Content uploaded by Seppo Tella
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seppo Tella on Sep 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Finni
Teaching and Study Reality in Their Classes: The
Pirjo Harjanne
Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland
Jyrki Reunamo
Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland
Seppo Tella
Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland
Abstract—The purpose of this research has been to survey the approaches to foreign language (FL) teaching
and studying in Finnish FL classrooms. The central idea was to try to identify the main types of teaching and
study activities according to the FL teachers. The survey was conducted as an online questionnaire with the
help of the Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland (SUKOL) in 2010. The FL teachers were
asked to describe their own teaching and their students’ studying in the classrooms. The questionnaire consist-
ed of 115 items with a Likert scale (1–4) and eight open questions. Altogether 147 FL teachers responded to
the survey. In this article we highlight the KIELO research project’s rationale, the research methodology and
the research findings concerning teaching and study activities the FL teachers see to be most/least common in
their classroom, and the differences between context-dependent and context-independent teachers. The impli-
cations of these two teaching approaches are discussed.
Index Terms—foreign language teaching, foreign language studying, foreign language classroom, context-
dependent teaching, context-independent teaching
I. INTRODUCTION
The KIELO project (2009, ongoing) is a research and develop-
mental project in foreign language (FL) teaching, studying and learning, with a view on foreign language classroom
reality. The starting point for the project was an interest in getting deeper understanding of the reality of FL teaching
and study practices in FL classrooms in Finland, to have more research-based knowledge to develop foreign language
teacher education and in-service teacher training. The research aim is to describe, analyze and interpret teaching and
study practices in foreign language classrooms: the ways in which foreign languages are taught and studied, how these
ways are justified by the teachers and perceived by the students.
The KIELO project is a national and international project. The Finnish research covers, so far, dozens of theses (ped-
agogical studies and master theses) and a national KIELO survey. The international research cooperation includes Japan,
Chile and tentatively South Korea, countries in which the KIELO survey has been conducted within their national
educational context.
In this article we first deal briefly with the societal, didactic and methodological premises of the KIELO project in
order to give some background information to the main body of this article, focusing on the Finnish survey and its
preliminary results.
II. THE RATIONALE OF THE KIELO PROJECT
We first discuss some societal, didactic and methodological premises behind the rationale of the KIELO research on
teaching, studying and learning in FL classrooms in Finland.
A. Societal Premises
The four societal premises include the Finnish national core curriculum, the national language education policy, for-
mal, informal and non-formal education, and the Finnish society.
The basic values for FL teaching, specified in the national core curricula (LOPS, 2003; POPS, 2004), focus, among
other things, on social interaction and study strategies. They also define the objectives, emphases and assessment of FL
teaching. It is important to notice, however, that the Finnish FL teachers have always been free to choose the teaching
methods and approaches they prefer and want to use.
ISSN 1798-4769
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 913-923, September 2015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0605.02
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
The Finnish language education policy and future guidelines are widely mapped in the KIEPO project (20052007).
One of the key observations in the closing report of the project (Luukka and Pöyhönen, 2007) is that research results are
not exploited systematically enough in the planning of FL education in Finland. However, only research-based
knowledge could help FL educators anticipate future challenges and cope with them in a meaningful way.
One of the recent megatrends in education is strengthening links and obscuring boundaries between formal, informal
and non-formal education (e.g. Conner, 19972007). It has been, and still is, a general belief that learning takes place
principally, or even exclusively, in formal education, that is, in the institutional school system. The good results since
2000 in the OECD-based PISA studies (PISA Key findings, e.g. 2006; 2009) have understandably encouraged many
Finns to see that the Finnish school system works well and that the objectives of the national core curriculum are sound.
There is, however, a risk in formal education to forget that people learn naturally in out-of-school, real-life contexts as
well. According to the sociocultural approach, learning is a typical way of being a human being. It is aptly claimed by
Säljö (2001: 112) that a human being cannot avoid learning. In this spirit, we argue that formal FL teaching should
-
formal learning should not be ignored either. Performances, movies, presentations at museums and science centers, for
instance, can be used for language-pedagogical purposes, too. The way to afford FL learning opportunities and to make
students use foreign languages is to open the doors and windows of FL classrooms and to let the Internet, social media,
and various digital and mobile technologies in.
The Finnish society is becoming increasingly multicultural. It is predicted that in Helsinki, the capital city of Finland,
the percentage of the students with an immigrant background is growing from the present 11% to about 23% by 2025 in
primary and secondary schools (Merimaa, 2008). Multiculturalism is equally connected with national and cultural
identity (e.g. Uljens, 2007) and therefore, to our way of thinking, a topical challenge to FL teaching. As language and
culture are indivisible, FL teaching and studying inevitably also mean teaching and studying culture and intercultural
communication. In addition, FL teaching is also education to respect diversity, to enhance awareness and understanding
of multiculturalism.
To sum up, the societal premises of FL teaching represent life-enhancing challenges to Finnish FL classrooms.
B. Didactic Premises
Our main didactic premise is based on the framework of the FL didactic teachingstudyinglearning (TSL) process
(Fig. 1). This framework provides an instrument to describe, analyze and reflect on the various dimensions of pedagogi-
cal reality in FL classrooms, which helps us to better understand teaching, study practices, and learning.
