Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research Ph.D., University lecturer in foreign language education
Pirjo Harjanne
University of Helsinki Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) Department of Applied Sciences of Education
[email protected] Ph.D., Professor of foreign language education
Seppo Tella
Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan Waseda Institute for Advanced Study University of Helsinki Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) Department of Applied Sciences of Education
[email protected]
135
136
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
ABSTRACT Research-based knowledge of the implementation of foreign language (FL) teaching in Finnish schools is surprisingly scarce. The most dominant approach to teaching at the moment is communicative language teaching (CLT), but there is little knowledge of how it is actually interpreted or implemented. In this article, we look into this methodological reality of Finnish FL classrooms. We assume that teaching reflects the shift in emphasis towards socio-constructivism and socio-culturalism. The language proficiency description of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEF 2001) is also taken into account. The KIELO project (2009–2012), launched at the University of Helsinki Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct), is a research and developmental project in foreign language teaching, studying and learning, with a view on reality in our FL classrooms. KIELO embraces researchers and teachers from most Finnish departments of teacher education, from schools and universities of applied sciences, and from the Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland (SUKOL). We start with two premises defining practical language teaching: first, language teacher cognition, which means conceptions of students, teaching, studying and learning, based on values, beliefs, prior experience, practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge, and, second, the socio-cultural school and language classroom context. We argue that language teachers need to reflect on their own teaching systematically, as practical researchers, which is a prerequisite for renewing one’s professionalism. Exploratory practice (Allwright 2000, 2003, 2005) is used in KIELO as a research approach shared by language teachers and researchers. It enables collaborative work that focuses on everyday classroom reality and increases understanding of what happens there. A number of CLT principles are discussed in the light of some international and national research findings. The KIELO project has been founded for finding out why foreign languages are taught, studied and learnt the way they are. Keywords: language teaching, language teacher cognition, methodological reality in foreign language classrooms, teachers as researchers of their own work, exploratory practice
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
137
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
1
INTRODUCTION
In this article, we look into certain methodological reality in Finnish foreign language (FL) classrooms by analysing what areas of FL teaching, studying and learning are researched in language classrooms, in what ways and what research findings have been found. Our pre-understanding is that Finnish language teaching is characterised by an eclectically-selective albeit critical attitude towards language teaching methods and study practices. We also assume that teaching reflects, to some extent at least, the shift in emphasis that has taken place in learning conceptions towards socio-constructivism and socio-culturalism. Approaches to language teaching are also likely to mirror somewhat different starting points, such as in the role of communicative language teaching (CLT). Finnish language teaching cannot be observed irrespective of the development that has taken place abroad, especially concerning the Common European Framework of Reference (CEF 2001) and its language proficiency description. The KIELO project (2009–2012), launched at the University of Helsinki Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) by the authors of this article, is a research and developmental project in foreign language teaching, studying and learning, with a view on reality in our FL classrooms. KIELO is an acronym for the Finnish word “kieltenopetus”. At the moment, KIELO embraces some 45 researchers and teachers from Finnish university departments of teacher education, from schools and universities of applied sciences, and from the Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland (SUKOL). The key research task in KIELO is to describe, analyse and interpret what the language teaching reality is in Finnish classrooms, in what ways foreign languages are taught and studied, and on what pedagogical grounds. The KIELO rationale is based on a language-didactic idea of two premises defining practical language teaching: first, language teacher cognition, in other words, conceptions of students, teaching, studying and learning based on values, beliefs, prior experience, practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge, and, second, the socio-cultural school and language classroom context. Special focus will be laid on the role, status and significance of communicative language teaching (CLT) as a current and topical teaching practice and as a methodological approach
138
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
among FL teachers. Communicative language teaching has been widely promoted at different school levels for more than 25 years. The notion of CLT has been repeated like a mantra, but there is little knowledge of how it is actually interpreted or implemented. Research-based knowledge of the implementation of FL teaching in our schools is still surprisingly scarce. Our second argument is drawn from the idea of language teachers’ professional growth requiring systematic and purposive reflection of one’s own teaching and its foundations. In other words, the teacher needs to analyse his/her own work as a researcher, which is a prerequisite for developing one’s teaching and renewing and innovating one’s professionalism. In this article (Figure 1), the main focus will be on some research methods to be used in the KIELO project, on exploratory practice in particular. These reflections will be followed by a brief analysis of some major principles connected to communicative language teaching (CLT). We will finish off with some research findings – both international and national – describing the current foreign language classroom reality.
