Teachers’ preferences for the components of communicative

The first part of the interview included questions considering teachers’ opinions on the development of students’ communicative competence, owing to it being regarded as one of the main goals in EFL teaching. Emma, the teacher participant with the most experience, had witnessed the rise and fall of several ELT methodologies. On the one hand, she regarded communicative competence as only a catch phrase in foreign language teaching, however, she admitted to appreciating the importance of what communicative competence entails:

Well, it depends on what you mean by developing communicative competence. If you mean that it’s sort of a buzz word (laughs)… I don’t care. If you mean that a language can only be understood through communication, through real communication, then I couldn’t agree more. (Emma)

Anna, Hanna and Márk were in agreement in saying that developing communicative competence is indeed the main objective in their teaching; however, each of them acknowledged that they placed more emphasis on the development of spoken communicative competence, and writing is a slightly neglected area in their teaching practice. Márk also seemed to be harbouring some resentment against making communicative competence a buzz word in EFL teaching:

They’re acting like they have reinvented the wheel. A well-balanced English teacher was already doing this twenty years ago, incorporating it into the lesson, but there seem to be these trends. (Márk)

Eszter and Nóra were both of the opinion that it is indeed of utmost importance to develop learners’ communicative competence; however, there are other equally important aims to be kept in mind.

We have to go a lot further than that in the school. Students have to be taught vocabulary relating to global issues and theoretical, complex problems so that they can express themselves in those areas as well. Not to mention also having to perform well at some reputable language exam, where the standard expectation goes well beyond everyday subjects and communication. (Eszter)

All the participants seemed to be in agreement that the way communicative competence was developed in the EFL classrooms always had to reflect the particular group’s and the students’ needs.

The participants, in addition to voicing their opinions on communicative competence in general, were also requested to make an order of preference among the different components of the construct, keeping in mind intermediate learners of English. They were also invited to give a brief reasoning to justify their choices. The names of the components together with some examples were written on cards and the teachers had to put them in the order which reflected the importance the individual components received in their teaching practice. When necessary, further explanation on what the individual components entailed and extra examples were provided by the researcher.

An overview of the participants’ orders of preference is offered in Table 8, however, it is of utmost importance to also get acquainted with the reasoning behind the lists.

Table 8 Teacher participants’ order of preference for the components of communicative competence

Anna Emma Eszter Hanna Márk Nóra

actional strategic linguistic strategic actional linguistic strategic actional discourse actional strategic actional discourse sociocultural actional sociocultural sociocultural strategic linguistic discourse strategic linguistic discourse discourse sociocultural linguistic sociocultural discourse linguistic sociocultural

Anna regarded the development of actional and strategic competences as the most significant in ELT teaching, claiming that the appropriate use of linguistic functions or speech acts was essential to be able to ‘get the message across’.

Actional competence is really important, knowing in certain situations what sentence is going to be the one that achieves successful communication. Using various strategies is vital to avoid communication break-downs when they cannot express exactly what they want. (Anna)

Anna seemed to be somewhat at odds with the place of discourse competence in her teaching practice, as she remarked that certain textual aspects, such as cohesion and coherence were of great importance in writing, but not so significant in everyday speaking situations. She ranked sociocultural competence as the less important of the components; however, she admitted that her decision was probably influenced by the fact that EFL coursebook writers placed great emphasis on the inclusion of sociocultural information in the materials. Therefore, she felt she did not have to pay special attention to it.

I think socio-cultural competence is very, very important, but I would still put it to the end of the list. It seems that every textbook has started to incorporate different dialects and even accents of people who speak English as a second language.

Since it shows up in the books, I don’t think I really have to address it. Maybe that’s why I put it to the end of the list, it’s featured in the books anyway. (Anna)

She concluded her explanation by highlighting that such orders of preference were always influenced by proficiency level as well as students’ actual needs and goals.

For Emma, strategic competence was the most important component, since she thought that without mastering certain communication strategies it was impossible to survive in challenging communicative circumstances. Emma ranked actional competence and sociocultural competence as second and third, respectively. She explained that she had personally experienced how uncomfortable it could be if certain politeness conventions or degrees of formality were not adhered to. She regarded discourse competence and linguistic competence as the two least important components; though she admitted that at lower levels she did place more emphasis on these constituents.

Eszter assigned linguistic competence and discourse competence to the first two positions in her list, claiming that without a reasonable amount of vocabulary as well as the knowledge of basic grammatical rules it was impossible to establish effective communication. Eszter ranked strategic competence and sociocultural competence as the least important components for several reasons. She perceived strategic competence as the mere mastery of certain communication strategies, which, when acquired, did not need further development. Additionally, Eszter conceded that she did not pay sufficient attention to the development of sociocultural competence; time constraints made it impossible for her to include additional cultural materials in her lessons. However, she shared Anna’s opinion in asserting that EFL coursebooks were an excellent source of sociocultural information.

Hanna’s order of preference was very similar to that of Emma. Hanna also

That’s what I am doing all the time, developing their strategic competence. I tell them to circumscribe what they don’t know, to try to bridge language difficulties somehow even if they have to stand on their head in order to get the message across. I believe this is what they have to know to get by at intermediate level in real life. (Hanna)

The second most important component for Hanna was actional competence, claiming that mastering the different linguistic functions and, as a consequence, being able to communicate effectively in everyday situations was vital in the target language community. Also, she regarded sociocultural competence, cultural differences and openness to other cultures as particularly significant, which she directly attributed to the fact that both as a language learner and as a teacher she had spent considerable time in English speaking countries. These lengthy stays made her realize that being socially competent is of utmost importance when spending time in the target language community:

International cultural relations are very important to me, so even if I don’t actually do an activity on dialects and various registers, I teach them a lot about culture and cultural differences in order to make them more open-minded.

(Hanna)

Hanna considered discourse competence as the least important component. However, similarly to Anna, she too admitted that her opinion was somewhat varied, depending on whether spoken or written communication was concerned.

Márk shared Anna’s opinion in saying that the attention he devoted to the development of the components of communicative competence always depended on the actual needs of the students. He asserted that his order of preference for course preparing students for an oral examination would be completely different from the rank order for an academic writing course, for instance. On a general level, though, he ranked actional competence and strategic competence first and second, claiming that to

be able to overcome communication breakdowns, it was vital to master these two competences.

Students need it so that they should at least be able to say something, to start speaking. And if something doesn’t come to their mind, they should be able to still do something, like circumscribe. (Márk)

He also regarded sociocultural competence as relatively important, highlighting raising students’ awareness to the appropriate use of the different registers. However, he concluded that the most essential business is to get the message across:

They should just be able to say something at first, then say something more and more correctly and then in the end they should also be able to notice the differences. (Márk)

He concluded that Solutions, the coursebook he used with intermediate learners, reflected his order of preference.

Nóra ranked linguistic competence as the most essential component, the basis of communication. Linguistic competence was followed by actional competence and strategic competence, both being especially important to her in spoken interactions.

Nóra also ranked sociocultural competence as the least significant component, sharing Eszter’s opinion in claiming that the limited amount of time teachers had did not permit the inclusion of additional sociocultural activities. However, she admitted that in a different setting, where languages are taught in a higher number of lessons per week, she would probably include more activities of this kind.