Exploring the Effect of Classroom Activities on L2 Learning

Exploring the Effect of Exposure to L2 through Activities inside the Classroom 1

EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF EXPOSURE TO L2 THROUGH ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE CLASSROOM:

A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY

Exploring the Effect of Exposure to L2 through Activities inside the Classroom: A Multiple-

Case Study

Yeison Yesid Guerra Guerrero

University of Pamplona


Exploring the Effect of Exposure to L2 through Activities inside the Classroom: A Cross-Case

Study

Yeison Yesid Guerra Guerrero

Professor: Gabriel Cote Parra

Foreign Languages Department

School of Education

February 23, 2012


Table of Contents

Chapter 1 –Introduction………………………………………………………… 5

Statement of the problem………………………………………………. 8

Purpose of the study……………………………………………………. 8

Research Question……………………………………………………… 9

Sub-Questions……………………………………………………………. 9

Limitations of the Study………………………………………………… 9

Significance of the Study……………………………………………….. 10

Chapter 2 -Literature Review…………………………………………………… 10

Definitions of Exposure……… ………………………………………… 11
Related theories and studies…………………………………………….. 11

Chapter 3 -Methodology………………………………………………………… 17

Design………………………………………………………………. 17

Participants ………….. ……………………………………………… 18


Setting………………………………………………………………… 18

Data Gathering Procedure………………………………………………….. 18

Instruments………………………………………………………………..... 19

Data analysis……………………………………………………................... 21

.

Chapter 4 – Findings……………………………………………………………..... 22

References………………………………………………………………… 24

Appendices………………………………………………………………….. 26


Abstract

This case study aimed to understand the effect of exposure to French through

classroom activities on three starter and intermediate level students. Data were gathered

through classroom open observations, field notes and non-directive interviews. Hatch's

interpretative model was chosen for analyzing data.

Findings revealed that activities such as topic exposition, text reading and audio

document comprehension engaged participants in speaking, listening, reading in FL. However,

the lack of vocabulary constituted a great barrier for a consistent students‟ success resulting in

the use of participants‟ L1 as a means of expression.

Chapter 1

Introduction

“The way how an individual characteristically acquires and learns a language depends

on a specific linguistic experience, result of an exposure to such language” Curtis (1974). In

their study of “the linguistic development of genie”, this author came up with the finding that

any one brought up in a language vacuum will neither be able to speak nor understand

language. Namely, if one intends to learn a language without getting in contact with it, no

success will be the result. Curtis' premise makes suppose the only pathway to learn and not to


say acquire a language is exposure to language itself.

Nevertheless; according to Houston (1971) language is a kind of latent structure in the

human mind, this latter premise gets attached to the Nativist Theory, which has its basis on

Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Houston unlike Curtis believed Language might be

learned with no need for exposure since Language itself represents a uniqueness of Human

being mental nature.

Exposure, refers to the total amount of time in which an individual has contact

with a language, may it be in verbal or written form, formal or informal ways of

communications and in which the individual may have either an active or a passive role

(Magno, 2009). Adopting this definition, exposure to a second language occurs whenever

individuals engage in conversations in the second language with family members,

friends, classmates, and colleagues; whenever they read books, magazines, and

newspapers written in that language; whenever they come across information being

disseminated in different multimedia sources; or even when they are mere passive

listeners in any activity or place in which the second language is being spoken. There

are many dimensions of exposure, but this study will only focus on Exposure to L2 in

classroom activities.

As an English-French as Foreign Languages Student, I experienced Exposure to L2 along

my continuous academic process. When I chose to study Foreign Languages, I had a previous

knowledge of English language since this one was a subject as in Primary as in High school.


Regarding French, it was utterly unknown to me, owing to this, my first semesters dealing

with it were not the best ones. Notwithstanding; with the spending of time and the contact, my

learning was improving. From my own experience, I daresay two aspects resulting from the

Classroom Exposure to FFL:

1) Fluency on speaking, result of activities as role plays, debates and expositions.

2) Oral comprehension, the fact of listening to the teacher and classmates speaking in L2

have helped me internalize structures, thus, making comprehension be richer.

In order for not to result in confusion for using the terms L2 and Foreign language

interchangeably in this research paper, I will clarify what L2 and foreign language mean.

Second language (L2) is any language learned after the first language or mother tongue (L1).

It is, in a broad sense, a language learned or acquired after the native language. The term has a

narrow sense when it contrasts to the term foreign language (FL), in which second language

functions as a recognized means of communication among members who speak some other

language as their mother tongue, and the foreign language plays no major role in the

community and is primarily learned only in the classroom (Ellis R. The Study of Second

Language Acquisition Oxford University Press, 1994).

This proposal project intended to understand the effect of exposure to L2 through activities

inside the classroom on students' development and learning. Consequently, it was expected

this research to let evaluate the co-relation between Exposure-Learning.


Statement of the Problem

According to my lived experience in all my educational process, learning French in a

country with Spanish as mother tongue (L1) is too difficult because we are not in a direct

contact with the target language, besides; we are constantly exposed to L1 from a simple

greeting with our relatives, neighbors, friends and so forth. Another factor I find is the fact

that National ministry of education gives priority to English in its educational policies and

projects over any other language. By analyzing this, I thought that French learning and

exposure to itself (in an artificial environment: classroom) was a good topic to be studied. The

practical problem is that French is not commonly taught in educational institutions, and this

constitutes a great barrier in its learning since one as a student does not feel attracted or

motivated to learn it whether by the lack of previous knowledge about this FL or by its lack of

presence around.

Purpose of the Study

This case study aimed to understand classroom exposure to French at a public

university of Colombia, specifically in second semester students of foreign languages, the how

this essential condition takes part in the development and learning of a L2 was the major

aspect to be studied in this research.


Research Questions

A grand tour question guided this Research:

What effect does language exposure through classroom activities play on

French learning?

Sub-questions:

How is Exposure to FL2 embraced in the teaching process?

What type of Classroom activities favor / support Exposure to FL2 and enable

students to learn it?

Limitations of the study

This study had some limitations throughout its carrying out, among them: the lack of

enough time to observe classes, video recording was not used, my inexperience in the

Research field and the limited sum of data to be analyzed. I expect these limitations can be

avoided in similar future Research. Besides: I must highlight that the emergent findings from

this study are not generalizable, what emerged from this study is not the final truth regarding

an important factor as Exposure to L2 is and its role in the foreign language learning.


Significance of the study

This study was important to understand in a certain way how Exposure to language is a

factor that must continue on study, how the students perceive the classroom activities and their

personal thoughts towards foreign language learning.

Finally, this multiple-case study may help foreign language teachers to better

understand what happens in the classroom and to get them to think about strategies embedded

in the activities to have a successful learning.

Chapter 2

Literature review

This literature review is provided with three aspects:

First, two definitions of Classroom exposure.

Secondly, related theories.

Finally, some related conducted studies will be reviewed.


Language exposure is defined by Lubega (1979) as a vital factor to language learning

and as an almost entirely determiner of the type and level of language proficiency emanating

from the language learning process.

Cheswick & Miller (1998) defined exposure as the features of formal learning and

“learning by doing” that impact the acquisition of fluency in the target language.

Even though these two definitions coincide in the fact of considering language

exposure as relevant in language learning, they differ in that the former shows it within a

unicity character (a factor) and as non-total determiner and emanating result of language itself;

this shows a lesser value in comparison of the latter, which gives it a wider value when

considering it as diverse (features) and emphasizing in its praxis character.

There are several views about language learning, most of theories have been

established by the Rationalists and the Empiricists, the former give great relevance to central

processes and organizing principles in perception and to innate ideas and principles in learning

(Language Nativist Theories). The latter have attributed a relevant role to the experience and

control by environmental factors (Language Environmentalist Theories).

Two studies related to language exposure and their interventions in L2 learning have

been conducted.

On one hand, Magno (2009) examined the differences in English language exposure

among Taiwanese college students living in Taiwan and in the Philippines. The results


revealed that the Taiwanese in the Philippines showed significantly higher levels of English

language exposure to English compared with the Taiwanese in Taiwan, what let the former

acquire a higher English proficiency level than latter. The results of this study further

recommend that the fact of learning English will be strengthened if exposure to itself is high.

Similarly, Kaushanskaya and Marian (2009) conducted the study “The bilingual

advantage in novel word learning” in their research they recruited 60 participants: 20 English–

Spanish bilinguals, 20 English–Mandarin bilinguals, and 20 English-speaking monolinguals.

All participants were native speakers of English. The three groups were comparable in terms

of age and education levels. In order to ensure high and equal levels of native-language

knowledge across the three groups, standardized English vocabulary tests were administered

to all participants. Language-proficiency, learning-history, and current-exposure data were

obtained from all bilingual participants using the Language Experience and Proficiency

Questionnaire (Kaushanskaya et al, 2007). Participants‟ learning-history data revealed that

English–Spanish and English–Mandarin bilinguals were exposed to their L2 primarily in the

family context, and that they had spent very little time exposed to formal L2 schooling. Data

were collected regarding the relative contribution of different learning environments to L2

acquisition. In both groups of bilinguals, participants reported that on a scale of 0 (not a

contributor) to 10 (most important contributor), exposure to family members was the most

important contributor to their L2 acquisition, whereas schooling was the least important

contributor. The results of this study suggest a general bilingual advantage for novel word

learning. This bilingual advantage has been observed previously in adults who have acquired


their multiple languages through classroom exposure. This study demonstrated a bilingual

advantage for word learning in bilinguals who had acquired their two languages early in life

through naturalistic immersion.

