| December 2009 home | PDF Full Journal |

Volume 11. Issue 4
Article 2

Title
The Applicability of Principles for Instructed Second Language Learning: A South Korean Perspective

Author
Jocelyn Howard and Susan Millar
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Bio Data:
Jocelyn Howard is a senior lecturer in the School of Māori, Social and Cultural Studies in Education at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Her research interests include EFL and ESL teacher education, EFL and ESL curriculum innovation, the use of multi-media in language education, and ethnic diversity in the education sector.

Susan Millar is an English language teacher at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. She has taught English since 1985 in Japan and New Zealand, and has also worked as a teacher trainer on professional development programs for teachers from EFL countries. Her research interests are L2 teacher education and managing innovation in educational contexts.

Abstract
Communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches in second language (L2) education have been central to recent curricula innovations in a number of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, including South Korea. Research indicates that teachers can face challenges in implementing these initiatives and feel frustrated by constraints perceived to be outside their locus of control. A variety of alternative approaches which take into account specific contexts are therefore proposed in the literature. General principles and frameworks for guiding L2 acquisition have also been considered in terms of their applicability in a variety of language learning and teaching settings. This study examines South Korean teachers’ perceptions of the applicability to their contexts of the general principles for effective instructed second language learning proposed by Ellis (2005). The findings indicate that contextual constraints would impede the application of some of the principles, but that an awareness of them may give EFL teachers a sense of agency, despite wider socio-cultural constraints. The authors suggest that an understanding of research-informed principles, such as those proposed by Ellis, will assist teachers to engage in self-reflection and praxis, and provide common points of reference for language teachers and researchers in the international community.

Key Words: Ellis, principles for effective instructed second language learning, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), curriculum innovation

1. Introduction
Recent curricula innovations in several countries where English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL), including South Korea, have included communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches that are commonly used in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings. These changes have resulted in English teachers from many EFL contexts attending short-term second language (L2) teacher education programs in English-speaking countries. Participants have reported challenges implementing CLT in their classrooms, and these challenges are also widely reported in EFL literature (Breen, 2006; Butler, 2005; Chowdhury, 2003; Hu, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Li, 1998; Savignon & Wang, 2003; Wu & Fang, 2002). Researchers have explored alternatives to CLT for EFL instruction, and continue to examine the usefulness of the construct of “method” in second language teaching and learning contexts (Bax, 1997, 2003; Brown, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2006; Richards, 2001).
   Proposed solutions to reported challenges include moves towards L2 teaching approaches that are context-specific, and which align more closely to existing practices as well as to the needs and realities of specific EFL settings (Bax, 2003; Bjorning-Gyde & Doogan, 2004; Bjorning-Gyde, Doogan, & East, 2008; Breen, 2006; Fenton & Terasawa, 2006; Jarvis & Atsilarat, 2004; Johnson, 2006; Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2006). Frameworks for second language teaching along with general principles underpinning language teaching and learning have also been proposed as guidelines for teachers to apply as appropriate to their specific settings (Allwright, 2003; Brown, 2001, 2002; Ellis, 2005; Kumaravadevelu, 2003, 2006; Lightbown, 2000).
   The case study reported in this paper was motivated by feedback from several groups of Asian EFL teachers undertaking professional development programs in New Zealand, who expressed frustration at their inability to implement CLT. The study explores South Korean EFL teachers’ perceptions of the applicability of Ellis’s (2005) principles for effective instructed second language learning in their specific EFL contexts.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Communicative Language Teaching
CLT describes an approach to language education that focuses on developing learners’ communicative competence (Brown, 2001; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972; Richards & Rodgers, 1986).  Both a weak and a strong version of CLT have been described (Howatt, 1984). In the weak version, activities that promote communication are incorporated into a wider language program that allows for the pre-selection of target language forms and functions. In contrast, learners’ use of the target language drives learning in the strong version of CLT, and creates opportunities for incidental ‘noticing’ of formal features in the target language (Richards, 2006).
   CLT is a “learner-centered and experience-based view of teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 69), which promotes learner independence and requires classroom cultures with more equal relationships between teachers and learners than those in many EFL contexts (Canh, 1999; Chowdhury, 2003; Stapleton, 1995). In a CLT approach, the teacher functions as a facilitator or guide, supporting learners as they try out new language and giving feedback on errors as a necessary step in the language learning process (Nunan, 1991; Richards, 2001). Using an integrated skills approach, many CLT activities are done in pairs or small groups, so learners have opportunities to use the target language in a variety of roles and contexts that aim to approximate authentic situations to develop learners’ situationally appropriate use of the L2 (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