Figure 1. The Foreign Language Didactic TeachingStudyingLearning Process
(in the spirit of Uljens, 1997; in Finnish in Harjanne, 2006, p. 57).
In this framework, the three components (teaching, studying, learning) are equally taken into consideration to guaran-
tee deeper understanding of the pedagogical practices in FL classrooms. In the KIELO project, we argue that teaching
can promote learning, but we cannot expect that teaching a foreign language automatically leads to learning it. Instead
own learning through their studying. In addition, we have to bear in mind that foreign languages are also often learnt
without purposive teaching or studying in informal educational contexts, such as in leisure-time activities. Further, the
TSL process is recursive implying that impacts their study practices. In the same way, teaching is
affected by th
are clearly observable activities and can be controlled and developed.
To be able to analyze, reflect on and understand the complex reality of FL classrooms, we will use our model (Fig. 2)
914
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
Figure 2. The forms (I) and aspects (II) of pedagogical activity and the pedagogical meeting (III)
in the framework of the didactic teachingstudying
reflective model of school didactics [1997, p. 65]; in Finnish in Harjanne, 2006, p. 63;
modified and visualized by Harjanne).
The forms (I) and aspects (II) of pedagogical activity and the pedagogical meeting (III) explicate the relevant com-
ponents linked to FL teaching and are interconnected in a complex way. The forms of pedagogical activity are teaching
planning, the teachingstudyinglearning process, and evaluative reflection and evaluation of the TSL process. In line
with the activity theory (Leontjev, 1978), the TSL process can be seen from a dual perspective: as something planned or
intended, and as something already completed or experienced. This dual mode is in fact a central research perspective in
the KIELO project. The activity theory by Leontjev (1978), based on sociocultural theory, emphasizes the situational
nature of activities and actions (Lantolf, 2000a
sociocultural context, their sociocultural history and their orientation and objectives, which should be taken into account
in FL research (e.g. Säljö, 2000).
The aspects of pedagogical activity, that is, intentionality, context, interaction, content and method, are in close inter-
play and closely included in the three forms of pedagogical activity. We discuss the didactic framework of TSL process
more thoroughly elsewhere (e.g. Harjanne, 2006: 5864; Harjanne & Tella, 2007). Here, we highlight only one of the
pedagogical aspects: context. The sociocultural context of a FL classroom influences what is taught, studied, and learnt
and how. The theoretical basis of this view rests on socio-constructivistic theories (e.g. Fox, 2001) and sociocultural
theories (e.g. Lantolf, 2000a). The context connected to the TSL process is social, cultural, mental and pedagogical,
inter alia. The relevance of the cultural context in pedagogical process is emphasized by Uljens (1997), for instance.
Society, school, classroom and curriculum are examples of cultural contexts. Students are representatives of the local
cultural context and their home background, and they help these contexts become involved in classroom activities. The
values of teachers and students as well as their respective roles are considerably culture-related. (Uljens, 1997: 2526,
8387.) Consequently, FL teaching cannot be understood without taking into consideration its sociocultural, mental and
pedagogical context.
based on their prior experiences, and reflection
of them. These intentions become observable We see
that the teachers' values, conceptions, beliefs, experiences and expectations of FL teaching, studying and learning
channel their pedagogical action and practices. This view is supported for instance by Borg (2006), who discusses the
their
values, practical and theoretical knowledge and their beliefs of themselves, of their students, and of teaching, studying
and learning. Consequently, in the KIELO project we see in accordance with the sociocultural view (e.g. Lantolf, 2000b)
that st
orientation to pedagogical activity and studying are steered by their values, conceptions, beliefs, experiences and expec-
tations of FL teaching, studying and learning.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
915
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
wledge, practical knowledge and skills based on
experience and tacit knowledge, and the integration of theory and practice. In addition, we see in line with Borg (2006)
Borg (2006) claims that language teachers need to reflect on their own teaching in order to be aware of their own beliefs,
as unconscious thought patterns may limit the influence of practical and theoretical knowledge on cognition and thus on
teaching. One of the aims of this KIELO survey is precisely to activate the respondents to reflect their own teaching and
ying.
C. Methodological Premises
Communicative language teaching (CLT) has been the dominant methodological approach in Finland, and in many
countries all over the world, for many decades, at least in theory and in Finnish FL core curricula (LOPS, 1994, 2003;
POPS, 1994, 2004). Our research interest in the KIELO project is to investigate different teaching and study practices in
FL classrooms within the frame of CLT, how CLT is interpreted and implemented by FL teachers in classrooms, and in
what way the teachers justify their practices.
The theoretical background and the methodological features of communicative language teaching have been widely
discussed (e.g. Richards & Rodgers, 2001: 158173; Ellis 2003; see also Harjanne, 2006; Harjanne & Tella, 2009). We
refer here only very briefly to some key aspects. CLT is one potential methodological approach to meet the challenges
that the widened view of communicative language proficiency (CEFR, 2001) and the widened view of FL learning,
seen as a combination of different views or as socio-cultural view (e.g. Säljö, 2000), give. The main features of CLT
can be listed as follows: (i) student-centeredness referring to direct practice of the target language, meaningful tasks and
communication f int of view ipation in planning, and reflective evaluation of
2001) or intercultural communicative competence (e.g. Byram, 2010) as in real life; (iii) integration of listening, reading,
writing and speaking as in real life.
