Communicative Oral Practice in the Foreign Language Classroom -Methodological Challenges

Abstract

Communicative oral language proficiency is a very topical goal in the foreign language teaching and communicative oral practice occupies centre field in the attempt to reach this goal in the foreign language classroom. Communicative oral practice is linked with the methodology of communicative language teaching. I will view three levels of the methodology of communicative language teaching: the conceptions of the language and language learning, the design features and the teaching practices. I argue that the challenges of the methodological oral practice arise from the present widened conceptions regarding language, language proficiency, language learning and language teaching. To know these widened conceptions and to reflect on them is a prerequisite for their application and the development of oral practice. Further, I argue that these challenges are possibilities for communicative oral practice.

Full text

Harjanne, P. (2008). Communicative Oral Practice in the Foreign Language
Classroom — Methodological Challenges. In J. Loima (Ed.) Facing the Future –
Developing Teacher Education (pp. 111–129). Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki
University Press.
Communicative Oral Practice in the Foreign Language Classroom
– Methodological Challenges
Pirjo Harjanne
Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct)
Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki
Abstract
Communicative oral language proficiency is a very topical goal in the foreign language teaching
and communicative oral practice occupies centre field in the attempt to reach this goal in the foreign
language classroom. Communicative oral practice is linked with the methodology of
communicative language teaching. I will view three levels of the methodology of communicative
language teaching: the conceptions of the language and language learning, the design features and
the teaching practices. I argue that the challenges of the methodological oral practice arise from the
present widened conceptions regarding language, language proficiency, language learning and
language teaching. To know these widened conceptions and to reflect on them is a prerequisite for
their application and the development of oral practice. Further, I argue that these challenges are
possibilities for communicative oral practice.
Keywords: communicative oral practice; foreign language; communicative language proficiency;
foreign language learning; communicative language teaching.
Introduction
Communicative oral language proficiency, communicative language teaching and communicative
oral practice have long been central goals in our foreign language classrooms. Their meaning has
sustained and they are more central than ever in our present and even in our future foreign language
education, because the ever-increasing international connections require that more and more Finns

have communicative oral (and written) competences of foreign languages. It is justified to expect
that our language teaching will meet this challenge. Even though communicative oral language
proficiency, communicative language teaching and communicative oral practice are well-known as
terms, there is, however, a danger that they remain obscure as developing concepts, in which case
language teaching is based on old images. It is argued (e.g. Clark & Peterson 1986) that the more
experienced the teachers are, the more they rely on their old principles and beliefs concerning
teaching and the less they are aware of doing so. To know the latest conceptions concerning the
foreign language, foreign language learning and language teaching and, most importantly, reflecting
on their meaning and their critical analysis are a prerequisite for the up-to-date realization and
development of language teaching.
In my article I will study the challenges given by communicative oral practice of the foreign
language from a theoretical viewpoint connected with the methodology of communicative language
teaching. According to Rodgers (2001) the methodology of communicative language teaching is
made up of three levels interacting with each other: theories and conceptions of language and
language learning, design features and teaching practices.
Challenge 1: Foreign language and foreign language proficiency
The basis of communicative oral practice is the conception of language and language proficiency.
The conception of the foreign language has widened considerably in the last few decades. When the
foreign language was considered to be an instrumental subject in the 1980s and a skills subject in
the 1990s, in the 2000s it is regarded as a skills, knowledge and cultural subject (LOPS 2003, the
National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary School) or a skills and cultural subject (POPS
2004, the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education). Tella (1999) further widens the concept
of the foreign language when he aptly argues that language is an empowering mediator for a human
being. Tella’s conception of language connects with the sociocultural idea, whose starting-point is
Vygotsky’s (1978) idea of language as a primary mediator of learning with both intellectual and
social significance. Language is seen as a sociocultural medium, which helps people to act in social
situations (Säljö 2000, 87–89).
The widened conception of language has significant consequences to language teaching. The
foreign language has to be seen as something that enables and widens the student’s contacts in a
foreign language and his activity between different cultures. Then the emphasis of teaching is on
the language as using skills, not on the language as a code, a formal system.

