RealizingMultilingualismTheDutchApproachtoLanguageTeaching

LynneWest

USAtotheNetherlandsFulbrightDistinguishedAwardsinTeaching2015-2016

June10,2016

1

TableofContents

Introduction 2

WrittenResearchReport 3

OnlineCommunityOverview 19

2

IntroductionThereweretwodifferentstrandstomyinquirywhileintheNetherlands.First,IwantedtolearnasmuchasI

couldabouthowforeignlanguagesaretaughthere.TheNetherlandsisacountrythathasareputationfor

excellenceinthisarea.Second,Iwantedtodevelopanonlinecommunityforforeignlanguageteachers.I

envisionedthisasaspaceforsupporting,questioning,andsharingbestpracticesandideas.Itwasdifficultfor

metoenvisionhowtorepresenttheworkthatIhavedoneinonecohesivedocument.So,instead,Iam

actuallysharingtwodifferentthings.Thefirst,Ibelieve,summarizestheresearchprojectfully.Itiswritten

reportthatIco-authoredwithmyadvisor,ProfessorMarjolijnVerspoor.Thisreportisfocusedonthestudy

thatIdesignedandimplementedduringmytimehere.ItisbeingsubmittedforpublicationtoaDutch

languageteachingjournalcalledLevendeTalen.Thesecondpieceisfocusedontheonlinenetwork.After

offeringsomeexplanationofwhereIaminthedevelopmentofthiscommunity,Iprovideanoverviewofthe

siteaccessibleviaaweblink.

3

AsurveyofForeignLanguageTeachingapproachesintheNetherlands

LynneWest,BellarmineCollegePreparatory,SanJosé,California

MarjolijnVerspoor,UniversityofGroningen,Groningen

AsaLatinhighschoolteacherfromSanJosé,California,intheUS,thefirstauthorwascurioustoseehow

foreignlanguagesaretaughtintheNetherlands,thecountrythatissupposedtobeknownforpeoplewho

speakforeignlanguagessowell.AprojectwassetuptofindouthowforeignlanguagesaretaughtatDutch

schoolswithclassroomobservationsofthemostcommonlytaughtlanguagesintheNetherlands(English,

French,German,Latin,andAncientGreek)andastudentsurvey.Tocreatearubricwithwhichtoobjectifythe

classroompracticesaswellaspossible,theliteraturewasexaminedtodiscoverwhatL2researchersconsider

goodlanguageteachingandwhatapproacheshaveproventobeeffective.Studentswerealsosurveyedon

howtheyperceivedtheirteacherandhowmotivatedtheyweretolearntheirlanguages.

BackgroundLiterature

Whatdoresearchersinthefieldconsider“good”foreignlanguageteaching?Thevolumeofresearchandthe

numberofstudiesonsecondlanguageacquisitionisextensive,butthemanyviewpointsarguedprovidea

potentiallyconfusingandcontradictorytheoreticalbackdropforclassroomteachers.Afocusonrecent

scholarshipinthefieldofSLAsuggeststhatabalancedclassroomexperienceisnecessaryforthesuccessful

languagelearningofstudents(Ellis,2008).Studentsneedtohaveopportunitiesforbothmeaningfocused

inputandoutput,forfluencydevelopment,andforform-focusedlearning.Theimportanceoftargetlanguage

inputishigh.Input,however,isnotenough.Studentsshouldhaveoccasionstoproducethetargetlanguage

inacommunicative,meaningfocusedway.Long(2009)alsomentionsthatstudentslearnformsand

structureswhentheyaredevelopmentallyreadytodoso.Consequently,animportantroleoftheteacher,

then,istoprovidestudentswithopportunitiesthatmovethemtowardsreadiness.Tobeabletodefine

“good”FLteaching,tenmethodologicalprincipals(seeTable1)thatwerefirstelaboratedbyDoughtyand

Long(2003)wereused.Althoughoriginallydevelopedaspartoftask-basedlanguageteaching,Longstates

thattheyare“candidatesforanyapproachtolanguageteaching,task-basedorotherwise”(Long&Doughty,

2009).

4

Table1-MethodologicalPrinciplesaccordingtoDoughtyandLong(2003)

MethodologicalPrincipleanddescription

Activities 1 Usetask,nottext,astheunitofanalysis.

2 Promotelearningbydoing.

Input 3 Elaborateinput.

