Volume 5 (2014) Issue 2
pp. 225-243
Foreign
Language Teaching Assistants
and
their Classroom Practices
Frédérique Grim (Fort Collins,
USA)
Abstract
Teaching styles and
practices are unique to each teacher due to personal experience,
convictions, and training. However, what is the impact of teaching
style when specific directions are given and outcomes expected? This
study investigates college teaching assistants’ (TA) applications
of instructions given by their coordinator (and researcher) and
responds to: (1)
Do TAs apply instructions as intended? In other words, is the
projected curriculum taught as expected? (2) Do their practices
concur with or differ from their beliefs? Based
on 17 hours of recorded observations of 15 TAs at the second- and
third-semester French college level, the results provide a clearer
understanding of TAs’ applications of instructions, as well as
implications for teacher training.
Key
words: Teaching assistants, classroom practices, teaching styles,
teacher training, curriculum, instructions, French as a foreign
language
Abstract (Français)
Les styles et les pratiques pédagogiques sont uniques à chaque personne, causés par ses expériences personnelles, ses convictions et la formation qu'elle a reçue. On doit toutefois se demander quelles sont les influences de ce bagage pédagogique quand des directives concrètes sont données et que des résultats spécifiques sont attendus. Cette étude examine la mise en application de directives par des assistants-enseignants d’université données par leur responsable (et chercheur). Les questions suivantes, guidant la recherche actuelle, sont posées : (1) Les assistants-enseignants mettent-ils en pratique les directives qu’on leur donne ? En d’autres termes, le programme est-il enseigné selon les attentes du responsable ? (2) La mise en pratique des assistants-enseignants suit-elle ou diffère-t-elle de leur philosophie pédagogique ? Grâce à 17 heures d’observation enregistrées et la participation de 15 assistants-enseignants à des cours du 2e et du 3e semestre de français dans une université américaine, les résultats nous apportent une meilleure compréhension de la mise en pratique des directives données aux assistants-enseignants par leur responsable, ainsi que des implications pédagogiques pour la formation d’enseignants.
Abstract (Français)
Les styles et les pratiques pédagogiques sont uniques à chaque personne, causés par ses expériences personnelles, ses convictions et la formation qu'elle a reçue. On doit toutefois se demander quelles sont les influences de ce bagage pédagogique quand des directives concrètes sont données et que des résultats spécifiques sont attendus. Cette étude examine la mise en application de directives par des assistants-enseignants d’université données par leur responsable (et chercheur). Les questions suivantes, guidant la recherche actuelle, sont posées : (1) Les assistants-enseignants mettent-ils en pratique les directives qu’on leur donne ? En d’autres termes, le programme est-il enseigné selon les attentes du responsable ? (2) La mise en pratique des assistants-enseignants suit-elle ou diffère-t-elle de leur philosophie pédagogique ? Grâce à 17 heures d’observation enregistrées et la participation de 15 assistants-enseignants à des cours du 2e et du 3e semestre de français dans une université américaine, les résultats nous apportent une meilleure compréhension de la mise en pratique des directives données aux assistants-enseignants par leur responsable, ainsi que des implications pédagogiques pour la formation d’enseignants.
Mots-clé: Assistants-enseignants, pratiques pédagogiques, styles pédagogiques, directives pédagogiques, formation d’enseignants, français langue étrangère
1 Introduction
Instructors of any
subject matter have unique teaching styles, philosophies and
practices based on experience, personal convictions, personalities,
and pedagogical training (Borg 2003, Breen 2002, Breen, Hird, Milton,
Oliver & Thwaite 2001, Nunan, 1992, Richards 1994, Schulz 1996,
2001, Wray 1993, Zucker 2005). Consequently, the implementation of
curricula and the material students are learning depend, not only on
teachers’ personal aptitudes, but also on their perceptions,
decisions, and teaching methods (Shulman, 1987). The attributes that
characterize each teacher can result in a wealth of methodologies,
ideas,
and styles. When a teacher is relatively inexperienced, such as is
typical of teaching assistants (TAs) in a college program, teaching
practices are mostly introduced by directives from supervisors and by
personal experiences as learners. In many colleges, TAs’ training
in foreign languages consists in orientation sessions prior to the
beginning of the semester, and in a methods course often taken during
their first semester, during which they are encouraged to follow a
specific pedagogical philosophy established by the language program.
Due to the impact
TA training has on future teaching careers, the present study opens
up the opportunity to observe
the foreign-language TAs’ practices in light
of their supervisor’s directions, through the use of data collected
for a larger-scale study (Grim 2008). The aim of this latter study
was to analyze the effectiveness of content-enriched
instruction
(Ballman 1997). Content-enriched instruction integrates grammatical
and lexical forms within a cultural theme. In order to verify the
validity of the treatment applications of the initial study (Grim
2008), 15 TAs of second- and third-semester college French courses
were video-recorded. This source of data provided for a window to
qualitatively and quantitatively observe how pedagogical instructions
given by a supervisor (in this case, the researcher) were carried
out. The objective of the current study is therefore to examine and
analyze TAs’ behavior in comparison to specific teaching
instructions.