Our research interest in the KIELO project in the FL teaching and study practices within the frame of CLT rises from
the national, and also international, research findings that show that CLT is far from the reality in many FL classrooms,
although CLT has been promoted for quite a few decades. According to some studies, it is surprisingly common that in
English-language classrooms in Finland both teachers (e.g. Bonnet, 2002) and students (e.g. Nikula, 2007) use Finnish.
Teaching and studying appear to focus on linguistic structures in isolation from meaning and language functions (e.g.
Alanen, 2000). However, there are also studies (e.g. Harjanne, 2006) that show that CLT is used with good results.
Many international research findings (e.g. Li, 1998; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999) also point to CLT being quite a rarely-
used approach in many FL classrooms. It is, however, indicatory that in interviews and enquiries the teachers them-
selves claim they use CLT, but when observed they tend to prefer traditional grammar-based teaching. In certain cases
FL learning (e.g. Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005:
their beliefs are in parallel with traditional language teaching, they prefer it, as Borg (1999), for instance, argues. In
addition, some FL teachers may have misunderstood what CLT really is. Brown (2001: 4346) states that FL teachers
should make sure that they really understand the principles of CLT in order to be able to plan their teaching accordingly.
III. THE STUDY
A. Research Task
analyze and interpret what the language teaching reality is in FL classrooms, in what ways foreign languages are taught
and studied, and on what pedagogical grounds. The purpose of the KIELO research is to get a socially and contextually
constructed perspective on the teaching and study activities taking place in Finnish FL classrooms. In this article, we
focus on the f
approaches to FL teaching?
Vygotsky (1978) argues that FL teaching, studying and learning are mediated by social and cultural context. Accord-
ing to social-cultural ideas, the students in the classroom take part in constructing the studying and learning context and
content. Personal learning is mediated by communication and learning at the social level (e.g. Lantolf, 2000b; Säljö,
2000). The interaction does not just make the learning easier; rather, interaction is learning (van Lier, 2000). As an
indicator of personal learning, we can use the social participation and communication (e.g. Donato, 2000). As Vygotsky
(1978) explains, the students and the teacher create a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), in which the language is
situated in a cultural context. The students can learn a foreign language through the shared context and content pro-
duced together with the peers and the teacher. These views are related to CLT and we refer to this approach as a con-
text-dependent approach. The other approach is a context-independent approach, in which language learning is consid-
ered as (more) individually mediated. According to cognitive approaches a student is seen as an active information
processor of linguistic input and FL learning is seen as individual information construction, language acquisition, on the
basis of former language knowledge (Sfard, 1998; Skehan, 1998). The target of learning can be said to be primarily an
individual enrichment of language knowledge. These views are related to more traditional FL teaching.
916
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
B. Data Collection
The data were collected through a questionnaire addressed to the members of the Federation of Foreign Language
Teachers in Finland (SUKOL). It was conducted online in 2010 via the University of Helsinki E-form system. The
construction of the questionnaire items was based on earlier research and theory on communicative language teaching
(e.g. Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 2003). The respony-
ing according to their own views and experiences as FL teachers. The questionnaire includes two parts: 115 statements
and 8 open questions. The 115 statements cover 15 salient themes related to communicative language teaching: 1)
teacher/student roles in the FL classroom; 2) teacher-centeredness vs. student-centeredness including planning of teach-
ing, choice and performance of tasks and assessment; 3) native language vs. target language used by the teachers and
the students; 4) emphasis of reading, writing, speaking and listening; 5) task features (mechanical and context-isolated
exercises of words and structures vs. communicative tasks); 6) focus on meaning vs. form; 7) grammar exercises vs.
11) traditional teaching and studying in the classroom vs. studying on the Internet and informal learning outside the
classroom; 12) practicing of study skills; 13) scaffolding (teacherstudent, studentstudent); 14) differentiation, and
15) the factors
linked to good FL teaching and studying; (ii) their rationale behind these factors and (iii) which of these factors are very
seldom realized in their classroom, and (iv) the factors linked to communicative language teaching and a communica-
tive task.
The respondents consisted of 132 female and 15 male Finnish FL teachers. 40 teachers were 3040 years old, 50
were 4050 years old, and 57 teachers were over 50. Most of the teachers (n=81) taught only one language, 53 teachers
taught two languages and 13 taught three or more languages. The languages taught were English (102 teachers), Swe-
dish (64 teachers), German (32 teachers), French (11 teachers), Spanish (8 teachers), Russian (6 teachers), Italian (3
teachers) and Finnish as a second language (1 teacher). This distribution of the languages relates fairly well to the
situation at the Finnish school. Most of the teachers (n=62) taught at lower secondary school (grades 79), 47 teachers
taught at upper secondary school (grades 1012), and 40 teachers taught at primary school (grades 16). 25 teachers
taught in adult education. Many teachers thus taught not only at one school level.
C. Data Analysis
In this article, data analysis focuses on the quantitative data (responses to the 115 Likert-scale statements). The re-
spondents were asked to rate the 115 statements on a four-point rating scale (1 = not true [does not happen in my clas-
ses]; 2 = slightly true; 3 = considerably true; 4 = fully true). The 115 items describing the FL teaching and studying in
the classroom were analyzed with reliabilit
reliability analysis revealed that some of the original summary variables needed some adjustments. Five items were not
included in any of the subscales owing to decreasing impact o
of the questionnaire, 20 summary variables were extracted from the 115 items. In the end, the label of each summary
variable was decided by interpreting the content of the summary variable into a meaningful whole (see Table 1).
In the process of summary variable creation, cluster analysis was also used to reveal the major approaches to FL
teaching. Cluster analysis is an exploratory tool that can be used to reveal natural groupings within the respondents and
each cluster can be considered as a teacher group with similar preferences in FL teaching. In the end, the meaning and
content were decided by interpreting the content of the summary variables into a meaningful whole. Only the statistical-
ly-significant differences (p < .05) between the groups are reported with the exception of the summary variable of use
of textbook, which is interesting because the order of importance is quite large between the clusters. We tried several
cluster analyses with several different numbers of clusters ending to a two-cluster solution. The preferences and differ-
ences between the groups can be studied and compared by using the means and standard deviations of the summary
variables in each group (see Tables 26).
IV. RESULTS
A. Approaches to FL Teaching
The preliminary results are first discussed on the basis of the 20 summary variables. These 20 summary variables re-
ir own FL classrooms. The
descripti
means (M), standard deviations (SD), and minimum/maximum values per variable are presented in Table 1. Comparing
the means of the summary variables enables to see which activities the teachers see to be most/least common in their
classroom. Comparing the standard deviations in the summary variables enables to study where the teachers differ most
in their teaching.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
917
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
TABLE 1.
THE RELIABILITIES OF THE SUMMARY VARIABLES: THE NUMBER OF ITEMS, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
(CRONBACHS ALPHA), MEANS (M), STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) AND MINIMUM/MAXIMUM VALUES
PER VARIABLE (N=147).
Summary variable
n of items
Cronbach’s α
M
SD
Min./Max.
1 Teacher-centeredness
8
.69
2.82
0.39
1.5/3.8
2 Student-centeredness
12
.79
2.69
0.34
1.6/3.7
3 Student as a participant
12
.74
2.13
0.34
1.3/3.1
4 Teacher using target language
6
.81
2.53
0.50
1.5/4.0
5 Student using target language
7
.71
2.76
0.40
1.6/3.9
6 Encouragement in using target
language
3
.81
3.39
0.54
2.0/4.0
7 Communicative oral tasks
3
.74
2.96
0.53
2.0/4.0
8 Communicative written tasks
2
.58
2.56
0.52
1.5/4.0
9 Real-life tasks
3
.69
2.89
0.49
1.7/4.0
10 Communicative grammar tasks
3
.65
2.63
0.53
1.3/4.0
11 Non-communicative tasks
2
.69
2.26
0.55
1.0/4.0
12 Collective creation of discussion
4
.77
2.26
0.54
1.0/4.0
13 Peer scaffolding
4
.83
2.95
0.53
2.0/4.0
14 Use of textbook
4
.79
2.98
0.52
1.5/4.0
15 Use of own tasks
3
.74
2.51
0.67
1.0/4.0
16 Use of authentic materials
7
.76
2.05
0.47
1.1/3.7
17 Use of ICTs
5
.77
2.09
0.55
1.0/3.8
18 Integration of language and
culture
9
.90
2.66
0.57
1.3/4.0
19 Mentoring in study skills
6
.75
2.42
0.48
1.5/4.0
20 Differentiation
7
.73
2.47
0.44
1.3/3.7
Note: The descriptors for means (M) in the analysis are as follows:
1 = not true (does not happen in my classes); 2 = slightly true; 3 = considerably true; 4 = fully true.
The reliability of all the summary variables s
high. The internal consistency of the 20 summary variables is at least .69 with only two exceptions: communicative
grammar tasks (.65) and communicative written tasks (.58). Integration of language and culture has the highest reliabil-
ity (.90), followed by peer scaffolding (.83), teacher using target language (.81) and encouragement in using target
language (.81).
In general, the Finnish FL teachers claim that they encourage their students to use the target language considerably
(M = 3.39), and that they use considerably textbooks (M = 2.98), communicative oral tasks (M = 2.96) and real-life
tasks (M = 2.89). Further, a fair amount of peer scaffolding (M = 2.95) takes place in their classrooms according to the
teachers. Use of authentic material (M = 2.05) and use of ICT (M = 2.09) gain the lowest means in teaching practices as
evaluated by the teachers. The Finnish FL teachers in this study seem to follow the principles of communicative lan-
guage teaching (CLT) most in terms of use of communicative oral tasks (M = 2.96) and real-life tasks (M = 2.89).
Additionally, they encourage their students to use the target language (M = 3.39). Conflicting results concerning the
principles of CLT are instead the following: teacher-centeredness is quite considerable (M = 2.82); the
participants is slightly true (M = 2.13) and the teachers do not use the target language much (M = 2.53). It is also a
conflicting result that despite quite considerable use of real-life tasks (M = 2.89), using authentic material is very low
(M = 2.05). Furthermore, the considerable use of textbooks (M = 2.98) raises a question about the communicativeness
of the used textbooks. It is also to be noted that the FL teachers in this study differ the most in using their own tasks (SD
= 0.67) and integrating language and culture (SD = 0.55), which are encouraged activities in CLT. The teachers differ
the least in their teaching concerning student-centeredness (SD = 0.34) and students as participants (SD = 0.34), whose
summary variables have rather low means and thus point to a non-communicative approach to FL teaching.
It is obvious that not all Finnish FL teachers have the same preferences. After summary variable creation we used
cluster analysis to reveal the hidden teacher groups and to gain more perspective on different FL teaching approaches.
A K-means cluster analysis with a two-cluster solution was conducted. The final centers of the two clusters were named
as a context-dependent cluster and a context-independent cluster. In the following analysis the main summary variables
and their emphasis on either cluster are described (Table 2).
918
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
TABLE 2.
THE MEANS AND MEAN DIFFERENCES OF THE SUMMARY VARIABLES IN A TWO -CLUSTER SOLUTION.
Summary variable
Context-
dependent
teaching M
Context-
independent
teaching M
Mean
difference
Order
Difference
Use of own tasks
2.93
2.16
0.77
-9
Integration of language and culture
3.01
2.37
0.64
-6
Encouragement in using target language
3.69
3.13
0.56
0
Collective creation of discussion
2.56
2
0.56
-1
Use of ICT
2.4
1.85
0.55
-2
Mentoring in study skills
2.68
2.2
0.48
-1
Use of authentic materials
2.32
1.84
0.48
-2
Peer scaffolding
3.19
2.72
0.47
-3
Communicative oral tasks
3.19
2.75
0.44
-2
Real-life tasks
3.12
2.68
0.44
-2
Teacher using target language
2.74
2.32
0.42
-1
Communicative grammar tasks
2.83
2.43
0.4
1
Communicative written tasks
2.73
2.4
0.33
3
Differentiation
2.65
2.32
0.33
1
Student using target language
2.92
2.6
0.32
2
Student as a participant
2.28
1.98
0.3
1
Teacher-centeredness
3.07
2.83
0.24
2
Student-centeredness
2.81
2.6
0.21
3
Use of textbook
2.93
2.99
-0.06
6
Non-communicative tasks
2.12
2.39
-0.27
9
In the cluster classification (Table 2), 60 teachers were classified as context-dependent teachers and 71 as context-
independent teachers (16 teachers who did not evaluate all items were omitted from the analysis). The means of the two
clusters were statistically significant (p < .05) except for the use of textbooks (t = -.602, df = 129, p = .548). In general,
the context-dependent FL teachers had a higher mean in most summary variables. The only exceptions were the sum-
mary variables of non-communicative tasks and use of textbooks, in which the context-independent teachers had, un-
derstandably, a higher mean. However, we have to be careful when comparing means, because the two clusters of
teachers may have used different scales in their evaluations. Thus, in Table 2 also the order differences of the two
clusters of teachers are presented. Of the 20 summary variables, only 4 have radically different order differences. In the
following presentation, we look more closely into the 4 summary variables with the largest order differences to reveal
the practices and pedagogical choices of the context-dependent and context-independent teachers.
B. Context-dependent Approach to FL Teaching
-9)
was in use of own tasks for the two teacher clusters (Table 2). The context-dependent teachers design tasks themselves
more than the context-independent teachers, if the teaching material does not meet their requirements (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
THE MEAN VALUES OF THE VARIABLES IN THE SUMMARY VARIABLE USE OF OWN TASKS
OF THE TWO TEACHER CLUSTERS.
Teaching approach
Context-dependent
teaching M (SD)
Context-independent
teaching M (SD)
I plan communicative tasks myself, if there isn't
any in the textbook
3.13 (.81)
2.2 (.67)
I plan tasks myself to meet my requirements
3.00 (.84)
2.17 (.63)
I change textbook tasks to meet my requirements
2.67 (.75)
2.13 (.72)
As we can see in Table 3, the largest difference is in the variable
any in the textbook. Designing own tasks is clearly related to the communicative context and content of the tasks. This
result highlights the fact that the teachers see the importance of communication in FL classrooms. Communication
means sharing content. When people are communicating, they exchange information, ideas, emotions or motives.
Sharing means communality in the classroom. The context-dependent teachers specify that if there are no communica-
tive tasks in the textbook, they prepare them themselves. The more active the interaction and the communication in the
classroom are, the more opportunities there are also for an enhanced Zone of Proximal Development. When teachers
and students have a lot of shared context and content in the study and learning environment, teaching can have a deeper
impact on the students. The context-independent FL teachers do not consider communication so important in their
classrooms. If language is seen as a code and language proficiency as language knowledge and if language learning is
seen individually mediated, the shared study and learning environment may not be as important.
The statement I change textbook tasks to meet my requirement has the smallest mean difference between the teach-
er clusters. The context-independent teachers seem to design fewer tasks themselves in general. When FL learning is
seen as an individual skill, focusing on the textbook is understandable. A FL textbook may offer a complete learning
platform for individual learning. The context-dependent FL teachers may ignore the textbook tasks completely and
more easily, if they do not meet their requirements.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
919
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
Integration of language and -dependent FL teachers emphasized the cultural dimension
of language and communication more than the context-independent teachers. The mean difference between the two
teacher clusters was .64 and the order of the summary variable for the two teacher clusters was (-6). To be able to
evaluate the importance of this difference, we present the variables that are included in the summary variable and the
mean differences of the variables in Table 4.
TABLE 4.
THE MEAN VALUES OF THE VARIABLES IN THE SUMMARY VARIABLE INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
OF THE TWO TEACHER CLUSTERS.
Teaching approach
Context-dependent
teaching M(SD)
Context-independent
teaching M(SD)
I emphasize also the non-verbal communication
of the target language in my teaching
2.73 (.78)
1.97 (.63)
I emphasize the communication styles of the
target culture in my teaching
3.15 (.66)
2.45 (.65)
I help the students to interpret the target lan-
guage speaker and consider his/her cultural
background
2.62 (.83)
1.94 (.79)
I connect a lot of cultural exchange material in
my teaching
2.82 (.75)
2.14 (.68)
The cultural styles of the target language
communication are a part of my teaching
3.33 (.60)
2.72 (.78)
I think I have skills to teach communication
between cultures
2.92 (.65)
2.32 (.73)
Communication between cultures is a part of my
teaching
2.97 (.76)
2.38 (.72)
I help the students to see the cultural ties of the
native and target language
3.07 (.66)
2.48 (.58)
The culture of the target country is a part of my
teaching
3.47 (.68)
2.96 (.69)
The largest difference between context dependent and context-independent teaching (.76) was in the variable I em-
phasize also the non-verbal communication of the target language in my teaching. The context-dependent FL teachers
emphasized non-verbal communication more. Communication, producing shared content, is again central. Non-verbal
communication is highly culture-related and an integral part of face-to-face communication. Therefore in order to be
able to participate in this kind of communication and to interpret other interlocutors, that is, to be an intercultural speak-
er, the students also need to be aware of and practice non-verbal communication in the target language.
The context-dependent FL teachers emphasized the communication styles of the target culture more (difference .70)
than the context-independent teachers. The same language and words are likely to mean different things in different
communication cultures. Expressions used and interpretations made always depend on the communication context and
the communication culture of the speaker and the interpreter. The context-independent teachers may concentrate more
on the linguistic competences, like grammar and vocabulary. Perhaps they do not even consider tha
language carries a different message in different contexts.
Helping the students to interpret the target language speakers and consider their background was more important for
the context-dependent teachers than for the context-independent teachers (difference .68). This tendency related to a lot
of cultural exchange material in teaching (difference .68). In context-dependent teaching, the study and learning envi-
ronment is richer with cultural styles of the target language communication (difference .61). The context-dependent
teachers think that they have the skills to teach communication between cultures (difference .60) and, consequently,
communication between cultures is a part of their teaching (difference .59)
The context-independent teachers had a lower mean on all the variables of integration of language and culture. Cul-
tural and contextual aspects of the target language and communication are clearly less important to them. Considering
language as culture-independent means to discard the communication culture of the target language and the communi-
cation context. For these teachers, there seems to be only one correct and right way to use the target language. Interest-
ingly, language tests are often prepared for measuring independent and correct linguistic competences, although the
cultural aspects may blur the correctness. Next we will take a closer look at context-independent teaching.
C. Context-independent Approach to FL Teaching
Non-of non-communicative tasks
was low (M = 2.26). Usually the teachers do not seem to value these tasks highly. However, it may be no surprise that
the context-independent teachers preferred non-communicative tasks more than context-dependent teachers (differ-
ence .27). A more detailed description of the summary variable can be seen in Table 5.
920
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
TABLE 5.
THE MEAN VALUES OF THE VARIABLES IN THE SUMMARY VARIABLE NON-COMMUNICATIVE TASKS
OF THE TWO TEACHER CLUSTERS.
Teaching approach
Context-dependent
teaching M (SD)
Context-independent
teaching M (SD)
The students do vocabulary tasks, in which they
practice words without communication context
2.1 (.66)
2.3 (.60)
The students do grammar tasks, in which they
practice grammatical structures without com-
munication context
2.13 (.60)
2.49 (.61)
In context-independent FL teaching the students did more vocabulary tasks, in which they practice words without
communication context, than in context-dependent teaching (difference .20). This makes sense. The context-
independent teachers may consider that general context-free vocabulary helps the students to communicate and become
understood in all kinds of contexts. The defined and
progress is easier to test.
The context-independent teachers tended to give more grammar tasks, in which the students practice grammatical
structures without communication context, than the context-dependent teachers (difference .36). This was hardly sur-
prising either. The context-independent teachers may perceive grammar structures as the correct ones in any communi-
cation context. Then it is a sensible pedagogical procedure to isolate the grammatical structures into general rules that
should be applied to the whole specter of language use. The context-independent teacher may perceive teaching accord-
ing to a traditional FL teaching method in the same way as some of the classical piano teachers: You need to know the
theory and practice scales; only after the basic toolbox is adopted can the rules be effectively broken.