On the other hand, Ortiz & Garzón (2007) conducting a study about the English

Teaching Practice at a Language Institute, observing classes and interviewing teachers and

students at a Language Institute. This process allowed them to draw some conclusions about

the pedagogical practices in this place. The researchers carried out this project during one

academic semester. They found out that the role of the materials, learners and teacher in

one of the classes watched might show that the educator in charge of this class made use

of the communicative model. Two features of this model related to exposure were captured in

the teacher‟s class. First, the use of the target language all the time maximizing students‟

opportunity to be in contact with English: “If students get enough exposure to language and

opportunities for its use and if they are motivated, then language learning will take care of

itself” (Harmer, 1998 p.32). For this teacher, speaking English is one of her main strategies

“for students to learn better the foreign language”. Second, the teacher‟s class activities

included tasks such as comparing sets of pictures and noting similarities and differences;

discovering missing features in a map or pictures among others.

Unlike the previous studies, Hideyuki (1997) investigated the attrition (the loss of a

first or second language or a portion of that language by individuals of the English language in

junior/senior high school students who spent a significant period of time (more than three


years) in English-speaking countries. During the time separated from the L2 setting, subjects

in the study were only given one hour a day (five days per week) of formal English

instruction. Additional attention was given to the subjects' writing proficiency to see if their

English language skills had changed since being away from the L2 environment. She

administered a written test on a cross-sectional framework of the subjects from grades 7

through 12 (ages 12-18) in order to examine various aspects of writing competence.

Contextual Conventions (CC), Contextual Language (CL), Story Construction (StC), overall

Quotient and the total number of words of the writing samples were also evaluated. The results

showed that when compared to those junior high school learners of learning Japanese as a

foreign language, the StC and Quotient scores of the senior subjects were significantly higher.

She also observed that the senior learners who had a three-year intensive exposure time in the

U.S. showed a greater overall writing competence with an ability to use the English language

in more creatively expressive and mature ways. Also, throughout their junior high school the

study found that the subjects„CC, CL, StC, and Quotient scores also increased at a more rapid

rate than those who did not have an intensive exposure to the English speaking countries.

Based on the findings, she concluded that intensive exposure to the English language gave

those senior high school learners a solid foundation of language skills. Consequently, the five-

hour a week English lessons were sufficient for these returnees to maintain and improve their

skills even after being away from the L2 environment.

Krashen and Seliger (1976) and Krashen, Seliger, and Hartnett (1974) claim that, when

the effects of "exposure" and formal instruction are compared, it is reliably the case that more


instruction means higher proficiency, while more exposure does not necessarily mean more

proficiency in ESL. Both studies compared instruction and exposure by matching pairs of

foreign students for one of these variables and seeing whether the student who excelled on the

other was more proficient in English. The measure of the amount of formal instruction was

simply the students' report of the number of years he or she had studied English in a school

situation. No questions were asked concerning factors such as the methodology used, the

presence or absence of a language laboratory, how often the class met the amount of time the

student devoted to his studies, or grades received. In Krashen and Seliger (1976), exposure

was defined as the product of the number of years the student reported having spent in an

English-speaking country and how much English the student said he spoke every day (on a

scale of 1 to 10). In Krashen et al. (1974) students were asked to indicate years spent in an

English-speaking country and also to indicate how much English they spoke each day (on a

scale of 1 to 4). Subjects with the same number of years spent in the country where English

was spoken and the same report of speaking were considered to have the same exposure score.

Student samples differed somewhat. In Krashen and Seliger, subjects were registered in an

intensive, 20 hour per week institute designed to prepare foreign students for study in

American colleges. In Krashen et al., subjects were enrolled in a part-time extension program;

these students were, on the average, older, and many were permanent residents or citizens of

the United States. The measure of proficiency used in the first study was teacher ranking

(which correlated significantly with local placement tests), and in the second study the

Michigan Examination in Structure was used. In the first study, six out of fourteen pairs of


students matched for years of formal study of English were consistent with the hypotheses that

more exposure meant more proficiency; that is, in only six cases did the student with more

exposure show a higher ranking than his partner with less. Similarly, in the second study, more

exposure was associated with a higher score in only ten out of twenty-one cases, which is

consistent with the hypothesis that exposure has no consistent effect on second language

proficiency, when students were matched for exposure scores; however, it appeared to be the

case that more instruction did indeed mean more proficiency. In the first study, this was true of

seven out of nine cases, and in the second it was true of eight of eleven cases, which in both

studies was statistically significant.

To conclude with the related studies, this last study also showed the relevant role

played by exposure on language, nonobstant; has the particularity of having been conducted in

students but not inside the classroom but outside this. Ajileye (1998) in his study “The effect

of exposure to English language activities outside the classroom on written English”

investigated the effect of English language use outside the classroom on written English of one

hundred form three students randomly selected from four secondary schools in Ilorin

(Nigeria). This research was focused on the effects of extra school language activities- on

written English in participants. The researcher came up with the conclusion that there is a

significant relationship between students' exposure to English language use through extra-

school language activities and their proficiency in English language. Through this study, the

researcher also confirmed that second language learners do not have equal exposures to

English language use outside the classroom.