In the same way as the conception of language has essentially expanded, so has the conception of
language proficiency. Language research carried on for decades has shown the decisive significance
of oral communication in the development of a child’s social and cognitive development and it has
led to a new kind of a definition of language proficiency, which emphasizes the interactive nature of
communication and the contextual factors influencing communication (Pinnell & Jaggar 2003,
889). We speak of communicative language proficiency and even more widely ”[…] intercultural or
transcultural language proficiency, that is, crossing different cultural boundaries when exchanging
ideas and experiences with people from near and afar” (Harjanne & Tella, 2007). Even if the aim is
communicative oral proficiency, we must bear in mind language proficiency as a whole. Harjanne
and Tella (2007) express this: ”Oral proficiency occupies central field, but, at the same time, we
must bear in mind that the ultimate goal is multi-faceted language proficiency, which consists of
both oral and written expression and receptive listening and reading skills, the way they also
interact and intertwine in real life language using situations.”
In the theories, descriptions and structural patterns dealing with communicative language
proficiency it is taken as an even wider and more complex entity and it has no structural pattern of
its own to describe what it actually is. The description of language proficiency in Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR 2001) representing a holistic viewpoint is one of the
latest descriptions of communicative language proficiency.
It takes into consideration three very comprehensive dimensions which partly overlap and interact
with each other: the language learner’s and user’s general competences, communicative language
competences and strategic dimension. It is believed that all the knowledge and skills of a language
learner and user influence his ability to communicate in the foreign language. Thus, for instance,
communicative proficiency significantly also comprises a language learner’s and user’s attitudes,
motivations, values, beliefs, personality factors, intercultural skills, study skills including e.g. co-
operative skills and heuristic skills. Heuristic skills refer to the ability of the language learner and
user to cope with e.g. new languages, people, and ways of behaving and are thus crucial to him/her
in communication situations.
Language teaching where language proficiency is not only limited to linguistic knowledge and
skills, but attention is paid to the language learner and user with his knowledge, skills, awareness
and qualities holistically, corresponds to the present conception of communicative language
proficiency. This kind of language teaching also corresponds to the language using situations
students are likely to meet outside the classroom. It is, however, quite evident that it is impossible
to create such communicative practice situations, where, at the same time, all or even most of the
language learner’s knowledge and skills would get practised and reflected on intentionally. The

language teacher, however, has to plan such practice situations that the students have the
opportunity systematically to practise the knowledge and skills considered to make up language
proficiency. This practice must be comprehensive with the emphasis varying in the part components
of general competences and/or communicative language competence and/or strategies. Taking
notice of the general competences of a language learner and practising them adds an interesting
challenge to the language teacher’s work. This actually psychological sector has not been much
discussed from the language didactics point of view in our country.
Challenge 2: Foreign language learning
The natural goal of communicative oral practice in the language classroom is communicative oral
proficiency, to learn the foreign language. The planning and realization of communicative oral
practice requires a knowledge of modern conceptions concerning foreign language learning.
I see communicative oral practice in the framework of the didactic teaching–studying–learning
process as part of students’ active and intentional studying (see Harjanne 2006, 52–58). In this
framework it is understood that intentional teaching guides practising, which, for its part, is
considered to guide foreign language learning. The language teacher is able to influence his/her
teaching and thus contribute to the students’ practice, which, it is hoped, will influence the learning
of the foreign language. It is typical of different eras to have their own ideals and truths about
learning, which are always, at least in some parts, contrary to the previous prevailing concept.
These concepts and approaches, however, have many features in common, too. I will present the
emphases of the different conceptions in Table 1.
Table 1. Changing conception of man, knowledge, teaching, studying, learning and knowing
(Harjanne 2006, 182).
Humanistic-
experiential
Cognitive-
constructivistic
Socio-
constructivistic
Sociocultural
1 Man
humanistic
humanistic,
cognition rules
humanistic
sociocultural
2 Knowledge
experiential
based on internal
processing
based on social
interaction and
internal processing
mediated:
socioculturally
bound
3 Teaching and
studying; teacher
and student
experience–
reflection–action-
cycle; teacher
facilitator, student
active actor in
teacher organizer
of learning
situations and
instructor of
learning, student
teacher organizer
of learning
situations and
instructor of
learning, student
teacher a mentor,
student active
participator in
practical, social
and communicative