2.2 Differences between ESL and EFL
EFL usually refers to contexts where English is not an official language but is part of the school curriculum. In such settings, English often performs a gate-keeping role for advancement within education or careers (Richards, 1985). Most EFL students do not require English outside their classrooms, and the learners’ shared language is frequently the medium of instruction in EFL lessons. In contrast, ESL is generally used to refer to the study of English as a second or additional language in an English-speaking country, where English is the medium of instruction, and is used by learners both inside and outside the classroom. In an ESL situation, the teachers are often native speakers of English, and learners commonly have different first languages.

2.3 Challenges Implementing CLT in an EFL Environment
Researchers have identified common challenges that teachers face when endeavoring to implement CLT in a range of Asian countries, including Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Japan, China, and South Korea (Canh, 1999; Chowdhury, 2003; Li, 1998; Nishino, 2008; Stapleton, 1995; Wu & Fang, 2002). Reports of challenges frequently refer to differences between what a CLT approach requires and the transmission-style educational practices of many of these countries (Biggs, 1996; Butler, 2005; Campbell & Zhao, 1993). Learners’ traditional passivity in many Asian cultures, and their reservations about the need for communicative competence, are frequently reported to underpin students’ unwillingness to do small-group and pair activities, which are central to a communicative approach (Hu, 2002; Hui, 1997; Insull, 2001; Sun & Cheng, 2000).
   The washback effect of examinations is another widely reported constraint on the implementation of CLT in EFL contexts, with many researchers and teachers questioning the need to teach communicative competence in situations where the main purpose for learning English is for competitive national examinations that primarily test grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension (Li, 1998; Reed, 2002; Wu & Fang, 2002). Teachers in a number of EFL countries also report challenges developing and assessing their students’ communicative skills in English, due to their own lack of communicative competence, large classes, and the lack of effective and efficient oral testing tools (Canagarajah, 1999; Dash, 2002; Hasegawa, 2003; Kim, 2003; Reed, 2002).
   Further challenges are reported to derive from a lack of institutional support for communicative approaches, and from evaluating teachers according to their students' examination pass rates, with the latter in particular seen as disadvantaging teachers who implement CLT and discouraging others from trying it (Canh, 1999; Hui, 1997). Lack of support is also described in terms of insufficient resourcing, and classroom conditions that make it more challenging to implement interactive activities (Deckert, 2004; Hu, 2002; Hui, 1997; Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Pham, 2005; Sun & Cheng, 2000).
   In addition to cultural and contextual constraints, researchers note that challenges associated with implementing communicative strategies can also result from teachers’ lack of understanding of CLT (Li, 1998; Sun & Cheng, 2000; Wu & Fang, 2002). Other researchers, including Kumaravadivelu (1993) and Canh (1999), suggest that this problem may stem from teacher training programs that do not provide sufficient grounding in second language acquisition theories, or the necessary skills and practical experience that teachers need in order to confidently and competently implement communicative approaches.

2.4 Post-method and Located Approaches to L2 Education
The pivotal role of teachers in deciding what is most appropriate for their contexts has been the focus of recent L2 teacher education literature, which shows a trend towards critical perspectives on teaching approaches, and a move towards socio-cultural considerations in teacher training (Bax, 1997; Crandall, 2000; Johnson, 2006; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Lamie, 2004; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The need to take account of socio-cultural and political factors, including historical influences, has also been widely discussed in relation to classroom practice (Breen, 2006; Ellis, 2003; Kumaravadevelu, 2006; Li, 1998), with researchers reporting the development of a range of local approaches that are more compatible with existing methodologies in many EFL settings (Bjorning-Gyde & Doogan, 2004; Bjorning-Gyde et al., 2008; Breen, 2006; Fenton & Terasawa, 2006; Jarvis & Atsilarat, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2006).
   There has also been a shift in focus in EFL literature from method-based to post-method pedagogies, with the latter emphasizing teachers’ observations of their own teaching and their students’ learning in order to better understand the underlying principles of effective teaching and the circumstances that enable these (Breen, 2006; Brown, 2001, 2002; Ellis, 2005; Kumaravadevelu, 2006; Lightbown, 2000; Richards, 2001). Different frameworks and guiding principles also have been proposed to provide support for teachers as they determine the microstrategies and classroom activities that are most appropriate for their individual contexts (Allwright, 2003; Ellis, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2003, 2006; Lightbown, 2000; Richards, 2001). Among these is a set of general principles that Ellis (2005) proposed as the result of a review of a range of theoretical perspectives and empirical studies of instructed L2 acquisition that he undertook for the New Zealand Ministry of Education. 

