1 / 42

Teaching and Study Practices in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms

Teaching and Study Practices in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms. Pirjo Harjanne pirjo.harjanne@helsinki.fi Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) http://www.helsinki.fi/sokla/reflect Department of Applied Sciences of Education University of Helsinki. Seppo Tella

roza
Download Presentation

Teaching and Study Practices in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teaching and Study Practices in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms Pirjo Harjanne pirjo.harjanne@helsinki.fi Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) http://www.helsinki.fi/sokla/reflect Department of Applied Sciences of Education University of Helsinki Seppo Tella seppotella@aoni.waseda.jp Waseda Institute for Advanced StudyWaseda University Tokyo, Japan and Department of Applied Sciences of Education University of Helsinki

  2. Contents of the presentation Introduction: - Finnish national core curricula: CLT - CLT in Finnish foreign language classrooms? KIELO—Research and Developmental Project in Foreign Language Teaching, Studying and Learning (2008–2012) KIELO research and other research on Finnish foreign language classrooms Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 2

  3. Finnish national core curricula(LOPS, 2003; POPS, 2004) Aim of language teaching: communicative language proficiency Means: communicative language teaching (CLT) What should CLT include in FL classrooms? Somesalientfeatures of CLT and TBLT (Harjanne, 2006; based on e.g. Nunan, 1989; Donato, 2000; van Lier, 2000; Brown, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 2003) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 3

  4. Socioculturalism in classrooms Harjanne & Tella

  5. KIELO A Research and Developmental Project in Foreign Language Teaching, Studying and Learning (2008–2012) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 6

  6. the FL teacher’s cognition • conceptions of students, teaching, studying and learning based on values, beliefs, prior experience, practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge&the sociocultural context of school and language classroom • define what and how foreign languages are taught, studied—and learnt Premises of the KIELOproject Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 7

  7. **A holistic view on Communicative Language Teaching**A communicative task as a crucial part of teaching and studying **The didactic teaching–studying–learning process (TSL process)**The FL teacher’s own personal didactics and pedagogical thinking The key components of KIELO’s theoretical framework TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 8 8

  8. To analyse, describe and interpret thepresent state of foreign language (FL) teaching in Finnish FL classrooms – the way foreign languages are taught, studied and learnt. A special focus is laid on the role, status and significance of communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) as a current and topical teaching practice and as a methodological approach among FL teachers. Research task Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 9

  9. 1 What salient features and emphases are found in Finnish FL classrooms?2 What teaching and study practices are used in Finnish FL classrooms?3 In what ways are the teaching and study practices justified by the teachers? 4 In what ways do FL teachers implement communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching? Research questions Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 10

  10. Research Setting Research methodology •  Exploratory practice •  Mixed methods Target groups •   FL teachers •   Students TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 11

  11. Exploratory Practice(Allwright, 2000; 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009) Key objective: to increase understanding of the quality of language classroom life the salient features of an “ordinary” classroom’s activities Teachers and learners are equal partners in researching their own classroom lives – teaching and studying Research has to be relevant to the teacher and the students Academic researchers are research consultants Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 12

  12. Research Setting Data gathering •   Questionnaires •   Interviews •   Classroom observation •   Electronic and digital documentation Data analysis •   Content analysis •   Discourse analysis TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 13

  13. Harjanne & Tella 14

  14. KIELO research and other research on Finnish Foreign Language ClassroomsCurrent research on teaching and study practices in Finnish FL classrooms is scarce.Only a few doctoral theses; most studies are Master’s theses or Bachelor’s theses;still, they are important and indicatory. Harjanne & Tella

  15. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue 60% of the Finnish teachers of English: English at most 50% of the teaching time Under 10% of the Finnish teachers of English: the target language at least 75% of the teaching time (The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries, 2002). Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 16

  16. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue English / lower and upper secondary school / four (two and two) video-recorded lessons : 60% (lower secondary) / 51% (upper secondary) of the teacher talk was Finnish Grammar: in Finnish (Reini, 2008 / Master’s thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 17

  17. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue KIELO research English / lower and upper secondary school Interviews of the teachers (N=11), observation of lessons (N=11) The aim of the teachers:maximum use of English in the lessons Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 18

  18. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue Observation At the beginning of the lesson: English / 11 Instructions: English / 5, English and Finnish / 4, Finnish and English 2 Grammar: Finnish / 8, English / 3 General conversation: English / 5, English and Finnish / 4, Finnish and English 2 Private conversation: English / 3, English and Finnish / 4, Finnish and English / 4 Dicipline: English / 6, English and Finnish / 1, Finnish and English / 4 Intervention in the students’ use of Finnish: yes / 4, not always / 3, no / 4 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 19

  19. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue The experienced teachers used much more English than the inexperienced teachers The students used much more English, when the teacher used English and especially, when they were encouraged to speak English (Kuoppala, 2009 / Pedagogical thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 20

  20. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue KIELO research English / lowersecondaryschool Classroomobservation (1–3 lessons per 5 teachers) and a questionnaire Instructions / 5 teachers:primarilyEnglish >> Observation: Finnish and English Grammar /5 teachers:Finnish Small talk/ The teachers: English >Observation: English To praise the students/ The teachers: English >Observation: English Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 21

  21. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Target language vs. mother tongue • Paying attention to the students’ use of • Finnish / 5 teachers: try to pay attention to the use of Finnish > Observation: The teachers asked the students to be quiet or they let them continue in Finnish but didn’t encourage them to speak English • (Järnberg, 2009 / Pedagogical thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 22

  22. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching English / lower secondary school: Teaching and studying focused on linguistic items isolated from meanings and language functions (Alanen, 2000) English / upper secondary school: Little (if any) evidence of student-centredness or of the student’s role as an active user of the target language(Nikula, 2007) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 23

  23. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching English / primary school: The teacher had a high level of control and focused her teaching on isolatedlinguistic units The teacher usually used English communicativelyonly for a few minutes during a lesson (Hinkkanen & Säde, 2003 / Master’s thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 24

  24. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching English / primary school: The pupils: The exercise book exercises and listening to and reading thetextbook chapters played a major role Their use of English was minimal, as even discussion tasks in pairs were written down in their copybooks (Jalkanen & Ruuska, 2007 / Master’s thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 25

  25. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching English / upper secondary school Classroom ethnography, conversation analysis / One double-lesson of English (a part of a larger data collection of face-to-face ordinary EFL lessons) The nature of EFL conversation in classroom: The teacher had control, focusing on checking the exercises Teacher-centred Genuine conversation was scarce (Turunen, 2007 / Master’s thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 26

  26. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching English/ primary school Three case studies about drama; teacher as a researcher, observation, interviews of the teachers, questionnaires to the pupils Drama enabled to simulate authentic communicationin English to practise all the components of communicative competence (Ropponen, 2006 / Master’s thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 27

  27. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Swedish / lower and upper secondary school Microethnography, exploratory practice, teacher as a researcher / audio-recorded lessons, a questionnaire Oral practice of Swedish with the aid of collaborative scheme-based and elaboration tasks Student-centred lessons Teacher:a mentor Students: active participatorsin communication in Swedish Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 28

  28. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching The students’ communication: co-construction of the dialogue peer-scaffolding much more attention to meaning than form Conclusion: students’ collaboration and interactional communication came true, having the connection with life outside the classroom. (Harjanne, 2006 / Doctoral thesis) Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 29

  29. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching KIELO research What tasks do FL teachers at a university of applied sciencesuse in their lessons? A questionnaire to 8 FL teachers (English, Spanish, French, Swedish, German and Russian) (> 9 teachers participated!) Many more oral than written tasks The oral tasks were more communicativethan the written tasks Co-operative tasks Authentic materials, self-edited materials About same number of group work and individual tasks About same amount of teacher-centred and student-centred teaching (Naumanen, 2009 / Pedagogical thesis) TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 30 30

