Content uploaded by Pirjo Harjanne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pirjo Harjanne on Nov 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Finnish Students’ Dedication to and Interaction in
Communicative Oral Practice in Foreign
Language Classroom
Pirjo Harjanne
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
Abstract—The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of how Finnish-speaking students’
communicative oral practice in a foreign language, Swedish1, is carried out through cooperative scheme-based
and elaboration tasks in the language classroom. The specific focus is on the students’ dedication and
participatory interaction. The study is carried out as a didactically oriented micro-ethnographic case study, in
which the teacher acts as a researcher of her own teaching. The data, gathered through tape recordings of the
students’ oral practice, are analysed through qualitative content analysis methods supplemented with some
quantifications. The main research findings are that a good deal of dedication to the oral practice, as well as
cooperation, and interactive and self-generated communication in Swedish are realised. Many students’ use of
L1, Finnish, especially when creating intersubjectivity and in scaffolding, is also evident.
Index Terms—foreign language teaching, oral practice, communicative practice, cooperative task, schema-
based task, elaboration task
I. INTRODUCTION
The motivation of this study lies in two aspects. First, communicative language teaching (CLT) has been the official
target of foreign language (FL) teaching in Finland since the nationwide core curriculum in 1994, but the
implementation of the communicative target in Finnish FL classrooms has been neither widely discussed nor researched.
There are, however, some findings (e.g., Alanen, 2000; Harjanne & Tella, 2009; Harjanne, Reunamo & Tella, 2015)
that show a call for a change of FL pedagogies from more traditional form-based type of teaching to communicatively
oriented ones. Second, teaching of Swedish language as a mandatory school subject in Finnish schools has been a very
much discussed language policy issue. It has been claimed that Finnish-speaking students lack motivation to study
Swedish and that they learn only little Swedish at school (e.g., Tuokko, 2009). The need for new types of didactical
methods seems to be obvious.
The aim of the present study, where the teacher acts as a researcher of her own teaching, is connected to CLT while
communicative language proficiency was the goal in teaching and studying the target language. This study focuses on
one method of practising a foreign language orally in the classroom: cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks
designed according to the principles of CLT. Communicative oral practice in this study means instructed textbook-
based or applied practice, where the students use Swedish in context-related communication while generating their own
language. The specific focus of this study is on participation interaction in communicative oral practice in Swedish in
the language classroom.
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the theoretical framework of this study (Figure 1) communicative oral practice is seen as part of FL didactics, a
science of the teaching–studying–learning (TSL) process (e.g., Kansanen, 1990; Uljens, 1997). FL didactics comprises
the complex FL teaching reality, including not only teaching and learning but also studying as an equal concept (e.g.,
Harjanne & Tella, 2007). Within this didactic framework, oral practice is linked to students’ active and purposeful
studying.
1 Swedish is the second national language in Finland. In this study, it is considered a foreign language from the students’ point of view whose mother
tongue is Finnish.
ISSN 1798-4769
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 1057-1068, November 2016
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0706.01
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
Figure 1. Communicative oral practice through cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks
within the didactic teaching–studying–learning process (Figure in Finnish, Harjanne, 2006, p. 8).
In this study communicative oral practice is linked to CLT methodology (e.g., Brown, 2001; Ellis, 2003), which
represents a student-centred approach to FL teaching in which the student is seen as an interactive participator in
communication, the language as context-related communication and FL learning as a social, affective and cognitive
process. Communicative oral practice, as CLT, aims at communicative language proficiency, i.e. communicative
competence (Common European Framework, CEFR, 2001) or, rather, intercultural communicative competence (e.g.,
Byram, 2010). The key component of this study is the communicative task, the various definitions of which mostly
emphasise pragmatic language use, focus on meaning, communication related to real life communication and a
communicative goal (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 2003). Both authentic and pedagogical tasks are defined in the CEFR
(2001, p. 158) as communicative when “they require learners to comprehend, negotiate and express meaning in order to
achieve a communicative goal”.
Communicative oral practice in the present study is implemented through tasks conceptualized within a CLT
framework, being cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks. Scheme-based tasks (e.g., Bartlett, 1932/1995;
Kristiansen, 1992) and elaboration tasks (e.g., Anderson, 1995; Craik & Tulving, 1975) are based on the cognitive-
constructivist conception of learning in which FL learning is considered an individual construction of knowledge and
skills, requiring thinking, comprehension and much practice. As for oral practice through cooperative tasks (e.g.,
Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Nunan, 1992), it is based on the humanistic-experiential conception of learning (e.g.,
Kohonen, 1992; Kolb, 1984) and shares common principles with the socio-constructivist conception of learning (e.g.,
von Wright, 1992) and the socio-cultural approach to learning (e.g., Lantolf, 2000) as well. In oral practice through
cooperative tasks, students have individual and shared responsibility for interactive communication. Hence, in
communicative oral practice through cooperative and scheme-based elaboration tasks, FL learning is seen holistically.
The socio-cultural view on learning as participation (e.g., Sfard 1998, p. 7) informs the communicative oral practice in
this study. Consequently, it is seen that communication in social interaction promotes FL learning and, crucially, it is
seen as learning in a fundamental way, as van Lier (2000, p. 246) puts it. Additionally, communication in social
interaction is thus seen as an evidence of communicative competence (see Säljö, 2001, p. 114).
III. THE STUDY
A. Research Task
The aim of the present study is to describe, analyse and interpret how Finnish-speaking lower and upper secondary
students carry out communicative oral practice in a foreign language, Swedish, in the language classroom. The research
task is specified in the following research questions:
1. In what ways do Finnish-speaking students dedicate themselves to communicative oral practice through
cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks in a foreign language, Swedish?
1058
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
2. Which interaction strategies do Finnish-speaking students use in communicative oral practice through cooperative
scheme-based and elaboration tasks in in a foreign language, Swedish?
The answers to research questions were gathered through tape recordings of the students’ communicative oral
practice in the classroom.
B. Research Design
This study represents a qualitative, didactically oriented, micro-ethnographic case study, including features of
explorative practice where the teacher acts as a researcher of her own teaching. The study, conducted in a natural
classroom environment, aims to understand and interpret communicative oral practice in line with qualitative research
strategy (Bryman, 2001, pp. 278–280; Creswell, 2003, pp. 181–182). The focus is a topical and complex social
phenomenon in a natural context, that is, the students’ communicative oral practice in Swedish in the language
classroom, and on communicative features and patterns of social face-to-face interaction (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993,
pp. 8–9; Yin, 2003, pp. 1–19). In line with the nature of a case study, the students’ oral practice was observed from
different perspectives and described and interpreted systematically and in detail, including direct quotations, which help
to form a comprehensive understanding of the practice as a whole (see Syrjälä, 1994, p. 13). Further, in the spirit of
exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003), the teacher as a researcher in the present study hoped to gain an in-depth
understanding of her students’ practice trying to analyse and understand what is occupying her mind in the classroom,
that is, communicative oral practice in Swedish, thereby promoting professional development as a teacher.
C. Data Collection
The data were collected from two groups of Finnish-speaking students from a Helsinki-area school: a group of lower
secondary students (N=13) and a group of upper secondary students (N=9). The lower secondary students had
completed only about 40 lessons of 45 minutes in Swedish. The upper secondary students had studied Swedish for 6
years (primary school and lower secondary school) and for less than one school year (40–50 lessons of 45 minutes) in
upper secondary school. The difference in language proficiency between these two students groups is, however, out of
the scope of this study.
The students’ instructed oral practice in this study was tape-recorded. The tape recordings cover five cooperative
scheme-based and elaboration oral tasks on different topics (Table 1). The cooperative tasks were designed following
the principles of ‘learning together’ approach (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 2002) or jigsaw learning technique (e.g.,
Aronson et al., 1978) highlighting reciprocal responsibility for participation in communicative oral practice and
scaffolding. In the scheme-based tasks the textbook passage was practised as hierarchical communicative wholes and as
for the elaboration tasks, they required self-generated elaboration of the language (see Kristiansen, 1998). The text-
based practice refers to tasks where the textbook passage was practised as such, while in the applied practice the
textbook passage was applied and linked to new communication contexts. The students were made aware of the
meaning and the goal of communicative oral practice in a foreign language and they were supervised systematically in
study strategies.
TABLE 1.
TASKS USED IN THE STUDY.
School level
Text to be elaborated
Task description
Cooperative
technique
Lower
secondary
På varuhuset [At the department store]
Text-based scheme-based elaboration of a textbook passage
using a role-play task (a shop assistant and a consumer)
‘Learning
together’ approach
På varuhuset [At the department store]
Applied scheme-based elaboration of a textbook passage
using a role-play task (a shop assistant and a consumer)
‘Learning
together’ approach
Upper
secondary
De unga i de vuxnas värld [Yout h in adults’
world]
Applied elaboration of a textbook passage by adding own
views and experiences connected to the topic
Jigsaw learning
technique
Hösten [Autumn]
Text-based elaboration of a textbook passage by retelling a
story about a young boy’s life
Jigsaw learning
technique
Finnarnas och finlandssvenskarnas
Fester och traditioner [The Finns’ and
Finland-Swedes’ celebrations and traditions]
Applied elaboration of textbook passages using a role-play
task (a Finnish exchange student and a Finland-Swedish
exchange student)
‘Learning
together’ approach
The tape-recorded data were transcribed and the most noticeable mispronunciations were marked. The students were
coded to allow anonymity. The extra data include study course plans, lesson plans, study instructions and video
recordings of the lessons.
D. Data Analysis
The data were systematically observed and analysed in the spirit of empirical induction (see Grönfors, 1982, p. 31)
and linking the analysis to the theoretical framework of the study (see Eskola & Suoranta, 2000, p. 186). The
transcribed tape recordings were primarily analysed through qualitative content analysis methods and supplemented
with some quantifications (e.g., Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2002). The focus of the analysis was on the content and typical
participatory features of the students’ communication (see Tesch, 1990, pp. 60–61). The students’ communicative oral
practice was not categorised beforehand, but was considered context-related including the complex interaction in the
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
1059
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
classroom (e.g., van Lier 1988, pp. 13–14, p. 24). The analysis was thus open to unexpected findings as well. Categories
linked to each research question were created from the data, and they were connected to the communication context and
supported with direct quotations from the students’ speech. The long-term analysis process covering a span of a couple
of years went on as a recursive and evolving cycle between data collection, modification of the research questions, data
categorisation and interpretation. (See Bryman, 2001, p. 180, pp. 264–291, p. 381; Creswell, 2003, p. 14, pp. 181–182.)
The data analysis was implemented in three stages, from reduction through clustering to abstraction, as described by
Miles and Huberman (1994). At the third stage of abstraction, the interpretation included the idea of ‘what were the
lessons learned’, as presented by Lincoln and Guba (1985).
IV. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
The research findings and their interpretations are discussed below according to the corresponding research question.