2.5 Ellis’s General Principles for Successful Instructed Learning
Ellis’s (2005) principles address the nature of L2 competence and the foci of instruction, and are offered to language curricula developers and L2 teachers as a guide for a learning-centered pedagogy. Table 1 presents an outline of Ellis’s 10 principles. Ellis (2005) not only provides a full explanation of the rationale for each principle but also valuable guidance for operationalizing some of these (pp. 33–42). It is important to note, however, that Ellis draws attention to the inconclusive and sometimes conflicting results of L2 acquisition studies to date, and stresses that L2 research does not yet provide “a definitive account of how to ensure that instructed language learning is successful” (p. 33). Because Ellis’s principles have had a significant impact on recent L2 teaching and teacher education in New Zealand (Erlam, 2008; Litwin, 2008), these were selected as the focus for the current study.

Table 1: Summary of Ellis’s (2005) general principles for successful instructed learning

a The wording of this principle was expanded in the questionnaire to elicit teachers’ perceptions of two key learner differences identified by Ellis (2005, p. 41).

2.6 Research Aims
To explore whether Ellis’s (2005) principles would provide useful guidelines for English language teachers in South Korea as they attempt to implement the “communicative curriculum”, the study reported here investigated teachers’ perceptions of the applicability of these principles in their individual EFL contexts. The specific research questions guiding the study were:
1. How do South Korean EFL teachers perceive the applicability of Ellis’s (2005) principles for successful instructed second language learning in South Korean classrooms?
2. Which of Ellis’s (2005) principles for successful instructed second language learning do South Korean EFL teachers consider to be the most important to try to use in their classrooms?
3. What constraints do South Korean EFL teachers perceive are likely to impede attempts to implement Ellis’s (2005) principles for successful instructed second language learning?

3. The Study
3.1 Method
The study used a qualitative case study approach to investigate the research questions. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) and Burns (2000) attest to the value of such an approach for this type of investigation, that is, into “a contemporary phenomenon within a real life context” (Burns, 2000, p. 460). More particularly, they cite the value of multiple methods and subjects to increase a study’s credibility and broaden its applicability. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) caution that the transferability of the results of such a study may be limited, and stress the need for readers to exercise caution when assessing the degree and extent to which the results can be applied to other contexts.

3.2 Participants
The participants in this study were a convenience sample, comprising an intact class of 15 South Korean English language teachers (seven male, eight female) undertaking a four-week professional development program in New Zealand. The ages of participants ranged from 25 to 52 (M = 40.5), and their teaching experience ranged from 2.5 to 27 years (M = 12.8). All participants were teaching in urban middle or high schools in South Korea at the time of the study (see Figure 1).

3.3 Data Collection Materials and Procedures
In the week prior to data-gathering, participants investigated a range of approaches to EFL teaching and learning as part of their professional development program. This included an introduction to Ellis’s (2005) principles for instructed second language acquisition conducted by one of the researchers. Consideration was given throughout the study to the processes and procedures utilized to ensure that ethical requirements were fully met, that the research was conducted in a culturally appropriate manner and that the researchers’ use of L2 did not impede participants’ understanding or contributions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Dörnyei, 2003). A bilingual information sheet was distributed as part of the process of gaining informed consent, and a translator was present at the briefing session to confirm that all teachers understood that participation in the study was voluntary and formed no part of their program or assessment.
   A questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were employed for data collection. A self-completion questionnaire was used to gather demographic and qualitative data from all 15 participants. This was earlier piloted with a non-participant group of South Korean teachers to ensure clarity in both the instructions and the questions. The questionnaire elicited information about the participants’ present and preferred methods of teaching English, and the difficulties they experienced. Participants indicated which of Ellis’s (2005) principles they were currently applying in their English teaching, and which they were not applying but would like to try. During their consideration of each principle, participants also gave further explanations regarding potential impediments, and specified the resources or training they would require to apply that principle in their current teaching contexts. The questionnaire was administered and completed in English, with a bilingual glossary of key terms and an academic interpreter present.
   After coding and preliminary analysis of the questionnaire responses, individual semi-structured interviews were undertaken to give participants an opportunity to expand on their questionnaire responses, and to enable the researchers to probe, where appropriate, for a deeper understanding of the emergent findings (Burns, 2000). Fourteen of the 15 questionnaire respondents agreed to be interviewed. To ensure the interviews were conducted in a systematic order, and to minimize limitations associated with using two interviewers, our interview schedule followed guidelines proposed by Kvale (1996). Researcher-participant power relationships were also given consideration, and the researchers endeavoured to maintain objectivity in framing prompts and responding to participants’ answers (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
   Before being interviewed, the participants received a copy of the key questions. These explored the perceived benefits and challenges of applying Ellis’s (2005) principles and asked participants to rank the principles in an order that indicated which they considered most important to try to use with their own classes. All participants declined the option of having a translator present, electing to conduct the interviews fully in English. The recorded interviews (from 40 to 53 minutes’ duration) were professionally transcribed, and participants were offered an opportunity to review their responses and make changes.