4 Providerichinput.

Learning

Processes

5 Encourageinductivelearning.

6 Focusonform.

7 Providenegativefeedback.

8 Respectdevelopmentalprocesses.

9 Promotecooperative/collaborativelearning.

Learners 10 Individualizeinstruction

Intheirpopulartextbookforfutureforeignlanguageteachers,LightbownandSpada(2013,Chapter6)review

themostcommonlyknownforeignlanguageteachingapproachesintheworld,withdifferencesinhowmuch

attentionispaidtomeaningfulinput,meaningfulinteractionandfocusongrammar.Focusongrammarmay

bedoneincidentallywithinameaningfulcontext(forexamplebymeansofrecasts)oritmayactuallybethe

focusofthelanguageclasswithmanyexplicitexplanationsandmeta-linguisticterms.Below,theapproaches

areorderedaccordingtotheamountoffocusongrammarthatmayoccur.Inparentheses,someother

commonfeaturesaregiven.

1. Grammar-translation(Hasastructure-basedsyllabus;focusongrammarformsandaccuracy;little

meaningfulinputoruseofthelanguage)

2. Task-basedlearning(Hascommunicativeactivitieswithafocusonmeaningfulinteractionamong

learners;hassomefocusongrammarwhenneededtopreventfossilization)

3. Communicativelanguageteaching(Similartotask-basedlearningbutwithanadditionalfocuson

meaningfulinput;alsohasmeaningfulinteractionandsomefocusongrammar)

4. Comprehensionapproach(Hasaheavyemphasisonmeaningful,comprehensibleinputandnoexplicit

attentiontogrammar)

5. Content-basedlanguageteaching(Hasasubjectorseveralsubjectstaughtinthetargetlanguagesuch

asinimmersion,bilingual,orContentLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)programs;oftenthereis

verylittleattentionforgrammarorerrors)

5

Afterasolidandnuancedoverviewofhowdifferentlinguisticandpsychologicaltheorieshaveinfluencedthese

second language teaching approaches over the last 60 years, they end each section with a review of the

empiricalstudiesthatdoordonotsupporttheseapproaches.Theyconcludeintheendthatacommunicative

approachhasthebestchancetobeeffectiveinlanguageteaching,whenlanguageisusedmeaningfully,istaught

withalargeamountofinput–preferablyasauthenticaspossible–andsomeattentiontogrammarisgiven.

Moreover,theyprovideseveralexamplesofwhatempiricallyhaveproventobethemosteffectiveapproaches:

thereadingcomprehensionapproach,inwhichlearnersreadbooksinsteadofreceivingexplicitinstructionand

acontentlanguageintegratedlearning(CLIL)approach,inwhichL2learnersaretaughtsubjectcontent(suchas

history) inthetarget language.SpadaandLightbownconcludethatthesetrulycommunicativemethodsare

much more effective than structure-based programs. However, despite the evidence of the efficacy of

approaches that focus on input and meaning, Spada and Lightbown (2013) point out that the use of

communicativeapproachesremainsrareintheforeignlanguageclassroom,whiletheuseofstructure-based

teachingmethodsremainswidespread.

Withtheprinciples,commonlyknownteachingapproaches,andempiricalevidenceformosteffectiveteaching

approachesinmind,thecurrentstudysetouttoanswerthefollowingtworesearchquestions:

1. WhatinstructionalapproachesareusedinDutchschools?

2. Towhatextentisthere“good”languageteachingintheFLclass?

Duringtheclassroomobservations,itbecameevidentthatinsomeclassesstudentswerenotatallinterested

inthelessonandinotherstheyparticipatedactivelyandenthusiastically.Toseewhetherlearnersaremore

motivatedandengagedby“good”teachingpractices,thestudents’weresurveyedtoanswerthefollowing

question:

3. Isthereacorrelationbetween“good”FLclassesandthewaystudentsperceivethoseclasses?

Method

TheaimofthestudyistoinvestigatecurrentFLinstructionalapproachesintheNetherlandsandtoseehow

studentsperceivedtheirclasses.Toanswerthequestionsavarietyoflanguageclasseswasobservedand

studentsweresurveyedonhowtheyperceivetheFLandtheirclasses.Fortheclassroomobservation,atool

6

andrubricweredevelopedreflectingkeyprinciplesestablishedbyLong(seetable1)andteachingapproaches

mentionedbySpadaandLightbown.ThestudentsurveyswereadaptedfromaprevioussurveyusedbyGiulia

Sulis(2015).

Schoolsvisited

Atotalof49languageclasseswerevisitedattheVWO(pre-university)andHAVO(generalsecondary

education)levels.TheschoolsweremainlyinthenorthoftheNetherlands,bothinthecityofGroningenand

inmoreruralareas.OneschoolinAmsterdamisalsoincluded.Tobeabletomotivatesomeofthedistinctions

madelater,itisimportanttoexplaintheDutchschoolsystem.IntheNetherlands,highschoolsstreamtheir

incomingstudentsaroundaged12intovariouseducationallevels:VWO,HAVO,andVMBO(pre-vocational).