social interaction
self-directed, goal
orientated, active
constructor of his
own knowledge
self-directed, goal
orientated, active
constructor of his
own knowledge in
social interaction
community
4 Aim of learning
growth of “self”
cognitive
development
cognitive and
social development
social development
5 Knowing
integrated action
through
experiences
command of
knowledge
participating in
interactive
communication
participating in
communal practice
The language teacher faces the challenge of how to plan and realize communicative oral practice in
relation to changing conceptions and approaches in regard to foreign language teaching, studying
and learning. I will view here these conceptions from the standpoint of the acquisition and the
participation metaphor and the role of interaction in them, which is closely related to the
communicative oral practice of a foreign language.
The acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor
The cognitive-constructive conception of learning can be described with the acquisition metaphor.
It refers to learning as an individual internal constructing of knowledge and skill, as acquisition (e.g.
Hakkarainen 2000, 85–86). According to the acquisition metaphor learning a language is
understood as an individual’s internal processes whereby processing the input, noticing and paying
attention (see e.g. Anderson 1995) are central. In the 2000s participation is emphasized instead of
the internal processing in learning. Humanistic-experiential and socio-constructivistic conception of
learning and sociocultural approach to learning can be described by the participation metaphor,
according to which learning takes place as participation in communal activity (e.g. Eteläpelto 2002,
17). The participation theory emphasizes social factors and language learning is taken as
participation in social interaction and communication (e.g. Sfard 1998; Donato 2000). In Table 2 I
will present the different views on learning, knowing and failure of the acquisition and participation
metaphor primarily relying on Donato (2000).
Table 2. Learning and knowing a foreign language and failing in it from the point of view of the
acquisition and participation metaphor (Harjanne 2006, 183).
The acquisition metaphor/
Cognitive-constructionism
The participation metaphor/
Socioculturalism
Learning
Mental/inner processing
Participation in social interaction and
communication

Knowing
Independent evidence, e.g. post-test
Participation in social interaction and
communication
Reasons for failure
E.g. inappropriate learning strategies
E.g. marginalization (from a
community of practice) or insufficient
support from a mentor
The acquisition and the participation metaphor offer very different viewpoints to the student’s
learning, knowing and failure. What concepts and conceptions the language teacher bases his/her
teaching on has a decisive influence on the nature of the practice he/she has planned for
communicative oral practice. And the fact whether the teacher considers the proof of the student’s
command of the language primarily to be how well he has succeeded in his tests or participated in
interactive communication naturally has consequences to the student’s willingness to take part in
communicative oral practice. If the teacher concludes that the reason for the student’s poor success
is his weak studying strategies, the responsibility shifts to the student to a great extent. If the
teacher, for his part, realizes that the reason for the student’s failure is insufficient support, the
responsibility shifts more to the teacher.
Interaction
The role of interaction is very much to the fore in many perspectives in foreign language learning.
There are, however, different conceptions of the ways interaction is linked to the uses of a foreign
language and its learning. According to the cognitive perspective interaction offers a means to make
the linguistic input understandable (Krashen 1985; input hypothesis) and produce language (Swain
1985; output hypothesis), which are considered to have an effect on the learning of a foreign
language. Long’s (e.g. 1996) interaction hypothesis suggests that one way of making the input
understandable is to modify the input in the negotiation of meaning which arises from a
communication break between the speakers. In the negotiation of meaning the focus is on the
meaning and it does not necessarily involve any reflective orientation (van Lier 2000, 247–249).
According to the cognitive perspective interaction thus relates to learning only in an indirect way.
In the socio-cultural perspective, on the other hand, interaction is seen as a central factor in learning
a foreign language. Interaction stands in the centre of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
(1978; ZPD). It is believed that interaction requires reflective orientation and enables scaffolding
(Wood et al. 1976), which is considered useful from the point of view of learning a foreign
language. Scaffolding refers to “handing a ladder” at the right moment by an expert in dialogic
interaction in the parts of the task which are beyond the novice’s reach as to his level of proficiency.