This study revealed that schools where students are from a heterogeneous language

background have greater opportunities for English language use and practice than in schools

where students are predominantly from one language background. Ajileye (1998) also

suggested in his study that the gap in exposure among various categories of learners can be

reduced if teachers deliberately function as path-finders to exposure and in sensitizing the

learners to the importance of exposure in language learning. “There is the need to import into

the classroom exposure opportunities from outside the class” Ajileye (1998).

What I mean with the presentation of these studies towards my proposal, was not only

about showing the importance that language exposure has on language learning in the

classroom, but also outside this as shown in Ajileye's. Moreover; I wanted to see or at least, to

bright a light on all language exposure represented in the learning of foreign languages in

Colombian students and if shown in previous studies was represented equally in a south

American context.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Design

This research adopted qualitative case study. According to Nunan (1992) case study


provides an in-depth description and analysis of a phenomenon. On the other hand, echoing

Bogdan and Biklen (1992): “research follows a qualitative approach if the researcher plays a

key role in collecting data, and the research is phenomenon-focused, its data analysis is

inductive and the participants' perspectives and meaning of the case are considered”. What

was intended with this proposal wass to get to understand (focus-on) such phenomenon as

Classroom language exposure is and what it implies on either learning or acquisition of a

foreign language in native speakers of Spanish to who, a foreign language as French

represents more than a new language to be learned, all a new and utterly world to which they

will have to adjust and that in research are specificities that; as involving sensations, emotions,

attitudes (behavioral variability) are to consider the more deeply and the more unbiasedly

possible. By inductive, it was referred to the particular analysis of participants towards a

general understanding.

Participants

The subjects to be studied were 5 foreign language students, age-ranked from 17 to 24

years; all of them in low, mid, high proficiency level and native speakers of Spanish.

Setting

A classroom of foreign languages in a Public University of Colombia.

Data Gathering Procedure


The research instruments were employed in order to collect as many detailed specifics

from the setting as possible as this study unfolded. These detailed specifics would be all what

came out from analysis of classroom activities exposure and the particular responses of the

participants.

Instruments

This proposal used three types of instruments to collect data:

Classroom open observations

Non-directive Interviews

Field notes

The first instrument, Classroom open observations were chosen since it is a method whose

aim is usually to enable subsequent reconstruction of the lesson. In this approach, the observer

literally uses a blank sheet of paper to record the lesson. The observer either notes down key

points about the lesson or uses a personal form of shorthand for making a verbatim recording

of classroom transactions (Hopkins, 1993). Verbi gratia:

Teacher: Turn 2 p 46. Mary give us y. Ans, to q. 1.

Mary: WW II was partly t. result of unresolved conflicts of WW I.

Teacher: That's 1 pt. Of the ans. John give us y. Ans.


The interview is a research tool, which has been defined as 'a two-person conversation

initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information,

and focused by him on content specified by research objectives of systematic description,

prediction, or explanation' (Cannell and Kahn, 1968). Regarding this research, the type of

interview and second gathering data instrument to be used will be the non-directive interview

because its principal features are the minimal direction or control exhibited by the interviewer

and the freedom the respondent has to express subjective feelings as fully and as

spontaneously as he chooses or is able. Besides, this tool is also characterized by being the

respondent who is responsible for initiating and directing the course of the encounter and for

the attitudes expressed in it, thus; being a particular valuable technique because it gets at the

deeper attitudes and perceptions of the interviewee in such a way as to leave them free from

interviewer bias (Cohen and manion, 1994).

Finally, the third instrument to be applied were the field notes by its nature of being

not only a way of reporting observation, but also a means of reflection and reaction to

classroom problems.

The interviews were recorded and transcribed to give reliability to the research, field

notes and classroom open observation will be closely related in its roles of reconstruction and

reflection.


Data Analysis

Data collection was analyzed with Hatch's model since this is a model of interpretative

analysis having embedded the following characteristics:

Making inferences.

Developing inferences.

Attaching significance.

Refining understanding.

Drawing conclusion.

Extrapolating lessons.

Constructing meaning.

This set of features shown above, it is the most suitable to understand a qualitative case

study since it offers more than one perspective about a problem/issue which gives strong and

valid arguments for the research to be utterly reliable.


Chapter 4

Findings

This part presents some findings towards the effect of L2 exposure in students, these ones

point at positive and negative aspects of the classroom activities.

Research and theory expose that the more somebody is in contact with a language, the more

successful they will be in its learning or acquisition. Nevertheless the classroom observations

and the interviews carried out throughout this multiple-case study show a different stand.

During the observation period, I realized that, even though the students were given with a

constant sum of L2 input from the teacher and their peers, they were not able to express

themselves in that L2 very clearly, so that they used L1 as a facilitator of their ideas. The

activities performed in class were: presentations on diverse vocabulary, text reading, and role

plays; each of them involved L2. Speaking was the main focus skill in all the previously

mentioned activities, observing the difficulty in students' speech I got to think of vocabulary

lack as the factor intervening in the unsuccessful accomplishment of their tasks; I must accept

this was an assumption of mine before what happened at that stage.