3.4 Data Analysis
Because the variable-related groups within the sample were small, the quantitative data were not subjected to statistical testing. The qualitative component of the questionnaires and data from the interviews were analysed using a grounded constant comparative approach, with similarities and dissonances noted as themes were identified and categorized (Merriam, 1998). Throughout the data analysis process, the researchers were also mindful of the possibility of interpretive biases resulting from differences in their own and the participants’ personal biographies and cultural frames of reference (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).

4. Results
In the following presentation of the results, direct quotations are used where possible to give voice to the research participants, with “‘I” and “Q” used to indicate whether the quotations are from interview or questionnaire responses. Pseudonyms have been assigned to all participants to ensure confidentiality.

4.1 Current and Preferred Methods of Teaching English
All 15 participants reported using a variety of approaches to teach English. Grammar-translation was the primary method used by all six high school teachers, and both grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods were employed by the nine middle school teachers. All participants reported being aware of CLT, and all had tried to implement communicative strategies. Four participants indicated that they used CLT in specific time slots or for teaching certain topics or skills to complement their use of grammar-translation or audio-lingual methods.

Actually it depends on the part of each lesson. When I teach dialogue and conversation, I use CLT. But for the textbook, I just use the grammar-translation method. (Jin Woo, Q)

Participants who favored the audio-lingual method over CLT cited its efficiency, both in preparation time prior to classes and the shorter time required within classes for task completion and administration (such as giving explanations and organizing students into groups). Grammar-translation was perceived to be the most appropriate method to use when preparing high school students for university entrance examinations, and was favored by all high school teacher participants for this reason. Teachers also cited challenges they experienced implementing CLT, along with student and parental expectations, as influencing the methods they employed.

4.2 Application of Ellis’s Principles
In the questionnaire, participants indicated which of Ellis’s general principles of instructed L2 learning they were currently implementing in their English teaching (see Figure 2). A number of perceived difficulties in implementing some of the principles were reported in the qualitative questionnaire responses; some of these related to specific principles, and others applied to groups of principles. Participants also reported on resources and training they would require to implement the principles successfully. These, and the perceived difficulties, are reported below alongside related themes that emerged during analysis of the full interview data.

Figure 2: Participants’ reports of which of Ellis’s principles they were currently applying in their teaching

During the interviews, participants were first asked to expand on their questionnaire responses, and then to identify and rank the three principles they believed were most important to try to apply in their own classes. Each participants’ top ranking was assigned a value of 3, their second a value of 2, and their third a value of 1. Table 2 shows the aggregated results and the total number of mentions for each principle, regardless of place in the rankings. These item rankings are discussed in further detail below.

Table 2: Aggregated rankings of the principles that participants considered the most important to try to apply in their teaching

Note: The maximum number of overall mentions for each principle is 14 (the number of interview participants).

4.3 Benefits and Barriers
Twelve out of the 14 interviewees were positive about the applicability of some of Ellis’s principles in their individual EFL teaching contexts, and six teachers said that their awareness of the principles gave them a sense of achievement in relation to the approaches they were using. The specificity of the principles, in particular, was cited as helpful by six teachers, and over half of the participants stated that learning about the principles had made them reflect more deeply on their own teaching methods. However, all interviewees pointed out that applying at least some of Ellis’s principles required the same classroom culture and dynamics as demanded by CLT and so would be constrained by some of the same impediments that presently limit implementation of CLT in South Korea. Participants also referred to wider societal factors that impacted on their ability to implement some of the principles.