TheVWOhasthreedifferenttiers:regular,gymnasium(withLatinandGreek)andaformofbilingual

educationcalledTweeTaligOnderwijs(TTO).ThegymnasiumandTTOaregenerallymoreselectiveandattract

thehighestlevelstudents.Forthecurrentstudy,TTOschoolshavebeenlookedatseparatelybecause

accordingtoDeBotandMaljers(2009),TTOschoolshavebeenthebestinnovationinforeignlanguage

teachingintheNetherlandsinthepastdecades.Notonlydotheyrequirethat50%ofclassesaretaughtin

English,butalsotheextraEnglishasalanguageclassandotherforeignlanguagesaresupposedtobetaughtin

thetargetlanguage.Presentlythereare130schoolswithTTOofthe642VWOschools,butthesenumbersare

notquiterepresentativeasmanyschoolswithTTOhaveonlyoneortwoclassesintheTTOstreamanda

greaternumberofregularclasses.Ofallclassesvisited,29%wereintheTTOstream.Table2showsthe

breakdownofclassvisits.

Table2-NumberofClassesVisitedbyLanguageandGrade

Language Grade1 Grade2 Grade3 Grade4 Grade5 Grade6 Total

English VWO VWO VWO VWO 4

HAVO HAVO 2

VWO-T(2) VWO-T VWO-T VWO-T 5

German VWO(2) VWO VWO 4

HAVO HAVO HAVO 3

0

French VWO VWO VWO VWO 4

HAVO HAVO HAVO(2) 4

TTO TTO(2) TTO TTO TTO 6

7

Latin VWO-G(2) VWO VWO(2) VWO VWO(2) VWO 9

TTO 1

Ancient

Greek

VWO(2) VWO VWO VWO 5

TTO TTO 2

Subjects

Theclassroomobservationsconcerned27differentteachersteaching49classesinFrench,English,German,

AncientGreek,andLatincoursesatDutchhighschools(9HAVOand40VWOatalllevels).Aminimumofone

exampleofeachgradeofeachlanguagewasobserved,withtheexceptionofGerman6.Thestudentsurvey

concerned316studentsin15classestaughtby10differentteachersobserved.

Materials

Fortheclassobservations,twotoolswereused.First,aself-createdobservationtoolcataloguedinformation

regardingtheactivitiesobserved,characteristicsofthelearningenvironment,engagementlevelofthe

students,andthelanguageandapproachesused.Then,theobservationswerescoredinarubricconsistingof

5domains:teacheruseoftargetlanguage,presenceofcommunicativeactivities,studentengagement,

learningenvironment/classroommanagement,andopportunitiesforassessmentofstudentlearning.The

rubricexistsin2versions,oneforclassicallanguagesandanotherformodernlanguages.

ThestudentsurveyconsistedofasetoftwentystatementswithLikertscaleresponsechoices.Thetwenty

statementsaimedatgaugingstudents’attitudestowardstheclassandtheteacher,interestinthesubjectand

language,andcomfortlevelwithusingthelanguage.

Procedures

Classeswereidentifiedthatcouldbeusedassubjectsbycontactingasmanyteachersaspossible.Then,visits

oftheclasseswerescheduled.Whenpossible,priortothebeginningofclass,teacherswereaskedwhetherit

wouldbepossibletosurveythestudentsduringthelast5-10minutesofclass.Inthecasethatthiswasnot

convenient,teacherswereaskedtoshareaweblinkwiththeclasssothatthestudentscouldcompletean

onlinesurveyatalatertime.

Throughtheinstructionalperiod,theobservationtoolwasusedtorecordwhattookplaceintheclassroom.

Duringtheobservationofclasses,theobservernotedwhichlanguageteachingapproacheswereemployedby

theteachersuchasagrammartranslationorcommunicativeapproach.Amongthecommunicative

8

approachesthereweregeneralonesthatincludedcommunicativeactivitiesinclassandmorespecificones

suchastheAcceleratedIntegrativeMethod(AIM)orTeachingProficiencythroughReadingandStorytelling

(TPRS).AIMisacommunicativemethodinwhichthetargetlanguageisusedexclusivelywithgesturesto

scaffoldformeaning;themethodhasverylittlefocusongrammar.ThereweretwoinstancesofTPRS,alsoa

communicativemethodwithstoriesandquestionandanswerasthecentralfocusoftheclass.