Although research on the relationship
between FL teachers’ beliefs and practices is not extensive and
current, it has shown that there can be a dichotomy between what is
believed and practiced (Borg 1998b) and that pedagogical knowledge
seems to drive general teaching practices and educational theory
(Johnson & Goettsch 2000, Richards 1994). Most studies regarding
foreign language (FL) teaching have compared beliefs and teaching
practices, specifically regarding grammar (Andrews 1999, Borg 1998a,
1998b, 1999, 2003, Johnston & Goettsch 2000). They have shown
that instructors might teach differently than the beliefs they
construct (Borg 1998b), by explicitly emphasizing grammar, contrary
to common methodologies (Zucker 2005), and by using visual cues such
as students’ body language, comprehension checks, and their
personal beliefs of students’ learning style (Johnson and Goettsch
2000). According to Breen et al. (2001), teachers acquire a set of
teaching principles from personal theories, based on pedagogical and
theoretical knowledge and their own experiences as learners. These
principles influence interactions between learners, teacher, and
course content. Pessoa, Hendry, Donato, Tucker, & Lee (2007)
suggest that the manner in which teachers apply instructions might
have a definite impact (positive or negative) on learners’
acquisition.
This brings up the question of what
impact teaching instructions would have on teachers’ practices if
they came from a supervisor who has pedagogical objectives in mind.
Would these instructions significantly modify personal teaching
styles? Would the personal styles modify the intended outcomes? Would
they benefit or hinder teaching, and consequently learning? Zucker
(2005) suggests that the potential dichotomy could be due to a lack
of clear directions on how to practice what teachers should be
teaching. He further claims that teacher training needs to be more
practical to allow pre-service or in-service teachers to apply
concretely what they are taught.
Most teachers create principles that
appear to dictate most of their practices; however, the curriculum to
be taught is often transmitted with a set of pedagogically motivated
instructions (i.e., textbooks used in class). Research has not yet
compared how those critical instructions are applied in comparison to
teaching styles, particularly in regard to foreign languages. Thus,
the following research questions are posed:
- Do TAs apply instructions from a supervisor with a projected curriculum as intended?
- Do their practices appear to match their preferences?
This close examination gives an
opportunity to further our knowledge of teachers’ application of
teaching methods and preferences.
2 Methodology
2.1 Teaching Assistant Participants
Fifteen TAs of
French participated in this study. Four were native speakers and
eleven near-native speakers of French. They
were pursuing graduate degrees in French Studies, French Linguistics,
French Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, Advertising, Library
Science, and English Literature.
The TA training at this particular university consisted of a
week-long orientation prior to their first semester and of a methods
course taken during their first semester of teaching.
The
goal for the training was to establish teaching practices that were
motivated by pedagogical and research-based methods.
2.2 The Researcher’s Role
The role of the researcher in
comparison to the TAs was two-fold: the researcher was a fellow TA
and a section supervisor. The role of supervisors was to assist the
Basic Language Director with overseeing TAs and the numerous first-
and second-year class sections. The researcher observed a
non-experimental class to see what TAs’ teaching styles were like
and interviewed each participant to better understand their
standpoint in regard to teaching. During the experiment, the lessons
were video-recorded, and extensive notes were taken.
2.3 Data Collection
The present study
is extracted from the data of an initial experiment that evaluated
the effect of integrating a focus on grammar and vocabulary within a
cultural lesson in beginning and intermediate French classes (Grim
2008). To insure the validity of the instruction for the experimental
treatments, all TAs were video-taped, providing 17 hours of
video-taped data (two TAs taught two classes). Each level (second and
third semester) was divided into three treatment groups: a control
group (i.e., focus-on-meaning), an incidental focus-on-form group,
and a planned focus-on-form group. The control group (CG) only
presented cultural information without any focus on grammatical or
lexical forms, without providing additional feedback unless students
had questions. The incidental focus-on-form (IFonF) treatment gave
cultural information, with the caveat that if teachers felt the need
to expand on a problematic area of if an immediate problem on some
lexical and grammatical forms arose, they should provide
explanations. The planned focus-on-form (PFonF) treatment offered
cultural information to students, as well as specific grammatical and
lexical forms that teachers were aware of through enhanced features
(transparencies with words in boldface and colored green for lexical
items and red for grammatical forms). Both grammar and vocabulary
were considered as forms in “focus-on-form” (Doughty &Williams, 1998) as forms are defined as any lexical or grammatical
focus within a communicative setting. The lexical items were part of
the cultural topics, and the grammatical items were the comparative
and superlative (e.g., more
beautiful than,
the
least colorful)
for second-semester learners and relative pronouns preceded by a
preposition (e.g., in
which,
for
which)
for third-semester learners.
For the initial experiment (Grim
2008), the TAs were matched to one of the treatments (i.e., planned
focus-on-form, incidental focus-on-form, or control) based on
observations and discussions conducted prior to the experiment. The
TAs who mentioned an affinity for grammar and who taught a lesson
with clear grammatical explanations were assigned to be part of the
PFonF group. However, if a TA mentioned not liking grammar and did
not clearly explain a grammatical aspect during the observation, they
were randomly assigned to either the IFonF or the control groups. The
discussions also provided insight on their personal pedagogical
preferences.
2.4 Instruction Procedure
In this study, the
noun instructions
was operationalized as being the verbal and written information
provided to the TAs by the researcher. During the conversations
between the TAs and the researcher, the latter attempted to
understand what teachers believed about the role of grammar and
culture in the classroom, in order
(1) to place them in the most
appropriate treatment group and
(2) to compare their teaching
preferences with their practices.
In order not to
disturb the natural predilections of the teachers, the oral
instructions given for the experiment were limited and relatively
general. Additional written instructions were handed out to help the
TAs better prepare themselves. These written instructions varied
based on the treatments. For the control group, the instructions
consisted of only answering encouraging students’ questions
(Appendix).
However, during the one-on-one conversation, the TAs were not told
anything regarding providing additional explanations, with the hope
that they would just carry out the experiment without bringing any
type of focus-on-form to attention. For the IFonF TAs, the document
stated that some grammatical and lexical forms inserted in the
material appeared several times and that if the TAs felt that those
forms would cause problems for the students, they should explain them
and answer any questions (Appendix). However, these grammatical and
lexical forms were not enhanced or pointed out to the TAs. During the
conversations, they were told to explicitly encourage student
questions
and
to explain anything deemed to be a problem to students’
understanding. In
the case of the PFonF TAs, detailed oral and written instructions
(Appendix) stated that there were different grammatical and lexical
aspects that were enhanced through colored words
and words in boldface. TAs were supposed to point them out to the
students, explain them as well as possible, and answer any questions.
Besides the visual enhancement, all materials were identical. It was
imperative that teachers follow the instructions to ensure the
delivery of the intended treatments to test the research questions of
Grim (2008).
All linguistic
instances, or,
as they will be called, language
episodes
specifically involving lexical and grammatical foci,
were extracted from the video data, then transcribed and coded based
on the type of focus-on-form they provided: incidental focus-on-form
(if the teachers or students brought attention to the forms without
planning ahead) or planned focus-on-form (when the teachers
distinctively explained a form that was highlighted). The third group
was the control group. The data analysis is presented in the
following section.
3 Data Analysis
The expectation was
that control group teachers would only present the cultural content,
without explaining specific language forms. The IFonF treatment would
direct teachers to respond to students’ errors or questions through
feedback or to discuss areas they found to be problematic. The role
of the PFonF treatment was to provide explanations on the enhanced
grammatical and lexical structures. Teachers’ preferences, shared
during conversations with the
researcher, parallel
the observational findings. A
statistical comparison of the total of language episodes between each
treatment group is also presented.
3.1 Control Group
None of the CG TAs1
were aware that specific grammatical and lexical forms were
introduced in the materials. For the most part, instructions were
followed. However, as the following example demonstrates, they
produced some incidental focus-on-form. Alexandra verified students’
lexical knowledge by translating a word (such as in example 1).
Example 1:
Alexandra: Il y a des canaux à Bruges, avec donc de l’eau, ici, water, et donc vous voyez ici, les maisons, ici ce n’est pas la rue, c’est de l’eau. It is water, okay? Il y a des canaux à Bruges.[There are canals in Bruges, with water, here, water, and then you can see here, the houses, here, it is not a street, it is water. It is water, okay? There are canals in Bruges.]
Decisions of this type are natural for
teachers: even though no mention was made by the researcher, the TA
brought attention to a lexical item they assumed difficult for
students. Monique reacted similarly by asking students what a certain
word meant. As for Céline’s students, they did not participate in
the interactions she attempted to create and did not initiate any
questions. Despite a lack in student participation, Céline asked a
few clarification questions on the vocabulary and the cultural items,
using English, or paraphrasing (such as in example 2).
Example 2:
Céline: Vous connaissez les gaufres? Nan? [‘nan’ is a familiar way to say ‘non’] The Belgian waffles. Ce sont des gaufres.
[Do you know waffles? No? The Belgian waffles. These are waffles.]
Céline’s students did not indicate
any comprehension breakdowns; therefore she only focused on what she
believed to be problematic for them, yet never checking for
comprehension.
At the third-semester level, Aurélie
taught her two classes very consistently. Like the second-semester
TAs, Aurélie brought up a few lexical items that could have created
comprehension misunderstandings (such as in example 3).
Example 3:
Aurélie: Vous comprenez le mot ‘mouton’?[Do you understand the word ‘sheep’?]
Student: SheepAurélie: Oui, béééé
[Yes, baaaa]
Marie might have been the teacher who
adhered the most literally to the directions provided by the
researcher: she never interrupted the flow with comprehension checks
or paraphrases. During the entire lesson, she only translated three
words to ease comprehension.
Table 1 gives a visual summary of the
CG’s language episodes related to focusing on lexical and
grammatical forms.
Teaching
Assistants
|
Total FonF
Vocabulary
|
Total FonF
Grammar
|
Student questions
|
Monique
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
Céline
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Alexandra
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Total Semester 2 |
8
|
0
|
0
|
Aurélie (2 classes)
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
Marie
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Total Semester 3 |
9
|
0
|
0
|
GRAND TOTAL |
17
|
0
|
0
|
Table 1: Focus on Form
episodes by TAs in CG Condition
Even though the TAs of this group were
not told to assist students’ comprehension, they naturally focused
on lexical form in an incidental manner: they spontaneously brought
up some forms to check for comprehension and encourage questions.
They independently transformed material that was solely focusing on
meaning (culture) into one that incidentally focused on lexical
forms.
3.2 Incidental Focus-on-Form
Groups
IFonF was carried
out by Annabelle, Jeanne, and Danielle in the second-semester classes
and by Eddy and Julie in the third-semester classes. Through the
written and verbal instructions, they were directed to respond to
difficulties that could arise and to answer students’ questions.
The video observations confirmed that at the beginning of the
lessons, teachers notified their students to ask questions if needed.
Very few incidental foci on lexical forms came from the students
though; rather, they were elicited by the teachers in most cases. TAs
carried out the instructions as planned, by asking and answering
questions, and by drawing
students' attention to
possible upcoming comprehension breakdowns (example 4).
Example 4:
Eddy: Qu’est-ce que c’est qu’une pirogue? C’est une sorte de…[What is a pirogue? It is a sort of….]
Student: Bateau. [Boat.]
Even though Annabelle did not know
that the material implicitly targeted comparative and superlative
forms, she ensured comprehension by comparing and paraphrasing those
forms (such as in example 5).
Example 5:
Annabelle: Elle est aussi grande que…elle est la même que... la même chose, similaire.[It is as big as… it is the same than… the same thing, similar.]
Annabelle
implicitly brought to attention the comparative and superlative of
adjectives that, unbeknownst
to her, were of interest in
Grim’s study (2008).
However, one might argue that her method of bringing up the form was
rather a focus-on-meaning, given that she did not explain the
mechanism of the grammatical structures, and just paraphrased with
new lexis. However, unlike the other TAs, she did not bring other
vocabulary to attention.
Jeanne was
probably the most experienced TA, having taught beginning,
intermediate and advanced courses for 10 years. She had also lived
one year in Belgium, which gave her ground for adding several
personal and cultural anecdotes. In all, she provided very few
instances of lexical focus-on-form, targeting solely cultural
aspects. Jeanne’s behavior might represent a common practice among
teachers: when teaching culture, instructors often ignore grammar and
vocabulary. Having to deal with more complex structures and new
vocabulary while introducing new content might force the teacher to
make a choice on what should have priority. From the conversation,
Jeanne expressed her enjoyment for talking about Belgium: “It was
so great to have an opportunity to share about the country I love so
much.” This could explain why the content became the sole focus.
These specific
TAs had shared that they preferred teaching in a more meaning-based
situation as long as the material followed that method. Most teachers
seemed to be satisfied with the lesson layout and instructions.
Although Eddy mentioned that he enjoyed teaching grammar at times, he
thought that beginning learners learned in a more implicit manner and
that their metalinguistic knowledge was too limited in order to use
grammar. Subsequent to the experiment, Julie also expressed
dissatisfaction toward the style implemented in the lesson: “It was
difficult to teach in a way that was not natural to me.” This
comment is relevant in different teaching milieus, as supervisors
might have a certain preference for a teaching style (e.g., implicit
or explicit grammar teaching, input-based methodologies such as
teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling) with specific
goals in mind and might expect teachers to exhibit similar teaching
styles. However, if the course objectives are partially based on
teaching preference, they might not be met as initially intended and
the curriculum could be unmet.
Table 2 is a
summary of the language episodes of the TAs in the IFonF
condition:
Teaching
Assistants
|
Total FonF
Vocabulary
|
Total FonF
Grammar
|
Student questions
|
Annabelle
|
9
|
0
|
1
|
Danielle
|
10
|
0
|
3
|
Jeanne
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
Total
Semester 2
|
25
|
0
|
4
|
Eddy
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
Julie
|
3
|
0
|
2
|
Total
Semester 3
|
5
|
0
|
4
|
GRAND
TOTAL
|
30
|
0
|
8
|
Table 2: Focus on Form
episodes by TAs in IFonF Condition
Interestingly, the results regarding
teacher behavior are very similar to the language episodes of the CG
TAs (Table 1). It appears that when teachers are not given specific
instructions to focus on particular linguistic features, as it was
for the CG and IFonF TAs, the natural tendency is to make sure that
meaning is understood. Consequently, the message is prioritized over
the grammatical forms that might be auxiliary for a general
comprehension.
3.3 Planned Focus-on-Form Group
The PFonF group received the most
detailed and explicit instructions: the TAs were directed to provide
explanations on the marked (enhanced) structures. Thierry taught the
two sections of second-semester classes and Emilie, Blanche, Alice,
and Nicole taught the third-semester levels. Additionally, several of
them had mentioned in the one-on-one conversations that they often
taught grammar in their classes, based on a communicative purpose.
With one class, Thierry went over a
superlative structure by stressing it with his voice (emphasized by
capitalized letters in the transcripts), then by adding
metalinguistic explanations.
Example 6:Thierry: Bruxelles la ville la PLUS importante (…) La PLUS importante, ça veut dire, c’est ce que l’on appelle superlatif.[Brussels the most important city (…) The most important, it means, it is what we call superlative.]
For the vocabulary, either Thierry
brought attention to a few items by asking students if they
understood, or students asked questions (such as in example 7).
Example 7:
Student 1: Qu’est-ce que ‘moules’?[What is ‘mussels’?]Thierry: Moules? Vous ne pouvez pas voir? Puisque vous aimez, Elizabeth, expliquez, c’est quoi les moules?[Mussels? You can’t see? Since you like them, Elizabeth, explain what are mussels?]Student 1: I am not sure what moules is.Student 2: Mussels.Thierry: Ouais, qui aime les moules, maintenant ? Très populaire à Quebec aussi.[Yeah, who like mussels, now? Very popular in Quebec too.]
This focus-on-form
technique is relatively similar to that provided by most teachers in
the control and IFonF
groups. However, in the case of Thierry, he knew what forms were
targeted because of the visual enhancement. He had been instructed to
notice and mention them. Prior to the experiment, Thierry had
mentioned that he often taught grammar in his class. However, in the
present instance, he seemed to have greatly limited his focus on
grammatical form.
At the third-semester level, Emilie
was a TA with strong interests in grammar. In her case, the targeted
grammatical forms were pointed out more frequently at the beginning
of the lesson and then occasionally. She explicitly brought the forms
to attention and / or she just repeated them (such as in example 8).
Example 8:
Emilie: Il y a environ 10 millions d’habitants parmi lesquels on trouve une grande diversité ethnique. Ici, vous voyez par exemple ‘parmi lesquels.’ Pourquoi c’est ‘lesquels ?’ C’est parce qu’on parle de habitants, n’est-ce pas? Les Sénégalais, c’est masculin pluriel alors on fait l’accord, ‘parmi lesquels, among whom.’[There are about 10 million inhabitants among whom we can find a great ethnic diversity. Here, you see for example ‘among whom.’ Why is it ‘whom? It is because we talk of inhabitants, isn’t it? The Senegalese people, it is masculine plural, so we make the agreement, ‘among whom, among whom.’]
Except for one instance when a student
asked a question, Emilie initiated all foci on vocabulary, by
directly translating the words she considered complex.
In a conversation with the researcher,
Nicole had also expressed an interest in linguistics and grammar.
During the class observation, she showed ease in extracting
grammatical features to bring them to students’ attention. In the
experiment, Nicole also gave some metalinguistic explanations to
highlight the grammatical forms (such as in example 9).
Example 9:
- Nicole: Cette structure, on va voir plusieurs fois, nous avons ‘lequel, laquelle, lesquels’ comme pronom interrogatif pour demander ‘which one.’ Ici on l’utilise comme pronom relatif comme ‘que, qui, dont’ avec une préposition. Donc ‘dans laquelle’ qu’est-ce que ça veut dire?[This structure, we will see several times, we have ‘which (masculine singular), which (feminine singular), which (masculine plural)’ as an interrogative pronoun to ask ‘which one’. Here, we use it as a relative pronoun as, that, who, of which, with a preposition. So ‘in which’ what does it mean?]Student: In which.
However, she pointed out only three of
the enhanced lexical words.
Alice’s teaching style for focusing
on form was unique in comparison to the other TAs. Instead of going
over each enhanced grammatical and lexical form, she cautioned
students to notice the red and green words which respectively
represented grammatical and lexical items. She directed their
attention to these features right at the beginning, but very seldom
during the rest of the lesson. During the one-on-one conversation,
she had indicated she considered focus-on-form a helpful technique to
present grammatical and lexical forms in a meaningful manner. Yet,
her teaching style differed drastically.
Blanche had a very
positive attitude toward the experiment, mentioning that the lesson
was very appealing to her and her students. She was studying
linguistics and second language acquisition and was quite familiar
with the focus-on-form technique. Interestingly, she focused on a few
of the targeted lexical forms, while disregarding all targeted
grammatical forms. She covered the content, as if nothing but the
vocabulary could obstruct the flow of the lesson. Moreover, Blanche
focused on some unmarked forms, just as an IFonF
TA would do. Blanche had been chosen to be part of the PFonF
treatment because of her natural inclination to explicitly focus on
grammar, as well as her beliefs that students needed to acquire an
explicit knowledge of the language in order to master it best.
However, shortly after the one-on-one conversation, she mentioned an
interest in creating a content-based course, which could have
influenced her teaching of the cultural lesson; for her, the content
might have seemed communicable without a need for grammatical
metalanguage. Another hypothesis is that Blanche might have felt
overwhelmed with the different components to cover, therefore
selecting what may have been the most fundamental to her: culture.
Table 3 summarizes the language
episodes produced with the PFonF classes:
Teaching
Assistants
|
Total FonF
Vocabulary
|
Total FonF
Grammar
|
Student questions
|
Thierry (2 classes)
|
14
|
3
|
1
|
Total
Semester 2
|
14
|
3
|
1
|
Emilie
|
7
|
8
|
1
|
Nicole
|
5
|
4
|
0
|
Alice
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Blanche
|
3
|
0
|
2
|
Total
Semester 3
|
17
|
13
|
4
|
GRAND
TOTAL
|
31
|
16
|
5
|
Table 3: Focus on Form
episodes by TAs in the PFonF Condition
This table illustrates what was
previously discussed regarding the TAs’ use of focus-on-form, and
shows that all of them produced some lexical focus-on-form (including
targeted forms for the experiment), and, except for one, used
focus-on-form on grammatical targeted forms.
3.4 Statistical Analysis Comparing
the Three Groups
In order to verify if there are
significant differences between the three groups in their use of
focus-on-form and to support or not the qualitative data, Analyses of
Variance (ANOVA) tests and Multiple Comparisons Dependent Post Hoc
tests were conducted comparing the frequency of grammatical
focus-on-form and lexical focus-on-form between the three treatment
TA groups:
Sum of Squares
|
df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Between Groups
|
38.533
|
2
|
19.267
|
6.964
|
.010*
|
Within Groups
|
33.200
|
12
|
2.767
|
||
Total
|
71.733
|
14
|
Table 4: ANOVA data for
all groups on grammatical focus-on-form
- Mean Difference (I-J)Std. ErrorSig.(I) TREAT(J) TREATFonMIFonF.001.0521.000PFonF-3.401.052.023*IFonFFonM.001.0521.000PFonF-3.401.052.023*PFonFFonM3.401.052.023*IFonF3.401.052.023*
Table
5: Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable on grammatical
focus-on-form (Scheffe)
- Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.Between Groups14.80027.400.502.617Within Groups176.8001214.733Total191.60014
Table 6: ANOVA data for
all groups on lexical focus-on-form
- Mean Difference (I-J)Std. ErrorSig.(I) TREAT(J) TREATFonMIFonF-2.002.428.719PFonF-2.202.428.672IFonFFonM2.002.428.719PFonF-.202.428.997PFonFFonM2.202.428.672IFonF.202.428.997
Table 7: Multiple
Comparisons Dependent Variable on lexical focus-on-form (Scheffe)
These results
support the qualitative observations made above: regardless of the
treatment
groups,
all TAs made use of lexical focus-on-form, without any significant
difference among groups (p=.617). Moreover, as for the grammatical
focus-on-form, a significant difference was found. The Multiple
Comparisons Dependent Variable test showed that the PFonF TAs focused
significantly more on grammar than the other two groups (p=.023*). No
significance was found between the control and IFonF
groups, supporting the observation that both groups of TAs behaved
relatively similarly.
4 Discussion and
Conclusions
This data set shows
that not all TAs followed the instructions provided to them by their
supervisor. Comparing the CG and the IFonF group with the qualitative
and quantitative evidence, the type of directions given to them to
apply the lesson did not seem to make a difference in teaching
behaviors. The TAs in the IFoF group taught very similarly to the CG,
mostly focusing on the meaning of the cultural content, and excluding
any incidental focus-on-form, triggered by students’ questions or
by their own realization of problematic features. Being conscious
that too many details in the instructions could interfere with
natural teaching styles, an attempt by the researcher-supervisor to
be succinct might have actually weakened the differences between the
IFonF and CG practices. Yet, as mentioned by Johnson & Goettsch
(2000), teachers use pedagogical knowledge to direct their teaching
through students’ body language, comprehension check, and feedback.
It is natural for teachers to commonly use this type of knowledge,
and therefore, similar behaviors might emerge among teachers,
particularly when no detailed instructions are provided.
Interestingly, both the IFonF
and the control groups did not naturally focus on any grammatical
features. Among the PFonF TAs, three of the five did not closely
follow the initial instructions, and actually did change some of the
lesson organization. It could be hypothesized that a lack of detailed
instructions can impair the accomplishment of pre-determined goals as
two of the groups ended up having very similar behavior. In Borg
(1998b) and Zucker (2005), participating teachers were inclined to
present more grammar than what they had been exposed to through
research and textbooks, showing that personal convictions can at
times take over research-based knowledge. This is important to note
as it can, in turn, become a
challenge for teacher supervisors, textbook writers, and
administrators, since the specific curriculum goals through the
materials will not always be fulfilled as intended. Zucker
(2005) comments that a lack of a clarity in
textbooks might misguide teachers towards the intended
objectives. The
communicative and grammatical goals of a language program or a
textbook should be made transparent in the adopted teaching
philosophy or preface to guide teachers as precisely as feasible.
In some programs, a textbook is imposed on a group of teachers or
TAs. It is therefore crucial that the expectations be clear for all,
if common curriculum objectives are hoped to be reached. When
textbook writers lay out the instructions for activities, they need
to be as comprehensible as possible in order for the teachers to
understand the rationale and the goals for their choice of
activities. The IFonF group and the CG group were good examples of a
possible miscommunication.
If the
intent of the experiment
was to teach specific structures, without enough instructions,
teachers could be inclined to teach just what they think they should
teach. In this particular example, no grammatical opportunities were
taken, although the text was filled with grammatical structures
unknown to the learners. This can imply that grammar becomes
secondary to instructors when the message is the focal point and
comprehension breakdowns are noticed through students’ body
language (Johnson & Goettsch 2000, Nunan 1992). With highlighted
materials and more explicit instructions, instructors
might tend more to explain grammatical features, as supported by the
data. Grim (2013) has recently studied a group of high school
teachers and discovered that the importance of input enhancement is
not only bringing students’, but also teachers’ attention to the
forms. Teachers were able to notice the
emphasized forms
and explain them to their students. If a supervisor or textbook
author wants specific features to be emphasized during a lesson,
input enhancement techniques (highlighting, bolding, voice
inflection) could guide instructors to point out those forms and
support the role of the
curriculum design.
However, as Breen et al. (2001) mention, it is never possible to
predict exactly how content will be delivered by teachers; personal
styles and experiences influence teaching despite any given
instructions.
This
study
has also
an impact on TAs’ professional development as it indicates that TAs
do not always have an accurate representation of their own teaching
style. For several of them, their pre-experimental comments often
differed from their actual practices: some mentioned the crucial need
for grammar in learning but did not actually explain any grammatical
structures during the experiment. Others talked about a focus on
meaning, but barely focused on lexical ambiguities. Teachers do not
always clearly understand their own teaching when compared to their
teaching beliefs (Borg 1998b, Shulman 1987). If teachers were more
aware of a divergence between their practices and the objectives set
by supervisors, they might be able to modify and reorient their
personal teaching style. It becomes essential that instructors at all
levels of instruction and experience be observed by peers,
supervisors, and themselves to receive constant feedback, be aware of
their own practices, and improve them.
There
were
limitations in this
study: teachers did not teach their own lessons so the results could
have been different if they had been in charge of designing the
lessons.
However,
a hopeful outcome
for this study is that
it will
(1) guide instructors to be more
conscious of their own teaching styles in relation to intended
objectives,
(2) help language program supervisors
understand possible reasons for unmet curriculum objectives, and
(3) suggest to textbook authors to be
more transparent in their directions.
Appendix
Written instruction for
TAs:
Le sujet concerne la
Belgique / le Sénégal.
1. Sur les transparents
que je te donne, tu verras des informations sur ce pays, une carte et
des photos. J’ai numéroté le tout afin que tu puisses montrer les
documents supplémentaires aux transparents au bon moment.
- Il est important que tu te familiarises avec tout le matériel avant la présentation pour que tu ne te sentes pas trop perdu(e).
2. Présente les
informations au fur et à mesure en utilisant les photos. Par
exemple :
- Il y a des questions de « warm-up » au début de quelques sections. Utilise-les afin d’attirer l’attention des étudiants.
- Quand la géographie est présentée, montre la carte et explique la situation de la Belgique / du Sénégal par rapport aux autres pays.
- Quand on parle de Bruxelles / du Sénégal, tu peux montrer les photos de Bruxelles / de Dakar et d'autres villes en général.
- Quand on parle de la nourriture, tu peux montrer les photos liées à la nourriture.
Added to the
incidental focus-on-form group:
- Encourage les étudiants à poser des questions s’ils en ont.
Added to the planned
focus-on-form group:
Comme tu peux le
remarquer, il y a des choses qui sont soulignées de différentes
couleurs. Essaye d’insister dessus en prenant en considération que
certains aspects concernent des informations culturelles, le
vocabulaire ou la grammaire. Essaye de les présenter tous aussi bien
que possible, mais ne passe pas trop de temps.
3. Suis les directions en
anglais que tu trouveras ci-dessous pour savoir exactement en quoi
consistent la leçon et les activités.
The topic of the
presentation is about Belgium / Senegal
1. On the transparencies
I am giving you, you will see information on this country, a map, and
photographs. I numbered everything to make sure you are able to show
the additional documents at the right time.
- It is important that you familiarize yourself with all the material before the presentation so that you don’t feel lost.
2. Present the
information in a consecutive manner, using the photos. For example:
- There are warm-up questions at the beginning of several sections. Use them in order to attract students’ attention.
- When you present the geography section, show the map and explain its location in comparison to other countries.
- When you talk about Belgium / Senegal, you can show the photographs of the cities and the other towns.
- When you talk about the food, you can show the pictures of food.
Added to the
incidental focus-on-form group:
- Encourage your students to ask questions if they have any.
Added to the planned
focus-on-form group:
- As you can see, there are some features that are underlined with different colors on the transparencies. Try to insist on those, remembering that some of them represent cultural information (black), vocabulary features (blue), and grammatical features (red). Try to present and explain all of them as well as you can, but don’t spend too much time, either, since you have a limited amount of time to cover the whole lesson and activities.
- Encourage your students to ask questions if they have any.
3.
Follow the instructions that you will find throughout the lesson
plan in order to know exactly what the lesson is about, as well as
the activities.
References
Andrews,
Stephen (1999). All these like little name things: A comparative
study of language teachers’ explicit knowledge of grammar and
grammatical terminology. In: Language
Awareness 8 (1999),
143-159.
Ballman, Terry
L. (1997). Enhancing beginning language courses through
content-enriched instruction. In: Foreign Language Annals 30
(1997) 2, 173-186.
Borg, Simon
(1998a). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom. In:
Language Awareness 7 (1998), 159-175.
Borg, Simon
(1998b). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A
qualitative study. In: TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1998) 1, 9-38.
Borg, Simon
(1999). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. In: ELT Journal
53 (1999), 157-167.
Borg, Simon
(2003). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review.
In: Language Awareness 12 (2003) 2, 96-108.
Breen, Michael
P. (2002). From a language policy to classroom practice: The
intervention of identity and relationships. In: Language and
Education, 16 (2002) 4, 260-283.
Breen, Michael
P., Bernhard Hird, Marion Milton, Rhonda Oliver & Anne Thwaite
(2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and
classroom practices. In: Applied Linguistics 22 (2001) 4,
470-501.
Doughty,
Catherine & Jessica Williams (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus
on form. In: Doughty, Catherine & Jessica Williams (Eds.) (1998).
Focus on Form in classroom second language acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 197-261.
Grim,
Frédérique (2008). The Integration of Focus-on-form Instruction
within Culture-Enriched Lessons. In: Foreign Language Annals 41
(2008) 2, 321-346.
Grim,
Frédérique (2013). Using culture beyond its borders: The use of
content-enriched instruction and the effects of input enhancement on
learning in high school French classes. In: Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching.
Johnston, Bill
& Karin Goettsch (2000). In search of the knowledge base language
teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. In: The Canadian
Modern Language Review 56 (2000) 3, 437-468.
Nunan, David
(1992). The teacher as decision maker. In: Flowerdew John, Mark Brook
& Sophia Hsia (Eds). Perspectives on Second Language Teacher
Education. Hong Kong: City of Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 135-265.
Pessoa, Silvia,
Heather Hendry, Richard Donato, G. Richard Tucker & Hyewon Lee
(2007). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom:
A discourse perspective. In: Foreign Language Annals 40 (2007)
1, 102-121.
Richards, Jack
(1994). The sources of language teachers’ instructional decisions.
In: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Schulz, Renate
A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’
and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar.
In: Foreign Language Annals 29 (1996) 3, 343-364.
Schulz, Renate
A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions
concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback:
USA-Colombia. In: The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001) 2,
244-258.
Shulman, Lee S.
(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. In:
Harvard Educational Review 57 (1987) 1, 1-21.
Wray, David
(1993). Student-teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about language. In:
Bennett Neville & Clive Carré (Eds.) (1993). Learning to
teach. London: Routledge.
Zucker, Connie
K. (2005). Teaching grammar in the foreign language classroom: A
study of teacher beliefs, teacher practices and current research. In:
Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social
Sciences 66 (2005) 11, 3920.
Author:
Frédérique Grim
Associate Professor of French and
Second Language Acquisition
Colorado State University
Department of Foreign Languages and
Literatures
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1774, USA
E-mail: Frederique.Grim@colostate.edu
1 All
names are pseudonyms: Monique, Céline and Alexandra for
second-semester classes and Aurélie and Marie for third-semester
classes