4.3.1 Principle 1
Fourteen of the 15 questionnaire respondents reported that their students were already learning formulaic expressions, or “chunks” of language, in addition to developing rule-based knowledge. None of the interview participants ranked this as an important principle to try to apply, primarily because “all the teachers already teach formulaic expressions” (Eun Ji, I), and “common phrases are already emphasized in bold in the text books” (Mi Sun, I).

4.3.2 Principle 2
Seven respondents reported that their students focused more on pragmatic meaning than on semantic meaning, and only four ranked this principle in the three most important ones to try to apply. One third of the teachers reported feeling well supported in regard to this principle by the textbooks they were required to use, and five stated that the software accompanying their textbooks provided valuable examples of contextualized usage. However, three participants reported that a focus on pragmatic meaning was only practicable in English conversation clubs, which they were operating in addition to scheduled classes, and seven interviewees suggested their own English competency constrained their ability to engage fully with more proficient students, thus limiting some students’ pragmatic development.

4.3.3 Principle 3
Over two thirds of the questionnaire respondents stated their students were already focusing on the relationship between grammatical forms and functions, and the aggregated rankings confirmed that this principle was not a priority for participants to try to apply. Again, many teachers commented favorably on the support provided by textbooks, explaining that “one part has the grammatical forms and sentences about them, and another part has the functions they perform” (Yong Moon, I).

4.3.4 Principle 4
Seven participants reported they attempt to develop their students’ implicit knowledge using communicative activities. With the highest aggregated ranking and the second highest overall number of mentions, developing implicit (as well as explicit) knowledge was prioritized by interviewees as the most important principle for them to try to apply. However, four respondents reported that their efforts to engage students in communicative activities to assist the development of implicit knowledge and fluency were hampered by student resistance and off-task behavior: “I can’t control them …. They think this is not testable, so the students don’t pay attention” (Young Ah, I).

4.3.5 Principle 5
Seven questionnaire respondents reported using classroom instruction that supports the natural “built-in” order in which language is acquired. None of the interviewees cited this principle as an important one to try to apply, as, according to four participants, “the textbook is already organized in that order” (Eun Ji, I). However, three teachers stated they lacked sufficient knowledge about learners’ “built-in syllabus” to make informed decisions about the order of presentation, and four reported that pre-service and in-service training needs to provide more information about language acquisition theories to help teachers evaluate what is best for their students at different stages of their L2 development.

4.3.6 Principle 6
This was ranked the equal third most important principle to try to apply, with over three quarters of the participants reporting that their students did not have extensive opportunities to read or hear English during and outside of class time. However, over half the interviewees expressed frustration about students failing to make use of input already available in the form of English newspapers and magazines, software and internet resources, and radio and television broadcasts: “I recommend these to my students, but they won’t do it” (Seo Yun, I). Perceived barriers included low student motivation, lack of support from parents, and examination washback. One teacher reflected the comments of over half the participants when she said, “Students are not interested in English as a language they will use for communication. For them, it is just another ‘subject’ for the examinations” (Kyung Min, Q). The emphasis on the predominantly reading and grammar focused examinations also underpinned the teachers’ view that “reading is more important than hearing because we must help our students get good grades” (Yong Moon, Q).
Teachers’ own perceived lack of English proficiency, and anxiety about criticism from more fluent students who had studied overseas were reported to restrict teachers’ use of English in the classroom, further limiting students’ L2 input. Participants reported using between 5% and 30% English during their lessons, with variations sometimes reflecting the teachers’ confidence and the level of their students’ proficiency. Just over half of the interviewees recommended additional English lessons or fluency training for teachers. 

4.3.7 Principle 7
Two thirds of the questionnaire respondents reported their English lessons provided students with few opportunities for extensive oral or written output, citing large classes, lack of student motivation, and “not enough time for covering all the work for exams” (Myung Hee, Q). This principle was ranked as the sixth most important one to try to apply, although participants suggested that “students will not be interested, because they only want to do something if it is related to their high school or university examinations” (Young Jae, I).

4.3.8 Principle 8
Only two participants reported providing many opportunities for students to interact in English during class time, and, with the highest number of total mentions, this ranked as the equal third most important principle to try to apply. Just over half the interviewees referred to potential L2 learning benefits from extended interaction, but lack of teacher training, low student proficiency, large multi-level classes, learners’ use of their first language, and lack of time for teaching English were all reported to impede pair or group work. Additionally, participants stated that textbooks did not provide adequate support for communicative activities, while behavior management concerns further deterred some teachers: “I want to do group work, but I fear there will be problems. I can’t control the students” (Eun Ji, I). One third of the participants also feared repercussions from principals and colleagues if their classes became noisy while engaging in interactive tasks.
   A general lack of support for communicative methods also discouraged some participants from facilitating student interaction: “The principal and parents don’t think it’s a good method. They even think it is a waste of time” (Young Jae, Q). Many of the reported barriers were linked by participants to the washback effect of the high school and university examinations, and resulted in them prioritizing content and skills that would be examined: “In Korea, people think your whole life depends on your KSAT [Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test] grade. This is mostly true” (Hyun Soo, I).
   Participants also reported that high levels of administration and other school responsibilities limited the level of teacher input into English conversation clubs and English-only zones established by some schools to increase L2 interaction. 

4.3.9 Principle 9
Although only three teachers reported using a variety of activities to cater for students’ different learning styles, over three-quarters of the participants agreed that teachers are responsible for students’ intrinsic motivation. This was perceived as the second most important principle to try to apply. Reported barriers included large classes, lack of knowledge about different learning strategies, and time and testing constraints. One teacher commented that “The teacher should prepare lots of materials and use dynamic teaching ways, but we also have lots of administration to do” (Hyun Soo, Q). Another said, “A variety of teaching activities is helpful to improve [students’] English” (Eun Ji, I).

4.3.10 Principle 10
Four respondents reported assessing “free” as well as controlled oral production, and this ranked as the fifth most important principle to try to implement. However, over half of the participants referred to challenges with oral assessments, for controlled as well as free production, citing teachers’ lack of proficiency, the lack of suitable assessment instruments, and the subjective nature of oral assessment as potentially problematic: “I know oral assessment is important, but I can’t do it” (Sun Hwa, I). “It’s difficult to make exact criteria, and parents argue that we have not judged the students correctly” (Kyung Min, Q). One third of the participants also stated that the wide variation in students’ proficiency and the time taken for individual testing were hampering oral assessments.

4.4 Suitability for South Korean Schools
All participants in this study referred to barriers that would impede or attenuate efforts to apply a number of Ellis’s principles in South Korean schools. Three barriers, in particular, were mentioned repeatedly: the emphasis on preparation for predominantly grammar-based examinations; teachers’ lack of oral L2 proficiency; and large, multi-level classes. Many teachers expressed frustration that “after studying for six or eight or ten years, our students still can’t speak English” (Sun Hwa, I), and claimed that, as “the world is getting closer and closer” (Young Jae, I), English proficiency is becoming a more important skill. Over half the participants reported that teachers who focus on overall English competence rather than on examination preparation are regarded as poor teachers. One participant summed up the opinion of the majority of teachers when she said:

Ellis’s principles are useful, but first we must solve the problems: the examination, the classroom, and teachers’ deficiency in spoken English. Then we can use the principles in Korea. (Jae Sung, I)   

5. Discussion
The intent of this study was to explore EFL teachers’ perceptions of the applicability of Ellis’s (2005) research-informed general principles for effective instructed second language learning, and to identify constraints that may impede the implementation of these principles in a specific EFL context. The results present a complex picture, indicating that, overall, the South Korean teacher-participants felt well supported by existing systems and resources in applying some of the principles, but constrained in their ability to operationalize and implement other principles by a number of personal, pedagogical, and systemic barriers perceived to be beyond their individual loci of control. The discrete and specific nature of the principles assisted participants in identifying aspects of their own practice that contributed to effective language learning, and gave some teachers a sense of agency in regard to the potential for implementing some of the principles they did not currently apply.
   Participants regarded the following four principles as the most important principles to try to implement: developing students’ implicit knowledge of the L2 (Principle 4); taking account of individual differences (Principle 9); providing opportunities for extensive L2 input (Principle 6); and providing opportunities for interaction (Principle 8). However, many of the constraints reported in relation to applying these principles in the participants’ South Korea middle and high schools aligned closely with those described earlier in this report in relation to the implementation of CLT in a range of EFL contexts. Additionally, teachers in this study reported that their lack of understanding of language acquisition theories, and their lack of training for managing group work and catering for individual differences also constrained their ability to successfully apply all of Ellis’s principles.
   The results of this study suggest that what and how the participants teach is not determined by the goals of the South Korean communicative curriculum, or by the findings of language acquisition research. Rather, it appears that classroom practice is driven primarily by the washback effect of the high school and university placement examinations, and by what teachers consider manageable given perceived personal and contextual constraints. Participants indicated that the goal of communicative competence and the teaching approaches required for this remain incompatible with the deep-rooted socio-cultural values that contextualize contemporary teaching practices in South Korea, and counter the current expectations of many students, parents, and school administrators. It seems likely, therefore, that the tensions reported by participants in this study, as they navigate what Ellis (2008, p. 285) refers to as “the gap between the curriculum-on-paper and the curriculum-in-action”, will continue to frustrate and hamper L2 teachers in South Korea and similar EFL settings, until the relationship between what is assessed and what is taught is recognized by language curricula developers, and at least some of the reported constraints are acknowledged and addressed.
   Ellis (2005) concedes that the results of most language acquisition studies are still contested, and advises that the proposed principles are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather should be regarded as guidelines to be trialed by teachers when appropriate to their own specific work contexts and local conditions. This view is supported by researchers such as Kumaravadevelu (2006) and Johnson (2006), who stress the need for a transformative approach to L2 teacher education that develops teachers’ reflective skills, thereby allowing them to interpret and apply theoretical principles in situationally appropriate ways. Such an approach acts as a check against sets of general principles, such as those proposed by Ellis, being imposed or adopted in their entirety as a replacement “method” with which teachers’ and learners’ classroom behaviors must align (Richards, 2001).

5.1 Limitations
The findings of this exploratory investigation should be regarded as indicative rather than definitive, as the study has a number of limitations. The first of these relates to the size and demographics of the participant group. However, while the perceptions of the 15 participants in this study are unlikely to be representative of all teachers, it is not unreasonable, given the alignment of the findings with earlier studies, to consider that they represent the views of a large number of comparable South Korean EFL teachers.
   Efforts were made throughout this study to conduct the research ethically and to minimize or remediate recognized limitations. The possible impact of an interviewer effect and researcher subjectivity on the process and findings of this study have been acknowledged earlier in this report, as has the researchers’ sensitivity throughout the study to limitations associated with working with participants from a different cultural background to their own. Additionally, limitations associated with one of the researchers operating in the dual role of researcher and lecturer are acknowledged.
   Issues relating to the reliability of self-reported data also impact on the ability to generalize the findings of this study. A reluctance to report personal difficulties due to “face” concerns is a recognized limitation in research of this nature (Lee & Renzetti, 1993), and may have resulted in discrepancies between participants’ reporting of perceived challenges and classroom or school realities.

5.2 Suggestions for Further Research
Replications of this study with larger, more diverse groups from a range of EFL backgrounds would allow for confirmation or refutation of the findings of this study, and would increase the knowledge base on factors impacting on successful second language learning in EFL settings. Follow-up studies could explore the influence on participants’ classroom practices of teachers’ awareness of Ellis’s principles and the research that informed them. Further research is required to explore the relative significance of the barriers identified in this study, and to determine whether addressing specific impediments may mitigate the impact of a number of other barriers. Future studies could also usefully examine EFL teachers’ views on appropriate professional development to assist them in their implementation of current curriculum innovations.

6. Conclusion
This study was undertaken in response to ongoing frustrations reported by groups of Asian EFL teachers experiencing difficulties implementing communicative curriculum innovations in their respective countries and institutions. The study explored the extent to which one group of South Korean teachers perceived Ellis’s (2005) principles for effective second language learning to be applicable in their EFL contexts, with a focus on factors affecting their operationalization and implementation. The results indicate a high degree of overlap in the barriers reported in earlier studies as impeding teachers’ implementation of communicative curricula, and those that compromise teachers’ ability to apply many of Ellis’s principles.
   The wider relevance of this research lies in the contribution it makes to the ongoing debate about EFL curriculum innovation, and about what is achievable and effective in different EFL contexts. As researchers continue to explore the pedagogical and practical strategies that best promote instructed L2 acquisition, teachers must ultimately make their own decisions about the most appropriate approaches for specific groups of learners in specific contexts. An understanding of research-based principles, such as those central to this study, can serve as a useful guide to effective classroom practices as these decisions are made, and as a platform from which teachers can critically evaluate their own language teaching. In addition, it can contribute to teachers’ development of a cohesive approach while drawing on strategies from a range of methodologies. Individual critical praxis, such as this, may facilitate collaborative teacher development and dialogic praxis among language teachers and researchers in the wider international community.