In the oral practice the students used the target language Swedish [Swe] and also their mother tongue Finnish [Fi], both
translated into English in the student quotations below.
A. Dedication to Communicative Oral Practice in Swedish
The Finnish-speaking students’ dedication to communicative oral practice in Swedish through cooperative scheme-
based and elaboration tasks manifested itself strongly in three main categories: (i) negotiation of task performance, (ii)
negotiation of task topic, and (iii) fun. Here, negotiation of task performance is seen as linked to the students’
dedication to communicative oral practice, although because of its role in steering the interaction process, it could also
be seen to represent interaction strategies (see CEFR, 2001, p. 84). As for fun, it is interpreted as the students’
dedication to practice, when the task contents or an episode in the practice they generate provides them genuine
amusement and they have a good time as in real-life communication.
Negotiation of task performance. Negotiation of task performance was found in all five tasks, in a total of 110 lines
(us2 72, ls3 38), and in almost every cooperative pair’s practice (27/31). The frequency varied, however, between the
different pairs. Negotiation of task performance focused on five dimensions: the task itself (46/110), how to start the
task (12/110), how to continue the task (25/110), how to steer back the communication to the task (10/110) and how to
finish the task (17/110). Negotiation of task performance focused, thus, mainly on the task itself. The students checked
that they had understood how the task should be performed and cleared up any confusion. They confirmed what they
were expected to say and clarified whether performance of the task was sufficient.
(us 14 I B1+2 FF)
TEACHER (in the background): en minut kvar [Swe] / [one minute left]
L-- vi måste också lite mera smalltalk [Swe] / [we must also little more small talk]
J ja [Swe] / [yes]
L det finns - det blåser idag [Swe] / [there is - it is blowing today]
J ja det är ganska kallt också [Swe] / [yes, it is rather cold too]
(ls 27 Ib Vs)
TEACHER (in the background): en minut--- sen slutar vi [Swe] / [one minute--- then we’ll finish]
E (laughing) ---- otetaan tää vielä kerran --- [Fi] / [let’s practise this once again]
M otetaan toistepäin [Fi] / [let’s change the roles]
E ei - här i mitten se on hyvä … [Fi–Swe–FI] / [no - here in the middle it is good…]
joo tää on ihan hyvä okej hyvä alotetaan [Fi] / [yeah this is quite good OK good let’s start]
M mää haluan olla tuo (unclear) [Fi] / [I want to be that one (unclear)]
E ei [Fi] / [no]
M miksei [Fi] / [why not]
E no okej [Fi] / [well OK]
Negotiation focusing on starting the task was often linked to the students’ roles in the task or to simulating
communication outside the classroom. Negotiation of task performance also focused on how to carry on the task, which
happened more often in the lower secondary students’ practice than among the upper secondary students. It is
interesting that negotiation of the task performance focused least on steering back the communication to the task. The
students’ negotiations focused on finishing the task too, which, interestingly enough, happened more often in the upper
secondary students’ practice than among lower secondary students. The analysis showed surprisingly that first,
communication not relating to the task was minimal and, second, that the students used the whole practice time, without
exception. The students did not stop practising until the teacher said it was time to stop, and they often continued
practising even after that. The students seemed, thus, to get involved in the communicative oral practice in earnest and
feel responsible for its success in the spirit of cooperative learning principles.
The students’ broad and diverse negotiations of task performance in this study are in line with the research findings
of Platt and Brooks (1994), for instance. The students’ negotiations included two crucial features highlighted in the
2 us stands for upper secondary education (grades 10–12)
3 ls stands for lower secondary education (grades 7–9)
1060
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
sociocultural approach: intersubjectivity and scaffolding (e.g., Roebuck, 2000; Wells, 1999). Intersubjectivity
manifested itself in a variety of ways. The students tried to achieve a mutual orientation of the task and a joint
understanding of its objectives and desired performance, and they steered joint participation to meet the objectives of
the task. According to Antón and DiCamilla (1999), this kind of intersubjectivity in communication makes scaffolding
possible, a finding in this study too. While communicating, the students gave help and feedback to their interlocutors at
appropriate times, and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) came thus true. Negotiation of task performance can
be seen to reflect the students’ interest in performing the task and consequently is interpreted in this study as dedication
to oral practice. When negotiating, the students encouraged their interlocutors to perform the task and controlled their
performance – hence, they took on the role that traditionally has belonged to the teacher.
Negotiation of task topic. Negotiation of task topic was not at all as common and diverse as negotiation of task
performance. The data included a total of 60 lines in which the students negotiated task topic, all of which occurred in
the upper secondary students’ practice. The students posed amplifying questions about the topic several times (12/60),
reflected on the task topic only a few times (5/60), and only once (1/60) asked their interlocutor’s personal opinion
about the topic. The upper secondary students mostly linked the topic to their own milieu (22/60) and added their own
opinions to the topic (20/60).
(us 6 IIABC R)
H jag tror att öh – ungdomar vill få mera [Swe] / [I think that h’m – young people want to have more]
A+M ja [Swe] / [yes]
H ansvar [Swe] / [responsibility]
A ja de vill bli mera självständiga och fri/a(?) [Swe] / [yes they want to become more independent]
M ja – – [Swe] / [yes]
H jag tror att det är ganska bra [Swe] / [I think that it’s quite good]
A det är mycket bra tycker jag [Swe] / [it’s very good I think]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
Naturally, negotiation of task topic was closely connected to the task type. A communicative task should be related to
real life and be meaningful for the students. The upper secondary students’ tasks that inspired the most negotiation of
the topic were a discussion about the relationships between youth and adults (De unga i de vuxnas värld) and a role-
play about Finns’ and Finland-Swedes’ celebrations and traditions (Finnarnas och finlandssvenskarnas fester och
traditioner). The task Hösten [Autumn], in which students elaborated on a story by retelling it, did not motivate them to
negotiate the topic.
Negotiation of task topic is an example of interactive communication and can be interpreted as an evidence of
interest in the topic. Discussion unrelated to the task can instead be interpreted as lack of interest in the task, but such
conversation was very uncommon in the data. It should be noted that it was difficult to interpret unambiguously which
speech was unrelated to the task, because it was seen in this study, in line with the objectives and principles of
communicative oral practice, that discussion in a FL classroom includes deviations from the topic just as discussion
outside the classroom.
The lower secondary students did not negotiate the task topic at all in the way the upper secondary students did.
Their scheme-based role-play tasks guided strictly their dialogue and did not seem to motivate them to negotiate the
topic. It is also important to note that they were very beginners in studying Swedish and their command of Swedish was
thus very low. Instead of negotiating the topic, they expressed their interest in it, for instance, with an excited tone of
voice and by actively elaborating on the topic with their own stories.
Fun. The third very evident manifestation of the students’ dedication to communicative oral practice was fun that is,
playing with words, enjoying themselves or having a good time with the task, verbally or otherwise. Fun was identified
in 108 lines (us 85, ls 23). Verbally expressed fun was more evident in the upper secondary students’ oral practice. The
lower secondary students’ fun did not explicitly manifest itself as words, presumably due to their lower proficiency in
Swedish, but rather in the way they fully engaged with their roles and expressed their lines. The students’ fun was
focused on the task topic (61/108) or the communication context of the tasks (24/108) generated by themselves and the
Swedish language (23/108). Fun focusing on the task topic was thus most common. In the role-play on the Finns’ and
Finland-Swedes’ celebrations and traditions, the upper secondary students enjoyed themselves, for instance, by
overplaying the Finns’ and Finland-Swedes’ stereotypical characteristics and habits.
(us 15 II B2+4 FF)
L hej -- spelar du handboll [Swe] / [hey -- do you play handball]
A ja - det är en mycket fin sport [Swe] / [yeah - it’s a very fine sport]
L ja - jag spelar handboll i en segelbåt [Swe] / [yeah - I play handball in a sailing boat]
A (laughing) ja – [Swe] / (laughing) [yes]
L+A ja -- jag seglar också… [Swe] / [yes -- I sail as well…]
A jag seglar världen runt… [Swe] / [I sail round the world…]
L just som Hjallis Harkimo… [Swe] / [just as Hjallis Harkimo…]
A och alltid havsintressekläder [Swe] / [and always sea hobby clothes]
…seglingjacka och seglingbyxor och [Swe] / […sailing coat and sailing trousers and]
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
1061
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
L ja, och seglinghatt och ja … [Swe] / [yes, and sailing hat and yeah…]
A … och min väska är som segelbåt [Swe] / […and my bag is like a sailing boat]
…och vi har ankora i öronen… [Swe] / […and we have anchors in the ears…]
L ja, och jag har en fisk i fickan... (laughing together) [Swe] / [yes, and I have a fish in the pocket…] (laughing
together)
As for the lower secondary students, they had a good time when shopping for clothes, for instance, making fun of the
size, model, colour and price of the clothes, and when trying on the clothes.
(ls 32 IVb Vs)
S det är snygg kan jag prova dem [Swe] / [it is cool may I try them on]
B ja provrummet är därborta i fönstret [Swe] / [yes the fitting-room is there in the window]
The students also enjoyed the communication context of the tasks, for instance, by cheerfully overacting. Further,
they had a great time with the Swedish language (23/108) by playing with it and making light of their own linguistic
problems. All in all, the students were relaxed and had fun with many aspects of the tasks. The fun in the students’ oral
practice in Swedish was unexpected, but positive and surprisingly varied.
In summary, the students’ dedication to the communicative oral practice, by negotiating the task performance and the
topic and by having fun, shows that interactive communication and cooperation were realised in their oral practice. The
students worked in a target-oriented and responsible way and encouraged their interlocutors to carry on practicing and
communicating in the spirit of the principles of cooperative learning. However, a common feature in the students’ oral
practice in Swedish was that they used their mother tongue Finnish as well. This was either a compensation strategy or
an avoidance strategy (CEFR, 2001), but it can also be interpreted as the students’ attempts at clear and economic
expression (see Poulisse, 1997). At the same time, use of the Finnish language can be seen as the students’ way of
orientating themselves with the task and creating intersubjectivity, a view which is supported by socio-cultural research
(e.g., Antón & DiCamilla 1999).
B. Interaction Strategies Used in Communicative Oral Practice in Swedish
Interaction is the core of dialogic oral communication and consequently, the core of communicative oral practice.
Interaction strategies are seen in this study in line with CEFR (2001, pp. 84–85) to belong to communication strategies
and to refer to students’ receptive and productive strategies and strategies used in the management of the interaction
process and construction of joint discourse. The main interaction strategies used by the Finnish-speaking students in
oral practice in Swedish were (i) collective creation of discussion and (ii) asking for and giving linguistic help.
Collective creation of discussion. Collective creation of discussion refers to participatory talk. The students created
discussion collectively mainly by echoing their interlocutor’s speech or filling in if the interlocutor did not know how to
formulate her/his thoughts. Collective creation of discussion was substantially richer in the upper secondary students’
practice than in the lower secondary students’ practice. When echoing their interlocutor’s speech, the upper secondary
students gave feedback by telling, for instance, their opinion of what they had heard, expressing that they had
understood their interlocutor or encouraging her/him to continue talking. They typically echoed their interlocutor’s
speech with paralinguistic expressions according to Swedish pragmatics, which is much more abundant in Swedish than
in Finnish. However, the use of the paralinguistic expressions was not always idiomatic, and the lexical variation was
quite limited. The upper secondary students echoed the interlocutor’s speech by being interactive listeners, which meant
that they showed interest in their interlocutor’s speech and reacted to it actively and richly, for instance, by speaking at
the same time and interrupting each other, laughing and using various exclamations. Intercepting each other’s speech
was in most cases a display of excitement at the discussion theme, in some cases a display of disagreement.
(us 6 IIABC R)
A de är – men vi kan också öh tänka oss lite vad som de föräldrarna tänkar så… [Swe] / [they are – but we can also
hm think little what the parents think so…]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
A vi förstår bättre dem dom [Swe] / [we understand better them them]
M ja – (a sigh) jag tycker att [Swe] / [yes – (a sigh) I think that]
H jag tror… [Swe] / [I think…]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
H att de måste också komma ihåg att vi har nya problem [Swe] / [that they have to remember that we have new
problems]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
A jo [Swe] / [yes]
M just [Swe] / [just]
H dom har inte sådana problem än vi har nu [Swe] / [they have not such problems than we have now]
A jo [Swe] / [yes]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
H och vi har …[Swe] / [and we have…]
M kanske [Swe] / [maybe]
H kanske inte sådana problem än dom hade [Swe] / [maybe not such problems than they had]
1062
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
A och jag tycker att de skulle bekanta sig med de nya problem [Swe] / [and I think that they should get acquainted
with the new problems]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
A så de kan hjälpa och förstå… [Swe] / [so they can help and understand…]
M jo [Swe] / [yes]
A olika saker [Swe] / [different things]
M ja [Swe] / [yes]
The lower secondary students echoed their interlocutor’s speech by showing enthusiasm or hesitation, typically
through minimal paralinguistic expressions. It is important to note that they echoed their interlocutor’s speech more
than the scheme instructed only in the applied scheme-based practice and not at all in the text-based scheme-based
practice. The applied practice encouraged students to engage with their role.
The upper and lower secondary students created discussions collectively and kept the discussions alive also by filling
in their interlocutor’s speech if she/he did not know how to formulate her/his thoughts.
(us 19 III A4+B4 FF)
A …och vi väljer en lucia [Swe] / […and we elect a Lucia]
S jo [Swe] / [yes]
A som är finlandssvensk flicka [Swe] / [who is Finnish-Swedish girl]
S har har [Swe] / [has has]
A har lång hår [Swe] / [has long hair]
S hår jo [Swe] / [hair yes]
(ls 27 Ib Vs)
M hej du – [Swe] / [hey you – ]
E glömde [Swe] / [forgot]
M glömde din paraply [Swe] / [forgot your umbrella]
E jasså tack så mycket - hejdå [Swe] / [oh well thanks a lot - bye]
The students, especially the upper secondary students, seemed thus create collectively further discussion (e.g., Antón
& DiCamilla, 1999), which bears features of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) or collaborative dialogue
(Swain, 2000). Cooperation and the principles of dynamic, dialogic speech (e.g., Säljö, 2000) were realised in their
communication. It was found that interactive listening and creating speech collectively compelled the discussion to
continue.
Asking for and giving linguistic help. Asking for and giving linguistic help occurred in 242 lines centring on the
upper secondary students’ practice (us 204, ls 38) and focussing on vocabulary (213/242). Many students’ command of
vocabulary understandably was quite limited in the practice phase, leading to misunderstandings and negotiations of
meaning. The students asked for lexical help indirectly, by interrupting a sentence, code switching or hesitating, and
directly using Swedish or Finnish. The interlocutors reacted more often to a direct request for help than to an indirect
request. There were many episodes when the speaker then used the given word in her/his own speech, paralleling
pushed output (Swain, 1985). However, it also happened quite often that the speaker just listened to the given word but
did not use it in her/his own speech. The students also corrected themselves by reformulating their own expressions.
(us 15 II B2+4 FF)
A ja, jag hade hals-- [Swe] / [yes, I have throat-- ]
L ont i halsen [Swe] / [sore throat]
A ja ont i halsen… [Swe] / [yes sore throat]
(us 10 IIb ABC H)
P …han bara sa vad han vill och slutade – vad [Swe] mikä se on keskustelu [Fi] / […he only said what he wants and
finished – what it is keskustelu]
N diskutera [Swe] / [discuss]
P nå (a laugh) vad just (a laugh) och… [Swe] / [well (a laugh) what just (a laugh) and…]
(ls 28 IIa Vs)
B ja öh (unclear) miten se meni [Fi] / [and hm (unclear) what should I say]
A betalar du [Swe] / [do you pay]
B betalar du kort med kort eller kontant [Swe] / [do you pay credit card with credit card or in cash]
(ls 24 IIIa Vts)
L det blir två-- [Swe] / [it costs two--]
M två hundra sjuttio kronor [Swe] / [two hundred seventy kronor]
L älä, mä oli justiin sanomassa [Fi]...två hundra sjuttio kronor [Swe] / [don’t, I was just about to say two hundred
seventy crowns]
One way to give lexical help was negotiation of meaning (see Long, 1996). The tasks used in this study represent
task features that are found to promote negotiation of meaning (see Ellis, 2003): cooperative group work, information
exchange needed or required, detailed information, a cognitively demanding task, repetition of the task, and a familiar
theme and interlocutor. The upper secondary students checked that their interlocutor had understood what was said.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
1063
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
They did this, however, only rarely in an authentic way in Swedish, but translated what they had said directly into
Finnish. Sometimes, an interlocutor also made sure that she/he had understood or requested clarification; such cases of
negotiation of meaning can also be seen as listener-oriented discourse strategies (see Ellis, 2003). The listener usually
requested clarification in Swedish, but the speaker reacted nearly every time in Finnish. It could cautiously be assumed,
in accordance with many researchers (e.g., Long 1996), that negotiation of meaning related to communication gaps
promoted language learning as well.
(us 18 II A1+3 FF)
H nå ja visst är vi ytlig [Swe] det är pinnallinen [Fi] / [well yes all right we are shallow – it is pinnallinen]
(us 18 II A1+3 FF)
H bal - är det [Swe] tanssiaiset [Fi] / [ball - is it tanssiaiset]
P jo [Swe] / [yes]
(us 17 I A3+4 FF)
P och struvor och… [Swe] / [and May-day fritters and…]
S hm … [Swe] / [hm…]
P vet du [Swe] / [do you know]
S jag vet inte vad struvor är [Swe] / [I don’t know what May-day fritter is]
P… struvor är [Swe] tippaleipä [Fi] / […May-day fritter is tippaleipä]
(us 14 I B1+2 FF)
L är vi högljudda [Swe] / [we are loud]
J vad är det [Swe] / [what is it]
L kovaäänisiä [Fi] / [kovaäänisiä]
(us 19 III A4+B4 FF)
A viktigt det är mycket viktigt för oss och vi går till julotta [Swe] / [important it is very important to us and we go to
julotta]
S vad är julotta [Swe] / [what is julotta]
A det är vi går till kyrkan på den tjugofemte december… det är mycket tidigt på morgonen det är sex sju [Swe] / [it is
we go to church the twenty fifth December… it is very early in the morning it is six seven]
Asking for and giving lexical help in this study has features that can be related to scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross,
1976). The students seemed to be quite aware of when their interlocutor wanted help with vocabulary (e.g., Ohta, 2000).
The scaffolding seemed most beneficial when the students gave help with lexical problems their interlocutor noticed
herself/himself (see Ohta, 2000). As in earlier research (e.g., Donato, 1994; Wells, 1999), it was found in this study that
scaffolding does not necessarily require any ‘real’ expert, as it is possible in interaction with peers as well. ‘Expertise’
is thus a flexible concept. Donato’s (1994, p. 46) statement that foreign language speakers can, at the same time, be
individually novices and communally experts, came more or less true in this study too. However, this study showed, as
many other studies have (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 1998), that peer scaffolding was not always adequate or systematic and
that there were many situations where a ‘real’ expert was needed, especially concerning problems with accuracy and
pronunciation. The students also used their first language, Finnish, while scaffolding, which is in line with many
research findings (e.g., Antón & DiCamilla, 1999). It should, however, be noted that according to the sociocultural view,
the first language can mediate foreign language learning. Asking for and giving lexical help led to increased awareness
of vocabulary (noticing hypothesis, Schmidt, 1990) and more comprehensible speech (pushed output, Swain, 1985) and
crucially, helped the communication to continue. From the Finnish-speaking students’ willingness to ask for and give
lexical help in oral practice in Swedish, it can be understood that they found the classroom safe (see Swain, 2000,
p.100).
The students seemed more focused on meaning than on form in their communication. Asking for and giving help
with grammar and pronunciation happened rarely: grammar 15/242, pronunciation 14/242. The students had no real
need to pay attention to problems in grammar and pronunciation, because they experienced no communication breaks
thanks to their common mother tongue.
In summary, the interaction strategies that the Finnish-speaking students used, i.e. collective creation of discussion
and asking for and giving lexical help, show that an important amount of participatory interaction and cooperation was
realised in their oral practice in Swedish through cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks. In many respects, the
students co-constructed speech in Swedish oral practice in the language classroom just as they might do in real-life
communication.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The aim of this study was to get in-depth understanding of Finnish-speaking students’ communicative oral practice in
a foreign language, Swedish, through cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks in a FL classroom focusing on
the students’ dedication and participatory interaction. The goal of the communicative oral practice was to make
speaking a foreign language natural in the classroom, transforming the classroom, at the same time, into an encouraging
and constructive practice environment. The research findings indicate that dedication to the communicative oral
practice manifested itself considerably in negotiation of task performance and negotiation of task topic and fun. Further,
1064
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
clear evidence of participatory interaction as collective creation of discussion and asking for and giving lexical help was
found. It is noteworthy that the students fully devoted themselves to speaking Swedish with unexpected frequency and
had some genuine fun, too, when practising Swedish orally. In addition, there was very little discussion, if any, that did
not relate directly to the task and they made the most of the whole practice time. In light of these findings, the CLT
principles of meaningful tasks, students as active participants in interactive communication and self-generated
communication were considerably realised through cooperative scheme-based and elaboration tasks in this study, which
is not always the case in Finnish FL classrooms, as for example, Nikula’s (2007) research shows.
There were two more findings important to note and reflect upon: the use of the mother tongue Finnish and the
substantial quantitative and qualitative variation in the cooperative groups’ communication. The students mostly used
Finnish when orientating themselves with the task, as well as when creating intersubjectivity in linguistic problems and
in scaffolding. Still, this is in accordance with socio-cultural research findings, which claim that using one’s mother
tongue is an inevitable part of the foreign language practice and learning process (e.g., Donato, 2000). Another baffling
finding was the large variation in the cooperative pairs’ communication. The lower and upper secondary students’
participation in interactive communication apparently depended on the interlocutors and the task, a finding that, while
not surprising, is pedagogically challenging and needs to be reflected upon further.
Research findings are always context-related and in this study the communicative oral practice was naturally
influenced by many socio-culturally context-related factors linked to the classroom, students and tasks. For instance, the
systematic discussion about the goal of communicative oral practice and the systematic supervision in study strategies
probably contributed to the students’ communicative and participatory levels in oral practice. Further, the oral practice
was naturally influenced by the difference in the students’ language proficiency. The upper secondary students’
pragmatic competences were substantially better due to their much more courses in Swedish. As for the influence of the
tasks, the upper secondary students’ tasks represented cooperative elaboration tasks that enabled relatively free
discussion, whereas in the lower secondary students’ cooperative elaboration tasks, the discussion was guided by a
scheme. In addition, in the text-based practice the discussion was guided by the text, whereas in applied practice more
free discussion, for instance, linking the topic to one’s own milieu and adding one’s own opinion to the topic were the
goal.
How trustworthy these research findings are can be discussed from many perspectives. Here I focus on credibility,
which is one criterion of trustworthiness (see Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 294–301) and is connected with all stages of
the research process (see Creswell, 2003, p. 196; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 342). In this study, the main data were
collected tape-recording the students’ oral practice in Swedish in a natural classroom context. An audio-visually
recorded oral practice would naturally give a broader and richer picture, but the videotaped data was rejected, because,
for instance, extra-linguistic features fell outside the scope of this study. Instead, the tape-recorded data were
transcribed literally, which proved to be adequate to show how the oral practice progressed. However, there are
concerns with the credibility of the data collection in this study as well. Referring to Creswell’s (1998, p. 197) observer
effect, one could, for instance, question whether the tape-recorded oral practice is similar to practice in the classroom
without tape-recording. The students in this study were, however, accustomed to being tape-recorded and videotaped in
Swedish lessons. Another problem with credibility could be that the students tried to be better than they actually were or
that they wanted to please the teacher by practising in a way that they thought would meet the teacher’s expectations
(e.g., LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 344). However, neither the students nor the teacher as a researcher knew in
advance which tape-recorded lessons would constitute the actual research data. Moreover, to be a teacher as a
researcher and to know well the research object enabled a kind of triangulation in the data collection in addition to the
tape recordings of the oral practice. This kind of triangulation offered a broad perspective of the reality under
investigation and is seen as a vital way to increase credibility (e.g., Creswell, 1998, p. 202, p. 213).
According to qualitative content analysis methods, the credibility of the data analysis was confirmed by categorising
the transcribed tape-recorded data a few times within the span of a couple of years; in spite of this time span, the
categories did not change substantially. Furthermore, the quotations linked to the categories also help the reader to
judge the credibility of the categorisation. Admittedly, the credibility of the categorisation could have been tested using
several classifiers, but the analysis currently utilised is one theoretically justified and valid means of describing and
analysing the data (see Eskola & Suoranta, 2000, p. 214). In this study, the teacher as a researcher had rich contextual
knowledge and experience of oral practice and could interpret the findings on the basis of her long-term interaction with
the students, which is bound to endorse the credibility of the research results (e.g., Creswell, 1998, pp. 196–201). In
order to judge the credibility of research results through their ability to coincide with complex social realities (e.g.,
Bryman, 2001, p. 272), the long-term interaction with the students enabled an on-going analysis process, which
increased the credibility of the correspondence of the research results to the participants’ realities (see LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993, p. 342). In addition, the credibility of the results is confirmed by findings that represent different facets
of real oral practice in the classroom (see Creswell, 2003, p. 196): negative findings (e.g., lack of asking for and giving
help with pronunciation), contradictory findings (e.g., use of mother tongue) and surprising findings (e.g., students
having fun when carrying out various communicative tasks). The research findings show thus that the teacher as a
researcher found something novel that the teacher per se had not seen in her classroom.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
1065
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
One of the ethical issues of a study is to secure the anonymity of the investigated subjects. In the present study the
students are referred to by codes. In addition, use of the data is authorised by the students participating in this study.
In line with many qualitative research designs, this study is not transferable, since unique in situ situations cannot be
reconstructed (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, pp. 331–332). Nevertheless, the transparent reporting of all stages and
factors linked to the research context, data collection, analysis and interpretation, following Geertz’s (1973) idea of
thick description, enables the reader to assess the credibility and the transferability of the present study (e.g., Lincoln &
Guba 1985, 316; Bryman, 2001, p. 472). While these research results cannot be generalised, this study can be seen as
one model of communicative oral practice in FL and the way it can be researched.
The main claim of this study is that lower and upper secondary students can—and should—be encouraged to speak in
a foreign language in the language classroom. This study invites language teachers and learners alike to pay closer
attention to the role of communicative oral tasks in the FL classroom as a means to encourage students to speak in the
target language. It may raise many pedagogical questions too, such as the role of a teacher’s instructions in and
justification of practising study strategies and the language tasks used. The research findings and the pedagogic points
raised in this article can be utilised by pre-service and in-service teacher educators and language textbook writers, as
well as more generally by curriculum authors, when developing communicative language teaching.
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] Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching
Research, 7(2), 113–141.
[3] Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory. An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.
[4] Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern
Language Journal 83, 233–247.
[5] Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing
Company.
[6] Bartlett, F.C. (1932/1995). Remembering. A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[7] Brown, D.H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: State
University.
[8] 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.
[9] Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] 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:
Cambridge University Press.
[11] Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
[12] Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
[13] Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
[14] Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 33–56.
[15] Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–50.
[16] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[17] Eskola, J., & Suoranta, J. (2000). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen [Introduction to qualitative research; in Finnish] (4th ed.).
Jyväskylä: Vastapaino.
[18] Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
[19] Grönfors, M. (1982). Kvalitatiiviset kenttätyömenetelmät [Qualitative fieldwork methods; in Finnish]. Porvoo: WSOY.
[20] 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 scheme-based and elaboration tasks; in Finnish]. Helsingin yliopisto, Soveltavan
kasvatustieteen laitos. Tutkimuksia 273. http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/harjanne/ (accessed 10/8/2016).
[21] 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, 197–225.
[22] Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (2009). Investigating methodological reality in Finnish foreign language classrooms: Revisiting the
KIELO project’s rationale and research. In R. Kantelinen & P. Pollari (Eds.), Language Education and Lifelong Learning.
Joensuu: Joensuun yliopistopaino, 135–154.
1066
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
[23] Harjanne, P., Reunamo, J., & Tella, S. (2015). Finnish Foreign Language Teachers’ Views on Teaching and Study Reality in
Their Classes: The KIELO Project’s Rationale and Results. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, Vol 6, No 5, 913–923.
[24] Johnson, D., & Johnson R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
[25] Johnson, D., & Johnson R. (2002). Yhdessä oppiminen [Learning together; in Finnish]. In P. Sahlberg & S. Sharan (Eds.),
Yhteistoiminnallisen oppimisen käsikirja. Helsinki: WSOY, 101–118.
[26] Kansanen, P. (1990). Didaktiikan tiedetausta: Kasvatuksen teoriaa didaktiikan näkökulmasta [The scientific background of
didactics: Theory of pedagogy from the perspective of didactics; in Finnish]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
[27] Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan
(Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–39.
[28] Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
[29] Kristiansen, I. (1992). Foreign language learning and nonlearning. University of Helsinki. Department of Education. Research
Bulletin No. 82. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED346729.pdf (accessed 10/8/2016).
[30] Kristiansen, I. (1998). Tehokkaita oppimisstrategioita. Esimerkkinä kielet [Effective learning strategies. Languages as an
example; in Finnish]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. WSOY.
[31] Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–26.
[32] LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego:
Academic Press.
[33] Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[34] Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.
[35] Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
[36] 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.
[37] Nunan, D. (Ed.) (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[38] Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal
development and the aqcuisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–78.
[39] Platt, E., & Brooks, F. (1994). The acquisition rich environment revisited. Modern Language Journal 78, 497–511.
[40] Poulisse, N. (1997). Compensatory strategies and the principles of clarity and economy. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.),
Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sosiolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman, 49–64.
[41] Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–95.
[42] Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–158.
[43] Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27, 4–13.
[44] Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 1–14.
[45] Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.
[46] Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.
[47] Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working
together. The Modern Language Journal 83, 320–338.
[48] Syrjälä, L. (1994). Tapaustutkimus opettajan ja tutkijan työvälineenä [The case study as a teacher’s and a researcher’s tool; in
Finnish]. In L. Syrjälä, S. Ahonen, E. Syrjäläinen, & S. Saari (Eds.), Laadullisen tutkimuksen työtapoja. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä,
9–66.
[49] Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in practice. A sociocultural perspective].
Stockholm: Prisma.
[50] Säljö, R. (2001). The individual in social practices—Comments to Ference Marton´s "The practice of learning". Nordisk
Pedagogik 21, 108–116.
[51] Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research. Analysis types & software tools. New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
[52] Tuokko, E. (2009). Miten ruotsia osataan peruskoulussa? Perusopetuksen päättövaiheen ruotsin kielen B-oppimäärän
oppimistulosten kansallinen arviointi 2008 [How well do Finnish ninth-year compulsory school pupils master Swedish? The
2008 national assessment of learning achievements in Swedish as a B-language upon completion of nine-year compulsory
school; in Finnish]. Oppimistulosten arviointi 2/2009. Helsinki: Finnish Board of Education.
[53] Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2002). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi [Qualitative research and content analysis; in
Finnish]. Helsinki: Tammi.
[54] Uljens, M. (1997). School didactics and learning: A school didactic model framing an analysis of pedagogical implications of
learning theory. Hove: Psychology Press.
[55] van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. London:
Longman.
[56] van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245–259.
[57] von Wright, J. (1992). Oppimiskäsitysten historiaa ja pedagogisia seurauksia [Learning conceptions—history and pedagogical
implications; in Finnish]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
1067
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
[58] Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[59] Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 17, 89–100.
[60] Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods (3rd ed.) Applied Social Research Methods Series. Volume 5.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pirjo Harjanne, Ph.D., MA, is Associate Professor of and Senior Lecturer in Foreign Language Education, and Principal
Investigator at the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. She is the University of Helsinki Teachers’
Academy Fellow. Her research interests include FL teacher education, FL didactics, communicative language teaching and practice,
oral proficiency and intercultural communicative competence. She is currently Director of the national and international KIELO
Project, focusing on FL teaching, studying and learning in FL classrooms. Her research activities and publications are at
http://tinyurl.com/harjanne1000.
1068
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH
© 2016 ACADEMY PUBLICATION