Figure 1. The main points of this article as a concept map.
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
139
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
2
RESEARCH APPROACHES: EXPLORATORY PRACTICE IN FOCUS
In KIELO research, several research approaches will be used. In this article, we focus on exploratory practice, expected to be the main approach in KIELO. After describing some salient features of exploratory practice, we compare it briefly with action research and reflective practice. Exploratory practice (Allwright 2000, 2003, 2005) is used in KIELO for many reasons. First of all, it is a practical enough approach for language teachers working at different school levels. It is flexible enough to work for and with “ordinary” teachers, but sophisticated enough to serve as a research approach for KIELO as well. Allwright (2003) defines some of his background ideas as follows: “First, we should, above our concern for instructional efficiency, prioritize the quality of life in the language classroom. Secondly, instead of trying to develop ever ‘improved’ teaching techniques, we should try to develop our understandings of the quality of language classroom life. Thirdly, we should expect working helpfully for understanding to be a fundamentally social matter, not an asocial one. Simple causal relationships are most unlikely to apply, but all practitioners, learners as well as teachers, can expect to gain, to ‘develop’, from this mutual process of working for understanding.” (Allwright 2003, 114.) In the following, we raise some facets of exploratory practice, mainly based on Allwright (2000, 2003, 2005). The key objective in exploratory practice is to increase understanding of what happens in “ordinary” classroom’s activities. This way, it is focused more on understanding than action research, which emphasises the changes to be made. Exploratory practice is more action-oriented than reflective practice, which underscores the importance of reflection. A typical exploratory practice cycle could consist of the teacher’s concern with students’ little use of the target language in group work. This concern will be discussed openly by the students. A solution is gradually suggested, hopefully by the students. Tajino and Smith (2005) have remarked how the roles of both teacher and student change: “The emphasis on mutual development deliberately blurs the traditional distinctions between teachers and learners: EP encourages
140
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
teachers to become learners, and learners to become teachers, by providing a framework in which they are equal partners in researching their own classroom lives” (Tajino & Smith 2005, 449). The first stage of exploratory practice is to identify a puzzle which involves finding something that puzzles the teacher and/or the students in what is currently happening in the teaching/learning situation. The possibility exists that things that are working well may be at least as puzzling, and worthy of investigation, as things that are not going right. The subsequent stages are: Reflecting upon whatever you find puzzling, gathering naturally occurring data about whatever you are still puzzling about, taking direct action (e.g. discussions) to generate data in ordinary classroom situations considering the outcomes so far, and deciding what to do next, moving on (you may feel happy with your new understanding or you may come to the conclusion that you should adjust, for instance, your expectations of your pupils or actually to do something to change things), going public (understanding should be shared between other colleagues). (Allwright 2000, 2003, 2005; Allwright & Hanks 2009.) To sum it up, Allwright (2003) sees that exploratory practice involves practitioners (e.g., preferably teachers and learners together) working to understand (a) what they want to understand, following their own agendas; (b) not necessarily in order to bring about change; (c) not primarily by changing; (d) but by using normal pedagogic practices as investigative tools, so that working for understanding is part of the teaching and learning, not extra to it; (e) in a way that does not lead to ‘burn-out’, but that is indefinitely sustainable; in order to contribute to (f) teaching and learning themselves; (g) professional development, both individual and collective. (Allwright 2003, 127–128.) Both action research and reflective practice come very close to exploratory practice. Action research usually aims at resolving problems in teaching and actively changing the context under study. In the KIELO project, it would mean changing the ways teachers teach and students study foreign languages by concrete interventions in the classrooms. Action research is expected, as Pollard (2002, 59) puts it, to directly ameliorate practice through cycles of one’s own development. This action research cycle includes the teacher’s self-reflection of his/her teaching, on the basis of data gathered or through regular discussions with the researcher. Allwright (2005) sees action research as rather problematic.
