Language audit

This tool (Little, 2005; Mansilla & Riejas, 2007) is an instrument designed by the European Commission for Education and Culture based on the language levels of attainment of the Common European Reference Framework (CERF). The CERF was developed by the Council of Europe following the call of the Barcelona European Council (March 2002) to measure the foreign/second language proficiency of pupils at the end of compulsory education. According to the COE website (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp, accessed 17 October 2012) ‘the purpose of the survey is to establish a European Indicator of Language Competence, providing member states with internationally comparable data on the results of foreign language teaching and learning in the European Union’. The structure of the audit follows the CERF descriptors and is divided into levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2) covering the skills of listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, language strategies and writing (see Appendix II). Each level is subdivided into two areas indicated by 1, which means low and 2 high. For example, level A1 refers to the language competences related to learners with very limited L2 communicative skills. The audit based on the levels descriptors are used in work and educational environments to assess linguistic competences and in the context of the current study it enabled an examination of outcomes at set periods. The information collected was used to track the development of reading, speaking, listening and writing skills.

Communication Test Anxiety, Fear of Negative

Apprehension Items 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, Evaluation

Items 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, Items 2, 7, 13, 19,

18, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32 22.

86 Figure 5 Examples of levels of attainment in the language audit

A2

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her

background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

An abridged version, written in a pupil-friendly language, was used by the children in the form of I can do statements (see Appendix III). The layout of the audit enabled respondents to identify whether they had achieved outcomes by themselves or with the support and guidance of a more experienced individual. A further option was included under a sub-heading of my

objective to aid learners to develop an action plan so that with extra practice the objective can

be met. This was an essential stage in the development and use of metacognitive strategies as this tool prompted learners to think about their learning. The audit was administered at the beginning and end of case study one and was used at four set periods in case study two and three. The audit was completed by the trainees in case study one, by the trainees, mentors and pupils in case study two and by trainees and pupils in case study three.

A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce

himself/herself and others and ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows, and the things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

Figure 6 Sample of language audit tool Appendix II

87 3.8.3 Observations in primary classrooms

Kumar (2011) acknowledges that observation is one way to collect primary data and defines it as ‘a purposeful, systematic and selective way of watching and listening to an interaction or phenomenon as it takes place’ (p.140). Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte (1999, p.91), cited in Savin-Baden & Major (2013, p.392), ‘suggest that observation may be used to accomplish the following goals:

 To identify and guide relationships with informants. 

 To help researchers get the feel for how things are organised and prioritised, how people interrelate, and the cultural parameters. 

 To show the researcher what the cultural members deem to be important in manners, leadership, politics, social interactions and taboos. 

 To help the researcher become known to the cultural members, thereby easing facilitation of the research process. 

 To provide the researcher with a source of questions to be addressed with participants’.  The observation of a phenomenon or group depends on the role the researcher adopts. Heron (1996), cited in Paltridge and Phakiti (2010), explain that this depends on the emic (participant) or etic (non-participant) perspective: ‘researchers who try to get an inside view of what is happening in the classroom take an emic perspective, whereas researchers who take more of an outside view on the event take an etic view of this’ (p.277). However, Angrosino & Rosenberg (2011), cited in Savin-Baden & Major (2013, p.394), explain that the research can take up to five different roles when undertaking observation:

Least Most

involved involved

Peripheral Passive Balanced Active Complete

participation participation participation participation participation

During this study my role as an observant moved from that of complete participation (CS1), balanced participation and passive participation (CS2) to peripheral participation (CS3). Richards (2003), cited in Paltridge & Phakiti (2010, p.89), ‘suggests four main areas for focusing observations: (i) the setting (e.g., contexts, spaces, locations), (ii) the systems (e.g., typical routines and procedures); (iii) the people (e.g., roles, relationships, responses); (iv) the

behaviours (e.g., timings, activities, events)’.

88

There were different observers observing different settings, systems, people and behaviours, for example:

(a) I observed trainees as part of the instructional process in case study one. (b) I observed trainees teaching the mentors and the pupils in case two. (c) I observed the trainees teaching the pupils in case study three. (d) Trainees observed mentors in case studies two and three. (e) Mentors observed trainees in case studies two and three.

Classroom observations were carried out using Allen, Frohlich & Spada (1984) Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) model designed by Allen et al (1984), cited in Nunan (1992) and Paltridge & Phakiti (2010). The COLT model is rooted within a theory of communicative language teaching and focuses on the situations leading to the use of L2 and on the interactions between learners in the classroom that prompt learning. This observation model was used in several studies, in particular Leung (1993), Meara, Lightbown & Randall (1997), Lightbown & Spada (1994), Kumaravadivelu (1999), Ranta, (2002), Aliponga, Williams & Yoshida (2008), and Rondon-Pari, (2012). The COLT observation model consists of two parts. Nunan (1992) explains that part A focuses on the description of classroom activities and consists of five major parts: the activity type, the participant organisation, the content, the students’ roles, and the materials or resources. Part B relates to communicative features, and isolates seven of these: the use of the target language, information gap, sustained speech, responses, incorporation of new vocabulary, discourse initiation and use of expected or unexpected language.

In order to ensure consistency, the model was piloted where observers, in pairs, viewed a series of lessons, making notes, following the prompt questions in Table 4. The results were discussed so that where there were differences in the observations noted, they could be reconciled by reflecting on each observer’s own notes. Each pair would then come to an agreement based on the evidence in their notes, as to whether such observations remained pertinent. The pilot proved workable and was therefore adopted.

89

Table 4 COLT observation schedule (adapted from Allen et al, 1984)

Feature Questions

Part A: classroom activities

1a. Activity type What is the activity type? Reading, speaking,

game, role-play?

2a. Participant organisation Is the teacher working with the whole class

or not?

Are students working in groups or

individually?

If group work, how is it organised?

3a. Content Is the focus on classroom management,

language (form, function, discourse) or

other?

Is the range of topics broad or narrow?

Who selects the topic –teacher, students, or

both?

4a. Students’ roles Are students involved in listening, speaking,

reading, writing, or a combination of these?

5a. Materials/resources What types of materials or resources are

used?

How long is the text/listening task?

What is the source/purpose of the resources?

Who controls their use? Teacher or students?

Part B: classroom language

1b. Use of target language To what extent is the target language used? 2b. Information gap To what extent is requested information

predictable in advance?

3b. Sustained speech Is discourse extended or restricted to a single

sentence, clause or word?

4b. Responses Does the interlocutor/peer react to the

message in the target language?

5b. Incorporation of new vocabulary Does the speaker incorporate prior

vocabulary in their contributions?

6b. Initiation-Response-Feedback Do students have the opportunity to initiate

discourse and engage themselves in

conversation?

7b. Use of expected/unexpected language Does the teacher expect the use of a specific

form, or is there no expectation of the use of

a particular linguistic form?