How would you like your spaghetti? The long and winding roads of second and

foreign language learning Kris Van den Branden

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven kris.vandenbranden@arts.kuleuven.be

Introduction

How can teachers maximally promote their students’ second/foreign language learning?

Three Flemish Ph.D studies into the learning of Dutch as a second language + one question: what can we learn from these studies in terms of adult second language education?

Study 1: DSL acquisition in pre-primary education Background Dutch-medium, pre-primary education in

Brussels: 2.5 years – 6 years At the age of 6: onset of compulsory education Kindergarten teachers are professionals (3-year

preservice training) Growing proportion of DSL learners in Dutch

education system (Verhelst, 2006; Verhelst et al., 2012)

Study 1: DSL acquisition in pre-primary education RQ: What is the impact of teacher input and interactional classroom behaviour on the early acquisition of DSL vocabulary by young children?

Context

One classroom: one teacher + 11 children All input during the first 10 weeks was

audiotaped and transcribed Whole-group activities mainly focusing on early

vocabulary acquisition, small-group activities and individual play

Tests: after 5, 10 and 15 weeks (3 reception-based tests and 1 production-based test)

Results

At any stage, receptive skills are more advanced than productive DSL skills

From the very beginning onwards, there are significant differences between children in rate of acquisition

TOP 10 words

Boekentas (997) satchel Trein (297) train Kus (691) kiss Sjaal (182) scarf Plasticine (392) plasticine Kind (1782) child Hoofd (501) head Plaats (193) place/room Bak (389) box Knippen (94) cut Kauwgum (14) bubble gum

Results

Strong impact of frequency of input Weak impact of explicit vocabulary teaching on

acquisition Strong impact of input embedded in action-

context (“connections”) Strong impact of the variable “personalized

input”: the child has a personal relation with the word (“intrinsic motivation”) “To summarize, intrinsic motivation involves people freely engaging in

activities that they find interesting, that provide novelty and optimal challenge.” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 235)

Daily proportions of personalised input

AMINE 80 ADNANE 62 MOHAMED 52 AHLAME 47 AMELINE 39 ELISSA 34 YOUNESS 31 AMIRA 30 ANISSA 27 YASMINA 18 ABDEL 18

What can we learn?

The crucial importance of intrinsic motivation: in the classroom learners do and learn the things with language they should/want be able to do outside the classroom.

Provide rich language input connected to learners’ interests and make input comprehensible by linking it to actions, physical environment (inside AND outside the classroom), prior knowledge

Encourage learner to verbalise their intentions, thoughts,actions and elaborate on this output

Monitor turn-taking consciously! Learners most in need of interactional support may receive it the least…

Noise or music? Early writing development in a second language Lieve Verheyden

+ K. Van den Branden, G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, S. De Maeyer

Verheyden et al., 2010

Writing task: 6 similar narrative stories based on a comic; “describe the story for a pupil who cannot see the pictures”

N = 217 (106 in grade 3, 111 in grade 4; 7 different schools)

Pretest – 4 sessions with the teacher - Posttest

Seven text features

- Content - Lexical richness - Complexity of T-unit - Accuracy of T-unit - Spelling - Cohesion - Communicative effectiveness

Verheyden et al. 2009, 2011

1. The results of this study reveal “that these features all have their own story to tell”

2. Each child has her own story to tell: high degree of interindivual variability

3. Each occasion has its own story to tell: high intra-individual variability, low correlations between results for same trait at different measurement points.

Verheyden et al 2009; 2011

Comparing students: remarkably divergent results for 7 text features

Trait 5

Trait 4

Trait 2

Trait 6

Trait 1

Trait 3

Trait 5

Trait 4

Trait 2

Trait 6

Trait 1 Trait 3

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

MM1 MM2 MM1 MM2

stan

dard

ised

scor

e

time Student 1 Student 2

Verheyden et al., 2011

No linear development

Communicative Effectiveness

In grades 3 and 4

6 Measurements (pre - sessions – post) Interjury-reliability rho = .86

Verheyden, 2011

Qualitative analyses of teacher-pupil interaction “Thick descriptions” of interaction going on Interviews with teachers

Seeking for patterns

2 teachers

Teacher Prime concern Visual representation

Effect on focus children’s output & development

Teacher 1

- Accuracy & spelling - “Short sentences”

Trade-off between accuracy & complexity

Teacher 2

- Writing a nice story for the reader

- Enriching pupils’ output

- “Writing aloud”

Growth for accuracy & complexity

Writing aloud P1: Miss, the kids play with their car T: Ooh yes, I see, the child is playing with his car P1: He’s got something in his hand T: What’s that? PP: Remote control, machine T: A remote control. I’ll write that word down on the blackboard. The re-mote control P1: xxx T: Yes, P1? P1: xx take the remote control xxx T: Pardon? P2: Then he takes the remote control, push the button, and then the car goes…. (….) T: So, how can we describe that in one or two nice sentences? What is he doing? P3: Yeah, a boy he drives his car. T: A boy is playing with his remote controlled car, that’s what we could say, right?

Early writing development

The early writing development of DSL learners is heavily dependent on the process-oriented support and feedback that learners are given before, during and after the writing activity.

(Dumont et al., 2010; Graham and Perrin, 2007; Hattie, 2009)

What can we learn?

