A comparison and contrast of findings of case studies two and three 1 The influence of the context in L2 learning

Malamah-Thomas (1987) acknowledges that there are three factors affecting L2 learning: the country, the school and the classroom. This latter factor is discussed by Starks & Paltridge (1996) who indicate that language learning is closely related to the attitudes of the learners towards the language which are formed by the classroom learning activities, student-teacher relationships, the support provided by the teacher and cooperation in the class. The environment for learning another language, according to Hussain (2010), involves psycho- social and cultural factors which affect learners’ attitudes and engagement.

The two communities of practices where CS2 and CS3 were carried out had different cultural practices that permeated the classroom context influencing trainees’, mentors’ and pupils’ attitudes towards teaching and learning an L2. Whereas in CS2 the school context actively promoted the celebration of linguistic and cultural diversity as part of the curriculum, the school in CS3, however, emphasised a structure for teaching and learning prioritising procedures and the use of institutional cultural objects, such as syllabi, scheme of works and medium-term lesson plans. Whereas in CS2 the pupils were naturally inquisitive about others’ cultural and linguistic heritage and were keen to learn an L2, the highly structured lessons in CS3, with an emphasis on discipline rather than on providing challenging learning experiences had an adverse impact on learning, making children disengaged and disruptive.

The cultural practices of both settings also influenced the development of both subject and professional knowledge. In CS2 mentors, working collaboratively with trainees contributed to each other’s development. However, in CS3 there was a dependency on the mentors for the trainees to acquire new knowledge and skills, with little room for their creativity and autonomy. Whereas in CS2 there was a transformation of teaching and learning practices, these were perpetuated in CS3 where the ultimate goal was for the trainees to imitate their mentors’ teaching skills. Sections 5.6.2 and 6.4.1 on pages 139 and 159 respectively discussed the evidence for these contrasting practices.

These results seem to indicate that the fact that communities of practice are asymmetrical and that an accurate comparison of practice may be difficult to achieve if the communities and their practices are not identical. Furthermore, classrooms are highly complex places which cannot be reduced to identification of some variables for the purpose of comparison and contrast. Radford (2006, p.183) states that ‘complex systems represent large amounts of information in terms of their organisational structure i.e. the relationships between the elements and therefore

172

do not lend themselves to reductionist analysis’ and comparisons between such complex systems are virtually impossible.

7.2.2 Strategy-based approach vs. Presentation, Practice and Production model (PPP) The use of a strategy-based model with an emphasis on collaborative learning proved successful in CS1 to challenge the trainees’ pre-conceived ideas in relation to their attitudes, abilities and self-confidence, as discussed in sections 4.9 on page 121. The results were replicated in CS2, as presented in section 5.5.2 on page 133, where the model based on learning strategies was employed following the principles of CA. The use of talk partners, discussed in section 5.5.3 on page 136, facilitated the identification and the use of language learning strategies which were utilised in order to trigger and develop L2. The premise of this approach was to use and re-use the strategies already familiar to the trainees and the mentors in their L1 so that they could transfer them onto an L2.

In CS1 and CS2 the use of language strategies reduced anxiety and increased teaching confidence, as discussed in sections 4.11 and 5.8 on pages 123 and 152 respectively. It also developed pupils’ learning autonomy and kept them focused and on-task. Although the learning outcomes resulting from the use of a strategy-based approach were positive for trainees and mentors in CS1 and CS2, the results obtained for pupils were different as they did not achieve as highly as their peers in CS3. These results are discussed in section 6.5.3 on page 165 and summarised in Figure 22. The talk partner technique required the continuous use of a variety of thinking processes, all taking place at the same time. These included, for example, processing information, verbalising thoughts, sharing views with a talk partner, engaging in discussion for problem-solving, making decisions, and transferring knowledge from L1 onto L2. All these processes were very demanding for young learners since they lacked prior linguistic experience. Therefore, it was necessary for the mentors or the teachers to explain a strategy and then practise it in familiar contexts prior to use for L2 learning. This may suggest that children in CS2 were not ready to become engaged in abstract thinking to explain their cognitive processes which, according to Piaget (1971) are a feature of the formal operational stage of development characterised by hypothetico-deductive reasoning enabling individuals to be engaged in solving abstract/hypothetical problems.

This conclusion seems to indicate that the success of an approach for learning another language based on learning strategies and think-aloud protocols require more developed cognitive skills that learners aged eight-nine may still be developing and that there might be a need for an

173

explicit focus on the metalanguage necessary for children to talk about abstract concepts as a specific framework within which strategies might be used. It was also noticed that the pupils chose to work with their friends as talk partners. Such exclusivity, however, was difficult to maintain if a participant was absent, leading to a negative effect on the group cohesion, exacerbated by the fact that pupils were not eager to engage with new partners.

The use of a presentation, practice and production (PPP) approach in CS3 produced different results. For the trainees, it provided a clear structure to plan and teach lessons and to assess pupils’ progress, as discussed in section 6.4.1 on page 159. Teaching and learning followed a detailed scheme of work, which informed lesson planning whilst providing trainees with an indication of the subject knowledge required for teaching. The pupils, on the other hand, progressed faster than the children in CS2, producing language with greater pronunciation and grammatical accuracy. The focus on accurate production led the trainees to revisit the same topics using long repetition skills and memorisation drills. The pupils in CS3, who were subject to a limited range of teaching strategies, actually outperformed their peers in CS2. This was in spite of the restricted opportunities for challenge that they were given that tended to promote disruptive classroom behaviour. A comparison of pupils’ attainment per language skills is shown below:

Figure 23 Pupils' achievement in case study two and three

The contrasting performance of children in CS2 and CS3 can be attributed to the different aims of the two approaches used. Whereas a revised SBI model seeks to develop comprehension of the target language, the PPP approach focuses on the production of the production of language aiming to develop accurate pronunciation and grammar. According to Shintani, Li & Ellis (2013), these differences are based on two distinct views of language learning: one emphasising

0 5 10 15 20 R L W S Number of pupils Lan gu ag e ski lls