  30. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching KIELO research What kind of foreign language teaching do the pupils at lower secondary school find interesting? A questionnaire, N=42 Group work and projects in addition to grammar >> to hear and use foreign languages More speaking in foreign languages Varied FL teaching includingculture and communication (Keskinen, 2009 / Pedagogical thesis) TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 31 31

  31. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching KIELO research Which teaching approaches do the FL teachers in primary school and lower secondary school prefer on their lessons and why? A questionnaire (N=23) Teacher-centred (58% of the teachers), a need to control Student-centred and co-operative (42% of the teachers), to activate the students to inspire, participate and take more responsibility TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 32 32

  32. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teaching Authoritarian teaching style(59% of the teachers) clear rules and goals > learning if too much control to the students > non-learning; Democratic teaching style(33% of the teachers) to enable the students to participate and to assume more responsibility (Lehtinen, 2009 / Pedagogical thesis) TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 33 33

  33. Conclusions from research on Finnish FL classrooms The results are in line with many international research results (e.g,. Karavas-Doukas, 1996; D. Li, 1998; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999):Most second language (L2) teachers claim to use CLT approach Communicative FL classrooms still seem to be in the minority (teaching still being teacher-centred and focused on grammar) (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005) TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 34 34

  34. Conclusions from research on Finnish FL classrooms The language tasks used mirror the teachers’ views on FL proficiency, teaching, studying and learning. The language tasks used seem to have a decisive role on defining what happens in FL classrooms. TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 35 35

  35. CLT vs. ‘traditional’ language teachingTasks KIELO research What kind of tasks do the exercise books in French at lower secondary school include in Finland, Sweden and Canada? Task classification modified on basis of Nunan (1989), Skehan (1998) and Littlewood (2004) TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 36 36

  36. TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 37 37

  37. Why do FL teachers prefer ‘traditional’ (teacher-centred, focus on grammar) language teaching? It’shard for the FL teachersused to teachgrammaticalrules and isolatedwords and wordlists, to seethatcommunicativetasksimprovelearning(Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005) The FL teachers’ beliefsdeterminetheirteachingcrucially(e.g., Borg, 2006) Misunderstandings of communicative language teaching and of a communicative task: Purelyoralpractice, no grammarteachingorpractising Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 38

  38. KIELO research on teaching and study practices in Finnish FL classrooms is continued… What, how and why? TBLT 2009 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 39 39

  39. Alanen, R. (2000). Kolmannen muodon tapaus: Miten kieliopista puhutaan englannin kielen luokassa. [The case of the third form: How grammar is discussed in English classroom.] Teoksessa P. Kalaja & L. Nieminen (toim.), Kielikoulussa – kieli koulussa (ss. 139–163).AFinLAn vuosikirja, 58. Jyväskylä: Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistys AFinLA. Allwright, D. (2000). Exploratory Practice: an 'appropriate methodology' for language teacher development? Paper presented at the 8th IALS Symposium for Language Teacher educators, Edinburgh, Scotland, Politics, Policy and Culture in Language Teacher education. Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/11 Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (2009). The DevelopingLanguageLearner. An Introduction to ExploratoryPractice. New York: PalgraveMacmillan. Bergman, J., Oksanen, H., & Veikkolainen, K. (2009). Viestinnällisyys ranskan oppikirjojen tehtävissä Suomessa, Ruotsissa ja Kanadassa.Pedagoginen tutkielma. [Communicativeness in the exercises of the textbooks of French in Finland, Sweden and Canada]. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Breen, M. (2001). Navigating the discourse: on what is learned in the language classroom. In Candlin, C. & Mercer, N. (eds.) English language teaching in its social context. London: Routledge, 306–322. Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: State University. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian ModernLanguageReview, 61(3), 325–353. Harjanne, P. (2006). ”Mut ei tääoo hei midsommarista!” – ruotsin kielen viestinnällinen suullinen harjoittelu yhteistoiminnallisten skeema- ja elaborointitehtävien avulla.[‘But hey, this ain’t ‘bout Midsummer!’—Communicative oral practice in Swedish through collaborative schema-based and elaboration tasks]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 273. Available at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/harjanne/ Hinkkanen, H.-M., & Säde, A.-M. (2003). Puhutaanko kielestä vai kielellä? Tapaustutkimus englannin kielen tunnilla käytetyn kielen kohteista, sisällöistä ja merkityksistä. [Shallwetalkabout a foreignlanguageor in a foreignlanguage? A case study of the targets, content and meanings of the language used in English lessons].Kasvatustieteen pro gradu -tutkielma. Opettajankoulutuslaitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto. [Master’sthesis]. RetrievedJune 9, 2009, fromhttps://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/10443/G0000201.pdf?sequence=1 References Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 40

  40. Jalkanen, L., & Ruuska, J. (2007). Affektiiviset tekijät vieraan kielen opiskelussa:.Tapaustutkimus alakoulun englannin tunneista oppilaiden kokemana.[The affective factors in studying a foreign language: A case study of the English lessons in the primary school as experienced by the pupils].Kasvatustieteen pro gradu -tutkielma. [Master’sthesis]. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. RetrievedJune 9, 2009, fromhttps://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/10684/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-2007883.pdf?sequence=1 Järnberg, M. (2009). Opettajansuomenkielenkäyttöjasiihenvaikuttaviatekijöitäyläkoulunenglannintunneilla. [The English teachers’ use of the mother tongue on the lessons and the reasons for that at lower secondary school.] Pedagoginen tutkielma. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187–198. Keskinen, N. (2009). Peruskoululaisten käsityksiä kolmannen kielen valinnasta. [A primary school pupils’ views on choosing a third foreign language]. Pedagoginen tutkielma. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Kuoppala, M.-K. (2009). English, please – Kohdekieli ja äidinkieli opettajan käyttämänä englannin oppitunnilla.[English, please—The teacher’s use of the target language and the mother tongue in English lessons]. Tapaustutkimus Helsingin yliopiston normaalikouluissa. Pedagoginen tutkielma. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Lehtinen, J. (2009). Perusopetuksen kieltenopettajien suosimat opetusmuodot, -tyylit ja -strategiat oppitunnilla. Pedagoginen tutkielma. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703. Naumanen, A. (2009). Viestinnällisten tehtävien piirteitä vieraiden kielten oppitunneilla. Tapaustutkimus ammattikorkeakoulusta. [Features of the communicative tasks in foreign language lessons. A case study of a university of applied sciences]. Pedagoginen tutkielma. Aineenopettajankoulutus. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollard, A. (2002). Reflective teaching: Effective and evidence-informed professional practice. London: Continuum. Reini, J. (2008). The Functions of Teachers’ Language Choice and Code-switching in EFL Classroom Discourse. Master’s thesis in English. Department of Languages. University of Jyväskylä.https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/18639/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-200806115441.pdf?sequence=1 Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 41

  41. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ropponen, M. (2006). Draama alakoulun kommunikatiivisessa englanninopetuksessa. [Drama in communicative teaching of English at primary school.] Master’s thesis. Department of teacher education. University of Jyväskylä. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-2006365 Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Modern Language Journal, 83, 494–517. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 1–14. The assessment of pupils' skills in English in eight European countries (2002). A European Project commissioned by The European network of policy makers for the evaluation of education systems. (Edited by Gérard Bonnet.) Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://cisad.adc.education.fr/reva/pdf/assessmentofenglish.pdf. Turunen, N. (2007). The nature of EFL conversation in classroom and net-based learning environment. Master’s thesis. Department of languages. University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/7263/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-2007410.pdf?sequence=1 van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from anecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245–259. Harjanne & Tella Harjanne & Tella 42

More Related