Rich interaction has a huge impact on learners’ productive skill development

Learners need feedback! Errors are information, they are hot spots for learning

There are many productive ways to react to students’ output: recasts, confirmation requests metalinguistic information new question (extension) modelling

The effect of classroom discourse on SL learning and knowledge construction at the transition from primary to secondary

education

Koen Van Gorp Centre for Language and Education

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Study 3

This study: research questions

How effective are second language learners of Dutch at the end of primary school at constructing pre-scientific knowledge and learning the academic register of a second language?

What is the relative impact of background variables and the quality of teacher - pupil interaction?

Taking up the challenge: The case DNA

Quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design A task-based lesson unit about DNA and DNA

(mix of social studies and science – content-based language learning)

Measuring effects of intervention Pretest: 1 day before lesson unit Posttest: 1 day after lesson unit Delayed posttest: min. 4 weeks after posttest

Control group (2 classes, 29 students) and experiment group (5 classes, 100 students)

Results Test DNA for E-C groups

Observed growth in experiment group and control group

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest

Occasions

Test

DNA Experiment

control

Results Test DNA in E-C classes

Observed growth in 5 experiment classes and 2 control classes

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Pretest Posttest Delayed posttest

Occasions

Test

DN

A

class 1

class 2

class 3

class 4

class 5

class 6

class 7

Effects of 8 explanatory variables over time

Variable Pre M=18.01

Post 1 M=23.22

Post 2 M=24.10

Gender (being a girl) -0.96 SES (higher SES) 1.16 1.16 Dutch absent at home -2.01 Home language Turkish -1.89 Language proficiency 0.14 0.14 Teacher expectations 1.38 1.38 Number of turns 0.04 Average language proficiency of the classroom

0.54 0.54 0.54

Max. score = 32

Looking at the most successful students in detail

Teacher-student interactions seem to matter for 3 of

the 4 extremely successful students 1 student primarily relies on the exploration of the

written course material; 1 pupil is particularly active during the group work 1 pupil is strongly dependent on teacher

Student’s agency to actively engage in knowledge building is always the driving force

This study: research questions

“It is essentially in the discourse between teacher and pupil that education is done, or fails to be done.” (Edwards & Mercer, 1987: 101) “… the educational success or failure may be

explained by the quality of educational dialogue, rather than simply by considering the capability of individual students or the skills of their teachers.” (Mercer & Littleton, 2007: 4)

What can we learn?

Students need to approach learning in an active way

Students’ motivation is fostered by closeable gaps: Value (I want to be able to do this) + Expectancy (I will be able to do this)

What can we learn?

Students’ self-competence needs to be

fostered: the belief that they will be able to perform language tasks in the real world

Where does the teacher come in?

Teachers make the difference. The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers (McKinsey & Company, 2010). So, ultimately, the only way to improve outcomes and to realise the ambitions stated above is to enhance the quality of the activity that takes place on a daily basis in the classroom.

Study 4

Survey on the beliefs and perceptions of DSL teachers (in adult education) on educational innovations

380 respondents RQ: To what extent do you believe that

innovations advocated by policy makers and pedagogues are (a) already part of your practice, (b) relevant to DSL teaching, (c) part of the policy-making at your school, (d) doable for you?

What are the main characteristics of a good teacher?

52

64

102

104

123

147

0 50 100 150 200

over vakkennis beschikken

flexibiliteit

enthousiasme, motiverend handelen

geduld

een goed begeleider van hetleerproces zijn

empathie

Survey CTO (2012); 380 DSL teachers

Praktijk Practice Crucial? Context? Competency? Integrating ICT -

20,6% +

55,7% -

22,4% -

44,3%

Learner autonomy

- 17,8%

+ 61,9%

- 14,11%

- 37,1%

Outdoor activities

- 14,6%

+ 64,4%

- 23,5%

- 42,9%

Broad assessment

- 29%

+ 55,9%

- 21,4%

- 25,8%

Tailoring activities to learner needs

- 40,9%

+ 78,1%

- 12,1%

- 40,5%

Fullan, 2011

“The key to system-wide success is to situate the energy of educators and students as the central driving force. (p.3)

“For whole system reform to occur, lead drivers (…) must get at the motivation and competency development of the vast majority of educators.” (p.8)

References Deci, & Ryan (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of

Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (Eds.) (2010). The nature of learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice.

Paris: OECD. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. Graham, S. & Perin,D. (2007). Writing next. Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high

schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York:

Routledge. McKinsey & Company (2010). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey

& Company. Mourshed, M., Chijoke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world's most improved school systems keep getting better.

London: McKinsey and Company. Van den Branden, K. (2012). Sustainable education: basic principles and strategic recommendations. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23/3, 285-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678865 Verheyden, L. et a. (2010a). Written narrations by 8- to 10-year-old Turkish pupils in Flemish primary education: A

follow-up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33 (1), 20-38. Verheyden, L. et al. (2011). Translation Skills and Trade-Off in Young L2-lLearners' Written Narrations. To appear in

Fayol, M., Alamargot, D. & Berninger, V. (eds.). Translation of Thought to Written Text While Composing Van den Branden, K. (2012). White paper on sustainable education. Download from

www.makeeducationsustainable.wordpress.com Verhelst, M. (2006). A box full of feelings. In K. Van den Branden (ed.), Task-based language education: from theory

to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verhelst, M., Jaspaert, K., & Van den Branden, K. (2012). The impact of input on early second language vocabulary

acquisition. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 163, 21-42.