Microsoft Word - 2.Bataineh et al_213-227.docx Bataineh, R. F., Al-Bzour, W. K., & Baniabdelrahman, A. A. (2017). On the teachability of communication strategies to Jordanian EFL beginners: Exploration and reflection. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 4(3), 213-227. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/154/167 Received: 06.11.2016 Received in revised form: 02.04.2017 Accepted: 17.04.2017 ON THE TEACHABILITY OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES TO JORDANIAN EFL BEGINNERS: EXPLORATION AND REFLECTION Ruba Fahmi Bataineh Yarmouk University, Jordan rubab@yu.edu.jo Wedad Khalid Al-Bzour Ministry of Education, Jordan wedad_albzour@yahoo.com Abdallah Ahmad Baniabdelrahman Yarmouk University, Jordan baniabsdelrahman@gmail.com Dr. Bataineh is a Professor at Yarmouk University, Irbid (Jordan). Her research focuses on teacher education, cross-cultural pragmatics, literacy, and CALL. Ms. Al-Bzour is a PhD candidate at Yarmouk University, Irbid (Jordan). Her research is focused on oral communication development in EFL K-12 learners. Dr. Baniabdelrahman is a Professor at Yarmouk University, Irbid (Jordan). His research focuses on TEFL, teacher education, and CALL. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 213 ON THE TEACHABILITY OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES TO JORDANIAN EFL BEGINNERS: EXPLORATION AND REFLECTION1 Ruba Fahmi Bataineh Yarmouk University, Jordan rubab@yu.edu.jo Wedad Khalid Al-Bzour Ministry of Education, Jordan wedad_albzour@yahoo.com Abdallah Ahmad Baniabdelrahman Yarmouk University, Jordan baniabsdelrahman@gmail.com Abstract This study examines the effect of communication strategy instruction on Jordanian EFL students’ oral performance and strategy use. Following a thorough content analysis of units 10- 13 of the prescribed Action Pack textbook, the instructional material was designed and implemented over a duration of eight weeks. A three-task oral pre-/ post-test, a communication strategies-based observation checklist, and a 10-item scoring rubric were used to collect data from a purposeful sample of 24 sixth-grade students. The (predominantly interactional) communication strategies of approximation, circumlocution, repetition, appeal for help, self- repair, appeal for confirmation, appeal for clarification, and guessing were targeted. The data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, suggests that the utilization of communication strategies in language instruction both improves oral performance and increases strategy use. Keywords: communication strategies, EFL, oral performance, strategy instruction 1. Introduction The core of communication resides in sending and receiving messages effectively and negotiating meaning either in written or spoken form (Rubin & Thompson, 1994). To communicate effectively, learners may attempt to overcome difficulties by modifying their messages through avoidance (Tarone, 1981) or reduction strategies (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998; Færch & Kasper, 1983) whenever they lack for a word or expression needed to convey a particular meaning. For the same purpose, language learners may also resort to achievement (Færch & Kasper, 1983) or compensatory strategies (Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990) through which they use alternative means of expression. Communication strategies, also known as communicative strategies (Corder, 1983), communicational strategies (Váradi, 1973), compensation strategies (Harding, 1983), and compensatory strategies (Poulisse et al., 1990), are quite distinct from learning strategies. 1 This manuscript is an extension of the second author's doctoral dissertation per the regulations in force at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 214 Whereas communication strategies are used to "meet a pressing communicative need", learning strategies are used to manage “a perceived gap in knowledge or skill” (Ellis, 2003, p.515). Communication strategies (henceforth, CSs) were first introduced by Selinker (1972) as an interlanguage process, defined as potentially conscious problem-solving techniques used by language learners to avoid communication breakdowns whenever they encounter difficulty in L2 oral communication (Brown, 1994; Corder, 1983; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Mitchell & Myles, 1998; Stern, 1983). Gass and Selinker (1994) and Ellis (2003) further emphasized the utility of CSs whenever learners need to express themselves in the target language but lack the linguistic knowledge to do so. Mitchell and Myles (1998) also define CSs as tactics used by non-fluent learners to avoid eminent communicative breakdowns and sustain interaction during oral exchanges. Therefore, CSs are catalysts for communication and comprehension alike, which makes them a matter of significant concern for both EFL learners and teachers. CSs have been the subject of a plethora of theoretical and empirical research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), with two major theoretical orientations: the interactional and the psycholinguistic. The former views CSs as elements of discourse and, thus, concerns itself with their linguistic realization (Corder, 1983; Tarone, 1981; Váradi, 1973) whereas