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
141
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
In his opinion, it requires too many academic research skills from teachers, making them sometimes feel at a loss. What is more, Allwright feared action research “had the same potential to lead to burnout as [his] academic model of research” (Allwright 2005, 355). This is of course something we do not want to happen in the KIELO project. Reflective practice, first introduced by Schön (1983), encourages us to consider our own experiences in a thoughtful continuing process by applying more theoretical knowledge to practice. When focused on teachers, reflective practice can be seen as a tool to enhance their personal development. It is in many ways an unstructured approach that is expected to increase understanding of one’s own work or working environment. Most language teachers develop their work in many ways. This, however, is not usually research per se; both action research, exploratory practice and reflective practice follow certain rules of research, such as being systematic (data collection and analysis), being justified and open to critique. We believe that language teachers will be motivated in KIELO by starting with their everyday classroom activities and regular teaching and study practices, while attempting to systematise and theorise the settings. This way these practices can be understood by the teachers themselves and benefited from by all KIELO participants.
142
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
3
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING: PRINCIPLES
We regard communicative language teaching (CLT) as the theoretical background of the KIELO project, as it has been the officially dominant approach for quite some time. CLT is an appropriate way to face the challenges that the widened view of communicative language proficiency and the socio-cultural view of FL learning give. Therefore, neither teaching or studying in FL classrooms nor any research findings can be reviewed without taking into account certain CLT principles, fairly unanimously presented as salient features of CLT by many researchers (e.g. Nunan 1989, 194–195; Brown 2001, 42–44, 69; Richards & Rodgers 2001, 158–173; Ellis 2003). The main aim of CLT is to express meaning and the use of a foreign language for and in communication in social interaction. As a logical result from this initial starting-point, the main focus in language classrooms should shift from teachercentredness to student-centredness. This focus should cover action, communicative tasks and topics dealt with. Student-centredness easily leads to dual or small group work and to direct practice with the target language, in other words, Dewey’s (1953) classic “learning by doing” comes true. At its best, CLT also supports authentic communication and spontaneity in discussions, even in school contexts. From the students’ point of view, the tasks used are communicative and relevant, leading to meaningful use of language. In CLT, all components of communicative language proficiency (CEF 2001) are taken into account: general competencies, communicative proficiency and strategies. It also intensifies an integrated practice of all subskills (listening, reading, writing, speaking), which, of course, is the norm outside the classroom. Both fluency and correctness are important and complementary, while fluency occasionally occupies centre stage. CLT also includes reflection of one’s own study processes and developing of autonomous study strategies and metacognitive skills. In CLT, the teachers’ and the students’ roles change from what they used to be in traditional language teaching. The teacher’s role could be described as follows: a mentor, a task manager, a needs analyst, an adviser, a feedback giver, a researcher, a learner, an assessor. But the teacher is also expected to talk less
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
143
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
and listen more. The student’s role is more active, participatory, interactional, conversant, reflective, autonomous, creative. Besides, he or she has a lot more control and responsibility of his or her own studying and learning process. In CLT, the role of teaching and learning materials is to support communicative language use through authentic tasks. They should also include tasks that students are likely to encounter outside school, tasks that are meaningful from the students’ own perspectives when considering their age, growth and interests, for instance.