Considering the interviews; I have found this information relevant: Amélie expresses that the

classroom activities play a relevant role in students' L2 learning but that these ones are not


often suitable to the student needs and thus, they cannot fulfill. Aprendiz (Respondent 2)

considers the activities as a useful aid to learning because they enable them to put into practice

the vocabulary learnt. Kratos (Respondent 3) agrees with Aprendiz on this issue, but adds that

they let the students learn Grammar which is the more important in L2 learning and also

enables to learn to think in L2.


References

Hopkins,D. (1993). A teacher's guide to classroom research (pp 92 and 116).

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994) . Research methods in education (pp 271, 273, 287-288)

London and New York: Routledge.

Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Jiang, N, Difference in Second Language and Foreign Language. China Academic Journal

Electronic Publishing House (2004).

The Asian EFL Journal, Quarterly March (2009), Volume 11 (pp 5-8, 62-70).

Ajileye, S. The effect of exposure to English language activities outside the classroom on

written English: A study of selected secondary schools in Ilorin. Department of

modern European languages, University of Ilorin, Nigeria, 1998.

Kaushankaya & Marian. The Bilingual advantage in novel word learning, 2009.

Wang, S. syntactic attrition in l2 mandarin speakers. Brigham Young University (2007).

Ortiz & Garzón. A Study of the English Teaching Practice at a Language Institute.

Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal Number 9 (pp 126-143) September (2007).

Krashen, S. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. University of

Southern California (1981). First internet edition December (2002).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_attrition

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/edpsy313/notes/hh02.h


Appendices

Letter of consent

Title of Project: Identifying the Factors that Affect the FL Learners‟ Oral

Production at a Public University: a Case Study

Name of Researcher: Juan Carlos Laguado Bastos

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the Plain Language Statement for the above
study and have had the opportunity to ask questions.

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any
time, without giving any reason.

3. I do not have any reservation if my interview is audio-taped and transcribed for data
analysis.

4. I understand that copies of transcripts will be returned to me for verification and my
real name will be kept in secret and I will be identified by a pseudonym in any
publications arising from the research.

5. I agree / do not agree (delete as applicable) to take part in the above study.

_____________________ ______________ ____________________
Name of Participant Date Signature

______________________ ______________ _____________________
Researcher Date Signature


First classroom observation report

Teacher observed: Emerson Castro.

Observer: Yeison Guerra.

Date: March 14th 2011.

Observation Table following the models of Richards & Nunan's observation report
model; “Tasks for Teacher Education” (Pearson Education Limited) and “Teacher
assistant classroom observation format” (Role carried out as first stage in applied linguistics
course, 2010).

Class: French.

Place: RL203 English Laboratory.

Classroom organization: round-table.

Number of students: 20.

Age: 17-20 years old.

Level: Intermediate I.

Semester: Third.

Time: 06:00- 08:00 hs.

Class exercises/ topics: Vocabulary presentations by students (15-20 min each one).

Explanation of Plus-que-parfait tense by the teacher.

Materials used: Whiteboard, video beam/ projector, sheets with blanks to fill, computer and
Internet.


Aims of the lesson: To learn and increase vocabulary.

To know the Plus-que-parfait as a particular tense of French.

Talking time: Students tried to speak in French even though it represented a really hard

job for them; teacher guided them to do so.

Learners‟ participation and linguistic interaction: Most of the students were active but
some were talking about something else. When doing the activities most of them used
Spanish, however; some used French.

Begin.

06:00: The teacher and students come in the classroom, this is organized in round-table
shaped desk. The students sit down and the teacher ask them how they feel, some of them say
they are cold and others answer that are kind of sleepy.

06:05: The teacher starts saying what is going to be developed in the class (presentations of
vocabulary and plus-que-parfait view) , some students are talking about something they have
to do and others listen attentively.

06:10: The teacher checks the assistance by saying names to which students respond when
they listen to their name; this shows him that one student is absent. Then, he asks which
students are in charge of presenting French vocabulary.

06:15: Three students respond and start telling what topics they will present. A student goes to
the front willing to present the animals, he tries to play his material on the computer but the
files do not work.


06:20: A second student passes and starts explaining what she will develop. Her topic is the
places of the city; she uses a webpage which contains images that pronounce when clicking on
them. She also uses the projector to make richer her presentation, when an image is projected
on the whiteboard she asks her classmates what it is. They sometimes infer its meaning and
make jokes using Spanish mixed with French. The teacher sometimes ask them to define some
places, some students try to do it in French but finish to define in Spanish, he helps them
sometimes with vocabulary and also defines the places that the students find difficult.

06:40: A third student continues to present the clothes; he also uses the projector, when he
shows an image he pronounces it and asks his classmates to repeat. When they assert in
pronunciation he claps and when they do it wrongly he continues to repeat. He also makes
some mistakes before this the teacher tell them what is the correct pronunciation and besides
writes down the phonetics on the whiteboard. Students are given some photocopies with
matching exercises and blanks to be filled with

vocabulary learned through the clothes presentation. The presenter student revises what his
classmates do and sometimes explains to them.

07:00: The teacher claps both the students who presented the topics and those
who participated and asks if they have any doubts about the vocabulary learned, the students
answer the topics were clear and understandable, their answers are given in French but with
some degree of first language interference. He gives to three students topics to be presented on
next Monday.

07:10: The teacher starts to look back on last lesson work which was the „passé composé‟ to
give entrance to the new topic the „plus-que-parfait‟.

07:25: He gives them some examples in Spanish to bright them a light on this tense.

07:35: Explanation is done in L1 in order to facilitate understanding when the teacher realizes
the students are some confused. He shows them some on-line exercises and
explains to them tense structure, use and the difference of this tense to the „imparfait‟ tense.


07:45: Teacher comes back to explain the „passé composé‟ with the aim to achieve students
assimilate this tense easier. The students showed ease to handle the structure but not a clear
distinction of when to use this tense.

07:55: Realizing this topic is difficult to assimilate the teacher gives the students some links
where they can do on-line exercises (Point du FLE). He remembers to students the assignment
for next class (to pose 5 questions about le livre “ machine a rejeunir”).

Second classroom observation report.

Teacher observed: Emerson Castro.

Observer: Yeison Guerra.

Date: March 16th 2011

Observation Table following the models of “Tasks for Teacher Education” (Pearson
Education Limited) and “Teacher assistant classroom observation” (Role carried out as first
stage in applied linguistics course, 2010).

Class: French.

Place: IB 109 Classroom.

Classroom organization: Kind of round-table.

Number of students: 13.

Age: 17-20 years old.

Level: Intermediate I.

Semester: Third.

Length of class: 2 hours.


Time: 06:00- 08:00 hs.

Class exercises/ topics: Reading of a text with B1 nature, reading comprehension and role-
plays about real situations as a rehearsal for oral and written testings.

Materials used: Whiteboard, markers and document of candidate for collective tests.

Aims of the lesson: To locate the students in a context of formal testing.

Talking time: Students mostly spoke in Spanish among them. Teacher mostly spoke in
French.

Learners‟ participation and linguistic interaction: Most of the students were actively
analyzing the text and debating it in L1 among them. When doing the activities most of them
used Spanish to help themselves to understand and produce. L2 use was inferior to that of L1.

Classroom observation report following Richards & Nunan‟s example.

06:05: The students come in the classroom; they start talking about the last class assignment
and show each other what they have done. A student receives a phone call, it is the teacher
saying to her he will come a bit late. She communicates this to the class. They continue to
debate their work done.

06:20: The teacher comes in the classroom and apologizes in French. He sits in the desk area,
he seems very confident. The students are sitting down and expecting what to do.

The teacher puts out some pieces of paper and starts saying to them the lesson development
which will be based on a document reading and its comprehension and besides a role-plays
performance by students according to real situations he will give them.

06:28: The teacher starts giving material to each of students. They start reading and looking
for unknown words in their dictionaries. Some of them interact with each other in L1; the rest
is reading the text either mentally or orally and taking notes.

06:33: Some students ask the teacher aspects of the term. He explains to them nature, length
and possible activities of the test. The test schedule is debated and fixed by teachers and
students.

06:48: The teacher writes down on the whiteboard the questions related to the text. Another
student comes in the classroom. Some classmates explain to her what to be done and the
teacher gives her the material.


06:53: The teacher asks them if finished, they all answer „no‟.

The students continue to debate the text in couple and sometimes with the rest.

06:58: A student asks a question to the teacher using L1 and he turns this question to L2, so,
the student asks him again but this time in French.

07:00: The teacher asks the student if they want to read the document but they seem unwilling
to do it. Then he starts reading the beginning of the first paragraph and stops. He asks a
student to continue.

07:05: The couples read the document paragraphs in sequence.

07:06- 07: 20: when students make pronunciation mistakes the teacher corrects them and
writes on the whiteboard the phonetics of words wrongly pronounced and pronounce them
correctly. In measure that he pronounces he asks them to repeat.

07:22- 07:30: The questions are answered orally by each couple.

The teacher emphasizes on justification and tells students that this is a key aspect in B1 tests.

07: 35: The teacher asks the student to make a parallel of text with the Colombian reality
context.

07:40: The students start speaking in French but sometimes they show lack of vocabulary and
finish to speak in Spanish.

07:45: The teacher tells them he will continue to do this type of exercises in order to improve
the speaking skill and that also exercises of phonetics and intonation will be aspects to work
on.

07:50: The teacher gives students some situations to play. The roles are played by groups of
three students.

07:55- 08-10: Throughout the role-plays are being performed pronunciation mistakes appear.
The mistakes are corrected by both the teacher and students. When the students present
obstacles in speaking they are helped by their classmates.

08:15: The teacher congratulates the students by their effort and tells them he will send them
activities samples to their e-mails for them to prepare for the oral and written parts of the term.
He apologizes again and encourages them to study for passing the test.


Transcriptions of the interviews

Interviewer: ¿Cuál es su experiencia pasada en el aprendizaje del
francés como lengua extranjera?

