Darylle Mari Joseph Santiago So
“Bon travail! You’re doing a really good job!”
Developing Emerging Student Oral Communicative Competency in a Canadian Grade 4 French as a Second Language Classroom
University of Eastern Finland Philosophical Faculty
School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education
Master’s Degree Programme in Early Language Education for Intercultural Communication Master’s Thesis in Education
April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i ABSTRACT ... 5
ii LIST OF TABLES ... 6
iii LIST OF FIGURES ... 6
iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 7
1 INTRODUCTION ... 8
2 CONTEXT OF STUDY ... 12
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 19
3.1 COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES (CEFR)... 22
3.2 DIPLÔME D’ÉTUDE EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE (DELF) ... 26
3.3 TEACHER LESSON PLANNING ... 28
3.3.1 MEANING-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ... 31
3.3.2 TEACHING YOUNG LANGUAGE LEARNERS ... 31
3.3.3 THE NEUROLINGUISTIC APPROACH (NLA) ... 33
3.4 CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS ... 37
3.4.1 INTERACTION HYPOTHESES ... 39
3.4.2 INITIATION, RESPONSE, EVALUATION (IRE) SEQUENCE ... 41
3.4.3 LANGUAGING AND COLLABORATIVE DIALOGUE ... 42
3.4.4 GROUP DYNAMICS ... 42
3.4.5 PROFICIENCY DIFFERENCES ... 43
3.4.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK LIMITATIONS ON STUDENT INTERACTIONS ... 43
3.4.7 SUMMARY ... 43
3.5 LANGUAGE PRACTICES ... 45
3.5.1 TRANSLANGUAGING... 45
3.5.2 PEDAGOGICALLY BASED CODE-SWITCHING (PBCS)... 48
3.5.3 TRANSLATION FOR OTHER LEARNING CONTEXTS (TOLC) ... 49
3.5.4 SUMMARY ... 50
3.6 STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT ... 51
4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 54
5 METHODOLOGY ... 55
5.1 MIXED METHODS RESEARCH AND DESIGN ... 55
5.2 PARTICIPANTS ... 55
5.3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES ... 56
5.4 MIXED METHODS DATA ANALYSIS ... 60
5.4.1 QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ... 60
5.4.2 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ... 62
5.4.3 SUMMARY ... 63
5.5 RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND ETHICS... 65
6 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND QUALITATIVE FINDINGS... 68
6.1 TEACHER LESSON PLANNING ... 68
6.1.1 CLASSROOM-BASED ASSESSMENT ... 70
6.1.2 LANGUAGE LEARNING PERSPECTIVES/BELIEFS/PHILOSOPHY ... 71
6.2 CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS AND LANGUAGE PRACTICES ... 74
6.2.1 TARGET LANGUAGE USE AND TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTIONS74 6.2.2 INITIATION, RESPONSE, EVALUATION (IRE) SEQUENCES ... 76
6.2.3 TRANSLANGUAGING PRACTICES ... 79
6.2.4 TRANSLATION PRACTICES ... 79
6.2.5 STUDENT INTERACTIONS ... 80
6.3 CEFR STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENTS... 87
6.3.1 STUDENT SELF-ASSESMENT RESULTS ... 87
6.3.2 STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENTS INTERVIEW FINDINGS ... 88
7 DISCUSSION ... 93
7.1 TEACHER LESSON PLANNING ... 93
7.2 CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS AND LANGUAGE PRACTICES ... 99
7.3 CEFR STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENTS... 106
7.4 CONVERGING RESULTS AND FINDINGS ... 111
8 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 116
9 LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 120
10 CONCLUSION ... 122
11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 125
REFERENCES ... 127
APPENDICES ... 143
APPENDIX A ETHICS APPROVAL LETTER... 143
APPENDIX B CONSENT FORMS ... 144
APPENDIX B1 STUDY CONSENT FORM FOR TEACHERS ... 144
APPENDIX B2 STUDY CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS ... 147
APPENDIX B3 CHILD ASSENT FORM FOR STUDY ... 150
APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS ... 151
APPENDIX C1 TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 151
APPENDIX C2 OBSERVATION RATING SCALE ... 152
APPENDIX C3 STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT ... 153
APPENDIX C4 STUDENT INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 154
i ABSTRACT
Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School
School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education Tekijä – Author
Darylle Mari Joseph Santiago So Työn nimi – Title
“Bon travail! You’re doing a really good job!”
Developing Emerging Student Oral Communicative Competency in a Canadian Grade 4 French as a Second Language Classroom
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages Education Pro gradu -tutkielma X 27 April 2020 143 + 11 appendices
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract
This convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted using quantitative and qualitative measures which aimed to examine student oral communicative competency in a Grade 4 French as a Second Language (FSL) elementary classroom in Alberta, Canada. Three interrelated concepts were explored:
teacher lesson planning, classroom interactions, and student self-assessments using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) descriptors at the A1-level.
Findings from the study revealed the processes and approaches involved in second language lesson planning. The teacher encouraged oral-based communication through scaffolded written activities in order to build student self-efficacy in producing the target language. Moreover, teacher-assessment of student target language use heavily emphasized effort as a measure in order to reduce student anxiety and increase students’ willingness to communicate. In addition, unplanned concurrent use of both the L1 (English) and the L2 (French) were used in the Canadian Grade 4 FSL classroom. Translanguaging and translation practices were observed which may influence a number of student learning and classroom variables addressed in the study such as the learning environment. The instruction of FSL seemed to be conducted through a bilingual lens, and there were many observed cases of the use of L1 to support L2 learning. This approach may contribute to other factors such as students’ language learning perspectives and in increasing students’ motivation to study an SL/FL, elements which may sometimes be ignored in SL/FL research. Furthermore, student scores and responses to the CEFR descriptors indicated that the Grade 4 FSL students were progressing through the A1-levels in their FSL education. As well, students revealed five factors that may influence their self-assessment scores: self-efficacy, integrative motivation and intrinsic motivation, language learning strategies, and language learning perspectives.