It is to be noted that successful scaffolding doesn’t necessarily require an actual expert, but it can
also arise in the interaction between the students (e.g. Ohta 1995, 109; see Harjanne 2006, 293–
294). In the sociocultural perspective interaction is considered to be much more than just a
negotiation of meaning: the role of interaction is regarded as crucial in the learning of a foreign
language. Learning is seen as occuring in interaction and appearing as interaction. In an ecological
approach “[….] the verbal and nonverbal interaction in which the learner engages, are central to an
understanding of learning. In other words, they do not just facilitate learning, they are learning in a
fundamental way”, as van Lier (2000, 246) puts it. According to the sociocultural perspective
interaction thus relates to learning in quite a direct way.
The meaning of social and verbal and nonverbal interaction as well as the meaning of co-operation
has increased in the attempt to understand and promote the studying, practice and learning of a
foreign language. After decades of research concerning the teaching and learning of languages it
has been realized that the best way to learn interaction is in the interaction itself as Brown (2001,
165) states. Nevertheless, it is also generally admitted that mere interaction or discussion is not a
sufficient context for the development of a foreign language but such communicative tasks are
needed which make the students negotiate the meaning and pay attention to the language as a
formal system, too (e.g. Long 1996; Skehan 2003). In the cognitive perspective reasons for the
significance of selective attention are given with noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1990) and it is
considered to take place in the negotiation of meaning (e.g. Long 1983; 1996). According to the
sociocultural perspective paying attention takes place mediated by social and verbal interaction,
scaffolding and private speech. Private speech refers to speech which is public but meant to oneself,
speech guiding mental activity (Antón & DiCamilla 1999, 235).
Holistic view
In the same way as the conceptions of the foreign language and language proficiency have widened,
so the present conceptions of learning a foreign language cover a very wide field. The sociocultural
approach emphasizes social factors and represents the holistic perspective to the learning of a
foreign language (Sfard 1998, 12; Ohta 2000, 53). Even according to the latest cognitive research
the origin of cognition lies in the social interaction and emotion is closely linked with cognition (see
e.g. Watson-Gegeo 2004). It is central that the development of communicative proficiency is taken
as a complex process where both the cognitive and the social functions intertwine with each other
(Pinell and Jaggar 2003, 888, 892). Even today there is general agreement that to reflect on learning
merely through one single approach is not sufficient to describe the whole phenomenon (e.g. Swain

2000, 103; Säljö 2001, 109; Puolimatka 2002, 83). From the language didactic perspective
humanistic-experiential, cognitive-constructivistic, socioconstructivistic and sociocultural approach
do not compete or rule out each other but are complementary.
The holistic view to the learning of a foreign language requires that when planning and realizing the
communicative oral practice attention is paid to the cognitive, social and affective dimension of
language learning. Thus a foreign language cannot be practiced as units detached from the context
but communicative oral practice requires from the students that they both understand, elaborate,
enrich, generate autonomously and apply language to context-based communication in social
interaction (see Harjanne 2006).
Challenge 3: Communicative language teaching
At the same time as the conceptions of language, proficiency and language learning have widened,
so have the conceptions of language teaching. Communicative language teaching is seen as holistic
pedagogy. Tella and Harjanne (2004) see the attempt to develop a deeper understanding of other
people and cultures together with criticalness and methodological eclecticity as part of
communicative language teaching. Instead of communicative language teaching Kohonen (2004),
for his part, speaks of language education, which represents holistic language teaching and growth
concerning the student’s whole person.
The challenges and possibilities of planning and realizing communicative oral practice are
connected with the methodological teaching practices. Communicative language teaching is defined
and interpreted in many different ways and the classroom applications are varied. There is reason to
ask whether all the teaching under the name of communicative language teaching really is
communicative. Brown (2001, 43–46) advises teachers who say that they teach according to the
principles of communicative language teaching to make sure that they really understand these
principles and plan communicative practice along these lines.
The basis of communicative language teaching is the conception of language as context-based
communication and the conception of language learning as an interactive, cooperative, experiential
and context-based process (e.g. Richards & Rodgers 2001; Ellis 2003). Communicative language
teaching as a methodological approach covers many schools, which share the same basic principles
but which contain different kinds of philosophical details or teaching practices (Rodgers 2001).
However, it is common to the different interpretations and applications of communicative language
teaching that they represent the idea of learning by doing and the direct practice of communication
(e.g. Richards & Rodgers 2001, 155–158).

Many parallel descriptions (e.g. Nunan 1989; Brown 2001; Richards & Rodgers 2001) have been
put forward of the central principles and emphases of communicative language teaching. I will
present a summarylike compilation of them in Table 3 and study some central emphases from the
point of view of communicative oral practice.
Table 3. Features of communicative language teaching (based on Nunan 1989, 194–195, Brown
2001, 42–44, 69; Richards & Rodgers 2001, 158–173). (Harjanne 2006, 80)
Theory of
language
The function of language is the expression of meaning; above all interaction and
communication.
Theory of
learning
Central elements: real communication, meaningful tasks, meaningful language to the
learner, trial and error.
Objectives
Functional and linguistic; the starting point the student’s needs.
Authentic and meaningful communication.
Communication
Taking all the components of communicative language proficiency into consideration.
Practising the different part skills of the language at the same time.
Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
Interaction, sharing information, negotiating of meaning.
Student’s role
Participator in interactive communication, cooperative negotiator.
Teacher’s role
Facilitator, instructor, needs’ analyst, organizer, resource, manager of group work, giving
feedback, researcher and learner.
Role of material
Supporting communicative language use, task-based, authentic.
To be communicative foreign language teaching has to follow certain principles. The main
objective of communicative language teaching is to develop the students’ ability to express
meanings and use a foreign language for communication in social interaction. Tasks that emphasize
interactive communicative language teaching include, for instance, pair and group work,
assignments that are connected with language using situations outside the classroom and those that
are meaningful from the point of view of the student’s life circle, authentic communication and
spontaneity in conversations (Brown 2001, 48, 166).
To be communicative oral practice thus requires that the students interact with each other. There are
two versions of communicative language teaching: the weak version and the strong version (Howatt
1984). In the practice following the weak version the aim is that the students learn to use the foreign
language (Howatt 1984, 279). The weak version is, for instance, represented by task-supported
language teaching (TSLT), where communicative tasks are seen as a methodological means to
enable the students to activate their knowledge of the foreign language (see Ellis 2003, 29–30, 320).

According to the methodology of this version the words and structures are first taught and practiced
traditionally, after which the students use them in communicative tasks.
In the oral practice of the strong tendency, on the other hand, the students use the foreign language
to learn it (Howatt 1984, 279). The strong version is represented, for instance, by communicative
task-based language teaching, TBLT), which builds itself, as the name indicates, wholly on
communicative tasks (see Ellis 2003). It is believed that the students learn the language by using it
creatively for communication and that trial and error are an essential part of this learning process
(Rodgers 2001). Practice is based on conversation but one has to bear in mind that the tasks are
supposed to require the attention to be paid to the critical features of the language, too (Richards &
Rodgers 2001, 223–228). The building of co-operational knowledge, scaffolding, private speech
and creating intersubjectivity are further coupled with the task-based language teaching according
to Ellis (2003, 253, 276–278). Intersubjectivity refers to shared understanding of a task and its goals
and performance (AntónDiCamilla 1999, 240–243).
The central element in communicative oral practice is the task. What is it then that makes a task
communicative? A communicative task has been defined and described in many different ways (e.g.
Skehan 1998; 2003; Brown 2001). According to the definition of the European framework (CEFR
2001, 158) both authentic and pedagogic tasks are communicative when they require understanding,
negotiation of meaning and expressing thoughts to reach the communicative goal. The definitions of
a communicative task have it in common that they emphasize the pragmatic language use focusing
on meaning, the communicative goal and the connection of communication with life outside the
classroom. The input of the communicative task can be derived from many sources belonging to the
student’s environment. Thus they make it possible for the students to bring their own experiences
and contents to practice. It also has to be noted that, as is the case in the communication outside the
classroom, in practice the communicative oral task is always made up of several part skills of the
language, in other words listening, reading and writing in addition to speaking.
From challenges to possibilities
The challenges arising from the widened conceptions regarding the foreign language,
communicative language proficiency, foreign language learning and language teaching constitute, at
the same time, possibilities for communicative oral practice in language classrooms. They
encourage the language teacher to realize communicative oral practice flexibly, creatively and true
to life with the student’s needs and interests as a starting point. They encourage to take a holistic
view of the student and include the development of his self-confidence, attitudes, co-operational,

social, intercultural and studying skills in the practice of the communicative language competences.
They also encourage the language teacher to create a practice environment in the classroom which
offers the student abundant social and linguistic affordances and encourages and supports the
student to actively, intentionally and responsibly participate in social interaction and oral
communication in the language classroom and outside it. (See Harjanne 2006, 170; Tella &
Harjanne, 2007). The foreign language teaching or CLIL, Content and Language Integrated
Learning, carried out in the target language offers another possibility to meet with these challenges,
but, at the same time, raises the question of whether it is suitable as such in all foreign language
classrooms with the current curricula. CLIL-teaching is a challenge and a possibility in language
classrooms, but it requires a reform of the curricula of the foreign language and increasing the
number of lessons. It also requires new combinations of subjects from teachers and, consequently, a
reform of the education of language teachers.
One possibility is to rely on the task-based language teaching representing the strong version of
communicative language teaching, which is based on the direct practice of communication but
which presupposes that attention be paid to the critical features of the language at times. It is
reasonable to doubt that the mere practice of a conversation is sufficient or appropriate at least when
the students study a foreign language only two or three lessons a week per year for a few years and
when the objectives presented in the principles of the national curriculum (LOPS 2003; POPS
2004) have to be met with. This point of view is, for instance, supported by a study which showed
that not even a language immersion of thousands of lessons was able to produce a high-quality
grammatical and sociolinguistic competence (Sheen 1994).
Realizing communicative oral practice along the lines of the strong version of communicative
language teaching or somewhere between the strong and weak version requires that the studying
material and the studying, the texts and tasks of the textbooks of foreign languages correspond to
the widened conceptions concerning the foreign language, communicative language proficiency,
foreign language learning and communicative language teaching. However, the communicative oral
practice of a foreign language cannot be limited to the textbook and the language classroom. The
students need a lot of authentic communication situations and possibilities for live contacts out of
and outside the classroom. The practice of oral communicative proficiency as part of the
communicative multi-faceted language proficiency is a lifelong and lifewide challenge and
possibility for the language learner and user.

References
Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and memory. An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.
Antón, M. & DiCamilla, F. 1999. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom. Modern Language Journal 83, 233–247.
Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd edition.
San Francisco, CA: State University.
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.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. 1986. Teachers´ Thought Processes. In Wittrock M. C. (ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teaching. Third edition. New York: Macmillan, 255–296.
Donato, R. 2000. Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In
Lantolf, J. P. (eds.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 27–50.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eteläpelto, A. 2002. Kasvun ja oppimisen muuttuvat ympäristöt kasvatuspsykologian
tutkimuksen haasteena. Virkaanastujaisesitelmä Helsingin yliopistossa 29.5.2002. Julkaisussa
Didacta Varia 2002, 7(2), 15–24. Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos.
Hakkarainen, K. 2000. Oppiminen osallistumisen prosessina. Aikuiskasvatus 2/2000. 84–98.
Harjanne, P. 2006. ”Mut ei tää oo hei midsommarista” – ruotsin kielen viestinnällinen suullinen harjoittelu
yhteistoiminnallisten skeema- ja elaborointitehtävien avulla. Helsingin yliopisto. Soveltavan
kasvatustieteen laitos. Tutkimuksia 273. [http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/harjanne/]
Harjanne, P. & Tella, S. 2007. Foreign Language Didactics, Foreign Language Teaching and
Transdisciplinary Affordances. In Koskensalo, A., Smeds, J., Kaikkonen, P. & Kohonen, V. (eds.)
Foreign languages and multicultural perspectives in the European context; Fremdsprachen und
multikulturelle Perspektiven im europäischen Kontext. Dichtung, Wahrheit und Sprache, LIT
Verlag, 180–211.
Howatt, A. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kohonen, V. 2004. Kielikasvatus vieraiden kielten opetuksen uutena paradigmana. Teoksessa
Enkenberg, J. & Kentz, M.B. (toim.) Kasvatuksen maisemista. Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden
tiedekunta. Savonlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitos 2004, 87–04.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
Long, M. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible
input. Applied Linguistics 4, 126–141.Long, M. 1996. The role of linguistic environment in
second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.) Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.
LOPS 2003 = Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ohta, A. S. 2000. Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of
proximal development and the aqcuisition of L2 grammar. Teoksessa Lantolf, J. P. (toim.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–78.
Ohta, A. S. 1995. Applying sosiocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner–learner
collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6: 93–
121.
Pinnell, G. & Jaggar, A. 2003. Oral language: speaking and listening in elementary classrooms. In Flood, J.,
Lapp, D., Squire, J. & Jensen, J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language
Arts. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 881–913.
POPS 2004 = Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Puolimatka, T. 2002. Opetuksen teoria. Konstruktivismista realismiin. Helsinki: Tammi.
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Second edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodgers, T. 2001. Language Teaching Methodology. http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rodgers.htlm
(Noudettu 17.9.2003)
Schmidt, R. W. 1990. The Role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–
158.
Sfard, A. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. educational Researcher
27, 4–13.
Sheen, R. 1994. A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 28, 127–
157.
Skehan, P. 1998. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 268–286.
Skehan, P. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 1–14.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.
Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 97–114.
Säljö, R. 2000. Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma.
Säljö, R. 2001. The individual in social practices — Comments to Ference Marton´s "The practice of
learning". Nordisk Pedagogik, 21, 108–116.
Tella, S. 1999. Teaching Through a Foreign Language Revisited: From Tool to Empowering Mediator. In
Tella, S., Räsänen, A. & Vähäpassi, A. (eds.) Teaching Through a Foreign Language: From Tool
to Empowering Mediator. An Evaluation of 15 Finnish Polytechnic and University Level
Programmes, with a Special View to Language and Communication. Publications of Higher
education Evaluation Council 5. Helsinki: Edita, 26–31. [http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/vieko.html]
Tella, S. & Harjanne, P. 2004a. Kielididaktiikan nykypainotuksia. Didacta Varia 9(2), 25–52.
[http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/tellaharjannedv04.pdf]
Tella, S. & Harjanne, P. 2007. Can We Afford Any More Affordances? Foreign Language Education
Specific Reflections. Teoksessa K. Merenluoto, A. Virta & P. Carpelan (toim.),
Opettajankoulutuksen muuttuvat rakenteet, (ss. 500–506). Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 9.2.2007.
Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan julkaisuja B:77.
van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 245–259.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological processes. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. 2004. Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm
for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88, iii, 331–350.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 17, 89–100.