Respondent 1: “ehh/ehh desde el momento en que yo inicie mi carrera
no tenía conocimiento en cuanto a francés no tenia bases ehh/ehh pero
ahorita ehh me ha permitido saber más un poco más de la lengua,
entenderla más”.

Respondent 2: “ehh, bueno /// umm pues ehh anteriormente no/no no he
tenido ehh la oportunidad de aprender francés ehh pues ni en el
colegio ni en ningún tipo de cursos así de / de ese tipo de pues de
este tipo de cosas pero lo que he aprendido o sea es a través de la
carrera ahora/ ahora que ingrese a la universidad pero anteriormente
no/no/no/no había tenido ningún tipo de aprendizaje ehh del idioma
francés”.

Respondent 3: “Bueno pues mi experiencia pasada en el aprendizaje del
francés pues ha sido muy poca desde que inicié la carrera acá en la
Universidad de Pamplona pues el francés ha sido algo nuevo para mí
pues resta decir que cuando empecé mi carrera yo había hecho algunos
cursos virtuales por Internet pero eran cursos muy básicos como los
números, expresiones comunes de comunes como decir buenos días,
buenas tardes, ¿cómo está?, ¿qué ha hecho? Hasta luego y básicamente
con esas pequeñas o con esas mínimas bases me le entre al francés”.

Interviewer: ¿Cuál es su estilo de aprendizaje?

Respondent 1: “umm, mi estilo de aprendizaje es ehh/ehh escribirlo y
escucharlo”.

Respondent 2: “ehh pues/ creo que / si considero que/que puedo ser un
aprendiz/ ehh auditivo porque por ejemplo / al escuchar / algún
tipo de/de ¿Cómo puedo decir? ehh / algún tipo de / bueno de texto
digamos en un/ en un audio o algo así entonces pues a la vez yo ahí
puedo copiar algo que lo que yo entiendo o tratar de escribir lo que
más o menos entiendo y pues así voy ehh retomando para pues aprender


cierto tipo de/de cosas de/ del francés”.

Respondent 3: “bueno pues mi estilo de aprendizaje es más que todo
pues en mi tiempo libre ehh veo cualquier película en francés, me
gusta verla sin subtítulos así no se entienda nada sino básicamente
lo hago como por enseñar o como por educar mi oído y acostumbrarme a
la fluidez que tiene un nativo para hablar francés”.

Interviewer: ¿A qué actividades está expuest@ en el salón de clase?

Respondent 1: “umm, en el salón de clase se ha /se realizan ehh se
realizan actividades como ehh del/de escucha, de escritura y pues eso
nos permite como mejorar mas/mas en cuanto al idioma”.

Respondent 2: “ehh /// a / todo tipo de actividades por ejemplo las
que el profesor nos da ehh/ehh son actividades en grupo con/con
algunas algunos documentos que él nos lleva en francés para que los
analicemos y/y los entendamos y a veces salgamos a/a salgamos a hacer
algún tipo de/de/de // bueno de reflexión ehh/ehh/ehh enn en no sé en
/ por ejemplo en los / ehh jeu de role a / ehh a veces ah sí algunas
veces o también con la / algunas veces ehh también se/se trabaja lo
que es el écouté o/y y si el análisis del e/ecouté que el profesor
nos/nos hace”.

Respondent 3: “bueno pues actividades hay muchas pues lo que nuestro
profesor, nuestra profesora que ten/que tengo este semestre pues ella
interactúa demasiado con nosotros, nos pone a hacer roleplays, nos
enseña expresiones cada día diferentes; la verdad eso lo hace sentir
a uno muy bien porque poco o mucho uno aprende cada día, conoce más
de la lengua, cosas pequeñas de la cultura que llevan en los países
francófonos más que todo eso”.

Interviewer: ¿Cómo es la interacción con los compañeros en el salón
de clase?

Respondent 1: “umm, pues la interacción es/es ehh/ehh es que ehh //
la interacción es ehh/ehh/ehh en el momento en que/que/que/que/que
por/ se realizan las actividades ehh/ehh hacemos determinados ehh
grupos umm ahí podemos ehh como discutir un poco/ mas o sea hablar
más el idioma como si”.

Respondent 2: “ehh pues entre todos creo que hay una pues no hay así
una interacción pues bien a fondo con ehh de todo el grupo ósea pero
igual personalmente yo considero que/ ehh mi interacción es como mas


ehh centrada como con el profesor pero los con los/los compañeros no
es mucha porque pues no se ehh pero me preocupo mas por interactuar
con el profesor y hablar con él y pues ya es si me toca pues con
algún compañero así ehh pues uno tiene su/su compañerito pues por
ahí con el que uno más se la lleva y pues ya más que todo así”.

Respondent 3: bueno pues la interacción de los compañeros en el salón
de clase pues es buena, nosotros muchas veces en clases nos ponemos a
hablar en francés, tratamos de hablar en francés, tratamos de
pronunciarlo puesto que ya es algo complicado pues para nosotros pero
hay mucha dinámica con los amigos y es muy bueno, la verdad es muy
bueno porque uno va soltando mas la lengua ehh va perdiendo el miedo
de hablar en esa lengua y pues es bueno.

Interviewer: ¿Cómo ha aprendido el francés, de manera grupal,
individual o las dos?

Respondent 1: “ehh /// como de las 2 formas pero más que todo ehh mas
que todo individual porque/porque cuando estoy en mi casa yo
hago/hago más actividades lo que es ehh escribir bastante un poco más
la gramática, escuchar también bastante”.

Respondent 2: “creo que más que todo individual ehh si bueno igual se
trabaja en grupo no bueno en grupo no ehh con otra persona con otro
compañero en el salón algunas veces se trabaja así y uno aprende así
ehh con el otro compañero pero personalmente aprendo mas ehh
individualmente ehh y si trato de hacerlo solo y esto me ha
funcionado pues mejor”.

Respondent 3: “ehh la pregunta es muy clara yo solo no puedo aprender
francés puesto que uno muchas veces se pone a estudiar y uno hay
cosas que no las entiende, uno muchas veces inventa la pronunciación
de cualquier palabra entonces uno necesita de las 2 formas tanto
individual como grupal entonces cada aspecto le ayuda a uno por
ejemplo un compañero que tenga un nivel más avanzado le puede
colaborar a uno ya sea el profesor a mí me gusta preguntarle al
maestro: profesor, ¿cómo se pregunta esto? Si (…) yo lo estaba
pronunciando de tal manera le digo: ¿Por qué?, ¿dónde tengo mi error?
Y así básicamente es”.

Interviewer: ¿Cree que las actividades en el salón de clase le
permiten adquirir más lenguaje?

Respondent 1: “umm, pues ehh si/si y no son, la verdad no son lo


suficientes para mejorar el lenguaje, deberían como hacerte como un
poco mas de estrategias, como mas métodos más que el estudiante le
permita como (cre) desenvolverse más en el idioma, mas en la lengua”.

Respondent 2: “ehh pues si ah/eh por ejemplo hay ciertas actividades
que/que el docente nos/nos/nos/nos/nos coloca para que ehh las/las
realicemos ehh la o consultemos y las llevemos al salón y si es
algún tipo de exposición pues ehh todo el grupo expone y así poco a
poco ehh creo que si/si ha servido y si o sea uno va adquiriendo a la
vez que va adquiriendo vocabulario uno lo/lo trata de utilizar de si
de ponerlo a la práctica y si eso ha sido de mucha ayuda”.

Respondent 3: “pues, sí. Claro que sí. puesto que en cada clase uno
aprende cosas nuevas, uno aprende temas diferentes, aprende más que
todo gramática que es lo importante, aprende a pensar en francés, a
hacerse una situación de la vida cotidiana y claro las actividades
dentro del salón de clases son muy buenas y le ayudan a uno a
desenvolverse más en esa lengua”.

Interviewer: ¿Qué nivel considera tener en cuánto a francés?

Respondent 1: “ehh pues ehh como el a2 o si más o menos el a2”.

Respondent 2: “en cuanto a nivel de lengua francesa considero que
tengo un nivel pues creo si ehh un a / a2 si porque la verdad no/no/
es pues no estoy tan preparado así que digamos pues bien como para
decir ya estoy adquiriendo un b1 o un b2 pero ehh con lo que a lo
largo de la carrera he llevado pues ahora considero que es un a2”.

Respondent 3: “bueno yo digo que para estar en el semestre en que
estoy pues me considero que, puedo decir que tengo el a1 sin temor a
equivocarme pues ya se hablar de mí mismo, se preguntar cosas
pequeñas, se entablar medianamente una conversación y pues ya con lo
poco que tengo de aprendizaje en el francés, de la poca fluidez que
tengo pues, me defiendo pero no así que ¡huy qué bien! Pero me
defiendo un poquito”.

Interviewer: ¿Qué es para usted el a2 y qué implica?

Respondent 1: “umm, ehh entender/entender el idioma o sea en el
momento en que el profesor le este a uno dando como que, dando
una/una/una ¿cómo es que se dice? una / una un tema o algo si lo
podamos entender ehh que explique un tema y lo entendamos ehh
escribirlo, lo podamos escribir, podamos leerlo”.


Respondent 2: “Ehh pues por ejemplo soy capaz de/ presentarme y / en
francés ehh y/y difícilmente ehh puedo entender un texto y dar mi
opinión sobre lo que el texto me quiere decir ehh pero lo hago y lo
trato de hacer y/ pues y por otra parte cuando quiero hablar y/y e
improvisar pues ehh me queda muy difícil y/y y ya y no considero que
sea como un nivel tan pues mas como más avanzado entonces pues creo
que por eso considero que es un a2 ehh hasta ahí”.

Exploring the Effect of Classroom Activities on L2 Learning

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Exploring the Effect of Classroom Activities on L2 Learning

Similar to Exploring the Effect of Classroom Activities on L2 Learning (20)

More from university of pamplona

More from university of pamplona (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exploring the Effect of Classroom Activities on L2 Learning