Lastly, the findings and results from the study converged to reveal an intricate process of lived experiences in the classroom. The study outlined that teacher lesson planning, classroom interactions, and student self-assessments are interrelated concepts and play a role in developing students’ oral communicative competency in this Grade 4 FSL classroom. Thus, the relationship between these three concepts may contribute to students’ FSL learning overall. The findings of this study demonstrate 21st century pedagogical practices that may be occurring in plurilingual and pluricultural classrooms. More research is warranted in many language learning contexts, especially in the realm of Canadian FSL education to see how different factors and variables coincide and perhaps diverge in developing students’
oral communicative competency in the target language.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Communicative Competency, Lesson Planning, Classroom Communication, Translanguaging, CEFR, Self- Assessment, French as a Second Language
ii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Grade 4 FSL Communication General Outcomes (Alberta Learning, 2004, p. 13) ... 16
Table 2. Grade 4 FSL Fields of Experience (Alberta Learning, 2004, p. 13) ... 17
Table 3. Finnish National Core Curriculum Assessment Criteria for Foreign Languages (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p. 239-240) ... 18
Table 4. CEFR Language Levels (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 24) ... 23
Table 5. New Four Modes of Communication (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 31) ... 24
Table 6. Lesson Planning Reflective Questions (Pinter, 2017, p. 138) ... 32
Table 7. The Neurolinguistic Approach (Netten & Germain, 2012, p. 94-95) ... 35
Table 8. Language Arrangements within Bilingual Education in Wales (Jones & Lewis, 2014, p. 151-152) ... 46
Table 9. Summary of Research Data and Methods ... 64
Table 10. Summary Statistics for Teacher-Student Interactions ... 74
Table 11. Examples of Bilingual Initiation, Response, Evaluation Sequences in the Classroom . 76 Table 12. Student-Initiated Communication Sequence ... 77
Table 13. Initiation-Response-Initiation-Response Communication Sequence... 78
Table 14. Initiation, Response, Evaluation Translation Sequences ... 80
Table 15. Summary Statistics for Opportunities for Student Interactions ... 80
Table 16. Student-Initiated Request ... 81
Table 17. Summary Statistics for Student Language Use ... 81
Table 18. Summary Statistics for Student Use of Formulaic Expressions ... 82
Table 19. Summary Statistics for CEFR A1-level Self-Assessments ... 87
Table 20. Language Arrangements in Canadian French as a Second Language Education ... 103
iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relationships between second language acquisition theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions, and language teaching practice (Krashen, 1982, p. 5) ... 30
Figure 2. Ideal relationships between second language acquisition theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions, and language teaching practice (Krashen, 1982, p. 4) ... 30
Figure 3. Intensive French Programming (Intensive French, 2019) ... 34
Figure 4. Intensive French Student Timetable (Intensive French, 2019) ... 34
Figure 5. Framework for Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms (Johnson, 1995, p. 8) ... 38
Figure 6. Measurement and Interpretation Issues in Self-Assessments (Butler, 2016, p. 296) ... 53
Figure 7. Research Procedures and Products (Adapted from Wittink et al., 2006, in Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017, p. 76) ... 59
Figure 8. Backpack Video Project ... 83
Figure 9. French Café Script ... 85
Figure 10. Teacher Lesson Planning Process in the Second Language Classroom ... 97
Figure 11. Canadian Elementary FSL Arrangement in Alberta ... 103
Figure 12. Self-Assessment Factors ... 110
Figure 13. Converging Findings ... 114
Figure 14. Summary of the relationship between Teacher Lesson Planning, Classroom Interactions, and Student Self-Assessments ... 115
iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BICS Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills CALP Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
CASLT Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CS Code-switching
DELF Diplôme d’Étude en Langue Française ESL English as a Second Language
EFL English as a Foreign Language ELP European Language Portfolio
FL Foreign Language
FSL French as a Second Language
ICT Information Communication Technology IF Intensive French
L1 First Language
LRE Language Related Episode NLA Neurolinguistic Approach
OCDSB Ottawa-Carleton District School Board PBCS Pedagogically Based Code-Switching
SA Self-Assessment
SL/L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TL Target Language
TOLC Translation for Other Learning Contexts UDL Universal Design for Learning
WTC Willingness to Communicate
1 INTRODUCTION
Developing communicative competency in second/foreign language (SL/FL) classes has been topical since the 1970s with Dell Hymes coining the term in On Communicative Competence (1972) in response to Noam Chomsky’s (1965) definition of linguistic competence. Hymes (1972) argued that there is more beyond just grammatical and linguistic competence as Chomsky (1965) theorized, stating that sociolinguistic and communicative competence are also at play when using languages to communicate with others. Coupled with these views on language learning and acquisition, Canale and Swain (1980) further developed ideas on competence in languages in their publication entitled Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, which has since been at the forefront of language didactics. The pedagogical intent to teaching languages was to move away from the 16th century grammar-translation method of SL/FL learning into more communicative approaches into the 19th and 20th centuries. Unfortunately, even with the theories and research that have been conducted since that time, only few changes in language teaching and learning have made their way into the walls of classrooms around the world. Many students who study foreign languages do exactly that – they acquire the knowledge necessary to know the target language (TL) but not necessarily the skill of being able to use the language itself for communication, and specifically, for oral communication. They finish or leave SL/FL programs frustrated due to their lack of ability to interact orally with others in the TL, such as those situations with native speakers or time spent in naturalistic settings where the TL is used.
With this in mind, this study centers on oral-based communication in SL/FL classrooms.
Educational theories from the 1980s and 1990s are present in this document as very little new theories have surfaced in recent years, with many current studies referring back to these so- called ‘classics’ as primary sources of theoretical information. The classic literature references used in this study have been out for some time and have had the chance to be critiqued and further investigated, with still many inconclusive studies that neither prove nor disprove them. While current studies are available, I use these to support my research objectives and findings, but I do not necessarily consider these studies as theoretical frameworks per se.
Oral communication in language classes is of importance to me and in the current climate of language didactics due to the many improvements needed in SL/FL programs and the poor
oral interaction skills that students gain in these formal, instructed settings (e.g.: Tarone &
Swain, 1995; Haj-Broussard, Beal, & Bordeaux, 2017; Bourdages & Vignola, 2009; House of Commons, 2014; Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2015; Lapkin, Mady, & Arnott, 2009). As discussed in many articles that discredit the age factor in language learning (e.g.:
Courtney et al., 2017; Muñoz 2008, 2014; Davies & Taronna, 2012; Nikolov, 2009;
Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017; Lindgren & Muñoz, 2013), this study aims to look at factors that promote the use of the TL in developing student oral communicative competency in the early years of SL/FL instruction. Muñoz (2008), in reference to Harley (1998), notes that “no explanation has yet been provided for why in school settings, the additional time associated with an early head start has not been found to provide more substantial long-term proficiency benefits” (p. 581; see also Germain et al., 2004) in terms of SL/FL attainment. With language education leaning towards instruction of SL/FL at a much earlier schooling age (e.g.: Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016), this study provides a glimpse at developing oral-based communication foundations in the early years of students’ SL/FL instruction in their formal education. This topic is of great interest to many teachers and researchers alike since many studies have concluded the lack of research and the limited oral skills that students gain in formal school contexts, regardless of the type of language program (e.g.: Neu, 2013; Dockrell et al., 2010; Haj-Broussard et al., 2017; Estrada, 2004; Bourdages & Vignola, 2009;
MacIntyre et al., 2003; French et al., 2017; Germain et al., 2004). While students acquire knowledge of the TL, they lack the skill to appropriately use the TL for communicative purposes, as there is often an emphasis on the written comprehension and written production of language via the acquisition of certain grammatical features of the language.
It is also perhaps important to define at this point the difference between the terms
‘competence’ and ‘proficiency’. Taylor (1988, in Ellis, 1990) distinguishes between the two concepts, defining competence as static knowledge, or knowledge of and about the language, while proficiency is defined as the ability to use that knowledge as a skill (p. 174-175 and p.
197). When referring to student oral communicative competency in this thesis, the term communicative competency includes both knowledge and ability, as I argue that these are inseparable as students make sense of and use the TL during their SL/FL learning. Not only are both teachers and students concerned with the morphological features of a language, but also with its pragmatic/sociolinguistic aspects in using the TL inside and outside the classroom (Ellis, 1990, p. 197). While a student may achieve proficiency in an SL/FL, this may not necessarily mean that a student has developed the communicative competency
required to use the language appropriately in various situations. Thus, communicative competency is used to define the ability to appropriately use the TL in varying communicative situations, which also includes a combination of a learner’s knowledge of the morphological, lexical, semantic, and syntactic aspects of a language as they cognitively try to make sense of and use the TL.
While many studies about SL/FL learning are available in the domains of English as a Second Language (ESL) or in English as a Foreign Language (EFL), there exists a limited number of studies in the area of French as a Second Language (FSL). The findings from this study will contribute to the current lack of research in FSL programs across Canada (see Canadian Parents for French, 2018, 2017) and aims to reduce the current 95% attrition rate in secondary core French programs across the country (House of Commons, 2014). Currently, many Canadian L2 studies focus on French Immersion contexts, and with a growing concern for the state of FSL programs in school divisions across Canada, this research will be one of a few that will contribute to enhancing FSL programs and encourage students to continue with their learning of French. Furthermore, as Canadian Parents for French (2017) has addressed,
“more research on the student experience in FSL contexts other than French Immersion is warranted” (p. 6) especially when a majority of Canadian students are enrolled in FSL programs. In addition, as many studies have shown, “teachers’ L2 proficiency and use of L2 best practices are the primary motivators for retaining students” (Desgroseilliers in Canadian Parents for French, 2017, p. 12) in core French programs (see Carr, 2007; Lapkin, MacFarlane, & Vandergrift, 2006; Salvatori & MacFarlane, 2009). Thus, the goal of this research is to improve student learning and pedagogical practices that encourage, promote, and support functional communicative competency in FSL programs.
While I am not necessarily concentrating on specific teaching methods to impart, I do, however, focus on teacher lesson planning processes and classroom interactions that promote the functional use of the target language. Examining classroom interactions is important in this study in order to analyze the live implementation of the planned lessons and the interactions that stem from the execution of these lessons, which may conform to or diverge from the plans themselves. Hence, it is understood that lesson planning and its implementation may be two distinct elements in the classroom between the teacher’s intention and the observed events in the classroom. As Ellis (1990) further points out, “there has been very little research which has attempted to establish a direct relationship between
interaction and L2 acquisition” (p. 125) and this study aims to contribute to this growing body of research. According to a number of theories, students’ ability to develop their spoken interaction skills is fostered through the ways in which teachers provide opportunities for interaction in the target language in classroom settings (see, for example, Johnson, 1995).
This study examines teacher lesson planning as well as student oral interactions that occur in a Grade 4 FSL classroom that contribute to the students’ target language output and functional use of the target language in the early stages of their SL/FL learning.
2 CONTEXT OF STUDY
Contextual variables and comparisons between the Canadian education system and the Finnish education system are made in this document in order to ensure clarity and to make the research accessible to a wider spectrum of practitioners and researchers, especially since the research project took place at a Canadian school, and the publication of this thesis is made through a Finnish university.
The term student is used to refer to any learner in school acquiring formal basic education and is the term used throughout this thesis. The distinction between the terms pupil and student are not defined in Canadian curriculum as it is in the Finnish curriculum where the term pupil is used to refer to learners in primary/elementary school and the term student is used to refer to learners in secondary school, vocational school, or tertiary education. Formal education is defined as “education that is institutionalized, intentional and planned through public organizations and recognised private bodies, and – in their totality – constitute the formal education of a country” (International Standard Classification of Education, 2011, p.
11). Canadian elementary schools typically include students from Kindergarten to Grade 6, with children beginning school at the age of five, or who must turn the age of five by December 31st of that year. Depending on the province or territory, secondary school consists of Grade 8 or Grade 9 through to Grade 12, or split between Grades 7-9 (Junior High) and Grades 10-12 (Senior High or High School).
Basic education in Canada, then, comprises of formal education from Kindergarten up until Grade 12, where students will then choose to continue (or discontinue) their post-secondary studies in various institutions such as universities or polytechnics (i.e. vocational trades) (see Statistics Canada, 2015). For contextual and comparison purposes, Finnish basic education consists of students from Grade 1 to Grade 9 with students at the Grade 1 level being seven years old at the start of their formal schooling. After Grade 9 (age 16), students will then choose to continue their studies at the secondary level (Lukio), in vocational trades (Ammattikoulu), or to completely discontinue their formal education (see Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
Historically, through Francophone and Anglophone relations, French as a Second Language (FSL) has traditionally been the SL offered in many schools across Canada. However, due to Canada’s status as a multicultural country as a result of immigration, many school boards
across Canada have begun offering other language options such as Mandarin Chinese, German, Arabic, Spanish, Punjabi, Tagalog, Ukrainian, Russian, Japanese, and Indigenous Languages (e.g.: Cree, Inuktitut, etc.) to name a few, as various community and language groups have pushed for the instruction of these in many schools. Students typically begin a mandatory SL/FL in upper elementary (Grades 4-6), with the option to continue with the same or different language(s) as optional courses at the secondary level (Grades 7-12).
Furthermore, granted with vast autonomy and independence, Canadian school boards draft their own policies with regards to language education and may thus differ across the country and within provinces/territories depending on the need and demand (see Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2019, p. 3; Arnott et al., 2017, p. 35-38). Examples of language programs may include immersion programs (80-100% of instruction in the TL), bilingual programs (50% of instruction in the TL and 50% in English), intensive programs (80% of instruction in French for the first half of the school year, and 20% in the second half), and SL/FL programs (instructional times differ, e.g.: 140 minutes per week) (see Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2019, p. 3). Moreover, due to the sociological history of Canada and its foundation as a country, the Canadian educational system was founded by and is largely governed according to the prescribed laws of the individual provinces and territories, and thus differences in curricula and their implementation are evident across the country (see Arnott et al., 2017, p. 35).
Presently, the geographic focus of this thesis is in Canada, in the context of French as a Second Language (FSL) instruction, in the province of Alberta. Across multiple literature reviews, the term second language (SL/L2) is usually referred to mean a language that is learned other than the learner’s first language (L1), and is a language that is available outside of classroom contexts (Ringbom, 1980). On the other hand, the term foreign language (FL) is usually defined as a language that is learned other than the learner’s L1, but is not available in the immediate environment (Ringbom, 1980). Throughout this thesis, the terms SL/L2/FL are used synonymously because although French holds the status as an official second language in Canada, the instruction of French itself in other parts of Canada is considered to be a foreign language due to the largely Anglophone environment. Many language programs in Canada use the term ‘second language’ even though many of these languages may be considered as foreign languages. This can be attributed to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1985) which acknowledges Canada as a multicultural country. With this government
legislation, the Government of Canada promotes and recognizes the importance of Canadians’ home and heritage languages as languages that may be used in various communities across Canada (hence, as a second language) while also maintaining English and French as the official languages, rather than identifying those who speak languages other than English or French as foreign or their language to be seen as a foreign language (Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985).
For the purposes of this Master’s thesis, the focus of this study is on the instruction of FSL in the Province of Alberta at the Grade 4 level. This research is targeted in the context of early language education and was conducted in an urban public school division in Alberta, Canada. Students in Grade 4 are between the ages of nine and ten years old. Students at the school where this study was conducted begin their FSL instruction in Kindergarten, and Grade 4 serves as the halfway-point of their FSL education. This study centers on the development of oral-based communication in FSL classrooms through three related aspects:
teacher lesson planning, student interactions, and student perceptions of their oral language skills as measured by the language level descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001, 2018).
While the CEFR is a prominent tool used in language classrooms across Europe albeit the framework “was not designed for young learners” (Nikolov, 2016, p. 8; see also Hasselgreen, 2005; Pižorn, 2009), the use of the framework has only made little progress in Canada (Arnott et al., 2017). Without a standardized national curriculum nor a framework to govern outcomes of SL/FL education, there are no “mutually understood proficiency benchmarks”
(Council of Ministers of Education, 2015, p. 10) in the Canadian context. Without descriptors governing proficiency, pedagogical practices inside Canadian classrooms lack the direction and guidance needed to establish appropriate language levels in different stages of students’
language learning.
It is implied, although not explicitly specified in government or school division documents, that students enrolled in FSL programs begin French at the pre-A1/A1 levels at the beginning of their SL studies, and that students reach the A2 levels at the end of their Grade 6 year as measured against the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001, 2018; also, see
3.1 COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES (CEFR) on page 22). It is with the intent that students eventually reach the B1 or B2 levels by their Grade 12 year where students who are enrolled in the FSL program at the high school level in this school division usually take the Diplôme d’Étude en Langue Française (DELF) B1- or B2-level exams. Additionally, choosing a school that has administered the DELF exams is an important aspect for this research as these exams test students’ listening comprehension, spoken production, and oral interaction skills, and therefore require teachers to focus on these language skills (see, for example, Vandergrift, 2015), rather than simply focusing on grammatical competency as is the case in many current Albertan and Canadian second language classrooms.
When examining the Alberta curriculum document for FSL at the Grade 4 level (Alberta Learning, 2004), a few key rationales and philosophical foundations are specified that indicate the skill students must acquire during and after their FSL instruction at this grade level. For example, Alberta Learning (2004) states that:
“Students use their life experiences, knowledge, skills and attitudes as a basis for developing their second language communicative abilities for real-life purposes; that is, students comprehend oral and written French, and they express and negotiate meaning, orally and in written form, in French” (p. 1).
It is indicated in the curriculum document that students use the TL for communicative purposes and must do so in order to develop their second language abilities. Alberta Learning (2004) further articulates that “students need to be actively involved in the acquisition of the language and its use in authentic communicative situations” (p. 8), which acknowledges that students are seen as language users, and functional use of the TL is an overarching goal for students who study FSL. However, it is also worth noting that the CEFR does not govern this curriculum document, nor is there a mention of such a framework, even though some of the outcomes may align with the framework. When specifying general outcomes for FSL, four objectives are specified in the curriculum document (Table 1 on page 16) that outlines what students should be able to do during and after their first instructional exposure to FSL in Grade 4.
Table 1. Grade 4 FSL Communication General Outcomes (Alberta Learning, 2004, p. 13) Communication
Listening Comprehension Demonstrate understanding of key words and ideas contained in simple, concrete oral texts by responding with physical actions; by answering in English; by using graphic
representations, yes/no statements, simple identification at the word level or global expressions
Reading Comprehension Demonstrate understanding of key words and ideas in simple, concrete adapted or authentic written texts by responding with physical actions or by underlining, highlighting, matching, drawing, or using English
Oral Production Express simple oral messages by using gestures, one word utterances, memorized global expressions or simple, concrete sentences based on available models
Written Production Express simple written messages by copying, labelling,
substituting words or using simple concrete sentences based on available models
For the purposes of this Master’s thesis, the objectives that are of primary importance in this study are the listening comprehension and oral production outcomes of this curriculum document as outlined in Table 1.
However, in most cases, teachers have a tendency to follow the Fields of Experience set out in the curriculum document as thematic units to be undertaken throughout the school year.
These are typically units that are designed to be the most relevant topics in relation to students’ age and cognitive maturity. These same units of study may also resurface later on in students’ FSL education as a way to preview, scaffold, and reinforce concepts. The Fields of Experience for Grade 4 FSL is outlined in Table 2 Error! Reference source not found.on page 17.
Table 2. Grade 4 FSL Fields of Experience (Alberta Learning, 2004, p. 13) Components
Given the following fields of experiences and the subfields within each field, and other areas of interest, students will engage in various language activities, based on the context, the communicative task and the different information and communication technologies available.
Fields of Experience My Classroom
• Classroom interactions
• People in the classroom
• School and classroom supplies
• Classroom furniture
• Arithmetic operations
• Shapes
Who Am I?
• My age/birthday
• My physical traits
• My personality traits
• My likes and dislikes
My Immediate Family
• My immediate family members
• Their age/birthday
• Their physical traits
• Their personality traits
• Their likes and dislikes
• Family pets Calendar and Weather
• Days of the week
• Months of the year
• Seasons
• Statutory holidays in Canada
• Weather expressions
• Seasonal weather
Alberta Winter Celebrations
• Location and date
• Symbols and activities
Four Holidays and Celebrations
• Greetings, symbols and colours associated with the four holidays and celebrations
In comparison to the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education on Foreign Languages (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p. 236-244), the outcomes specified in the Alberta FSL document correspond with the “Knowledge and skills for the verbal assessment good/numerical grade 8” (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p.
239-240) of the Finnish curriculum. It is also worth noting that the outcomes for the Finnish curriculum are taken from the Grade 3-6 syllabus, in order to be able to make similar comparisons when it comes to students’ age and learning outcomes for an SL/FL. When identifying the outcomes for foreign language in the Finnish context with a focus on listening comprehension and oral production, the following statements are provided in the curriculum as illustrated in Table 3 on page 18.
Table 3. Finnish National Core Curriculum Assessment Criteria for Foreign Languages (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p. 239-240)
Objective of instruction Knowledge and skills for the verbal assessment good/numerical grade 8 Evolving language proficiency, interaction
skills Level of proficiency A2.1
O7 to guide the pupil to practise interacting in situations with many types of themes and to encourage him or her to continue
regardless of temporary breaks in communication
The pupil is able to exchange thoughts or information in familiar and everyday situations and can occasionally maintain a communication situation.
O8 to encourage the pupil to maintain a communication situation by using many different means of continuing the communication
The pupil increasingly participates in communication. The pupil resorts less often to non-verbal expressions. The pupil needs to ask for clarification or repetition quite
frequently. The pupil is somewhat able to apply the expressions used by the
communication partner to his or her own communication.
O9 to support the cultural appropriateness of the pupil’s communication by offering possibilities for practising diverse social situations
The pupil can manage short social situations.
The pupil is able to use the most common polite greetings and terms of address as well as to politely express requests, invitations, proposals, apologies, etc. and to respond to these.
Evolving language proficiency, text
production skills Level of proficiency A2.1 O11 to offer the pupil opportunities for
producing speech and writing on expanding subject areas, also paying attention to essential structures and the basic rules of pronunciation
The pupil is able to describe everyday and concrete topics and those important to him or her using simple sentences and concrete vocabulary. The pupil masters an easily predictable vocabulary and many key structures. The pupil knows how to apply some basic rules of pronunciation, also in expressions that have not been practised.
Hence, the focus of this research is in the promotion of oral based communication and students’ functional use of the TL, which is a practical skill that students should be equipped with after their formal instruction in SL/FL programs. When examining language use in these three areas covered in this study, student functional use of the TL orally is the central concept that is of primary importance in this thesis.
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theories that support this research include those from the fields of SL/FL pedagogy, education, and acquisition. This section provides an in-depth overview of the theories, models, and frameworks that are theoretically described to be conducive to providing students with opportunities to use “language for communication” (Canale, 1983, p. 2) rather than “language as grammar” (Canale, 1983, p. 2). Hence, meaning-focused instruction, communicative language teaching, and interactionist approaches underscore the theories, concepts, and goals of this study. Again, primary sources of these theories are outlined in this framework which may include theories from the 1980s and 1990s. While studies have been conducted since those times, few theories have surfaced in recent years and these studies refer back to these classic literature references that have been neither absolutely proven nor disproven. While current studies are available, these are used to highlight current research discussions in the field and such studies have not necessarily generated nor produced current novel theories.
For the purposes of this study, functional use of the TL is defined as situations in which the students must use the TL for “basic personal communication skills” (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p. 67) and “real and immediate communicative goals” (Savignon, 1983, p. 196) where language is used to fulfill a purpose (e.g.: apologizing, describing, requesting, etc.).
Functional use of the TL and the use of the Common European Framework of References for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001, 2018) in the classrooms, if present (see Faez, Majhanovich, Taylor, Smith, & Crowley, 2011), is reflected through all three components of this study when examining teacher lesson planning, student interactions, and student self- assessments.
Again, listening comprehension, spoken production, and oral interaction are the communicative skills emphasized in this study as they are the types of skills required to engage in authentic interactions with others outside the walls of the classroom. It is implied that reading and writing in the SL/FL succeed after the development of these three skills, as is the case in Netten and Germain’s (2012) Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA) to teaching French in an intensive program (see 3.3.3 THE NEUROLINGUISTIC APPROACH (NLA) on page 33).
The structure of this text first begins with the CEFR (2001, 2018) in order to contextualize this research. The CEFR’s language skill outcomes focus on what learners ‘can do’ as described in their corresponding continuum of six language levels. In this study, the CEFR serves as a curricular umbrella that seeks to inform teaching practices and student learning.
Language skills in the categories of Listening Comprehension, Spoken Interaction, and Spoken Production are examined in order to provide a starting point from which teachers may orient their pedagogical practices in the classroom and to see how this translates to students’
perceptions of their own emerging SL/FL skills in the Grade 4 classroom.
Following the analysis of the CEFR, studies that examine teacher lesson planning in the context of SL/FL education are presented. While student-directed learning approaches constitute 21st century teaching practices, teachers’ role in translating the curriculum to achievable and measurable student outcomes cannot be ignored. Teachers need to plan lessons and activities that meet the specified outcomes in a curriculum. Hence, this section of the theoretical framework analyzes available literature on how teachers plan for their lessons in their language classes and the types of activities they might use in the classroom in order to encourage oral-based communication.
After lesson planning, the theory then dives into Johnson’s (1995) Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms in order to analyze student-to-student interactions in a language classroom. Typically, the next step in lesson planning is the implementation of the lessons with students. Using this framework, this study examines students’ knowledge and use of language through their own frames of reference in the language classroom, which is theorized to lead students using the target language for classroom learning and second language acquisition. Consequently, this study looks at the extent to which students use the target language during their SL/FL instruction.
Lastly, after analyzing language learning outcomes, examining processes of teacher lesson planning, and identifying patterns of classroom communication, the final section of the theoretical framework culminates to students’ perception of their language skills, as a result of the classroom practices previously introduced. Self-assessment theories are presented in this section in order to explore how students understand their SL/FL learning and reflect on their emerging language skills in their SL/FL education.
In summary, teacher lesson planning, student TL use in the classroom, and student self- assessment form the foundations of this Master’s thesis. The theoretical framework section, then, is divided into three interconnected concepts: Section 3.1 summarizes the CEFR, Section 3.2 reviews the DELF exams, Section 3.3 examines teacher lesson planning in SL/FL classrooms, Section 3.4 discusses classroom interactions in SL/FL classes, Section 3.5 explores language practices, and Section 3.6 analyzes students’ self-assessment of their TL skills in the beginning stages of their SL/FL learning.
3.1 COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES (CEFR)
Identifying language learning outcomes is the first step in guiding teaching and learning experiences inside the walls of a classroom. The CEFR “defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis”
(Council of Europe, 2001, p. 1). While there exists a number of curricula which specify language learning outcomes for SL/FL education, the CEFR is used as a guide in translating these outcomes by acknowledging what students ‘can do’ as they progress along their language learning continuum. Thus, the CEFR, created by the Council of Europe (2001, 2018), is an overarching framework that encompasses part of this research.
The CEFR characterizes “what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 1) in order to be able to communicate purposefully and effectively. The levels of language ability are divided into six levels, with the A1/A2 levels being determined as basic users, the B1/B2 levels as independent, and the C1/C2 levels as proficient (CEFR, 2001, p. 24; see Table 4 on page 23).
Table 4. CEFR Language Levels (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 24) Proficient
User C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation.
Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.
C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions.
Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices
Independent User
B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and
spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans
Basic User A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.
Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
As language didactics shift from the concept of the four skills of language learning (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to the four modes of communication (reception, production, interaction, and mediation) (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 31; see Table 5 on page 24), the focus of this research centers on the production and interaction aspects of language use in the
classroom in equipping students with concrete language skills useful outside the walls of the classroom. The CEFR is also used in analyzing student-student interactions and teacher lesson planning, should the use of the framework and its descriptors for language levels be present.
Table 5. New Four Modes of Communication (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 31)
Reception Production Interaction Mediation Creative,
Interpersonal Language Use
e.g. Reading as a leisure activity
e.g. Sustained monologue:
Describing experience
e.g.
Conversation
Mediating communication
Transactional
Language Use e.g. Reading for information and argument
e.g. Sustained monologue:
Giving information
Obtaining goods and services Information exchange
Mediating a text
Evaluative, Problem- solving
Language Use
(Merged with reading for information and argument)
e.g. Sustained monologue:
Presenting a case
e.g. Discussion Mediating concepts
With the introduction of the CEFR in the European context, the document was created with the intent to inform the planning of language learning programs, certification, and self- directed learning (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 6). Moreover, the CEFR describes an action- oriented approach to language teaching and learning, where language learners are seen as communicators with a given set of tasks to accomplish in varying environments (Council of Europe, p. 9). This not only entails the communicative use of the language, but also the use of learners’ resources at their disposal to transmit their message to interlocutors, by applying other strategies and competences such as negotiating and mediating skills (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 9).
Additionally, the CEFR also describes communicative language competences that must be considered in the teaching and learning of languages. They include the “knowledge and skills and know how” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 13) of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic competences. The Council of Europe (2001) describes linguistic competences as the “lexical, phonological, syntactical knowledge and skills” (p. 13) of a language, sociolinguistic competences as the “sociocultural conditions of language use” (p 13), and pragmatic competences as the “functional use of linguistic resources” (p. 13). As implied, SL/FL proficiency does not only entail mastery of the linguistic components of a language, but also in developing communicative competency in knowing how and when to use the language in
varying situations. With the introduction of the updated CEFR descriptors in the 2018 version, mediation arises as a skill that encompasses both the reception and production aspects of language competences in which ‘languaging’ is used to talk an idea through or to articulate thoughts in order to facilitate understanding and communication (p. 33). This skill is important in developing communicative competency as language users need to adopt and employ communication strategies in order to understand messages and to be understood by their interlocutors.
However, in the Canadian context, the lack of consensus in identifying global scales for international, minority, and heritage languages has led to different notions of competency and proficiency in SL/FL. The only proficiency scale available in the Canadian context is the Canadian Language Benchmarks or Les Niveaux Canadiens de Compétence Linguistique which was created for adult newcomers to Canada (Arnott et al., 2017, p. 33), and does not translate into the formal education context for K-12 students. As Canadian Parents for French (2017) has addressed, “the crux of the issue comes down to what we mean by bilingual or proficient, and the standard by which we are measuring that bilingualism or proficiency” (p.
9).
Due to the inconsistencies in identifying language proficiencies across the country, attitudes towards FSL education have waned, despite the importance of English/French bilingualism in Canada. This in turn has led to a number of challenges not only in K-12 FSL instruction, but also in other areas of FSL education such as “FSL teacher language proficiency” (Canadian Parents for French, 2018, p. 5), “inadequate space allocated for teachers, meager resources, underappreciation of French in schools and/or surrounding communities, and insufficient funding and support for professional development” (Canadian Parents for French, 2018, p.
14). In a sense, FSL instruction in Canada is treated as a second-class program compared to other core subject areas in schools (House of Commons, 2014, p. 12). In order to overcome these challenges, adopting a framework such as the CEFR may lead to better pedagogical practices and attitudes in FSL instruction across the country.
In summary, the CEFR’s language level descriptors provide communicative- and action- oriented approaches to language learning rather than traditional grammar-translation methods. The CEFR provides a foundation from which FSL instruction in Canada may be guided towards in adopting a national scale for language proficiency. The adoption of the
CEFR not only concerns achievable language proficiency outcomes for students, but also in ensuring that communicative competency in the target language is achieved during language instruction. It provides concrete language skills that students ‘can do’ and be able to achieve in their SL/FL instruction. Challenges in FSL education in Canada may be resolved through the implementation of a language learning framework such as the CEFR.
3.2 DIPLÔME D’ÉTUDE EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE (DELF)
As discussions of the possible implementation of the CEFR in the Canadian context take place (see Council of Ministers of Education, 2010, following Vandergift’s 2006 recommendations), a number of school boards across Canada have looked into recognizing French language qualifications through the administration of the DELF exams. Since its creation in 1985 (Vandergrift, 2012), there has been “very little empirical research on the DELF test itself or its use with different language learner populations” (Vandergrift, 2015, p.
54). However, washback effects of the administration of the DELF exams in schools have been noted in the few research available.
In FSL programs across Canada, the DELF exam levels that are most often challenged and passed are the A2 and B1 levels which correspond to the CEFR language level descriptors (Canadian Parents for French, 2019, p. 14). The impact of the DELF on classroom practices has led to a positive washback phenomenon that “occurs when a test such as the DELF, which requires students to perform real-life listening or speaking tasks, begins to shape classroom pedagogy and to change attitudes” (Vandergrift, 2015, p. 55) and thus leads to communicative- and action-oriented approaches to language teaching and learning (see also Rönneper, 2008). Findings from teacher comments from Vandergrift’s (2015) DELF study in Canada suggests that “FSL classes can become more communicative in orientation through increased practice of speaking skills and more emphasis on authentic documents for listening and reading” (p. 69-70).
Moreover, with the implementation of CEFR-based pedagogical practices and the administration of the DELF exams in a small number of Canadian classrooms, a study by Rehner (2014) revealed links between student confidence and proficiency as a result of taking the DELF. The administration of the DELF exams in Canadian classrooms has led to a positive change in teaching practices and learner attitudes towards learning French since communicative-language teaching and learning approaches are being adopted (see the report
from the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT) in House of Commons, 2014, p. 11-12). Ultimately, this leads to learners being equipped with the skills needed to use the TL for communicative purposes outside the walls of the classroom.
Furthermore, the recognition of students’ language skills through the DELF exams provides students with an internationally-recognized certificate that they can then use in the future to provide evidence of their language proficiency and has been seen as a positive experience by students (see Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) findings in Vandegrift, 2015).
Because the DELF exam includes a section on oral production and oral interaction, teachers and schools who administer the DELF have to also focus on these language skills, rather than solely focusing on TL reading and writing in their language classrooms. Promoting oral- based communication in FSL classrooms has been and is still a challenge, and researchers have pointed out that students “neither used much French in their courses, nor made visible progress from year to year” (Arnott et al., 2017, p. 37; see also Lapkin et al., 2009). Results from another study by the OCDSB on students taking the DELF exams “conclude that oral communication must be a key component of any French second-language program” (House of Commons, 2014, p. 11) since these are the types of language skills that students can use outside the classroom.
In summary, the DELF exams have led to a positive washback effect in FSL classrooms, which is a phenomenon that occurs when exams lead to changes in pedagogical practices.
This is not to suggest that teachers ‘teach-to-the-test’ with regards to the administration of DELF exams, but rather to allow teachers to focus on communicative language teaching tasks in their classroom, rather than reverting to traditional methods of language teaching which often consist of conjugation tables and translation of various texts. This implies that CEFR- informed pedagogical practices trickle down in FSL teaching and learning when DELF exams are administered to students since the exam was created based on the language learning outcomes of the CEFR.
3.3 TEACHER LESSON PLANNING
In Canada, teacher lesson planning is seldom addressed in teacher training programs yet is central to the work of teachers in the profession. Unfortunately, studies on teacher lesson planning is an area that is lacking in the field of second/foreign languages and very little research is available at this time (see, for example, Mutton, Hagger, and Burn, 2011; Pang, 2016). While many texts and publications focus on producing and criticizing theories on second language acquisition (e.g.: Chomsky, 1965; Hymes, 1972; Krashen et al., 1979;
Lenneberg, 1967; Munoz, 2008, 2014; Nikolov, 2009; Long, 2015; Ellis, 1990, 2009;
Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017), teacher implementation and practice of these theories in the classroom are virtually non-existent.
Since empirical studies on teacher lesson planning in SL/FL have been few and far in between, Li and Zou (2017) in their study on EFL teacher expertise in lesson planning address questions related to teacher lesson planning in a language classroom. They present questions such as “Do expert ESL/EFL teachers design good lesson plans?” “How do they perform in lesson planning?” and “What knowledge do they possess for lesson planning?” (Li
& Zou, 2017, p. 233) and posit that these questions do not have yet answers because this area in SL/FL education has “not yet been well theorized due to the scant research in this field” (p.
233). Likewise, Vyn, Wesely, and Neubauer (2019) in their study on the Effects of Foreign Language Instructional Practices on Student Proficiency Development have also mentioned the meager amount of research available that examine “the role of teachers and the potential influence that their instructional practices have on student outcomes” (p. 45) in the context of SL/FL education. While student-centred pedagogical practices have become the norm in many teaching contexts, teachers – who control much of what happens during lessons – and what or how they plan for lessons and their effects on student learning have not been examined fully.
Additionally, Pang (2016) articulates that “this gap remains in the related research conducted in the current decade” (p. 248) and virtually no studies exist in teacher lesson planning in the area of French as a Second/Foreign Language. While there is a body of literature regarding factors that teachers should take into account when planning lessons, these texts solely focus on general subject pedagogy (e.g.: Boyd, 2012; Calderhead, 1996), individual differences of teachers (e.g.: Andrew, 1997, 2001, 2003; Borg, 2006; Wernicke, 2010, 2017), task design (e.g.: Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Nunan, 1989; Johnson, 2003; Préfontaine & Kormos, 2015),
classroom management variables (e.g.: Hawkey, 2006; Mutton et al., 2011; Calderhead, 1996; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2003), and/or in adopting lesson planning courses for student teachers (e.g.: Mutton et al., 2011; Pang, 2016), without actually outlining a framework of what constitutes a lesson plan in SL/FL classes.
When looking at planning for instruction in SL/FL programs, numerous theories and studies point to the use of TL use during instruction (e.g.: Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985; Swain, 1985;
Day, 1985; Netten & Germain, 2012) and to plan for student interaction in the TL (e.g.:
Long, 1981, 1983, 1985; Netten & Germain, 2012; Reinders, 2012; Loewen & Sato, 2018).
However, there exists no concrete planning practices that detail how teachers should plan for or implement such activities. While I am not imparting that teachers need to script their lessons as I am aware that most teachers engage in “mental planning” (McCutcheon, 1980, p.
7) when it comes to planning lessons and the need to sometimes deviate from ‘best laid plans’
in order to respond to the unpredictable nature of classrooms, the objective of this research is to gain insights on how teachers plan for and consciously integrate components of oral interaction in their lesson planning.
Teaching in general has been bombarded with a number of ideas on how to best deliver content in certain subject areas. However, many of these ideas tend to be developed by teachers and what works in their respective classrooms, without necessarily having any theoretical foundations. As Krashen (1982) has addressed, “the solution to our problems in language teaching lies not in expensive equipment, exotic methods, sophisticated linguistic analyses, or new laboratories, but in full utilization of what we have, speakers of the languages using them for real communication” (p. 1). It is not a matter of simply purchasing new technologies in schools or selling new teaching programs and workshops in order to improve classroom teaching as is the case in many educational contexts, but rather in utilizing our teachers as the most important resource in language pedagogy. What has become an unfortunate reality as Krashen (1982) states back then, and which still holds true today, is the lack of interaction between researchers and teachers in the field of SL/FL education, in employing research-based pedagogical decisions when it comes to language teaching.
Researchers have become so out of touch as to what happens inside classrooms and teachers equally have paid little attention “to research and theorizing of any sort” (Krashen, 1982, p.
5) that we have simply been left with ideas on how to teach languages without critically thinking about underlying theories that are just as important (see Figure 1 on page 30). This is
not to generalize that all teachers conduct themselves in this way, but keeping up with the research is a rather difficult task to accomplish with the many external pressures and constraints that are ever present in teaching.
Figure 1. Relationships between second language acquisition theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions, and language teaching practice (Krashen, 1982, p. 5)
To combat this mindset, in an idealistic world, Krashen (1982) suggests that there be a relationship present among second language acquisition theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions, and language teaching practice (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. Ideal relationships between second language acquisition theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions, and language teaching practice (Krashen, 1982, p. 4)
The hope with this is that multidisciplinary interactions that are connected to language teaching such as education and linguistics need to exist in order to pave the way for better language education since “the most current theory may still not be the final word on second language acquisition” (Krashen, 1982, p. 8), which still holds true today in the 21st century.
Second Language Acquisition
Theory
Applied Linguistics
Research
Ideas and Intuitions
Language Teaching Practice
Second Language Acquisition
Theory
Applied Linguistics
Research
Ideas and Intuitions
Language Teaching Practice
3.3.1 MEANING-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION
With this in mind, the focus of this theoretical framework on teacher lesson planning, then, is on meaning-focused instruction. Meaning-focused instruction aims to draw the attention towards the development of students’ implicit knowledge of the TL, which is “subconscious and procedural” (Ellis, 1990, p. 184; Ellis, 2009, p. 38) in understanding the TL and in producing utterances, as opposed to explicit knowledge which is “conscious and declarative”
(Ellis, 1990, p. 184; Ellis, 2009, p. 38). The term ‘utterances’ is meant to refer to speech produced in oral communication while text is used to refer to written language (Olson, 1977, in Ellis, 1990, p. 128-129). Olson (1977, in Ellis, 1990) argues that the continuum of language development begins from the ability to produce utterances to the ability to produce written texts, and that the main function of formal language instruction is to facilitate this development (p. 128-129).
Meaning-focused instruction is central in developing early L2 development because it “is likely to afford the learner an opportunity to listen to and perform a greater range of language functions than will form-focused instruction” (Ellis, 1990, p. 188) as well as provide opportunities for learner output, which Ellis (1990) suggests contributes to the acquisition of implicit knowledge (p. 191). The cognitive theory for L2 learning in this sense posits that implicit knowledge is developed through meaning-focused instruction and that this type of instruction is what facilitates the ability of a learner to develop his or her communicative competency, thereby developing the appropriate oral language skills necessary for interaction skills in the TL. Students need to be provided with the conditions that cognitively force them to activate procedures responsible for both the automatization of knowledge and compensation for the lack of it in order to develop strategic abilities required to demonstrate his or her language competence accurately and fluently (Ellis, 1990, p. 193). However, teacher training in the area of developing students’ emerging language skills are limited (Dockrell et al., 2010; Haj-Broussard et al., 2017).
3.3.2 TEACHING YOUNG LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Conversely, Pinter’s (2006, 2017) Teaching Young Language Learners discusses teaching English as an L2, similar to how one would acquire their L1: first beginning with the receptive skill of listening, followed by the productive skill of speaking. She discusses that young learners need plenty of listening practice in the beginning stages of their language learning, which will naturally lead to speaking tasks (Pinter, 2017, p. 53). She suggests the