-dependent and context-independent FL teach-
ers in the summary variable of use of textbooks is very small and not statistically significant. However, the context-
independent teachers ranked this summary variable 4 places higher in order than the context-dependent teachers. The
reason for this difference in ranking but not in mean is worth considering. We could argue that both teacher types used
textbook as much, but there may still be important aspects of their teaching styles uncovered. To evaluate the summary
variable more closely, we present the items in Table 6.
TABLE 6.
THE MEAN VALUES OF THE VARIABLES IN THE SUMMARY VARIABLE USE OF TEXTBOOKS
OF THE TWO TEACHER CLUSTERS.
Teaching approach
Context-dependent
teaching M (SD)
Context-independent
teaching M (SD)
I use a textbook
3.60 (.59)
3.62 (.54)
There are communicative tasks in the textbooks I use
3.03 (.78)
2.97 (.65)
The textbooks meet my requirements for communication
2.57 (.70)
2.69 (.73)
Textbook tasks meet my requirements
2.53 (.75)
2.68 (.67)
The differences between the two teacher clusters concerning the summary variable of use of textbooks are almost
non-existent and none of them is statistically significant. Either the teachers used the same textbooks and evaluated
them in the same way or both teacher groups had found textbooks to suit their needs. Our conclusion is that both teacher
clusters use textbooks a lot. The teachers seemed fairly satisfied with the textbooks they used and reported to have
found a good number of communicative tasks in them. This raises, however, some doubt, as several studies (e.g.
Kaukonen, 2010) indicate that communicative tasks are not very common in Finnish FL textbooks. Why was the rank-
ing different but not the mean? Did the teacher groups have different evaluation criteria? This remains to be answered
in a follow-up study.
V. CONCLUSION
In general, this study indicates that the Finnish FL teachers use textbooks extensively. The teachers claimed that they
firmly encourage their students to use the target language in the classroom and that they use communicative oral tasks.
On the other hand, it was found out that the students did not use the target language as much as they were encouraged to
do and that their role as participants was low. Further, the teachers claimed that they use real-life tasks quite considera-
bly. Nevertheless, it turned out that using authentic materials and ICT was limited. These contradictory research find-
ings call for further research.
Two different kinds of approaches to FL teaching were identified in the cluster analysis: a context-dependent ap-
proach and a context-independent approach. The teachers following the context-dependent approach tended to favor
communicative and real-life tasks and they claimed that they design their own tasks if the textbook should not meet
their requirements. The teachers favoring a context-independent approach prioritized more non-communicative vocabu-
lary and grammar tasks. According to the order differences, the context-independent teachers preferred using textbooks
more than the context-dependent teachers, but the mean difference did not quite support this result.
The survey does not necessary describe what really happens in the FL classroom, even though the teachers were
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
921
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
not be fully aware of what is going on in their classrooms, which would mean that t
more than reality. The results may thus describe the beliefs or hopes of the FL teachers. Whatever the situation, the
results are in line with the ways the respondents wanted to describe their teaching. It can be concluded that teaching and
studying in the context- -
-
le
In the final analysis, one could ask whether the FL teachers should be more context-dependent or more context-
independent. One way to find answers to this question could be oreign language skills in commu-
nication, which is the primary target of FL teaching today. Which of these two approaches might contribute to leading
to more beneficial and productive results? Perhaps the question could be posed like this: Are language teachers ex-
or, on the other hand, would it be educationally more appropriate to engage language students in more socially-oriented
interactional activities, so as to reveal their real potential for participating in and coping with future real-life communi-
cative challenges in multicultural environments?
REFERENCES
[1] Alanen, R. (2000). Kolmannen muodon tapaus: miten kieliopista puhutaan englannin kielen luokassa [The case of the third
form: How to speak of grammar in an English class]. In P. Kalaja & L. Nieminen (eds.) Kielikoulussa – kieli koulussa [In a
language school—language in school]. Afinlan vuosikirja, 58. Jyväskylä: Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistys Afinla, 139
163.
[2] Bonnet, G. (ed.) (2002). A European Project commissioned by The European network of policy makers for the evaluation of
education systems. The assessment of pupils' skills in English in eight European countries.
http://www.eva.dk/projekter/2002/evaluering-af-faget-engelsk-i-grundskolen/projektprodukter/assessmentofenglish.pdf (ac-
cessed 10/3/2015).
[3]
and cognition. Applied Linguistics 20, 95126.
[4] Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
[5] Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA:
State University.
[6] Byram, M. (2010). Intercultural competence in foreign languages. The intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign
language education. In D.K. Deardorff (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (Chapter 18). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
[7] CEFR (2001). 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: Cam-
bridge University Press.
[8] Conner, M.L. (19972007). Informal learning. Ageless learner, 19972007. http://marciaconner.com/resources/informal-
learning/ (accessed 10/3/2015).
[9] Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (ed.)
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2750.
[10] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[11] Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review Of Education 27 (1), 2335.
[12] Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 61(3), 325353.
[13] Harjanne, P. (2006). ruotsin kielen viestinnällinen suullinen harjoittelu
yhteistoiminnallisten skeema- ja elaborointitehtävien avulla [ Communicative oral practice
in Swedish through collaborative schema-based and elaboration tasks]. (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Applied Scienc-
es of Education, University of Helsinki: Research report 273.
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/harjanne/muteitaa.pdf (accessed 10/3/2015).
[14] Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. (2007). Foreign language didactics, foreign language teaching and transdisciplinary affordances. In A.
Koskensalo, J. Smeds, P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.), Foreign languages and multicultural perspectives in the European
context; Fremdsprachen und multikulturelle Perspektiven im europäischen Kontext. Dichtung Wahrheit Sprache. Berlin:
Lit-Verlag, 197225.
[15] Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. (2009). Investigating methodological reality in Finnish foreign language classrooms: Revisiting the
In R. Kantelinen & P. Pollari (eds.), Language education and lifelong learning.
Joensuu: University Press of Joensuu, 135154.
[16] Kaukonen, H. (2010). 'anglais : un point de vue
communicationnel. Mémoire de master. Institut des langues moderns et classiques, Université de Jyväskylä.
http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201011093076 (accessed 10/3/2015).
[17] Pöyhönen, S. & Luukka, M.-R. (eds.) (2007). Kohti tulevaisuuden kielikoulutusta: Kielikoulutuspoliittisen projektin
loppuraportti [Towards future language education: The final report of the Finnish language education policies project (KIEPO)].
University of Jyväskylä: Center for Applied Language Studies.
[18] Lantolf, J. (2000a). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 126.
[19] Lantolf, J. (2000b). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 7996.
[20] Leontjev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. London: Prentice-Hall.
922
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
[21] Li, D. (1998 ifficulties in introducing the commu-
nicative approach in South Korea. Tesol Quarterly 32, 677703.
[22] LOPS (1994). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 1994 [Foundations of upper secondary school curriculum 1994]. Helsinki:
National Board of Education.
[23] LOPS (2003). Nuorille tarkoitetun lukiokoulutuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003 [National core curriculum for general
upper secondary education intended for young people 2003]. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
[24] Merimaa, J. (2008, 9.5.). Jo joka kymmenes oppilas on maahanmuuttaja [Even every 10th student is an immigrant]. HS.fi.
http://murobbs.muropaketti.com/threads/kulttuurin-rikastuminen.492893/page-250 (accessed 10/3/2015).
[25] 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, 179204.
[26] PISA Key findings (2000; 2003; 2006; 2009; 2012). Programme for international student assessment (PISA). OECD.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/ (accessed 19/4/2015).
[27] POPS (1994). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet 1994 [National core curriculum for basic education 1994]. Helsinki:
National Board of Education.
[28] POPS (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004 [National core curriculum for basic education 2004]. Helsin-
ki: National Board of Education.
[29] Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
[30] Sato, K. & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Modern Language
Journal 83, 494517.
[31] Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27, 413.
[32] Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33] Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 114.
[34] Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. [Learning in practice: A socio-cultural perspective.]
Stockholm: Prisma.
[35] Säljö, R. (2001). The individual in social practices Comments to Ference Marton´s "The practice of learning". Nordisk
Pedagogik, 21, 108116.
[36] Uljens, M. (1997). School didactics and learning: A school didactic model framing an analysis of pedagogical implications of
learning theory. Hove: Psychology Press.
[37] Uljens, M. (2007). Education and societal change in the global age. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (eds.), Education as a
societal contributor. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2349.
[38] van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf, (ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245259.
[39] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Pirjo Harjanne, Ph.D., MA, is Associate Professor of and University Lecturer in Foreign Language Education, and Principal In-
vestigator at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland. She is a Member of the University of Helsinki
Teachers' Academy. Her research interests include foreign language education, communicative language teaching and practice, oral
proficiency and intercultural communicative competence. She is currently Director of the national and international KIELO Project,
focusing on teaching, studying and learning in FL classrooms. Her research activities and publications are at
http://tinyurl.com/harjanne1000.
Jyrki Reunamo, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and University Lecturer at the Department of Teacher Education, University of
Helsinki, Finland. His research interests include early childhood, research methods, ICTs, sustainable education, physical education
and language. He is Director of the Orientation Project (http://blogs.helsinki.fi/orientate/), an early childhood research and develop-
ment project. His publications are at http://www.helsinki.fi/~reunamo/article/ltoart.htm.
Seppo Tella, Ph.D., Phil.Lic, is Professor Emeritus of Foreign Language Education at the Department of Teacher Education, Uni-
versity of Helsinki, Finland. He was Vice Dean of the Faculty of Behavioral Sciences and Director of the Research Center for For-
eign Language Education and Director of the Media Education Centre, University of Helsinki. His major fields of study include
language education, foreign language methodology, teacher education systems, intercultural communication, and educational uses of
information and communication technologies. His CV is at http://tellacv.wordpress.com/tella-seppo-cv/, and his publications at
http://tellacv.wordpress.com/list-of-publications/.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
923
© 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