144
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
4
KIELO RESEARCH
In the KIELO project, we are interested in Finnish foreign language classroom reality. In other words, we are investigating the different ways used when teaching and studying foreign languages, and how these practices are justified by the language teachers themselves. The backdrop against which we will analyse teaching and studying and their justification is based on communicative language teaching (CLT) methodology (cf., e.g. Harjanne 2006, 2008; Harjanne & Tella 2008a, 2008b, submitted). Communicative language teaching is a natural background for us, as it has been promoted for more than 25 years already. To our way of thinking, it will be easier and more logical to analyse FL teaching and studying reality and the teachers’ justification when we have certain “principles” we can use when looking into Finnish language classrooms. Contrary to current belief, it is not very fruitful to contrast CLT with so-called traditional or grammar-based teaching approaches, as the picture is not at all black and white. It would rather be more fair to state that both the grammarbased (grammatical) approach and CLT are on the same language teaching continuum, but their focus and the way they see language, language proficiency, language teaching and what is most important, the goal of language teaching, differ in many respects. Research has also been focused on the reasons why language teachers prefer traditional teacher-centred teaching to CLT. For instance, it seems that when language teachers’ beliefs are in parallel with traditional language teaching – and therefore in conflict with the principles of CLT – they find it hard to start using a CLT approach (e.g. Borg 1999; Li 1998; Tella 1993, 181). The significance of beliefs is well illustrated by Borg (2006, 283), in which he shows how the teacher’s cognition and way of teaching are affected by her beliefs of herself, of her students, and of her teaching, studying and learning (see Figure 2). In addition to the beliefs, teaching is affected by the language teacher’s values, his/her practical and theoretical knowledge. Borg (2006, 283) argues that language teachers need to be fully aware of their own beliefs, but unconscious thought patterns may limit the influence of practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge on cognition and that way on teaching (see Figure 2). Teachers also
145
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
May impact on excisting cognitions though, especially unacknowledged cognitions may limit its impact
Personal history and experience of classrooms >> preconceptions of education (i.e. teachers, teaching)
Professional Coursework
Schooling
Language teacher cognition
Beliefs, knowledge, theories, attitudes, assumpions, conceptions, principles, thinking, decision-making
About teachers, teaching, learners, learning, subject matter, curricula, materials, activities, self, collegues, assessment, context
Contextual Factors Classroom Practice including practice teaching
Around and inside the classroom. context mediates cognitions and practice. May lead to changes in cognitions or create tension between cognitions and classroom practices
Delined by the interaction of cognitions and contextual factors. In turn, classroom experience influences cognitions unconsciously and/or through conscious reflection
Figure 2. Elements and processes in language teacher cognition (Based on Borg, 2006, 283, with small modifications).
must reflect on the experience they have acquired from their own teaching in order to be more cognisant of it and that way capable of profiting from and building on it. Earlier, Tella (1993, 181–182) expressed a similar idea by saying that “it would be natural to think that … teachers should also open up their imagination when thinking and planning ahead, letting their positive, creative and innovative experiences emerge in a way that could be conducive to visionary, novel paths in one’s action. Beliefs should by no means restrict one’s action; visions are there to lead us to new horizons and towards more strategic actions.”