the latter addresses the cognitive processes of the learner as he/she encounters language difficulty and, thus, views CSs as individual mental plans (Bialystok, 1990; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Kellerman & Bialystok, 1997; Poulisse et al., 1990). CSs gained further popularity with the advent of communicative competence (viz., the knowledge of the rules for understanding and producing both the referential and social meaning of language (Hymes, 1972)) and the shift of emphasis from language as an isolated linguistic phenomenon to language as communication. Strategic competence, of which CSs, are an essential component (Wood, 2012), entails “the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that could be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication” (Canale & Swain, 1980, p.30). Hence, CSs are potential catalysts for communicative competence and negotiation ability in a foreign language (e.g., Dörnyei & Scott, 1995; Mitchell & Myles, 1998; Nakatani, 2010). CSs are classified differently across research (e.g., Dörnyei & Scott, 1995; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1977). However, Tarone’s (1977) taxonomy was probably the first to classify CSs as paraphrase (i.e., approximation, word coinage and circumlocution), transfer (i.e., appeal for assistance, language switch, literal translation and mime), and avoidance (i.e., topic avoidance and message abandonment) strategies. Most previous CS research aims to identify types of CSs in a particular corpus (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Poulisse et al., 1990; Tarone, 1977; 1981), the factors which affect learners’ CS use (viz., native language (e.g., Si-Qing, 1990), proficiency (e.g., Fernández Dobao, 2001, 2002), cognitive styles (e.g., Littlemore, 2001), task-demands (e.g., Fernández Dobao, 2001)), CS effectiveness (e.g., Poulisse et al., 1990), and the teachability of CSs (e.g., Jourdain & Scullen, 2002). Relevant to the scope of the current research, whether or not CSs are readily teachable and of utility to EFL learners is a matter of controversy, but the empirical evidence for or against CS instruction is inconclusive. Whereas a good number of scholars (e.g., Alibakhshi, 2011; Dewaele, 2005; Dörnyei, 1995; Lam, 2005; Nakatani, 2005; Yule & Tarone, 1997) advocate CS instruction, other scholars (Bialystok, 1990; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Kellerman, 1991; Schmidt, 1983; Skehan, 1998) hold an opposing view on the grounds that CS instruction is redundant and its effect is marginal at best since EFL learners ‘automatically’ transfer the strategic competence already developed in their first language. Schmidt (1983), Bialystok International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 215 (1990) and Kellerman (1991), for example, claim that even though the learner’s strategic competence may improve, teachers should concern themselves more with teaching the language itself as, to them, the linguistic competence takes precedence over teaching CS strategies. Skehan (1998) also claims that skilled learners’ resort to CSs may slow down the development of their interlanguage knowledge resources. However, the instructability of CSs, be it directly (viz., through the provision of specific language input to raise the learner’s awareness, increase his/her willingness to take risks and use CSs, and provide opportunities for practicing strategy use (Dörnyei, 1995; Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1994) or indirectly (through engaging the learner in oral interaction (Richard cited in Skehan, 1998)) is a matter of considerable debate. Empirical research (e.g., Abdollahzadeh & Mesgarshahr, 2014; Benson, Fischer, Geluso & Von Joo, 2010; Chun, 2012; Ellis, 2003; Lam, 2005; Maleki, 2007; Nakatani, 2005; Rabab’ah & Bulut, 2007; Russell & Loschky, 1998; Yule & Tarone, 1997), albeit not prolific, seems to suggest that CS instruction is beneficial for EFL learners, as it potentially raises their awareness of the utility of these strategies and, eventually, improves their performance through allowing them opportunities to hear more input and produce new utterances. Furthermore, learners who receive CS instruction are reported to develop their strategic competence more than those who do not. Yule and Tarone (1997), for instance, maintain that CS instruction potentially leads to effective CS use. Irrespective of the controversy surrounding CS instruction (Jidong, 2011), CSs have been hailed not only as catalysts for problem-solving (Tarone, 1980; Williams, Inscoe, & Tasker, 1997) but also as tools of pragmatic discourse functions (Nakatani, 2005), which has been the driving force behind the current research. 2. Purpose, Questions, Significance, and Limitations of the Study The current study attempts to examine the potential effect of teaching eight achievement CSs on Jordanian EFL sixth-grade students’ oral performance and strategy use. More specifically, it seeks answers for the following research questions: 1. To what extent, if any, does communication strategy instruction affect Jordanian EFL sixth-grade students’ oral performance? 2. To what extent, if any, does instruction affect Jordanian EFL sixth-grade students’ communication strategy use? The findings of the current research may be significant due to the relative novelty of the topic in the Jordanian EFL context. They are hoped to add to the little existing literature on strategy instruction (viz., Al-Rabadi & Bataineh, 2015; Bataineh, Al-Rabadi & Smadi, 2013; Bataineh, Bataineh & Thabet, 2011; Bataineh, Thabet, & Bataineh, 2017; Rabab’ah & Bulut, 2007; Rababah, 2002, 2005). Furthermore, the findings may raise Jordanian EFL teachers’ awareness of the potential utility of CSs in developing EFL learners’ oral performance. The findings may also encourage further research encompassing variables which may affect CS use in the EFL classroom (e.g., gender, proficiency, task type). This research is exploratory in nature; hence, the researchers do not make any claims as to the generalizability of the findings. The research is also limited by its scope as only eight achievement strategies are examined in a purposeful sample of 24 sixth-grade students. An additional limitation may relate to the researchers’ deliberate exclusion of three CSs (viz., mime, literal translation, and language switch). These strategies, albeit instrumental for beginner learners such as the ones targeted in this research, have been excluded to encourage foreign language use which would have been negatively affected had these three strategies been targeted in the instruction. Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 216 3. Sampling, Instrumentation,2 CS Instruction, and Data Collection and Analysis A purposeful sample of one intact sixth-grade section of 24 male and female students was drawn from Atfal ArRamtha Al Namothajiah (Ramtha Model School), a private school in Ramtha Directorate for Education, Jordan. This particular school was targeted because the second researcher has been teaching there for the past fourteen years. Eight CSs (viz., approximation, circumlocution, repetition, appeal for help, self-repair, appeal for confirmation, appeal for clarification, and guessing) are targeted in the treatment. An oral pre-/post-test, a scoring rubric and a CS-focused observation checklist were used for data collection. The oral pre-/post-test was used to assess the students' oral performance before and after the treatment. It consisted of three tasks: talk about your experience (15 minutes), discuss information (10 minutes) and ask and answer (10 minutes). These tasks, carried out both individually and within pairs, asses the learners’ ability to express themselves satisfactorily. Similarly, the five-point scoring rubric (excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor with the numerical values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively) was designed to assess the participants' overall oral performance during the activities according to a number of criteria (e.g. ability to ask and answer questions about abilities, name different objects found in different places, describe objects from the past, produce simple, error-free sentences, talk about familiar situations, participate in conversations about unfamiliar topics). The CS-focused observation checklist, based on Dörnyei and Scott's (1995) and Færch and Kasper’s (1983) taxonomies, was designed to assess the participants’ CS use during classroom interactions. The 10-item checklist focuses mainly on interactional CSs (viz., repetition, appeal for help, request for confirmation, guessing, and request for clarification). Paraphrase strategies (viz., approximation and circumlocution) are also incorporated into the checklist in addition to self-repair. The CS checklist was used by an independent observer, a fellow teacher who was trained for this purpose, over the 16 sessions of the eight-week treatment to note the participants' use of the targeted CSs. The validity of the instruments was established by a jury of nine language/language teaching professors and school supervisors. To establish the reliability of the pre-/post-test, it was piloted on twenty sixth-grade students from another section in the same school, with a two- week interval between the two administrations. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient amounted to .88, which is appropriate for the purposes of the current research. The participants were taught through the integration of the eight CSs under study (viz., repetition, guessing, approximation, circumlocution, self-repair, appeal for help, appeal for clarification, and appeal for confirmation) which comprised the medium through which the instructional materials were taught/learned. Over the eight weeks of the treatment, the teacher/second researcher introduced the eight CSs, modeled their use, and encouraged her students to use them whenever they had difficulty expressing themselves or interacting orally with the teacher or their peers. A minimum of two CSs were integrated in every period which included oral activities. For instance, students were taught to make use of guessing in listen and answer activities, through 2 For a copy of the instruments used in the study, contact the corresponding author at rubab@yu.edu.jo. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 217 resorting to expressions which denote guessing (e.g., I guess, I think, it seems that) before listening to the recording. Students also used various CSs during ask and answer activities. They made use of appeal for help expressions (e.g., what do we say, how can I) to elicit help from their teacher. In talk about you activities, the participants made use of approximation, circumlocution, or a combination of the two strategies whenever they were not able to remember a particular word/phrase (e.g., using sewing on clothes as an equivalent for embroidery). In the read and say activity, a number of CSs were used, but the participants especially appealed for clarification whenever they needed certain items explained or exemplified. It is worth noting that as of the second week of the treatment, the participants began using a combination of CSs, usually two or three, during each period. As the treatment progressed, the participants essentially demonstrated efficient use of the target CSs, which reflected positively on their oral performance, especially from the fifth week on. 4. Findings and Discussion The findings are presented and discussed according to the two questions of the research. The first question asks about potential improvement in Jordanian EFL sixth-grade students’ oral performance, which may be attributed to the use the CSs under study, per the criteria of the scoring rubric, as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Learners’ oral performance on the pre- and post- tests No. Task The student is able to Pre-Test Post-Test Mean SD Degree Mean SD Degree 1 ask and answer questions about abilities. 3.84 1.19 High 4.08 1.00 High 6 describe objects from the past. 3.81 1.18 3.87 1.09 2 name different objects found in different places. 3.58 1.40 Moderate 3.85 1.08 3 produce simple, error-free sentences. 3.48 1.29 3.84 1.08 5 participate in conversations about unfamiliar topics. 3.48 1.37 3.96 1.06 8 discuss information with classmates. 3.39 1.25 3.77 1.25 7 talk about past experiences. 3.27 1.42 3.85 1.16 4 talk about familiar situations. 3.29 1.39 3.85 1.18 9 present a simple (prepared) speech to the class. 3.10 1.48 3.77 1.11 10 define, compare, and classify objects. 3.25 1.37 3.77 1.16 Total 3.45 1.28 Moderate 3.86 1.07 High Table 1 shows a marked improvement in students’ oral performance after CS instruction. The participants’ oral performance moved from being ‘high’ on two oral tasks (asking and answering questions about past abilities and describing objects from the past) on the pre-test to “high’ on all the tasks in the post-test. This improvement is most probably the result of Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 218 teaching the CSs under study (viz., approximation, circumlocution, appeal for help, appeal for clarification, appeal for confirmation, self-repair, and guessing). It is worth noting that the participants’ performance on the pre-test varied according to the nature of the task. They scored high on tasks 1 and 6 (viz., asking and answering questions and describing objects from the past) which are both common in traditional instruction, hence familiar to the respondents. The participants were able not only to ask and answer questions but also to describe various objects (e.g., a ball) in simple sentences. These essentially traditional tasks were incorporated into the treatment to encourage the participants to get involved and overcome hesitation. They have had ample experience with these tasks in this and previous grades. However, even though the other eight oral tasks (e.g., presenting a simple (prepared) speech and defining, comparing, and classifying objects) are fairly less familiar, the participants demonstrated moderate oral performance. Teaching the CSs under study may have allowed the participants the opportunity to compensate for their language difficulties. For example, some resorted to guessing in listen and answer, using expressions, such as I think and it seems, to speculate on issues before listening to the recording. Some also used appeal for help, among other CSs, in ask and answer, using expressions like how do we say and how can I say to get help from the teacher. The design of the treatment, in which the teacher explained, demonstrated and encouraged the use of the CSs under study, may also have been a catalyst for the improvement in the participants’ oral performance. Individual differences among the participants were foremost in the researchers’ mind during the design and implementation phases of the treatment. The activities were designed to be done either individually or in groups of two. Few activities depended on the learners’ individual effort (e.g., presenting a short (prepared) speech to the class), but more activities involved pair work not only to encourage but also to enable less able learners to get involved, as more able partners served as scaffolds for their less able partners. The researchers witnessed first-hand the marked boost in the participants’ self-confidence and willingness to get involved in the activities as the treatment went on. The second research question addresses the potential effect of CS instruction on strategy use. Below are illustrations not only of the participants’ overall CS use but also of their individual CS use before and after the treatment. Figure 1 shows the overall CS use before and after the treatment. Figure 1. Overall CS use before and after the treatment International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 219 Figure 1 shows that among the eight CSs taught, all but one demonstrated substantial improvement. The use of guessing seems to have declined over the treatment, with means dropping from 4 before to 3 after the treatment. Figure 1 further shows that five (viz., approximation, circumlocution, appeal for help, self-repair, and clarification) out of the eight CSs under study started out with a mean of 1 and two (repetition and confirmation) with a mean of 2 to rise exponentially to means of 3 and 5. The overall improvement in CS use, with the sole exception of guessing, is overwhelming, but the researchers are keen to highlight the improvement in individual CS use over the course of the treatment. Figures 2 through 9 below show the change in strategy use over time. To begin with, Figure 2 shows marked, albeit fluctuating, improvement in the use of circumlocution over the eight weeks of the treatment. Figure 2. Participants’ use of circumlocution throughout the treatment Figure 2 shows that even though the participants’ use of circumlocution started out low ( x =1), gradual improvement is evident despite a few ups and downs over the course of the treatment. The highest mean score for circumlocution was 4, and the lowest was 1 (in which the participants reverted to their original position at the onset of the treatment). Figure 3 shows the use of approximation during the various phases of the treatment. Unlike that of circumlocution, the participants’ use of approximation was relatively consistent. Figure 3. Participants’ use of approximation throughout the treatment Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 220 Figure 3 shows improvement, albeit irregular, in the use of approximation over the treatment. Note how the strategy rose from a mean score of 1 at the beginning of the treatment to just below 4, but it seems to have hovered above 3 at various points in time. Figure 4 shows the participants’ use of repetition during the treatment. Figure 4. Participants’ use of repetition throughout the treatment Figure 4 indicates that the participants’ use of repetition rose constantly during the first half of the treatment to reach the highest possible mean score of 5. Over the course of the treatment, repetition rose from a mean score of 2 at the onset to 5 to decline into a steady 4 to rise again to 5 towards the end of the treatment. Figure 5 shows the participants’ use of appeal for help, which was similar to that of repetition over the treatment. Figure 5. Participants’ use of appeal for help throughout the treatment Figure 5 shows relatively constant improvement in the participants’ use of appeal for help, which rose from a mean score of 1 at the onset of the treatment to reach the highrst score of 5 at its conclusion. Similarly, self-repair rose early on in the treatment from a mean score of 1 to about 4 in the middle and 5 towards the end, as shown in Figure 6. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 221 Figure 6. Participants’ use of self-repair throughout the treatment Figure 6 shows a marked improvement of the participants’ use of self-repair. Figure 7 shows the use of clarification over the course of the treatment. Figure 7. Participants’ use of clarification throughout the treatment Figure 7 demonstrates substantial improvement in the participants’ use of clarification. Its use began with a mean score of 1 to reach a mean score of 5, with few ups and downs to 4, to stay steady at 5 towards the conclusion of the treatment. With a more pronounced series of ups and downs, the use of confirmation increases over the course of the treatment, as shown in Figure 8. Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 222 Figure 8. Participants’ use of confirmation throughout the treatment The use of confirmation started with a mean score of 2 to rise to about 4 and eventually to 5. The fluctuations were between 4 and 5. Contrary to the other seven strategies, the participants’ use of guessing declined over the course of the treatment from an initial mean of 4 (followed by a sharp rise and steady hold at 5) to a mean score of 1 (followed by a rise to just above 3), as shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Participants’ use of guessing throughout the treatment Over the course of the treatment, substantial improvement was evident in the participants’ use of the CSs under study, with the exception of guessing. The participants’ use of approximation and circumlocution improved from a mean score of 1 to 3 whereas their use of appeal for help, self-repair, clarification, repetition and confirmation rose from mean scores of 1 or 2 to a sweeping 5. The participants experienced the most improvement in the use of appeal for help, self- repair, clarification, repetition, and confirmation whereas their use of guessing declined over the course of the treatment. The decline in guessing is not altogether a negative phenomenon, as it may be taken as an indication of the participants’ reliance on the other CSs in managing their communicative needs. The fact that the decline in the use of guessing was coupled with a marked increase in appeal for help, self-repair, clarification, repetition, confirmation, and, to a lesser extent, approximation and circumlocution may be seen as evidence of the systematic International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 223 and deliberate utilization of CSs by the participants, which may lend credence to the conclusion that CS use is readily teachable. Even though it is not addressed in the questions of the research, it is worth noting that the participants demonstrated better utilization of interactional strategies (e.g., repetition, appeal for help, appeal for confirmation, appeal for clarification) than paraphrase strategies (e.g., approximation, circumlocution). This difference in CS use could be the result of the participants’ limited lexical repertoire. Consequently, it may have been easier for them to use interactional CSs, which require relatively fewer words or simpler expressions, than paraphrase strategies, which require a lexical repertoire which may not yet be available to these sixth-grade learners. 5. Reflections, Implications and Suggestions for Further Research This study examined the effect of CS instruction on Jordanian EFL sixth-grade students’ oral performance and strategy use. The findings reveal that instruction improved not only the participants’ oral performance but also their CS use over the course of the treatment. More specifically, even though CS use increased in all but one strategy (viz., guessing), some strategies (viz., appeal for help, self-repair, appeal for clarification, repetition and appeal for confirmation) were used more frequently than others (viz., approximation, circumlocution and guessing). For considerations related to sampling and design, these findings are hardly generalizable beyond the current participants and, to a lesser extent, those in similar contexts. However, the fact that this study is exploratory in nature does not detract from the merit of its findings which may be readily taken as indications in favor of strategy instruction. Thus, these researchers believe that EFL teachers should not only create situations which encourage students to engage in oral tasks but also introduce CSs and explicitly highlight their utility. These researchers share Færch and Kasper’s (1983) conviction that, through learning CSs, learners are better able to reconcile formal and informal communicative situations and transfer learning to situations beyond the language classroom. Raising teachers’ awareness of the utility of CSs may be another catalyst for improving oral performance in the foreign language classroom and beyond. Previous reports (e.g., Rodríguez Cervantes & Roux Rodriguez, 2012) suggest that EFL teachers are generally either unaware of the utility of teaching communication strategies to their students or inactive models of strategy use, as they either abandon the message or switch to the first language to prevent communication problems in the classroom. Even though CSs have been researched over the past four decades, they are still often surrounded by vagueness and controversy (Jidong, 2011). Thus, more research is needed to corroborate the findings of existing CS research from broader perspectives and on more diverse audiences. Further research is needed not only to examine other variables that may affect CS use (e.g., gender, class size, seating arrangement, task type) but also to encompass other grades and proficiency levels. As the current research examines the effect of CS instruction on beginners, future research may examine intermediate and advanced levels. Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 224 References Abdollahzadeh, A., & Mesgarshahr, E. (2014). The impact of teaching communication strategies on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 51-76. Alibakhshi, G. (2011) The effect of teaching strategic competence on speaking performance of EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 941-947. Al-Rabadi, R. Y., & Bataineh, R. F. (2015). Learning strategies in literature-based instruction: A qualitative study of Jordanian university students. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education (University of Bahrain), 3(1), 101-110. Retrieved 3 May 2016 from http://journals.uob.edu.bh/teacher/ Pages/Content. Bataineh, R. F., Bataineh, R. F., & Thabet, S. S. (2011). Communicative language teaching in the Yemeni EFL classroom: Embraced or merely lip-serviced? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 859-866. Bataineh, R. F., Al-Rabadi, R. Y., & Smadi, O. M. (2013). Fostering Jordanian university students’ communicative performance through literature-based instruction. The TESOL Journal, 4(4), 655-673. Bataineh, R. F., Thabet, S. S., & Bataineh, R. F. (2007). Obstacles of using communicative techniques in Yemeni EFL classes. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 67/68, 79-92. Benson, S, Fischer, D, Geluso, J., & Von Joo, L. (2010). Effects of communication strategy training on EFL students’ performance in small-group discussions. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 245-259. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. London: Blackwell. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and language teaching. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Chun, T. H. (2012). A study on the teachability of EFL communication strategies. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(1), 3565-3570. Corder, S. P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Færch, & G. Kasper. Strategies in interlanguage (pp. 15-19). London: Longman. Dewaele, J. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 367-380. Dörnyei, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-58. Dörnyei, Z., & and Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: A psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(3), 349-85. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995). Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with retrospection. In J. S. Turley, & K. Lusby (Eds.), Selected papers from the Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Symposium of the Deseret Language and Linguistics Society (pp. 155-168). Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 225 Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content and rationale. ELT Journal. 48(1), 40–49. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch,, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman. Fernández Dobao, A. (2001). Communication strategies in the interlanguage of Galician students of English: The influence of learner and task related factors. Atlantis, 23(1), 41-62. Fernández Dobao, A. (2002). The effect of proficiency level on communications strategy use: A case study of Galician learners of English. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, 25, 53-75. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Harding, E. M. (1983). Compensation strategies. Dublin: Center for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. D. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected readings (pp. 269-193). Harmondsworth, Washington, DC: Penguin. Jidong, G. (2011). Empirical studies on L2 communication strategies over four decades: Looking back and ahead. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 89-106. Jourdain, S., & Scullen, E. (2002). A pedagogical norm for circumlocution in French. In S. Gass, K. Bardovi-Harlig, S. Magnan, & J. Walz (Eds.), Pedagogical norms for second and foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 221-239). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revision, and some (non-)implications for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 142-161). Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Kellerman, E., & Bialystok, E. (1997). On psychological plausibility in the study of communication strategies. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 31-48). New York: Longman. Lam, W.Y.K. (2005). Is strategic competence teachable? The Journal of Asia TEFL, 2(4), 87- 112. Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241-265. Maleki, A. (2007). Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranian experience. System, 35, 583-594. Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman 226 Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold Publishers. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89(16), 76-91. Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris Publications. Rabab’ah, G., & Bulut, D. (2007). Compensatory strategies in Arabic as second language. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 43(2), 83-106. Rababah, G. (2002). Second language communication strategies: Definitions, taxonomies, data elicitation methodology and teachability issues. A review article. Eric Reproduction Services (ED 472698). Retrieved 19 October 2016 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472698.pdf. Rababah, G. (2005). Strategic competence in an ELT syllabus. ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 145, 145-166. Rodríguez Cervantes, C. A., & Roux Rodriguez, R. (2012). The use of communication strategies in the beginner EFL classroom. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 6, 111-128. Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner. New York: Heinle, & Heinle. Russell, G., & Loschky, L. (1998). The need to teach communication strategies in the foreign language classroom. JALT Journal, 20(1), 100-114. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communication competence. In N. Wolfson, & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231. Si-Qing, C. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40(2), 155-187. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication in interlanguage. A progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp.194-203). Washington DC: TESOL. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30(2), 417-431. Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285-295. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2017, 4(3), 213-227. 227 Váradi, T. (1973). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 59-72. Williams, J., Inscoe, R., & Tasker, T. (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional context: The mutual achievement of comprehension. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 304-322). London: Longman. Wood, J. (2012). Strategic competence in the L2 classroom: An introduction. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5(5),171–176. Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: Pros and cons. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 17-30). London: Longman.