Theamountoftargetlanguagewasnoted.Thelanguageofinstructionwasdefinedasthelanguageinwhich

theteacherconductstheclass.Alltaskssuchasgreetingstudents,givinginstructions,providingexplanations,

andofferingfeedbackfallunderthisheading.

OtheraspectswerealsonotedascanbeseeninTable3.Aftertheschoolvisiteachdomainintherubricwas

scoredonascaleof1-3.

Table3-ScoringRubic

RubricDomain ModernLanguages ClassicalLanguages

TeacheruseofTL 3:plentifulandconsistentinputinTL2:someinputinTL1:veryminimalinputinTL

3:richwritteninput,fullsentences,reinforcedorally2:somefullsentenceinput1:inputwaslimitedtoisolatedwords

CommunicativeActivities

(Modern)

VariationofActivities

(Classical)

3:communicativeorientationwasstronglypresentthroughouttheclass2:somepresenceofcommunicativeactivities1:nocommunicativeactivitywas

present

3:studentshadmultiplevariedopportunitiestopracticetheirlanguageskills2:somevariationinpracticeopportunities1:novariationofpractice

LearningEnvironment 3:learningenvironmentwasfocused,productive,andstudentcentered2:learningenvironmentwassomewhatfocusesandproductive1:environmentwaslargelyunfocusedandchaotic

StudentEngagement 3:studentswereactivelyparticipating,interestedin,andfollowingtheactivitiesoftheteacher2:studentswereengagedforaportionofthelesson1:studentswereoff-taskandnon-participatory

9

Opportunitiesfor

Assessment

3:teacherhadplentyofopportunitiestoassessthedegreetowhichstudentsunderstood2:teacherhad1-2opportunitiestoassessstudentunderstanding1:noopportunityforassessingwaspresent

Finally,thestudentsweresurveyedusingahardcopysurveyadministeredattheconclusionofclassorviaan

onlineversionofthesamesurvey.

Analysis

Fortheschoolvisits,simplegraphsvisualizetheresults.Toanalyzetheteacherobservationrubricandstudent

survey,correlation,simplelinearregressions,andfactoranalyseswereconducted.Allanalysesweredonein

SPSS.

Results

TeachingApproachesUsedintheClassroom

Table1showstheuseofapproaches,asapercentage,forthethreedifferentcategoriesofclasses.Itis

importanttonotethatAIM,TPRS,andTask-basedlearningareallapproachestolanguageteachingthathave

varyinglevelsofcommunicativefocus.

Table4-PrimaryApproachUsed

PrimaryApproach ModernLanguage

atTTOSchool

ModernLanguage

atRegularSchool

ClassicalLanguage

Grammar-Translation 45% 73%

Generalcommunicative 38% 27%

AIM 38% 9%

TPRS 9%

Task-Based 25% 18% 18%

Communicativetotal 100% 55% 23%

Table5providestheaveragescoreforeachdomainoftherubricbrokendownintothreecategories:TTO,

Regular–Modern,andClassical.

Table5–Scoreforeachrubricdomain

10

RubricDomain TTO Regular-Modern Classical

TargetLanguageUse 3,00 2,14 2,35

CommunicativeActivities 2,45 1,86 1,95

StudentEngagement 2,82 2,14 2,24

LearningEnvironment 2,82 2,14 2,24

AssessmentOpportunities 2,82 2,43 2,47

TOTALSCORE 13,91 10,71 11,25

Inadditiontotherubricscoringcorrelationswerecalculatedforallfivedomains.Table6showsthatthefivedomainsintherubricallcorrelatedsignificantlywitheachother.Table6–CorrelationsBetweentheFiveDomains TL CA LE SE AsTL CA 0.474

0.001

LE 0.4070.004

0.4350.002

SE 0.4080.004

0.5930.000

0.6780.000

As 0.3870.006

0.4150.003

0.3870.006

0.4510.001

TL=(teacheruseof)TargetLanguage,CA=(presenceof)CommunicativeActivities,LE=LearningEnvironment,

SE=StudentEngagement,As=(opportunitiesfor)Assessment.

Therewasasignificantpositivecorrelationamongallthedomains,butespeciallytherelationshipbetween

StudentEngagementandCommunicativeActivities,ρ=0.593;p<.000(two-tailed)washigh,suggestingthat

themorestronglypresentcommunicativeactivitieswere,thehigherthestudentengagementwasinclass.In

addition,thedatasuggeststhatthemorestudentcenteredthelearningenvironment(LE)was,thehigherthe

studentengagementwasinclass(ρ=0.678;p<.000).