References
Allwright, R. L. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141.

Bax, S. (1997). Roles for a teacher trainer in context-sensitive teacher education. ELT Journal, 51(3), 232–241.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–287.

Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: CERC and ACER.

Bjorning-Gyde, M., & Doogan, F. (2004, May). The fusion model: Blending the West and the East in the contemporary language classroom in China. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of IATEFL China, Tonghua, PRC. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=2387

Bjorning-Gyde, M., Doogan, F., & East, M. (2008). Towards a fusion model for the teaching and learning of English in a Chinese context. In M. Wallace & L. Dunn (Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 77–87). New York: Routledge.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Breen, P. (2006). The education of language teachers in East Asia. Asian EFL Journal, 4(4). Retrieved May 13, 2007, from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_july_06_pb.php

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the “post-methods” era: Towards better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9–18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.

Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 423–446.

Campbell, K., & Zhao, Y. (1993). The dilemma of English language instruction in the People’s Republic of China. TESOL Journal, 2(4), 4–6.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Canh, L. (1999, October). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, Hanoi. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/canh.htm

Chowdhury, R. (2003). International TESOL training and EFL contexts: The cultural disillusionment factor. Australian Journal of Education, 47(3), 283–302.

Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34–55.

Dash, P. (2002). English only in the classroom: Time for a reality check? Asian EFL Journal, 4(4). Retrieved June 26, 2006, from
www.asian-efl-journal.com/dec_02_pd.pdf

Deckert, G. (2004). The communicative approach: Addressing frequent failure. English Teaching Forum, 42(1), 12–17.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Available online at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0008/6983/instructed-second-language.pdf

Ellis, R. (2008). Regional studies. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 285–286.

Erlam, R. M. (2008). What do you researchers know about language teaching? Bridging the gap between SLA research and pedagogy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching.

Fenton, A. L., & Terasawa, Y. (2006). Paradigm lost? A belated reply to Jarvis and Atsilarat from Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 4(4), 219–237. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_af&yt.php

Hasegawa, H. (2003, November). Rudiments of competent oral interaction: Corresponding to the latest innovations proposed by Japan’s Ministry of Education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105.

Hui, L. (1997). New bottles, old wine: Communicative language teaching in China. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), 38–41.

Insull, B. (2001). Encouraging student voices in a Chinese classroom. English Teaching Forum, 39(4), 34–37.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Jarvis, H., & Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shifting paradigms: From a communicative to a context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal, 6(4). Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/december_04_HJ&SA.php

Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–252.

Kim, H. (2003). The types of speaking assessment tasks used by Korean junior secondary school English teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 5(4). Retrieved June 19, 2006, from www.asian-efl-journal.com/dec_03_gl_kr.pdf

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximising learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 12–21.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–559.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamie, J. M. (2004). Presenting a model of change. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 115–142.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999, October). On the appropriateness of language teaching methods in language and development. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, Hanoi. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/larsen-freeman.htm

Lee, R., & Renzetti, C. (1993). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. In C. Renzetti & R. Lee (Eds.), Researching sensitive topics (pp. 3–12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677–708.

Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Litwin, G. (2008, July). Principles … with a dash of IRDP. Paper presented at the NZALT Biennial International Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30(1), 27–50.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pham, H. (2005). “Imported” communicative language teaching: Implications for local teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 2–9.

Reed, J. (2002). The pedagogical challenges for Western EFL teachers in Asia. Contact, 28(4), 1–8.

Richards, J. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. (2001). Beyond methods. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovations in English language teaching (pp. 167–179). London: Routledge.

Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED493160).

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.).  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(3), 223–249.

Stapleton, P. (1995). The role of Confucianism in Japanese education. The Language Teacher, 19(4), 13–16.

Sun, G., & Cheng, L. (2000). From context to curriculum: A case study of communicative language teaching in China (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443295).

Wu, X., & Fang, L. (2002). Teaching communicative English in China: A case study of the gap between teachers’ views and practice. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 143–162.

: