realizing multilingualism: the dutch approach to language teaching
TRANSCRIPT
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.