be written concerning the idea of more, as Chinese students relate it to language study:

1. More practice makes more progress;
2. 1 don't think study efforts of my own were too important to my English study. Much more time is necessary;
3. Read more, speak more, write more, and listen more.

Even when the word "more" does not appear, the notion pervades responses:

4. Read, read, and read;
5. Speak, speak, and speak.

Frequently, students refer to teachers when commenting on their own most effective study methods. For example, one student writes, "Under the help of a real English teacher." Nor are student reflections always happy ones. Here is what one 21-year-old woman studying in a teachers' college has to say:

I have not any good or bad method to learn English, because learn after teacher. Teachers let me read or write, I do it, 1 never think method about English. I don't like English. It's only because my future's job.

1. Connecting, comparing, memorizing;
2. Memorizing, copying dictionaries;
3. Learn the text by heart;
4. First, understand; secondly, memorize; then read.

Such individual student comments about preferred study methods reveal much, as, well, about student attitudes toward English-language learning and teaching.

In listing what they consider least effective, students reveal what they themselves have tried or what practices have been imposed upon them:

1. Deadly memorizing without understanding;
2. Memorizing dictionary;
3. Memorize thousands of words but I still can't use them idiomatically.

Many students project their own linguistic difficulties onto their language teachers:

1. Teacher-centered method is the least effective;
2. Teacher's speak all the time in the class, leaving no chance for me to practice;
3. The teacher fills me up like an old vinegar bottle;
4. In the whole class we study the same thing without any humor and activity.

A number of students use question about personal least effectivw study method as an impetus to reflect on motivation in language study:

1. Without motive, no method is effective;
2. When I don't want to study, nobody can make me leran something;

I was simply too shy to open my mouth.

Results; Helpful Teacher-Dirested Activities

Students are asked in Chinese and English, @As you think back over your English study time, which teacher-directed activities have you found most helpful? Three methods appears prominently;

1. Class participation is cited by 22 percent;
2. Meaningful explanation is cited by 21 percent;
3. Elicitation method is mentioned by 17 percent.

Elicitation, sometimes called "thought-provoking teaching" or "Socratic method" -involves teachers who ask students genuine questions that encourage thoughtful responses. Further implied are teachers who listen respectfully and follow through in response to students' thoughtful answers.

For centuries, under traditional methods, teacher autonomy went unquestioned in China. That is, students listened while teachers lectured, learned what teachers laid out. Older students might be expected to feel more comfortable when teachers and students maintain traditional roles. However, occasionally the younger students also say that they find traditional approaches most helpful:

1. The teacher point at our mistakes;
2. Ask us to recite some useful drills and sentences;
3. To do more exercises.

Whereas a few students express appreciation for traditional teaching methods many others urge student autonomy: "Take students as the center of the class" Though the Chinese have a reputation for indirectness, some respondents come right to the point: "Make the dull things into interesting things”.

Students advocate classroom interaction. Rather than sit in class listening passively as teachers lecture, most students would prefer to take a more active role in their language learning:

1. The way teachers give students the key to find the answers themselves;
2. Teacher teach us like friend to friend;
3. To be taught in easy, friendly atmosphere is most helpful.

Meaningful content appeals to a number of students:

1. Teachers give us lots of interesting materials, give us chances to read and think, then communicate with us about comments. This way is most helpful;
2. Lead us to focus on the ideas of the text, not on the grammar point.

Interrelated methods and materials are prized by large numbers of students:

1. Use different methods for different students;
2. Active atmosphere and interesting topic. Several things in one lesson;
3. I think the most important thing for teachers is to arouse the students' interest. The teacher'd teach students by reading, writing, listening and speaking at the same time, not just grammar.

Whereas a few learners of English in China prefer traditional methods, most students value more recent approaches to language study. Lively student comments on the questionnaire reflect a lively interest in active language learning and teaching.

1. I have not got any.
2. We have hardly any opportunity to use English except chatting with my schoolmates. Seldom, we meet foreigners and exchange our thoughts and ideas, but they're too many rules forbid us.