146
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
Is CLT reality internationally? Well, no. Many international studies (e.g. Li 1998; Karavas-Doukas 1996; Nunan 1987; Sato & Kleinsasser 1999) show that CLT has often fallen through or gained little ground since the 1980s. In fact, there is strong evidence that genuinely communicative language teaching is still a rare thing. Research findings are quite surprising in the sense that the majority of the teachers having taken part in these studies do say they use CLT, but when observed still seem to favour traditional grammar-based approaches. In many cases (e.g. Gatbonton & Segalowitz 2005, 327), the reason is simply the fact that many language teachers have difficulty in recognising that communicative tasks do advance pupils’ FL learning. These teachers, used to working with highly-structured grammatical exercises and teaching and testing word lists, are sceptical about communicative tasks being ‘real’ teaching. Alas, students very often think alike. This apparent conflict between what teachers say they do and what they are observed to do may partly arise from the fact that teachers have not properly thought about or understood what CLT is and what its principles should mean in teaching. Harjanne (2008) advises in line with Brown (2001, 43–46) that teachers who say that they teach according to the principles of CLT should make sure that they really understand these principles and plan communicative practice along these lines. Is CLT reality in Finnish language classrooms? Well, no. Even if not too much research has been conducted on Finnish language classroom reality, the research findings concerning mainly FL teaching in basic education or in upper secondary schools are not too dissonant with international research findings. What, for instance, appears to be rather common is the use of the pupils’ mother tongue (Finnish) when being taught in English (The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries 2002). In this study, 60% of the Finnish teachers of English assessed they used the target language at most 50% of the teaching time, while under 10% of the teachers reported using the target language at least 75% of the teaching time. Other Finnish studies are congruent with the international trends (cf. Harjanne & Tella submitted). In Alanen’s study (2000), focusing on English as a foreign language (grade 7), it became clear that linguistic structures were dealt with almost exclusively regardless of meaning and language functions. In the same way, Nikula’s study (2007) showed how poorly if at all the student’s role as an active user of the target language came true. Jalkanen and Ruuska (2007), in
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
147
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
their Master’s thesis about the low-graders’ conceptions of English lessons, concluded that doing the exercise book exercises and listening to and reading the textbook chapters played a major role, while the use of English was minimal, as even dual-discussions tasks were as a rule written down in the pupils’ copybooks. Hinkkanen and Säde (2003) analysed in their Master’s thesis a videorecorded English lesson in basic education and concluded that spontaneous communication in English was practised only for a few minutes’ time, as the teacher exercised a high level of control and focused her teaching on separate linguistic units at the cost of genuine communication. Congruent findings were made, for instance, by student teachers Bergman, Oksanen and Veikkolainen (2009), Keskinen (2009), Kuoppala (2009) and Lehtinen (2009) in their unpublished pedagogical theses as part of KIELO research. It is important, however, to note that there also are Finnish studies in which CLT has been used positively and with good results. As an important example, we refer to Harjanne’s doctoral thesis (2006), which focused on communicative oral practice of Swedish among Finnish upper secondary school students and basic education students, with the aid of collaborative scheme-based and elaboration tasks. This study showed the real potential of CLT through student-centred lessons, during which the language teacher acted as a mentor. At both school levels–upper secondary and basic–the students, mostly communicating in the target language of Swedish, actively got engaged with the language practice, capitalising on the given practice time almost optimally. The student’s communication was enriched by active and consensual listening to the other speakers. In Harjanne’s interpretation (2006), the students co-constructed the dialogue, they asked one another for linguistic help, while helping each other by paying more attention to meaning than form. In this communicative oral practice, students’ collaboration and interactional communication came true, resembling very much communication usually occurring outside language classrooms. (Harjanne 2006.)
148
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
5
CONCLUDING REMARKS: LOOKING AHEAD
Zeitgeist, we argue, favours collaboration and sharing. Our exploratory practice-focused approach may help reduce one of the fundamental dilemmas built in the language teachers’ work: working behind closed doors and isolated, “the most public job done in private” (Allwright 2003, 132). This is, in fact, one of the KIELO project’s ultimate aims: to open up foreign language classroom doors, to increase the language teachers’ willingness to discuss their teaching practices and the ways these are justified, while enhancing their methodological readiness to try something new, to discuss and then use various starting points, and – finally – to understand one’s teaching (work and action) and to understand, together with his/her pupils, the pupils’ studying better than before. Looking into the reality of Finnish foreign language classrooms seems more and more important and captivating. Not too much information is available about teachers’ own justification of their ways of teaching and encouraging students’ study practices. According to our initial analysis, the foreign language teaching and studying “status quo” looks paradoxical. Many acknowledge the fact that the need for foreign language proficiency has continued to increase, but, nevertheless, foreign languages are studied less and less, year after year. Our second observation is also a paradox: while more and more communication skills are needed and expected outside of school, a lot of Finnish in lieu of the target language is used in FL teaching. In addition, language is studied through atomistic linguistic particles, instead of holistic, meaningful communication. It is therefore justified to ask why Finnish FL teachers ignore the fact that language teaching should aim at communicative language proficiency, skills to use foreign languages in communication. Why do they also ignore the current view according to which communicative language proficiency is best learnt by using the target language in reciprocal, communicative situations? It would really be a pity if these teachers’ conception of language teaching is based on sheer misunderstanding of what CLT is, as Thompson (1996) has suggested. This is very much what we have found out as foreign language teacher educators: language teachers often think that communicative language teaching is just oral practice, not including any teaching or practising of language structures. Besides, the communicative task has often been wildly misinterpreted ignoring its core features: student-centredness,
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
149
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
interaction, focus on meaning, the communicative goal, the connections with life outside the classroom, integrated practice of listening, reading, speaking and writing. There is little information of why language teachers behave as they do. It is important to find out what role teacher education and text books, for instance, play in FL teaching. The KIELO project has been founded exactly for correcting some of these misunderstandings and for finding out why foreign languages are taught, studied – and, hopefully – learnt the way they are.
