While there is debate about the necessity for teaching CSs, many researchers support the view that providing instruction on CSs is advantageous for ESL and EFL learners (e.g., Chen, 1990; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Nakatani, 2010; Wongsawang, 2001). On the other hand, some researchers, such as Bialystok (1990) and Kellerman
27 (1991) have argued against teaching CSs, particularly in relation to strategy transfer. According to their psycholinguistic views, Bialystok (1990) and Kellerman (1991) see CSs as implicit knowledge and abilities that individuals already have in their first language. They consider that such knowledge and abilities are transferred from their first language to the solving of communication problems that arise during second language learning and therefore do not need to be taught. Thus, Kellerman’s (1991) position is that only the language should be taught: “let the strategies look after
themselves” (p. 158). Furthermore, according to Canale and Swain (1980), strategies are acquired through experiencing genuine communication, not classroom learning where little real-life communication occurs. Swan (2001) also provides cautions that teaching strategies may hinder language development if learners are encouraged to overuse strategies by focusing on using a limited range of language to solve specific problems rather than attempting to produce more sophisticated language. These concerns have led to the views that support teachers to spending precious class time teaching language knowledge instead of strategies.
However, many researchers support the value of teaching CSs. Teaching only the knowledge of the language, as Bialystok (1990) suggests, may not be enough to help learners achieve all their goals of communication. As Færch and Kasper (1983) point out, a key component for learning language is not only language knowledge, but also an ability to use the language. This viewpoint is supported by an example from Faucette (2001) discussing vocabulary learning, who feels both declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge of language are crucial for learning and using vocabulary. The declarative knowledge of vocabulary involves knowledge of the word meaning while the procedural vocabulary involves the ability of how to use vocabulary appropriately in achieving a communication goal. Some learners may encounter difficulties in
28 expressing the meaning of unfamiliar words due to the lack of declarative knowledge of the word meaning. They may need to use procedural vocabulary (e.g., paraphrasing and approximation) to convey the intended meaning instead. The teaching of procedural vocabulary is therefore useful for learners to prevent breakdowns in communication (Faucette, 2001).
In addition, while Bialystok (1990) considers that CSs are a part of the implicit knowledge that emerges as students increase their experience with the second language, others have questioned whether students are aware of this implicit knowledge. If learners are not aware of their nature and usage, how can such strategies be employed appropriately and effectively to enhance their oral communication skills. As Færch and Kasper (1983) argue, individuals are believed to have their own implicit knowledge of CSs, but may not use those strategies extensively, appropriately, and effectively. Learning how to use CSs is even more essential, particularly in the contexts where linguistic and sociolinguistic differences between first and second languages exist and also within the EFL learning context, such as my Thai context, where second language learners have few opportunities for exposure to authentic communication. Teaching CSs also helps develop learners’ metacognition to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own use of CSs so that they are able to manage their use of CSs (Goh, 2012).
Furthermore, in the context of the differences in linguistic features between a learner of first language and English, the likelihood of encountering difficulties in oral communication is inevitable. Western European learners of English are advantaged by the familiarity of linguistic features as both their first language and English are grounded in the same Latin and Germanic roots. These learners are less likely to encounter communication problems as they can draw on some familiarity to deal with problems by guessing vocabulary and transferring their first language knowledge
29 (Smyth, 2001). However, due to the great differences between Asian languages and English, Asian learners may find communication in English very challenging, leading to misunderstanding and miscommunication at times. A. Kirkpatrick (2008, 2012) examines the variety of English language used in Southeast Asia. He found common mispronunciations due to mismatches between first language and English phonological features can lead to problems in communication.
In Thailand, which is the research context for the current study, English is considered a foreign language and its linguistic features (e.g., pronunciation, vocabulary, and sentence structure) are relatively different from the Thai language (Wongsawang, 2001). According to Smyth (2001), Thai learners are less likely to be aware of the need to pronounce the final sounds (e.g., pump as pum). They also have difficulty with pronouncing unfamiliar English sounds and try to fit them into the Thai
phonology system, for example, the initial sound /θ/ as /t/ (e.g., three as tree) and /ð/ as /d/ (e.g., this as dis), pronouncing the CH (/tƑ/) and SH (/Ƒ/), V (/v/) and F (/f/) as
homophones (e.g., cheap and sheep, van and fan), and confusing short vowels and long vowels (e.g., ship and sheep). Apart from this, it is challenging for Thais to guess English vocabulary because they have no familiarity with the roots of English language. In addition, Thais have some difficulties with English language structure because many structural features do not exist in the Thai language, such as articles, plurals and tense forms. These differences may result in communication problems (McKay, 2005). Further, with this disjunction between Thai and English, CSs implicitly used in the Thai language by native Thai speakers may not be transferable and/or transferred to their communication in English. Thus, it can be challenging for Thai speakers to apply their strategies for communicating in Thai to solve problems when communicating in English.
30 Apart from the differences in linguistic features of the first language and English, cultural differences in language use also challenge learners to use CSs appropriately. According to Dörnyei (1995) and Faucette (2001), cultural differences in language use may lead to differences in verbalising a particular CS, which might be seen as inappropriate in some cultures. One example given by Faucette related to differences in interactional strategies where expressions appealing for help in Japanese
eh? (in English huh?) may not be appropriate in second language communication. Another example was given in Thailand by Prinyajarn and Wannaruk (2008) in relation to time-stalling strategies. When Thai students were communicating with English speakers, they frequently used the filler Or to show realisation, but this is inappropriate and incorrect usage of CSs for English. Teaching them the appropriate English expressions for employing particular strategies enables EFL learners to use CSs more appropriately (Faucette, 2001; Kongsom, 2009). Therefore it is important particularly for Thai EFL students in my action research context to learn appropriate English expressions for employing CSs.
Further, regarding Canale and Swain’s (1980) suggestion that learners can only acquire strategies through real-life communication, not in the classroom, EFL learners seem to have none of these advantages. Unlike some second language learning contexts, the only chance to practice communication is in the formal EFL classroom (Kitikanan, 2010). Like other EFL learning contexts, Thai students rarely communicate with English speakers outside the classroom (Kongsom, 2009). Thus, learning what CSs are used by English speakers based on their inherent knowledge is unlikely to occur in a natural setting. Teaching these students CSs explicitly will allow them to deepen their English language knowledge. Students can be made aware of CSs by raising their consciousness about the strategies they use in their first language communications. This
31 approach will help them to understand that such CSs can also be used for effective English communication. Practice with using CSs in different communication tasks provided in the EFL class will also enable students to apply CSs appropriately to the particular situations (Faucette, 2001).
Teaching CSs is, therefore, necessary in the EFL learning context where linguistic and cultural differences in language use exist. One major advantage, according to Ellis (2008), is that learners have opportunities to use and transfer their existing language knowledge to create new linguistic resources when they employ a particular CS. They also have opportunities to develop spontaneous effective use of CSs that fit particular situations. Learners acquire more language input and develop their language ability, leading to the development of interlanguage as well as communicative competence (Ellis, 2008; Faucette, 2001; Konishi & Tarone, 2004).