In addition to the 16 percent who say they have no opportunity to use English beyond the classroom, another 31 percent say they have "few" opportunities. Taken together, 47 percent of the students claim that they have either few or no chances to use English outside of school.

Thirteen percent say that reading English is their chief way to use English when not in class. The following remark is typical: "Reading by myself, listening to the radio are the two usual ways of using English." If English majors studying in the nation's capital city report very limited opportunities for English use away from school, how much more limited must be the opportunities for those who study English in remote areas and smaller cities.

Four who do have definite ideas express themselves this way:

1. To introduce English poetry to China;
2. In order to make full use of my study, I want to engage in translation, I think that is the only purpose in studying foreign language;
3. I'd like to use my English for teaching Americans Chinese;
4. I want to speak English rather than read and write all day long. Thus, I want to be an interpreter or a tour guide.

Many students choose to comment on the futility of trying to plan:

1. I cannot plan because I don't know what I will do after graduation;
2. No choice in how to use English myself.

Responding to the question about English use in the future, most English majors express negative attitudes:

1. I have to be English teacher, but I like interpreter best;
2. My cruel fate make me to be an English teacher. In the future, maybe I can only teach what I learn to my middle school students;
3. Actually, I didn't think this problem seriously before, but I am anxious tobe an active reporter or an interpreter. If the worst comes, I may be a teacher.

-A very mild question -"How do you plan to use English after you complete formal study? - triggers a number of highly charged answers that convey a great deal of information not only about characteristics of Chinese learners but also about the context of English-language study in China.

Bypassing polite phrases, some students respond bluntly regarding theirperceptions of the greatest needed improvement for English-language learning and teaching:

1. Keep out of those idle teachers;
2. Some teachers' English is very poor. Such teachers should be sacked.

Students call for improved teaching materials:

1. Chinese students are short of flexibility, so textbooks should be improved;
2. Some textbooks should be improved. They can choose much more interesting articles instead of dull ones.

One learner characteristic indirectly identified from consideration of form is that of genuine responsiveness to genuine inquiry. Demonstrated full and enthusiastic responses to the questionnaire also furnish support for two characteristics of interaction in language study that Rivers (1987) writes about. First, Rivers contends that interaction is not merely a question of someone saying something to someone. Rather, mutual respect is required, for true interaction. The survey instrument under discussion was designed in the hope that the first impression made would be one of respect. That is, the questionnaire - phrased in both English and Chinese - gives students the choice of language use and gives them ample space on which to record their comments. In this manner, the researcher hopes to convey genuine interest in student answers, genuine respect for students as thoughtful adults.

Second, Rivers also says that students achieve facility in language use when their attention is focused on sending and receiving authentic messages that contain information of interest to speaker and listener in a situation of importance to both (1987:4). The length to which many students comment on the survey shows their interest in the content of the questionnaire.

Had students been required to answer in English, responses would reflect student writing ability to a far greater extent than it would reflect their real opinion about English-language programs. As 80 percent of students chose to respond in English, and as lengthy answers in both English and Chinese characterize the responses, a great deal of confidence can be placed in the authenticity of the views expressed.

Another learners characteristic suggested by attention to the form of their answers is a willingness on the part of students to take risk in writing, that they probably would hestitate to take in speaking. For example, young English teachers most likely would not speak out in class at a teachers' college regarding their antipathy toward life as an English teacher. However, many of them express great bitterness on the subject in writing.

I third characteristic identified is a strong self-image on the part of many learners. Of particular note is the number of students who refuse to acknowledge that anything they do is "least effective." They work hard, they work long, they make progress, they work harder. They are confident of success as language learners.

Yet another characteristic that can be inferred from the Form of their copious answers is that of gratitude. That is, so rarely are Chinese students asked in a school setting to express their opinion that when the chance is offered, they respond vigorously and gratefully.

With few exceptions students appear to find the survey instrument interesting. Interest piqued, they become existentially involved with the questionnaire - another kind of interaction. Congruence obtains between what learners say directly about pedagogy and what their comments reveal indirectly. That is, almost everyone complains at some point on the questionnaire about dull lessons involving teacher-centered instruction to passive students who constitute a "captive audience." In this study, passivity seldom surfaces. In fact, only 11 out of 512 completed questionnaires is characterized by noncommittal answers, blanks, or "I don't know."

Oxford defines learning strategies as "actions taken by second and foreign language learners to control and improve their own learning." She also calls learning strategies "keys to greater autonomy and more meaningful learning" (ix). The term "methods" is used in this study to refer to actions taken by English-language learners in China to improve their own learning. Oxford speaks of memory strategies such as reviewing well and applying images and sounds; of cognitive strategies such as practising and translating; of compensation strategics such as overcoming limitations in speaking and writing; of metacognitive strategies such as paying attention, organizing, and seeking opportunities for practice; of affective strategies such as making positive statements, taking risks wisely, and writing in a language-learning diary; of social strategics such as asking questions and cooperating with peers (17-21).

Using essentially the same classification system as that used by Oxford -cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective - O'Malley and Chamot modify strategy definitions to accommodate strategies for reading and writing, as well as for speaking and listening in the foreign language (1990:128).

No new methods, or strategies, are mentioned by contemporary Chinese College students of English; no culturally specific approaches emerge. These findings suggest that effective teaming methods (techniques, strategies) may be universal but that individuals and groups differ in the extent to which certain methods are valued and emphasized. That is, emphasis - not method - may be culturally specific.

For example, though all language learning involves memorization to some extent, societies with a long tradition in which memorization and recitation are primary likely will prize and emphasize memory work more so than societies lacking such a tradition, as Spolsky notes. Moreover, the context of language learning interacts with individual and group preferred learning styles. When, for example, students have few - if any - opportunities to use English outside of the classroom setting, their giving pride of place to reading as their most helpful personal study method is not surprising. Because Chinese learners will memorize, will recite, will read, teachers of English as a foreign language in China may profitably consider appropriate ways to integrate memorization, recitation, and reading into the curriculum meaningfully.

Rather than attempting to transport a certain pedagogical methods en bloc from one educational setting to another, foreign-language teachers may want to employ a variety of methods. Spolsky, for example, formally incorporates eclecticism into his proposed model for language learning. Strevens (1987) defines eclecticism as "seeking aspects of the truth wherever it may be found, accepting illumination from any source . .., keeping the mind open to new ideas, fighting dogma." Wu Jingyu (1983) explains eclecticism from a Chinese viewpoint and sets out ways in which she thinks eclecticism can enrich English-language learning and teaching in China, from a teacher's point of view.

Greater understanding between and among students and teachers may or may not lead to greater tolerance, as Scovel warns (1983). Nevertheless, what Strevens (1988) refers to as "informed learning and teaching" must be based on rich data from both learners and teachers. Both quantitative and qualitative data, both universal and individual aspects of language study, both close-ended and open-ended criterial instruments can enrich research, can enrich both language learning and language teaching, can enrich both theory and practice.

1. Bonavia, D. (1980). The Chinese. New York: Lippincott and Crowell.
2. Garrott.J.R. (1991). Chinese Students' Cultural Values and Their Attitudes Toward English-Language Learning and Teaching. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin; University Microfilm Inc., Ann Albor, Michigan. 1992.
3. O'Malley, J.M. & Uhl Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.
5. Rivers, W.M. (Ed.) (1987). Interactive Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Scovel, T. (1983). The Impact of Foreign Experts, Methodology and Materials onEnglish Language Study in China. Language Learning and Communication, 2(1):83-91.
7. Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning: Introduction to a General Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Strevens, P. (1987). Letter to H. Douglas Brown. TESOL Newsletter, 6:21.
9. Strevens, P. (1988). Learning English Better Through More Effective Teaching: SixPostulates fora Model of Language Learning/Teaching. World Englishes, 7(1):51 -61.
10. Wu Jingyu. (1983). Eclecticism: A Chinese Viewpoint. Language Learning and Communication, 2(3):287-93.249