Moreover,asimplelinearregressionwascalculatedtopredictstudentengagementbasedoncommunicative

activities.Asignificantregressionequationwasfound(F(1,47)=23.524,p<.000),withanR2of.334.This

meansthatcommunicativeactivitiesareagoodpredictorofstudentengagementinclass.Similarly,learning

environmentinclasscanpredictstudentengagement(F(1,47)=40.261,p<.000,R2=.461).

11

ThestrongcorrelationsbetweenengagementandapproachisalsovisibleinTable7,whichshowstheaverage

ofstudentengagementperapproach.

Table7-AverageStudentEngagementbyApproach

Approach AverageStudentEngagement

Grammar-TranslationONLY 2

Grammar-TranslationANDadditionalapproach 2,42

AIM,Task-Based,Communicative,and/orCLIL 2,73

Targetlanguageuse

Asfaraslanguageofinstructionisconcerned,55%oftheclasseswereconductedmainlyinDutch.In45%of

theclasses,mostlyatTTOschools,thetargetlanguagewasthelanguageofinstruction.IntheTTOclasses

observed,theteachersspokeexclusivelyinthetargetlanguage.Theaveragerubricscoreforlanguageof

instructioninmodernlanguageclassesatTTOschoolsthescorewas3(seeFigure1);atregularschools,itwas

2.14.Theaveragescoreforclassicallanguageclasseswas2.35(SeeFigure1).

Figure1-LanguageofInstructionbyLanguageatTTOSchools

Innon-TTOclasses(seeFigure2),thereisvariationinthelanguageofinstructionaccordingtothelanguage

taught.AllEnglishclassesobservedweretaughtinthetargetlanguage,butfewGermanandFrenchwere.

Latinwastaughtinthetargetlanguagein2cases,butallGreeklessonswereconductedinDutch.

12

Figure2-LanguageofInstructionbyLanguageinRegularSchools

Table8showstowhatextenttheteacherandstudentsusethetargetlanguage.TeachersatTTOschools

alwaysusethetargetlanguageinclass.TTOstudentsusethetargetlanguageveryfrequently,buttheir

regularpeersmuchless.Thetablealsodemonstratesthatteacherswhousethetargetlanguageexclusively

havestudentswhooftenusetheTL.Teacherswhousethetargetlanguagelessoftenhavestudentswhoalso

usethelanguageverylittle.

Table8-StudentUseofTLinModernLanguageClasses

TeachertoStudent StudenttoTeacher StudenttoStudent

TTO Regular TTO Regular TTO Regular

AlwaysusesTL 100% 33% 91% 10% 18% -

Sometimes

usesTL

- 43% 9% 43% 82% 14%

RarelyusesTL - 24% - 33% - 38%

NeverusesTL - - - 14% - 48%

Studentsurvey

AquestionnairebasedontheAMTB(Attitude/MotivationTestBattery),developedoriginallybyGardner(1985)

and adapted forDutch students by Sulis (2015)was used to survey the students. Itwasmeant to test the

following constructs: interest in the FL, motivational intensity, FL anxiety, FL teacher evaluation, attitude

towardslearningtheFL,desiretolearntheFL,FLcourseevaluation,andinstrumentalorientation.

13

Resultsfactoranalysis

Afactoranalysisonthetwentyitemsofthequestionnairewasconducted.Theresultsseemtoindicatethat

thequestionsrelatedtofourmaincategories:Teacher/Method,Interestinlanguagelearning,LearnerAnxiety,

andMotivation.Thesefourfactorsexplain53.1%ofthevariance,whichisrathergood.Thefirstcategory

explains16.8%ofthevariance,theothersrespectively13.7%,12.1%and10.5%.

Table9-Resultscorrelationsbetweenstudentperceptions,method,andteacher

RotatedComponentMatrixa

Teacher/Method

Interestinlanguagelearning

LearnerAnxiety/confidence Motivation

Ilookforwardtothisclassbecausemyteacherissogood. .705 .160 .046 .214Thislanguageclassisawasteoftime -.466 -.481 .024 -.097Thislanguageteacherteachesinaninterestingandvariedway. .833 -.006 -.008 .073Themethodmyteacherusesisfun. .886 .007 .123 .056Becauseofthemethod,Idoenjoythislanguageverymuch. .783 .202 .200 .156 LearningthislanguageisimportantbecauseImightneeditinmycareer. -.072 .784 .024 .186IwishIcouldspendallmytimelearningthislanguage. .306 .686 -.065 .168Ipracticemylanguageskillseveryday. .051 .389 .004 .431Iwanttocontinuetakingclassesinthislanguageingrade4. .143 .609 .143 .054 IworrythattheotherstudentsinmyclassarebetterwiththislanguagethanIam. .081 -.043 -.723 -.151IamafraidthattheotherstudentswilllaughwhenItrytousethislanguage. -.056 .074 -.711 .069Ihavegreatconfidenceinmyabilitytousethislanguage. .148 .480 .605 -.006Ifeelverycomfortableusingthislanguageoutsidetheclassroom. -.053 .550 .431 -.033IamconfidentwhenIhavetousethislanguageinclass. .206 .171 .725 .111 Ithinkthatitisimportanttogetgoodgrades. .132 -.101 -.107 .663Foreignlanguagesareveryinteresting. .220 .241 .182 .430Iworkhardtolearnthislanguage. .430 .109 -.272 .437

14

Itisimportanttolearnforeignlanguages. .113 .152 .184 .597LearningthislanguageisimportantbecauseitmeansIcangetabetterdegree -.045 .347 -.003 .594WhenIdon’tunderstandsomething,Iaskmyteacherforhelp. .293 -.193 .292 .442ExtractionMethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis.RotationMethod:VarimaxwithKaiserNormalization.a.Rotationconvergedin6iterations.

Toseewhetherthereisarelationbetweenoverallgoodteaching(hightotalrubricscore)andtheevaluation

ofthestudents(totalscore),acorrelationwasrunbetweenthetotalRubricscoreandthetotalQuestionnaire

score.Therewasasignificantpositiverelationshipbetweengood”teachingandthestudents’attitude

towardstheclass,ρ=0.2;p<.000(two-tailed).The“better”theclass,thebetterthestudentevaluation.”

Wealsowantedtoknowiftherewasacorrelationfortotalstudentscoresonthequestionnaireandthetotal

scoreontheclassobservationrubricperteacher.However,nosignificancewasreached(ρ=-.068;p>.05).

ButwhenthescoresofthequestionsinthefactorTeacher/Methodweretotaledandcorrelatedwiththetotal

scoresontheclassobservationrubric,thereisasignificantcorrelationbetween‘good’FLclassesand

students’perception(ρ=-.392;p<.000).Thisisamediumeffect,butstillrathergood.

Similarcorrelationtestswererunwiththeotherfourmainfactors,Interestinlanguagelearning,Learner

AnxietyandConfidence,LearnerAnxiety,andMotivation,buttheywerenotsignificant.

DiscussionandConclusion

ThestudyfocusedoninthispapersetouttoexaminehowforeignlanguagesaretaughtintheNetherlandsin

termsoftheapproachesusedbyteachersaswellastheextentoftargetlanguageuse.Theauthorswerealso

interestedinunderstandingwhatstudentsintheNetherlandsthoughtabouttheirforeignlanguageclasses.

Thefirstresearchquestioninvestigatedtheapproachesthatteachersuseintheirforeignlanguageclasses.

Teacherswereobservedusingavarietyofapproaches(grammar-translation,communicative,AIM,task-based,

andTPRS),andoftenmorethanoneapproachwasusedinasingleclass.InTTOschoolsacommunicative

method,eitherAIMorother,astheprimarymethodwaspredominant.Thisresultisnotsurprisinggiventhat

itisarequirementinthistypeofschool.Inregularschools,however,thepredominantapproachwas

15

grammarandtranslation,forbothclassicalandmodernlanguages.Itwasverysurprisingtoseetheextentto

whichthegrammar-translationapproachisfavoredamongteachersofmodernlanguagesintheNetherlands.

Whentheapproachdataiscomparedwiththedataonobservedstudentengagement,somenoteworthy

patternsarise.Inclasseswherethegrammarandtranslationmethodologywassupplementedbyanother

methodology,studentengagementincreasesquitesignificantly.Studentengagementwashigherstillin

classeswheregrammarandtranslationmethodologywasnotused.Inourcorrelationanalysisoftherubric

wefoundthatthereweresignificantcorrelationsbetweencommunicativeactivities,studentengagement,and

learningenvironment.Inclasseswherecommunicativeactivitieswerepresentthelevelofstudent

engagementwashigher.Inturn,thehighertheengagementlevel,themorepositivethelearning

environmentwas.Thesecorrelationscanoffermotivationforclassroomteacherstoincludemore

communicativeactivitiesinthelessonstheyplan.Thefindingsofthisstudyoffercompellingevidencethat

communicativeactivitiesleadtoamorepositivelearningenvironmentnot,asmanyteachersmayfear,amore

chaoticenvironment.

Anapproachitselfdoesnotdeterminecompletelywhathappensintheclassroomasteacherscanimplement

itindifferentways.Therefore,thesecondresearchquestionexaminedthedegreetowhichtherewas“good”

languageteachingpractices,includinguseofthetargetlanguage,communicativeactivities,student

engagement,learningenvironment,andassessmentopportunities

ItismuchmorecommonforthetargetlanguagetobethelanguageofinstructioninTTOschoolsthaninthe

regularschools.Research(cfSpadaandLightbown2013)hasindicatedthatinordertofosterthebest

possibleconditionsforlanguagelearning,studentsneedtohavelotsofaccesstorichtargetlanguage.The

TTOschoolsvisitedprovidedstudentswithlotsofrichtargetlanguage,whiletheregularschoolsofferedfar

less.OurfindingsconfirmdeBotandMaljersassertionthatTTOschoolsareindeedaverypositiveinnovation.

Intheregularschools,onlyinEnglishcourseswasthetargetlanguageregularlythelanguageofinstruction.In

allEnglishclassesvisited,thetargetlanguagewasthelanguageofinstruction.Thesamewascertainlynot

trueforFrenchandGermanclasses.Onepossiblereasonforthisdifferenceisthehighdegreeofexposureto

EnglishthatstudentsreceiveonadailybasisintheNetherlands.Theincreasedopportunitiestohearanduse

thelanguagehaveraisedthebaselevelproficiencyofstudentstothelevelthatteachersfeelcomfortable

conductingtheirclassesinEnglish.DeBotnotesthatEnglishhasaveryhighvalueinDutchsocietyandthatits

16

valueisresponsiblefortheexcellentachievementofstudentinthissubject(Law2014).Inregularschools,

theextensiveuseofDutchinFrenchandGermanclasseswasstriking.Studentsintheseclasseshavefew

opportunitiestohearthelanguageinuseand,asaresult,theirownabilitytousethelanguagereallysuffers.

Theapproachandtheuseoftargetlanguagehastodowiththenumberandtypeofcommunicativeactivities

andstudentsproducingthetargetlanguage.Theteacheruseofthetargetlanguagehasabearingonitsuseby

students.StudentsatTTOschoolsweremuchmorelikelytousethetargetlanguageinclasswhenaddressing

theirteacherortheirpeersthantheircounterpartsatregularschool.Whenstudentshearthelanguage

frequently,theyaremoreapttousethelanguage.ThiseffectwasparticularlynotableinFrenchclassesusing

theAIMapproach.IntheFrenchAIMclassesobserved,inputwasprovidedonlyinFrench.Thestudentswere

abletocomfortablyfollowthelessonandinteractwitheachotherandtheirteacherusingFrench.

Thefinalresearchquestionconsideredtheextenttowhichthereisacorrelationbetween“good”FLclasses

andthewaystudentsperceivethoseclasses.Indeed,therewasasignificantcorrelationbetweenthetotal

scoreontheobservationrubricandthescoreontheitemsintheteacherandmethodfactorofthestudent

survey.Thus,theteacher/methodcorrelatessignificantlywithhowmuchstudentsenjoytheclass.Thisisan

importantpieceofdataasitdemonstratesthattheapproachthatteacherschoosereallyisacriticalfactorin

howstudentsreacttoaclass.Notonlydoestheapproachimpactthekindofskillsthatstudentswillhavein

thelanguage,butitalsohasabearingontheirengagementintheclassandoverallassessmentofthatclass.

Forsecondaryschoolstudentstohaveapositiveresponsetoalanguageclass,thecurrentstudyshowsthat

languageteachersneedtoconsidernotonlywhattheyareteaching,butalsohowtheyareteachingit.

Therearesomelimitationstothisstudythatareworthnoting.Mostoftheschoolsvisitedarelocatedinthe

north-eastoftheNetherlands.Itispossiblethatvisitstoschoolsinotherareasofthecountrywouldyielda

somewhatdifferentdataset.Additionally,themethodusedtoidentifythesubjectsforthestudyofferssome

limitations.Contactwasmadewithindividualteachersatlocalschoolsviaateachereducator.Thisis

potentiallyproblematicinthattheteacherswhohaveaconnectionwiththeuniversityteachereducation

programaremorelikelytobeaccomplishededucatorswhoserveasmodelsforpre-serviceteachersthanifa

morerandomizedgroupofteacherswerevisited.

17

Bibliography

• deBot,K.,&Maljers,A.(2009).Deenigeechtevernieuwing:Tweetaligonderwijs.InFestschriftGerard

Westhoff.(pp.131-146).

• Ellis,N.(2008).ImplicitandExplicitKnowledge(N.H.Hornberger,Ed.).InJ.Cenoz(Ed.),Encyclopedia

ofLanguageandEducation(2nded.,Vol.6,pp.119-131).NewYork,NY:Springer.Gardner,R.(1985).

Socialpsychologyandsecondlanguagelearning:theroleofattitudesandmotivation.London:E.

Arnold.Law,P.(2014,October29).ClassroomTalk.RetrievedJune8,2016,from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/classroom_talk3.shtml

• Law,P.(2014,October29).ClassroomTalk.RetrievedJune8,2016,from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/classroom_talk3.shtml

• Lightbown,P.M.,&Spada,N.(1999).HowLanguagesareLearned,RevisedEd.Oxford:OUP.

• Long,M.H.,&Doughty,C.J.(2003).Optimalpsycholinguisticenvironmentsfordistanceforeign

languagelearning.LanguageLearning&Technology,7(3),50-80.

• Long,M.H.(2009).MethodologicalPrinciplesforLanguageTeaching.InM.H.Long&C.J.Doughty

(Eds.),TheHandbookofLanguageTeaching(pp.374-388).Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

• Sulis,G.(2015).TheeffectofL2teachingmethodonmotivationandproficiency(Unpublishedmaster's

thesis).UniversityofGroningen.

Endnotes:ThisstudyistheresultofaFulbrightDistinguishedAwardinTeachinggrant.

TheauthorswishtothankIngemarie fordoingthestatisticalanalyses.

18

OnlineCommunityOverviewDevelopment

TheprocessofdevelopingtheonlinenetworkwasmorechallengingthanIexpectedand,asaresult,ittook

metwiceaslongtobuildasIanticipated.IbeganworkingonthecommunitydevelopmentinearlyMarch,

afterspendingJanuaryandFebruarydevelopingtheplanformystudyandgainingafirmerfootinginthe

research.Theworkonthecommunityhappenedconcurrentlywiththeimplementationofmystudy.The

imagebelowshowsthestepsinvolvedinconceptualizingandbuildingthecommunity.

Therewasbiglearningcurveformeonthis.Inthepast,Ihavebuiltwebsitesandblogsbutalwaysusingdrag

anddrop,easytousetemplates.Iwasnotabletofindaproviderthatcouldoffersomethingalongtheselines

fordevelopingatypeofsocialnetwork.ThereweresomefeaturesthatIreallywantedthenetworktohave

thatIjustcouldnotfind.So,inordertogetthefeaturesthatIwanted,Ihadtouseaservicethatwasmuch

lessuserfriendlyandintendedfordevelopers,whichIamnot.

19

Despitethechallengesofbuildingtheonlinecommunity,I’mhappywith(andproudof)whatIhavemade.

TouroftheCommunity

I’vemadeanonlinepresentationtogiveyouatourofthecommunity.Pleasefollowthelinktocheckitout:

LinguaConnectTour

Whatnext

Atthispoint,thecommunityisinitsearlystages.Ihavedevelopedthestructureandmadeitasuser-friendly

asIcanbyprovidingtutorialsandhelpfulinformation.Ihavebeguntheprocessofaddingsomehelpful

resourcesandcontent.Iwouldreallyliketoincorporateaseriesofshortvideoclipson2ndlanguage

acquisitiontheorymadeaccessibleforlanguageteachers.Additionally,acollectionofcontributionscalled

“MyBestPracticein1Minute.”Iwanttospendtimeoverthenextcoupleofmonthsdevelopingthecontent

moreandhavingasmallgroupofuserscontinuetotrythingsout.Iwanttomakesurethatitisreallyworking

thewayIintendbeforeIbegintobroadcastitmorewidely.Asthesummerwindsdownandteachersget

readyforbacktoschool,Iwillstartpromotingmoreintentionally.Thebeginningofthesummerisnotthe

timetodothis,asteachersaretiredandnotintherightframeofmindtotryoutsomethingnewbutIthink

latesummer/earlyfallwillofferamorereceptiveaudience.Foranumberofsummers,Ihavetaught

technologyintegrationworkshops.TheparticipantsinthoseworkshopswillbethefirstgroupthatIapproach

tojointhecommunity.Then,IwillexpandtolocalandnationallanguageteachingorganizationstowhichIam

connected.Ialsowriteamonthlycolumnforapublishingcompany,Iintendtousethisplatformtopublicize

thenetworkabitmore.