150
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
REFERENCES Alanen, R. 2000. Kolmannen muodon tapaus: Miten kieliopista puhutaan englannin kielen luokassa. [The case of the third form: How grammar is discussed in English classroom; in Finnish]. In P. Kalaja & L. Nieminen (Eds.) Kielikoulussa – kieli koulussa [Languageschool - language in school; in Finnish]. AFinLA Yearbook N:o 58, 139–163. Allwright, D. 2000. Exploratory practice: An ’appropriate methodology’ for language teacher development? Paper presented at the 8th IALS Symposium for Language Teacher Educators, Edinburgh, Scotland, Politics, Policy and Culture in Language Teacher Education. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.letras. puc-rio.br/epcentre/readings/IALS%20PAPER%20DRAFT.htm Allwright, D. 2003. Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7 (2), 113–141. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.letras.puc-rio.br/epcentre/readings/IALS%20PAPER%20 DRAFT.htm Allwright, D. 2005. Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (3), 353–366. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588663 Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. 2009. The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Bergman, J., Oksanen, H., & Veikkolainen, K. 2009. Viestinnällisyys ranskan oppikirjojen tehtävissä Suomessa, Ruotsissa ja Kanadassa. [Communicativeness in the exercises of the textbooks of French in Finland, Sweden and Canada; in Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Teacher education. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Borg, S. 1999. The use of grammatical strategy in the second language classroom: A qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognition. Applied Linguistics, 20, 95–126. Borg, S. 2006. Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: State University. CEF = Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment 2001. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg. Council of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. 1953. School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. 2005. Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61 (3), 325–353.
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
151
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
Harjanne, P. 2006. ”Mut ei tää oo hei midsommarista!” – ruotsin kielen viestinnällinen suullinen harjoittelu yhteistoiminnallisten skeema- ja elaborointitehtävien avulla. [‘But hey, this ain’t ‘bout Midsummer!’—Communicative Oral Practice in Swedish through Collaborative Schema-based and Elaboration Tasks; Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 273. [Doctoral Dissertation, in Finnish] Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.seppotella.fi/strongsignals.pdf Harjanne, P. 2008. Communicative oral practice in the foreign language classroom— Methodological challenges. In J. Loima (Ed.), Facing the Future—Developing Teacher Education. Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press, 111–129. Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. 2008a. Strong signals in foreign language education, with a view to future visions. In S. Tella (Ed.) From Brawn to Brain: Strong Signals in Foreign Language Education. Proceedings of the ViKiPeda-2007 Conference in Helsinki, May 21–22, 2007. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 290, 55–84. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.seppotella.fi/strongsignals.pdf Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. 2008b. Vieraiden kielten opetuksen didaktisia, yhteiskunnallisia ja metodologisia lähtökohtia – tutkimushankkeen teoreettisen taustan kehittelyä. [Didactic, Societal and Methodological Perspectives of Foreign Language Education – Outlining the Theoretical Basis of the KIELO Research Project; in Finnish]. In A. Kallioniemi (Ed.) Uudistuva ja kehittyvä ainedidaktiikka: Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 8.2.2008 Helsingissä. Osa 2. [Dynamic Subject Didactics: Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium on Feb. 8th, 2008 in Helsinki. Part 2; in Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 299, 737–750. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.seppotella.fi/harjannetella299.pdf Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. (Submitted). Vieraiden kielten opetus Suomessa – nykytilanteen tarkastelua: KIELO-tutkimushankkeen taustaa ja teoriaa. [Foreign language Teaching in Finland – Reflections on the Current State: The Background and Theories of the Research Project KIELO; in Finnish]. In E. Ropo & H. Silfverberg (Eds.) Pelit, opetussuunnitelma ja ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 13.2.2009 Tampereella. [Games, Curriculum and Subject Didactics. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium on Feb. 13th, 2009 in Tampere; in Finnish]. University of Tampere. Hinkkanen, H.-M. & Säde, A.-M. 2003. Puhutaanko kielestä vai kielellä? Tapaustutkimus englannin kielen tunnilla käytetyn kielen kohteista, sisällöistä ja merkityksistä. [Shall we talk about a foreign language or in a foreign language? A case study of the targets, content and meanings of the language used in English lessons; in Finnish]. Kasvatustieteen pro gradu -tutkielma. [Master’s thesis]. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/ dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/10443/G0000201.pdf?sequence=1
152
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
Jalkanen, L. & Ruuska, J. 2007. Affektiiviset tekijät vieraan kielen opiskelussa: Tapaustutkimus alakoulun englannin tunneista oppilaiden kokemana. [The affective factors in studying a foreign language: A case study of the English lessons in the primary school as experienced by the pupils; in Finnish]. Kasvatustieteen pro gradu -tutkielma. [Master’s thesis]. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/10684/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-2007883.pdf?sequence=1 Karavas-Doukas, E. 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187–198. Keskinen, N. 2009. Peruskoululaisten käsityksiä kolmannen kielen valinnasta. [A primary school pupils’ views on choosing a third foreign language; in Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Teacher education. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Kuoppala, M.-K. 2009. English, please – Kohdekieli ja äidinkieli opettajan käyttämänä englannin oppitunnilla. [English, please – The teacher’s use of the target language and the mother tongue in English lessons; in Finnish]. Tapaustutkimus Helsin gin yliopiston normaalikouluissa. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Teacher education. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Lehtinen, J. 2009. Perusopetuksen kieltenopettajien suosimat opetusmuodot, -tyylit ja -strategiat oppitunnilla. [Teaching methods, styles and strategies used by foreign language teachers at lower secondary school; in Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Teacher education. [Pedagogical thesis, unpublished.] Li, D. 1998. It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703. Nikula, T. 2007. The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 179–204. Nunan, D. 1987. Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136–145. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollard, A. 2002. Reflective teaching: Effective and evidence-informed professional practice. London: Continuum. Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sato, K. & Kleinsasser, R. C. 1999. Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Modern Language Journal, 83, 494–517. Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Tajino, A. & Smith, C. 2005. Exploratory practice and soft systems methodology. Language Teaching Research 9(4), 448–469. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http:// ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/448
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. Investigating Methodological Reality in Finnish Foreign
153
Language Classrooms: Revisiting the KIELO Project’s Rationale and Research, 135–154
Tella, S. 1993. Opettajien visioista ja koulun kehittämisestä. [On the teachers’ visions and the developing of the school]. In S. Tella (Ed.), Kielestä mieltä – mielekästä kieltä: Ainedidaktiikan symposiumi 5.2.1992 Helsingissä. Osa 2. [From Language to Sense – From Sense to Language. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium on Feb. 5th in Helsinki, 1992. Part 2; in Finnish]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 118, 179–197. The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries 2002. A European Project commissioned by The European network of policy makers for the evaluation of education systems. (Edited by Gérard Bonnet.) Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://cisad.adc.education.fr/reva/pdf/assessmentofenglish.pdf Thompson, G. 1996. Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50, 9–15.
154
Kantelinen, R. & Pollari, P. (Eds.) 2009. LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty
